UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR 

CONSUMER PRODUCTS, ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR 

BATTERY CHARGERS AND EXTERNAL POWER SUPPLIES

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, MD
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

2

Participants Identified: 

Charlie Stephens

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

Cory Watkins

Schumacher 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

Dell
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

3

Rick Habben

Wahl 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 Fassler

Power Integrations

Brian Spak

Green Strategies

Eric Kuwana

Katten Law

John Whiting

Schumacher Electric
Executive 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

TIA
Executive 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 Consulting
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

6

Hayden Cook

Navigant Consulting 

Sanaee Iyama

Lawrence Berkeley National Lab

Rob Carmichael

Navigant Consulting

Chris Skahan

Navigant Consulting
Executive 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 15

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 Analysis 

Mr. Lauf 212

Regulatory Input Analysis, Mr. Lauf 221

Manufacturer Impact Analysis, Mr. Cook 223

Utility Impact, Employment Impact, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

8

Environmental Impact Analyses

Ms.Iyama 235

Summary of Results, Proposed Standards

Mr. Reeves 246

Labeling, Mr. Reeves 279

Closing Comments 290
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

9

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Good morning everyone and 

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

4 public meeting on Energy Conservation Program for 

5 Consumer Products, Energy Conservation Standards for 

6 Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies. Today 

7 is Wednesday, May 2, 2012 here at the Department of 

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

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

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

11 morning with welcoming remarks from Vic Petrolati. 

12 Welcoming Remarks

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

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

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

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

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

18 PARTICIPANT: Thirty-one.

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

20 listening in through the webinar this morning. 

21 First of all, I would like to thank you 

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

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

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

25 extensive comment period with the Office of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

10

1 Management and Budget that lasted fairly close to 

2 eight months, put us behind on the schedule quite a 

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

4 Notice of Proposed Rule and hopefully, we can move 

5 forward in an expeditious fashion from this point 

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

7 think it’s been always extremely helpful to get the 

8 participants who have basically worked with us 

9 through the preliminary analysis and the framework 

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

11 directly. 

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

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

14 you’ve got time to finalize your written comments, 

15 but we certainly want to get an understanding of 

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

17 purpose of the meeting today. Thank you

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. It’s our 

19 tradition to start off by doing introductions around 

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

21 say your name and organizational affiliation. It 

22 will also give you an opportunity to learn, 

23 practice, turning these microphones on and off. The 

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

25 get it fairly close to your face to make this thing 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

11

1 work. So, your name, organizational affiliation, 

2 please.

3 Introductions

4 MR. WATKINS: Corey Watkins, Schumacher 

5 Electric.

6 MR. TAYLOR: Jay Taylor with Schneider 

7 Electric.

8 MR. STOCK: Spencer Stock, Lester 

9 Electrical.

10 MR. ERDHEIM: Ric Erdheim, Philips 

11 Electronics.

12 MR. SALAETS: Ken Salaets, Information 

13 Technology Industry Council.

14 MR. CARRERA: Patrick Carrera, iRobot.

15 MR. BOESENBERG: Alex Boesenberg, National 

16 Electrical Manufacturers Association.

17 MR. DENKENBERGER: Dave Denkenberger, 

18 ECOVA.

19 MR. RIDER: Ken Rider, California Energy 

20 Commission.

21 MR. DELFORGE: Pierre Delforge, National 

22 Resources Defense Council.

23 MR. SHELKH: Shahid Sheikh, Intel 

24 Corporation.

25 MS. CLEARY: Jennifer Cleary, Association 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

12

1 of Home Appliance Manufacturers.

2 MR. HAILEY: Jeff Hailey, Dell.

3 MR. HABBEN: Rick Habben, Wahl Clipper

4 Group.

5 MS. EVANS: Holly Evans, Strategic 

6 Council.

7 MR. KIDO: Michael Kido, Department of 

8 Energy.

9 MR. BOOHER: Brian Booher, D&R 

10 International.

11 MR. REEVES: Ari Reeves, D&R 

12 International.

13 MR. NARDOTTI: Matt Nardotti, Navigant.

14 MR. SKAHAN: Chris Skahan, Navigant.

15 MR. PROTOPAPPAS: Peter Protopappas, 

16 Navigant.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: I think we’ll just ask them 

18 to stand and speak without the microphone. Would 

19 you do that, please, those – you, yes, please.

20 MR. SPITAELS: Jim Spitaels, Schneider 

21 Electric.

22 MR. HAMILTON: Paul Hamilton, Schneider 

23 Electric.

24 MR. DORIA: Jordan Doria with Ingersoll 

25 Rand.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

13

1 MR. CLINGER: John Clinger, ICF 

2 International.

3 MR. SMITH: Russ Smith, Lutron

4 Electronics.

5 MR. COOK: Keith Cook, Philips 

6 Electronics.

7 MR. HAKKARAINENEN: Pekka Hakkarainenen, 

8 Lutron Electronics.

9 MR. DOMMU: Jeremy Dommu, Department of 

10 Energy.

11 MS. COSTELLO: Pamela Costello, Navigant 

12 Consulting.

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

14 MS. IYAMA: Sanaee Iyama, Lawrence 

15 Berkeley National Lab.

16 MS. STUART: Carin Stuart.

17 MR. BECK: Dennis Beck from California 

18 Energy Commission.

19 MR. FASSIER: Rich Fassier, Power 

20 Integrations.

21 MR. SPAK: Brian Spak, Green Strategies.

22 MR. KUWANA: Eric Kuwana, Katten Law.

23 MR. WHITING: John Whiting, Schumacher 

24 Electric.

25 MR. MALINOWSKI: Matt Malinowski, ICF 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

14

1 International.

2 MR. JEONG: Stephen Jeong, Underwriter 

3 Laboratories.

4 MS. FARBER: Julia Farber, UL.

5 MR. OFFNER: Arnold Offner, Phoenix 

6 Contact.

7 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer, Appliance 

8 Standards Awareness Project.

9 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Northwest 

10 Energy Efficiency Alliance.

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

12 MR. SHARP: Mark Sharp, Panasonic.

13 MR. CLINGER: John Clinger, ICF.

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

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

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

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

18 us a timely start on the day

19 All of you received a packet of 

20 information as you checked in. In there is an 

21 agenda and a colorful PowerPoint slide packet, as 

22 well as the Federal Register notice. You’ll also 

23 note that attached to the agenda are a few relevant 

24 attachments, including specific requests for comment 

25 in sequence with the agenda.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

15

1

2 Agenda Review

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

4 the agenda very briefly. Immediately following this 

5 agenda review, there is – Vic Petrolati is going to 

6 make some opening remarks and describe briefly 

7 background and regulatory history. Immediately 

8 following that, there’s an opportunity for anybody 

9 that wishes to do so to make brief summary remarks 

10 here at the outset – brief opening statements. 

11 Several individuals have requested that they be 

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

13 of them here at the outset.

14 Immediately following those opening 

15 comments, we’re going to move straight into the more 

16 detailed content that’s in the packet: market 

17 assessment, including product definitions and scope. 

18 We’ll take a break mid-morning, round about 10:30 or 

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

20 worry. Immediately following the break, technology 

21 assessments, screening and engineering analysis. 

22 Following that, energy use and markup analyses. 

23 We’ll have lunch mid-day, round about 

24 12:15. Life-cycle cost, shipments, national impact, 

25 regulatory impact, and manufacturer impact analyses 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

16

1 following lunch. And then moving directly into 

2 utility impact, employment impact and environmental 

3 impact analyses.

4 We’ll break again mid-afternoon, and then 

5 returning from break, summary of results and 

6 proposes standards, labeling, and yet another 

7 opportunity for anybody that wishes to to make a 

8 closing remark or a closing comment. So plenty of 

9 opportunity to hear from you as the day goes on 

10 today.

11 Purpose

12 MR. BROOKMAN: The purpose of this meeting 

13 is to 

14 • invite comment on the proposed energy 

15 conservation standard levels. You can see, 

16 this is slide five in your packet, just 

17 referring to it. 

18 • To present methodologies and characterize 

19 results of the rulemaking analyses, 

20 • to discuss specific issues related to each 

21 analysis; 

22 • to seek input from interested parties on 

23 methodologies, assumptions, data sources, and 

24 results from the analyses, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

17

1 • and to describe next steps in the rulemaking.

2 So questions and comments on either the 

3 agenda or the purpose? 

4 I’d ask for your consideration. We’ve done 

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

6 have been willing to observe what I think are common 

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

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

9 don’t need to say your organizational affiliation 

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

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

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

13 to speak. I also wish to encourage follow on 

14 comments. The back and forth is sometimes very 

15 helpful for the Department of Energy. 

16 There will be a complete transcript of 

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

18 microphones, and we have a recording mechanism here.

19 And if you can keep the focus here. 

20 Please turn your cell phones on silent mode. If you 

21 can limit sidebar conversations. These microphones 

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

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

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

25 material, and I’m sure most of you have, there’s a 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

18

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

2 get out of here before a late dinner, I think.

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

4 outset. Any additional comments before we move into 

5 opening remarks, some background, and regulatory 

6 history? Okay. Then back to Vic Petrolati.

7 Introductory Remarks

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

9 very quick background and overview of the 

10 legislation, some of the constraints that we have in 

11 terms of establishing standards for battery chargers 

12 and external power supplies. 

13 I believe I introduced myself, but just 

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

15 manager for battery chargers and external power 

16 supplies under the Appliance Standards Program.

17 The Energy Policy Act of 2005 amended 

18 EPCA, adding battery chargers and external power 

19 supplies and that was further amended by the Energy 

20 Independence and Security Act of 2007, EISA. All of 

21 the responsibilities for the appliance standards 

22 program through these acts are basically implemented 

23 through the Department of Energy. 

24 When EISA amended EPCA back in 2007, it 

25 actually established a standard, mandated standard, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

19

1 for Class A external power supplies and established 

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

3 consisted of both an active mode requirement as well 

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

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

6 2008 for Class A external power supplies. 

7 We, of course, have gotten quite a few 

8 revisions made to the test procedure for these 

9 products. Battery chargers is in Appendix Y of 

10 Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 

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

12 of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 

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

14 into those test procedures back in March 2009, then 

15 we revised the test procedures again in June 2011 by 

16 incorporating measurements for BC active mode. We 

17 also included in these test procedures some 

18 clarifications for how external power supplies 

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

20 test procedures in place to not only cover, 

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

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

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

24 going to be discussing today.

25 This gives you just a quick summary of the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

20

1 timeline. The Energy Independence and Security Act 

2 was actually passed in December 2007. It 

3 established the class A EPS standards which became 

4 effective in July 2008. We published our first 

5 framework document on battery chargers and external 

6 power supplies in June 2009. We had the preliminary 

7 analysis in September 2010. We are finally here 

8 with our Notice of Proposed Rulemaking which was 

9 published in March 2012 and we’re certainly hopeful 

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

11 the end of 2012 or early 2013.

12 Let me touch about compliance dates just 

13 for a second. Proposed standards would become 

14 effective two years after the final rule for 

15 external power supplies, that’s a legislative 

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

17 determination as to the compliance date for battery 

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

19 determination based on stakeholder input. We’ve 

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

21 battery chargers, but again, we want to get 

22 stakeholder input as to what is a reasonable 

23 compliance date for battery chargers.

24 There’s also a requirement for us to go 

25 back in 2015 and take another look at standards for 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

21

1 external power supplies. That same requirement does 

2 not exist for battery chargers, but the Department 

3 is required every seven years to go back and review 

4 its standards and update them if necessary.

5 EPCA directs DOE to consider seven factors 

6 when setting energy conservation standards. You’ve 

7 seen this before. Those seven factors are on the 

8 left:

9 • the economic impact on consumers and 

10 manufactures

11 • the lifetime operating cost savings

12 • total projected energy savings

13 • impact on utility or performance

14 • impact of any lessening of competition

15 • need for national energy conservation, and 

16 • other factors the Secretary considers 

17 relevant.

18 To the right will be all of the analyses 

19 that go into supporting each one of the seven 

20 factors that we will be going through today.

21 This gives you a graphical presentation of 

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

23 NOPR stage in green. We will start our analysis 

24 on the left end and be covering all of these boxes 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

22

1 today as part of our analysis. The first part we 

2 consider to be the upstream analysis, the market, 

3 the energy use associated with equipment, the 

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

5 the downstream analysis with the life-cycle cost, 

6 payback, shipment analysis, national impact 

7 analysis, manufacturer impact analysis. Again, 

8 every one of these boxes will be covered today, 

9 briefly, in terms of what was done.

10 We are proposing, as part of this rule, 

11 amended standards for Class A EPSs, these are more 

12 stringent standards than were established by 

13 Congress in June 2008. We are proposing new 

14 standards for certain non-Class A EPSs. Congress 

15 did not address what is typically called non-Class 

16 A EPSs in EISA. We are addressing them in this 

17 rulemaking. And new standards for battery 

18 chargers. 

19 Just quickly, a summary of the proposed 

20 rules impact, national energy savings. You can 

21 see the net consumer national energy savings for 

22 EPSs is almost a quad. National energy savings 

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

24 Net consumer benefits are positive at the selected 

25 TSLs, and will range from almost eight-tenths of a 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

23

1 billion to almost two billion for external power 

2 supplies, based on the three percent and seven 

3 percent discount rates that were used in the 

4 analysis. And for battery chargers, we have a 

5 range of approximately six to eleven billion 

6 dollars in net consumer benefits associated with 

7 the discount rates. 

8 Now we also incorporate into our analysis, 

9 net social benefits, which include the cost of 

10 emissions reductions, and this will also 

11 significantly help us in terms of justifying 

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

13 equivalent of a – well, I can’t tell what the 

14 percentage increase is, but it is significant for 

15 external power supplies and it is also significant 

16 for battery chargers in terms of not only 

17 combining net consumer benefits, but combining it 

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

19 I want to say that when we’re going 

20 through these presentations, please feel free to 

21 ask clarifying questions of the presenter on any 

22 figure that is up, but detailed discussions I 

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

24 boxes. On every presentation we will have a 

25 number of issue boxes to start the generation of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

24

1 questions from the stakeholders. So when we get 

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

3 information concerning the NOPR, issues that 

4 correspond to those raised in DOE’s published 

5 material, are numbered in accordance with the 

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

7 comments are welcome on any part of the analysis. 

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

9 during the presentations to just clarifications 

10 and wait until we get to an issue box.

11 Feedback. All of the following methods of 

12 actually providing your final comments which are 

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

14 to do. You can e-mail them in, you can send them 

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

16 This provides you with all of the information for 

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

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

19 please make sure you have your comments in by that 

20 period of time. 

21 Yes, that question in the back. 

22 PARTICIPANT: The Federal Register says 

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

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

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

(301) 565-0064

25

to the 29th 1 .

2 PARTICIPANT: Thank you.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: So thank you.

4 MR. PETROLATI: I guess that answered both 

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

6 statements.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Several individuals have 

8 requested to speak here at the outset. I hope 

9 it’s possible to make these comments sort of 

10 summarized, make them fairly brief. And I have a 

11 list of individuals who have requested to speak 

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

13 that doesn’t mean that anyone else should think 

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

15 statement. Everyone gets a chance right now. So 

16 the first person I have on my list is Corey 

17 Watkins.

18 Opening Statements

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

20 Watkins, General Counsel and Executive Vice21 President for Schumacher Electric Corporation. I 

22 will keep these comments brief because our intent is 

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

May 29th 24 , to the DOE.

25 Since 1947, Schumacher Electric has been a 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

26

1 leading manufacturer and supplier of 12 volt 

2 automotive battery chargers that are sold here in 

3 the United States. And we pride ourselves on being 

4 an industry leader in both efficient and sustainable 

5 products and practices. We have voluntarily adopted 

6 and incorporated international ROHA (ph) standards 

7 for eliminating toxic substances, and likewise, we 

8 have done, through our sustainability initiative, we 

9 have reduced our package size and demonstrated the 

10 fact that smart energy efficiency and business can 

11 certainly work together.

12 We support the efforts to increase the 

13 efficiency of these 12-volt automotive battery 

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

15 to insure that we can provide our customers with 

16 safe and reliable cost-effective energy-efficient 

17 products. 

18 I want to just highlight on that last 

19 sentence briefly, that the safety and reliability in 

20 our category, there are some issues that we will 

21 address in the public comments because there is not 

22 anything in the marketplace, currently, that would 

23 meet this standard and the concern that the DOE has 

24 of the switching technology from linear to switch 

25 mode.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

27

1 We also certainly support the DOE’s 

2 efforts to have one set of national standards, but 

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

4 primary one is that in this shift from linear to 

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

6 noted on his form was how that can affect 

7 competition. And our sole concern in that regard is 

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

9 would effectively, due to some patented technology, 

10 put the rest of the competitors out of business. 

11 Virtually all of our automotive battery chargers are 

12 infrequently used, and when they are stored, they 

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

14 assumptions made, at least in our product class, do 

15 not generate the energy savings or cost savings that 

16 are listed because this infrequent use is certainly 

17 – doesn’t justify that amount.

18 Finally, we certainly want to stress the 

19 importance of your actions being consistent with 

20 providing a sufficient time to design, test, and 

21 manufacture these products, so that as we move 

22 towards this different technology and this energy 

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

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

25 but is safe.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

28

1 Again, we’ll submit our written comments 

2 that are more exhaustively covering these issues and 

3 we thank you for letting us speak today.

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

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

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

7 get that microphone close to you.

8 MR. TAYLOR: (Pause.) A technology 

9 challenge.

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

11 right? Let’s – while she’s cuing those slides, 

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

13 you, Jay. Spencer.

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

15 the product marketing manager at Lester Electrical. 

16 Lester Electrical is a manufacturer of commercial 

17 and industrial battery chargers. Related to this 

18 standard, the products that we make that are 

19 affected currently are golf and electric wheelchair 

20 chargers. Thanks for the opportunity. I just have 

21 a couple general comments-slash-requests or issues 

22 that we have with the current – with the NOPR. 

23 Our largest issue is with golf cart 

24 battery chargers being considered consumer products. 

25 We believe strongly that the golf cart and golf cart 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

29

1 battery chargers are non-consumer products. The DOE 

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

3 for helping to determine whether something’s 

4 consumer or non-consumer. In there there’s a number 

5 of questions you ask to figure out if something is 

6 consumer or non-consumer. The two big issues we 

7 have are, first of all, the fact that – and this is 

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

9 percentage of electric golf cars get sold to 

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

11 percent. Our own numbers, based upon the business 

12 we do with the major golf car manufacturers in the 

13 United States would be slightly higher than that, 

14 but either way, around 90 percent of the electric 

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

16 commercial or industrial businesses, primarily golf 

17 courses. And so we say that primarily and 

18 principally, golf cars are being sold to non19 consumer applications.

20 Another factor is comparing the model to 

21 see if it has distinguishing design features and 

22 characteristics to other models within the same 

23 category. Golf battery chargers are very, very 

24 similar in design and manufacture to chargers that 

25 are made for very clear-cut commercial and 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

30

1 industrial applications, such as industrial 

2 vehicles, aerial work platforms like scissor lifts, 

3 material handling equipment like lift trucks, and 

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

5 design construction to most clear-cut commercial –

6 or excuse me – consumer battery chargers. And so we 

7 continue to believe that golf should be considered a 

8 non-consumer application. 

9 Our next issue, I guess is just our 

10 comment on compliance. We feel that for battery 

11 chargers, at least based upon our major categories 

12 are affected, that if golf was not considered a non13 consumer application and excluded, the design cycle 

14 for golf is very extensive because it involves an 

15 OEM vehicle manufacturer, the charger manufacturer, 

16 and the battery manufacturers. And when a new golf 

17 battery charger system is introduced, it involves a 

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

19 done and then it goes out for an extensive field 

20 test where full fleets of battery chargers are 

21 deployed with cars for a full season of golf use. 

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

23 years from the final rule would be a minimum amount 

24 of time that would be appropriate for our 

25 applications. Again, if golf is not excluded from 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

31

1 this.

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

3 the NOPR, in the initial regulatory flexibility 

4 analysis, Lester Electrical is identified as the 

5 only affected small business manufacturer in the 

6 United States, and the analysis is pretty clear-cut, 

7 that based upon these regulations, the technology we 

8 manufacture in Lincoln, Nebraska, will not meet 

9 those regulations, and it lays out the options we 

10 have. And the two that the DOE identifies as 

11 potential, both have to do with shifting our 

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

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

14 clear-cut that the DOE agrees that to meet these 

15 standards and be cost-competitive, we’re going to 

16 have to manufacture overseas, and that’s something 

17 we are a vertically integrated manufacturer that 

18 builds everything in Lincoln, Nebraska, and we have 

19 concerns about that, so – thank you.

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

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

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

23 advance them.

24 MR. TAYLOR: Excellent. Thanks. My name 

25 is Jay Taylor. I’m with Schneider Electric. I’m 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

32

1 the Director for global standards, codes, and 

2 environment. And the way the battery chargers 

3 regulation impacts Schneider Electric is through our 

4 EPS organization. 

5 So when we’re looking at the review, what 

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

7 second development effort. We already have a 

8 current set of codes coming at us through the 

9 California Energy Commission. Given the breadth of 

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

11 exist between what’s going on with California and 

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

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

14 our current products. We think you should be 

15 considering a longer term implementation for these 

16 products, simply because there will be two design 

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

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

19 look at the amount of testing, the regression 

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

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

22 all of those regression testing activities in order 

23 to complete the product under the marketplace.

24 So this is the category 10-A and 10-B, 

25 which we believe apply to the EPS systems. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

33

1 And so we plotted the DOE regulations 

2 against the California regulations as you see here.

3 Then we plotted those against the non-AVR 

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

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

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

7 with the current regulations.

8 For the AVR products, there are none that 

9 we plotted to date that comply with the regulations. 

10 In fact, it’s a fairly substantial difference 

11 between where the products exist and where the 

12 regulation tries to get us.

13 So when we go and look at the scope, one 

14 of our concerns is the scope. We feel – and this is 

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

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

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

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

19 whether such articles of such type is in fact 

20 distributed for commerce or personal use or 

21 consumption.

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

23 talking to him about what does consumer really mean. 

24 And my concern, fundamentally, is that when Vic wins 

25 the $600 million dollar lottery and retires to 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

34

1 Bermuda drinking Mai-tais, and the new Vic comes on 

2 board, does he have really the same understanding 

3 regarding the scope of this rulemaking that the old 

4 Vic had for me.

5 So when we look at consumer battery 

6 chargers which are EPS systems, does the scope 

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

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

9 the test procedure, because the test procedure 

10 referred to a standard, IEC 62301, and I got that 

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

12 consumer wall sockets. Okay. So the challenge that 

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

14 allow me to distinguish in my marketplace the 

15 difference between consumer and industrial kinds of 

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

17 professional installation required? What are other 

18 characteristics of those? 

19 And then the other thing, when I read 

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

21 standards were referenced in the NOPR. So – outside 

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

23 existing standards.

24 So what we did is we came up with a 

25 standard that we proposed to Energy Star, we’ve 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

35

1 proposed it to a number of venues, that basically 

2 allows you to define what consumer devices are. Now 

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

4 the specificity needed for us to go off and design 

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

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

7 the current code, the 47CFR15, which allows us to 

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

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

10 consumer versus non-consumer products in a lot of 

11 other places, such as the Energy Star program and 

12 the European Union. So this is just a reference 

13 example and not necessarily – you may not go down 

14 this path – but we know that these things exist, or 

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

16 So the time to implementation is a concern 

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

18 design the product twice. The limits for the Notice 

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

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

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

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

23 meet the criteria that’s currently listed in the 

24 NOPR.

25 The scope for consumer battery chargers 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

36

1 are also problematic for us. We are requesting you 

2 consider a scope that’s very similar to California. 

3 We were able to work with the California Energy 

4 Commission on their rulemaking for battery chargers. 

5 They did adopt IEC6204-3, second edition, and they 

6 allowed us to distinguish those EPS systems that 

7 existed in their marketplace which were low-end 

8 focus for the purposes of their rulemaking. And 

9 then consumer EPS systems exist with specificity. 

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

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

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

13 is consistent with the direction given out of the 

14 Energy and Independence Security Act of 2007.

15 And I believe that – and you were 

16 wondering if I could get through in five minutes or 

17 not.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

19 MR. TAYLOR: Thanks, Vic.

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

21 from Dennis Beck.

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

23 Ryder for California Energy.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: I’m sorry.

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

(301) 565-0064

37

1 be making the statement.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Ken Ryder.

3 MR. RYDER: The California Energy 

4 Commission appreciates the opportunity to give this 

5 prepared general statement for the public meeting on 

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

7 conservation standards for battery chargers and 

8 external power supplies. The Energy Commission is 

9 the primary energy policy and planning agency of the 

10 state of California. One of the chief mandates of 

11 the Energy Commission is to reduce the wasteful, 

12 uneconomic, inefficient and unnecessary consumption 

13 of energy in the state by prescribing standards for 

14 minimum levels of operating efficiency for 

15 appliances that consume a significant amount of 

16 energy on a state-wide basis.

17 The Energy Commission prescribed its first 

18 appliance efficiency standards all the way back in 

19 1976. Since then, the California Energy Commission 

20 standards have reduced energy consumption in the 

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

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

23 billion dollars in reduced energy costs. The Energy 

24 Commission’s efficiency efforts have enabled 

25 California to keep per capita consumption flat for 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

38

1 three decades, while per capita consumption in the 

2 rest of the nation has increased by 40 percent.

On January 12th 3 of this year, the Energy 

4 Commission adopted regulations, including energy 

5 efficiency standards, for consumer and non-consumer 

6 battery charger systems. Standards for most 

7 consumer battery chargers apply to products 

8 manufactured on or after February 1, 2013. When 

9 full compliance with the standard is achieved, the 

10 standards are estimated to reduce energy consumption 

11 in California by 2187 gigawatt hours and save 

12 California consumers $300 million dollars in energy 

13 cost per year, and reduce greenhouse gas covered 

14 emissions by one billion metric tons per year.

15 The Energy Commission supports the efforts 

16 of the Department to improve energy efficiency of 

17 battery chargers and external power supplies 

18 nationwide. And the Energy Commission would also 

19 like to thank the Department for its research and 

20 development regarding these products, as the results 

21 of such research and development were incorporated 

22 into the Energy Commission’s standards development 

23 and rulemaking process.

24 California has a vested interest in these 

25 federal standards because by operation of federal 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

39

1 statute those standards will eventually preempt the 

2 California standards. As such, it is critical that 

3 the Energy Commission, on behalf of all 

4 Californians, make every effort to preserve the 

5 anticipated energy monetary and environmental 

6 benefits from its standards. 

7 We believe that the Department can and 

8 must do more to increase the overall stringency of 

9 its proposed standards for battery chargers. The 

10 standard levels contained in the Notice of Proposed 

11 Rulemaking and the associated technical support

12 document are in some cases significantly less 

13 stringent than the California standards. 

14 Table 9.1 of the technical support 

15 document compares California standards with the 

16 Department’s proposed candidate standard levels. 

17 That table reveals that the proposed federal 

18 standards are less stringent than the California 

19 standards for product classes numbers two through 

20 six. The products contained in these classes make 

21 up over 77 percent of product shipments in the 

22 United States according to Table 9.5 of the 

23 technical support document. 

24 Table 10.11 of the technical support 

25 document indicates that alignment of proposed 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

40

1 federal standards for product classes two through 

2 six with the associated California candidate 

3 standard levels would save an additional 0.93 

4 quadrillion BTU nationally. More importantly, the 

5 proposed federal standards would negatively impact 

6 the energy savings anticipated to be derived by the 

7 California standards by allowing the consumption of 

8 an additional 0.12 quads in California.

9 The proposed federal standard levels do 

10 not achieve all possible cost effective and feasible 

11 improvements in maintenance mode. For product 

12 classes two through four, the Energy Commission 

13 identified charge termination into a low power mode 

14 as the primary and most cost effective way to reduce 

15 energy consumption. For the cost of less than a 

16 dollar, energy consumption can be reduced through 

17 the use of charge control chips, regardless of 

18 battery chemistry or end use product. Improved 

19 power consumption once the battery is fully charged 

20 reduces the annual energy consumption for products 

21 by half.

22 According to the Department’s analysis, a 

23 majority of the products shipped in these product 

24 categories already use this technology. The Energy 

25 Commission requests that the Department harmonize 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

41

1 the proposed federal standards with the California 

2 standards to the maximum extent possible, and to 

3 adopt candidate standard levels that are at least as 

4 stringent as the California levels. By harmonizing 

5 the federal and California standards, the Department 

6 will diminish compliance burdens for manufacturers 

7 and achieve the maximum improvement in energy 

8 efficiency that is technically feasible and 

9 economically justified. Thank you.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Next I believe 

11 we’re going to hear from Christopher Henken.

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

13 behalf of Chris and the Information and Technology 

14 District Council. My name is Ken Salaets, Director 

15 of Global Policy at ITI. Our member companies are 

16 leading global innovators of information and 

17 communications technology, or ICT, an industry 

18 committed to both developing energy efficient 

19 solutions demanded by our customers and to help –

20 helping drive sustainable economic grown and energy 

21 independence across every sector of our nation’s 

22 economy. I should also note that our manufacturers, 

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

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

25 globally, and not just in the United States.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

42

1 While we intend to submit detailed, 

2 written comments later by the deadline, whatever the 

3 deadline may be, we appreciate the opportunity to 

4 offer our few short comments.

5 Addressing scope, initially, all prior DOE 

6 regulations concerning these categories of products 

7 strictly addressed consumer products. In other 

8 words, those products intended for purchase and use 

9 by individuals in either home or small office 

10 settings. However, some confusion has been caused 

11 by references that the NOPR covers consumer products 

12 and commercial and industrial equipment. The 

13 response to our inquiry with individuals like Jay 

14 calling Vic on a constant basis, ITI has been 

15 assured that the NOPR only covers EPSs and battery 

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

17 close quote, and we thank DOE staff for that 

18 clarification.

19 Had the NOPR been intended to apply to 

20 products designed for commercial and industrial use, 

21 for example, ICT products designed to be used in 

22 data centers, this expanded scope would have 

23 constituted an extraordinary expansion of coverage 

24 of the regulation with very significant 

25 implications. These classes of products have much 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

43

1 longer design and development cycles than those 

2 needed for traditional consumer products. They’re 

3 also targeted for very different workloads and duty 

4 cycles than their consumer-focused counterparts.

5 One way to address the confusion that 

6 still may exist is we suggest adopting the Energy 

7 Star battery charger definition, which would help 

8 provide a clear line of distinction between EPSs and 

9 battery chargers that operate consumer products and 

10 those that are designed for commercial and 

11 industrial use. 

12 Regarding the EPS requirements, we believe 

13 the proposed EPS limits appear to be both 

14 unreasonable and economically unjustifiable. The 

15 new efficiency limits for Class A EPSs were 

16 unexpected. They have never been discussed with our 

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

18 feasibility has not been adequately investigated. 

19 These are activities that we are engaged in, both 

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

21 with Vic, and we welcome the opportunity to continue 

22 that engagement at a level of detail necessary to 

23 basically inform that process.

24 Our member companies are still working to 

25 fully understand and assess the potential impact. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

44

1 It is clear that significant redesign of power 

2 supply architecture and components would be required 

3 to enable EPSs to meet the proposed DOE average 

4 efficiency in no load power limits.

5 A key concern that’s a corollary to this 

6 is whether there is enough, or a sufficient number 

7 of components that can be produced in the new EPS 

8 designs qualified within the timeframe, whatever 

9 that timeframe may end up being, to meet the 

10 potential demand that we anticipate that will be 

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

12 supply redesigns will force global requalifications 

13 of the power supply and the end product using the 

14 power supply to verify product safety and EMC 

15 compliance. Our concern is that the DOE proposal 

16 needlessly breaks away from the established path of 

17 global harmonization of efficiency limits and would 

18 result in a massive industry-wide redesign effort. 

19 This would be extremely difficult for our industry, 

20 and possibly impossible for some manufacturers 

21 within the given timeframe and may result in 

22 tremendous economic cost.

23 If the Agency feels compelled to stick 

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

25 driven by statute, we strongly recommend that the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

45

1 requirements be limited to efficiency level five. 

2 This would allow convergence with the international 

3 system of efficiency levels and markings that have 

4 been successfully implemented within Energy Star and 

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

6 governments and regions. Doing so would also 

7 alleviate the significant economic burdens that 

8 would be imposed by the current proposal.

9 Another possibility would be to adopt a 

10 phased approach with the initial phase being limited 

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

12 possibly include an effective date as early as July 

13 1, 2013. The second phase would be to investigate 

14 efficiency standards for all classes of EPS with 

15 input from industry and EPS manufacturers, and 

16 again, we would welcome the opportunity to 

17 participate in that process. The second phase could 

18 even look to a voluntary requirement. Starting with 

19 a voluntary efficiency requirement first, is 

20 consistent with how higher levels of EPS efficiency 

21 have been achieved in the past, where stretch 

22 requirements began first as voluntary measures, 

23 enabling us for the transition to higher levels of 

24 adoption over time.

25 And finally, the compliance date for EPSs 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

46

1 manufactured outside of the EPS, which is typically 

2 the case for ICT products, we would recommend that 

3 it be consistent with the requirements for domestic 

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

5 EPS is manufactured.

6 Regarding battery charger requirements. 

7 ITI recommends the following changes to the battery 

8 charger requirements as reflected in the NOPR. 

9 First, DOE should reconsider the efficiency limits 

10 for Class 1 inductive chargers. We believe this 

11 limit is unfeasible for higher battery energy 

12 products and could stifle innovation in certain 

13 product categories. One suggestion is to revise the 

14 Class 1 efficiency limit with scales by battery 

15 energy. Another suggestion might be to make it 

16 clear that inductive chargers can also meet DOE 

17 regulations under other categories, such as two, 

18 three, or four, based on battery voltage.

19 A second recommendation. The Agency 

20 should reconsider the efficiency levels for Class 8 

21 low voltage DC input chargers. We believe this 

22 limit is unfeasible for a USB charger charging of 

23 higher battery energy products and could stifle 

24 innovation in certain product categories. One 

25 suggestion to address this would be to revise the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

47

1 Class 8 efficiency limit formula so it scales by 

2 battery energy.

3 Another recommendation is that DOE 

4 considers harmonizing the Class 10 scope and limits 

5 with those established by the California Energy 

6 Commission. As proposed, the Class 10 limits exceed 

7 CEC requirements in critical areas, causing yet 

8 another redesign of battery chargers currently in 

9 redesign for EPS systems, as Jay referenced. And 

10 when the expanded scope is included, additional 

11 system redesign are required to be included by July 

12 1, 2012.

13 Fourth recommendation. Since the BC mark 

14 is intended to facilitate enforcement at customs and 

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

16 marking to be applied to the exterior of the retail 

17 packaging as an alternative to marking the surface 

18 of the product itself. We believe that with the

19 recommended changes that industry will be able to 

20 proceed accordingly and be able to achieve all of 

21 the essential goals that were established, both by 

22 statute and also by DOE in its regulation. 

23 A couple other comments. Federal 

24 preemption of state regulations. Manufacturers need 

25 clear guidance on which state regulations are 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

48

1 preempted by the battery charger and EPS regulation. 

2 Specifically, a description is needed of the 

3 portions of the CEC battery charger regulations that 

4 would be preempted. 

5 And then finally, we recommend exemption 

6 for service parts and refurbished products. The 

7 regulation must insure that the useful life of 

8 existing products is extended and legal requirements 

9 for supporting a product for up to five years are 

10 met. The regulation must include an exemption for 

11 service parts and refurbished products produced 

12 prior to the effective date. This exemption is 

13 needed both for battery charger products and 

14 external power supplies sold prior to the effective 

15 date. 

16 So again, this precludes or concludes our 

17 preliminary comments. We will be happy to submit a 

18 more detailed comment at the later date, and we 

19 thank the Agency for this process and the 

20 transparency.

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

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

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

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

25 unmute him. Okay. Why don’t you – maybe we could 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

49

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

2 webinar and I neglected to recognize you at the 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

10 and then maybe we’ll double back.

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

12 Denkenberger who also has – from ECOVA – who also 

13 has viewgraphs.

14 MR. DENKENBERGER: My name is Dave 

15 Denkenberger and I work for ECOVA, formerly ECOS 

16 Consulting. I’m speaking on behalf of the 

17 California Investor-Owned Utilities, who have formed 

18 their works since 2002, to address the efficiency of 

19 external power supplies and battery charging 

20 systems, and proposed standardized test procedure 

21 and efficiency specifications for these products, 

22 both in California and federally.

23 In the heat of stakeholder discussions in 

24 regulatory proceedings on these products over the 

25 years, it has been tempting to frame government 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

50

1 decisions as a stark choice between what the market 

2 prefers, low cost, simple, nickel-based battery 

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

4 complex, lithium-based battery chargers. Yet our 

5 market research, product testing, and tear-downs 

6 have consistently shown that there is a third path, 

7 a middle path, retaining the low cost nickel 

8 batteries, but charging them intelligently with 

9 efficient power conversion. This delivers most of 

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

11 much closer to that of a nickel design. This 

12 realization was central to the decision of the 

13 California Energy Commission ultimately made, to 

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

15 the DOE to follow a similar course for product 

16 categories where DOE’s proposed standard levels are 

17 less stringent than those already adopted in 

18 California, particularly product classes two, three, 

19 and four.

20 Specifically, the DOE has proposed trial 

21 standard level, TSL-1 for product classes two 

22 through four, which comprise, among other products, 

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

24 assumed that to meet the next stricter level, 

25 lithium is required, which has significant 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

51

1 incremental cost for those types of products like 

2 consumer grade tools and cordless phones that are 

3 mostly nickel at present.

4 Though it is true that no commercially 

5 available nickel products currently meet the 

6 stricter DOE level, other commercially available 

7 charging circuitry can be incorporated into these 

8 products to achieve the higher DOE levels.

9 We have performed a tear-down and redesign 

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

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

12 consumes significant amount of power in maintenance 

13 mode. By adding readily available, low-cost, 

14 silicon-based charge control, the maintenance power 

15 fell by two-thirds, while battery capacity was 

16 maintained. And the blue line is the comparable 

17 line, the power use. You can see falling 

18 dramatically once the battery is full.

19 Then we calculated the effect of 

20 substituting a level five power supply for the level 

21 four power supply, saving additional energy, and 

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

23 would meet both the California level and the 

24 stricter DOE level. Using incremental bill and 

25 materials cost and the incremental markup, the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

52

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

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

3 Then, for Class 2, we support the DOE 

4 proposal to create a TSL that was between improved 

5 and best in class. We found one commercially 

6 available nickel product that already meets the 

7 intermediate level, and using a more efficient power 

8 supply would cut the energy use by additional 40 

9 percent.

10 For Class 3, we note that the TSL-1 and 

11 TSL-2 are separated by a factor of five in annual 

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

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

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

15 that the DOE evaluate an intermediate TSL at the 

16 California level which could also be met with smart 

17 nickel chargers. Strengthening the standard to the 

18 CEC level for these three product classes would save 

19 nearly one quad over 30 years, nationally, almost 

20 equal to a multi-billion dollar coal-fired power 

21 plant operating continuously.

22 In conclusion, we are generally supportive 

23 of DOE’s analysis of other product categories, 

24 however in Classes two through four, significant 

25 energy savings additionally can be achieved, cost-
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

53

1 effectively, while maintaining consumer utility. I 

2 thank you for the opportunity to speak.

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

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

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

6 MR. BROOKMAN: And if Larry Albert has 

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

8 concluded his remarks.

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

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

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

12 Association. And this morning I wanted to highlight 

13 a report that we and a few other associations 

14 commissioned during the course of the California 

15 Energy Commission’s rulemaking on battery chargers. 

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

17 should harmonize with California’s adopted 

18 regulation, but we do not believe that would be the 

19 correct course of action, and one of the biggest 

20 reasons has to do with the cost benefit analysis 

21 underlying that adopted regulation.

22 We, and other associations, jointly 

23 commissioned the Berkeley Research Group in Los 

24 Angeles to evaluate the Energy Commission’s cost 

25 benefit analysis and regulatory justification, as I 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

54

1 mentioned. We submitted the report from BRG in 

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

3 BRG analysis were based on the California Energy 

4 Commission’s staff report and related supporting 

5 documents. The key findings of the BRG analysis are 

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

7 cost benefit analysis was fundamentally flawed and 

8 logically unsound because it failed to account for 

9 several important factors. 

10 • One is the turnover of existing stock, to 

11 account for that in a proper way. 

12 • Second factor is the time value of money. 

13 • Thirdly, the potential impact of pending DOE 

14 regulation. 

15 • Fourth, the incremental cost of compliance, and

16 • Fifth, the technological improvements that 

17 would happen in this class of product due to 

18 competition.

19 BRG also found that the California Energy 

20 Commission’s cost-benefit calculations and 

21 modeling contained arithmetic errors and were 

22 based on stale data on battery chargers, which

23 then overstated product savings and understated 

24 the incremental costs of compliance.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

55

1 So what BRG did in its report was take the 

2 California Energy Commission’s model, corrected 

3 it for calculation errors, then accounted for the 

4 cost of compliance, incorporated as an example a 

5 DOE regulation taking effect in 2014, 

6 incorporated also the technological innovation 

7 due to competition in this product class, and 

8 fifth, incorporated manufacturer input on cost of 

9 compliance. 

10 So BRG’s substitute model, by taking these 

11 factors into account, more accurately reflected 

12 economic realities, particularly product turn13 over, design life of products, the time value of 

14 money, and in incorporating these corrections, 

15 the first year savings using this more realistic 

16 approach eliminated savings over most battery 

17 charger-related product categories.

18 So in summary, BRG substitute model, under 

19 both the Energy Commission’s own flawed model as 

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

21 found that the net impact on consumers was 

22 negative for the majority of product categories 

23 impacted by the California Commission’s proposed 

24 battery charger regulation. And it is for this 

25 reason and others that we do not recommend that 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

56

1 the Department simply harmonize with California’s 

2 adopted battery charger regulation.

3 CEA will be submitting a copy of the BRG 

4 report along with its comments as we submit them 

5 later this month. Thank you. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Another 

7 opportunity for anybody that wants to, to make an 

8 opening statement right now. Pierre.

9 MR. DELFORGE: Pierre Delforge, NRDC. 

10 Thank you for the opportunity to make an opening 

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

12 to see DOE’s rule move forward on battery 

13 chargers and external power supplies, given the 

14 large energy and consumer savings opportunity in 

15 these products. We commend DOE for proposing a 

16 strong, yet cost-effective, standard in a number 

17 of battery charger product classes. We also 

18 support DOE’s proposal for revised and extended 

19 standards on external power supplies beyond level 

20 five levels, even though we will argue that 

21 significant additional savings opportunities can 

22 be captured cost-effectively on external power 

23 supplies. 

24 We also have concerns we will address in 

25 regarding the definition of indirect operation 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

57

1 power supplies that unnecessarily potentially 

2 exclude a large number of power supplies.

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

4 proposed revised and extended marking 

5 requirements for both external power supplies and 

6 battery chargers. We believe that efficiency 

7 marking is key to facilitate global adoption and 

8 minimize the cost of compliance.

9 However, we are disappointed that the 

10 proposed rule is significantly weaker than 

11 California’s in battery charger categories two 

12 through six, which represent over three-quarters 

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

14 reason why DOE cannot adopt the standard which is 

15 at least as strong as California’s in these 

16 categories. CEC went through a thorough and 

17 rigorous process and has a proven track record in 

18 setting cost-effective standards.

19 We believe that DOE’s cost estimates are 

20 significantly too high, which unduly impacts the 

21 cost-effectiveness of higher efficiency levels 

22 that would otherwise be cost-effective. For 

23 example, manufacturer setting prices, or the 

24 delta of manufacturer setting prices for high 

25 levels are based solely on manufacturer 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

58

1 interviews and they are inconsistent, and we 

2 believe, significantly overestimated in some 

3 categories, for example, 60-watt external power 

4 supplies.

5 California Energy Commission and the ILUs 

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

7 shift from nickel based to lithium ion batteries 

8 in order to meet their proposed levels. Even if 

9 we concede lithium ion as a upper bound on the 

10 cost of compliance, it appears that DOE has not 

11 factored in the rapid decline of the cost of 

12 lithium ion batteries in its estimates, and these 

13 batteries are dropping in price dramatically 

14 every year, as production volume increase and 

15 technology improves. DOE itself has invested 

16 over a billion dollars to accelerate the 

17 development of advanced battery charger 

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

19 its own cost projections in its rulemaking. 

20 So overall, DOE’s proposal would result in 

21 the loss of nearly half, estimates about 47 

22 percent of energy savings for battery chargers 

23 compared to the California standard. This would 

24 require the need to build an additional 700 

25 megawatt power plant and is equivalent to the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

59

1 electricity use of nearly half the households in 

2 the city of Los Angeles. It also increases the 

3 cost for American consumers by approximately $600 

4 million dollars annually, reducing disposable 

5 income and impacting American economic growth.

6 The weaker standard would also impact –

7 negatively impact American’s health, due to the 

8 additional harmful pollution resulting from the 

9 unnecessary power wasted in the battery charger 

10 adaptors. 

11 We urge DOE to review its assumptions and 

12 analysis, particularly regarding cost estimates 

13 to reassess the cost-effectiveness of these 

14 California IU proposals and to move forward with 

15 efficiency marking proposal. Thank you for the 

16 opportunity to comment, and we look forward to 

17 continue working with you and stakeholders on 

18 this rulemaking.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Alex.

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

21 with the National Electrical Manufacturers 

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

23 thank the Department for allowing me to make some 

24 brief opening remarks.

25 One of the benefits of going close to last 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

60

1 is many of the points I was going to make have 

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

3 and echo concerns about the size of the scope and 

4 the difficulty in interpreting which products are 

5 affected. That has basically consumed my last five 

6 weeks and we hope now to get to some substantive 

7 comments based on that. 

8 We are conscious of the desire to move 

9 forward on certain aspects of the rulemaking and 

10 just as conscious of the desire to understand 

11 everything and its potential impacts across the 

12 range of products affected as best possible so that 

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

14 manufacturers can begin to make their own personal 

15 plans for how they will comply and address the 

16 redesigns needed. 

17 We echo the suggestions of reexamination 

18 and clarification of the scope, and also comments 

19 effective to consider phased-in approaches for 

20 effective dates to afford manufacturers a greater 

21 time to examine different designs and test those. 

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

23 that based on my reading of the current status of 

24 the rulemaking was that the Department decided to 

25 combine the battery chargers and EPS rules at a 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

61

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

2 were able to split those apart or a phase in 

3 approach or other concerns for effective dates as 

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

5 And we have some other specific remarks 

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

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 

8 comments here at the outset? Yes, Jennifer.

9 MS. CLEARY: Jen Cleary and this will be 

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

11 comments. AHAM is generally supportive of the 

12 direction that DOE is taking in the proposed rule, 

13 especially with regard to battery charger classes 

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

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

16 suggestions which we’ll make through the course of 

17 the day and in our written comments, but 

18 importantly, we do agree with DOE’s analysis 

19 regarding California’s standards. As we argued to 

20 California, those CEC standards for battery chargers 

21 are not feasible and represent a negative NPV for 

22 product classes two through six. Accordingly, DOE 

23 should not adopt those standards as stringent as 

24 California’s because of the burden on manufacturers 

25 and the net impact on consumers would be too great, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

62

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

2 cost-benefit analysis that was already discussed 

3 today by CEA. Thank you. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. As I 

5 understand it, Larry Albert has joined us, and 

6 Larry, you’re next, please speak.

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

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

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

10 Institute before the Department on the proposed 

11 rule. Next slide please.

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

13 second, Larry.

14 MR. ALBERT: Can you hear me.

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

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

17 the slide. Here we go. 

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

19 accommodating our situation here. There’s a trade 

20 association meeting here this week and we’ve been 

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

22 person. The Power Tool Institute is the trade 

23 association of power tool manufacturers, do business 

24 in North America. As I think the Department is 

25 aware, we’ve been a frequent and a responsible 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

63

1 contributor to external power supply and battery 

2 charger rulemaking here at DOE and also in other 

3 jurisdictions, including California. In addition, 

4 PTI members have been pretty involved as partners in 

5 Energy Star and indicate their support in general in 

6 conservation efforts through their products that 

7 they have as Energy Star compliant.

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

9 goal of battery charger energy efficiency, and we 

10 basically look for some essential qualities in a 

11 proposed rule. That the requirements are national 

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

13 this trade association of other companies in a 

14 similar situation, it makes no sense to have 

15 individual state regulations. We believe that it’s 

16 important to have a national standard, otherwise it 

17 becomes a difficulty for manufacturers to comply. 

18 And that these standards apply only to true power 

19 supplies and not element of battery chargers as EPS 

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

21 meaningful measurement of usage, and that the 

22 standard provides a positive financial consumer 

23 benefit with respect to energy savings. That the 

24 standards are achievable using proven technology.

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

(301) 565-0064

64

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

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

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

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

5 Is that any better?

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Keep talking.

7 MR. ALBERT: Okay. So with respect to 

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

9 We believe that it will have a significant impact on 

10 initial battery design and the test of meaningful 

11 and feasible will truly separate the case out of a 

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

13 We would appreciate I think the clarification in 

14 this section with respect to how the class and test 

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

16 provision is there that covers essentially the 

17 consideration that EISA had for ... operated and 

18 actual battery pack applications.

19 With respect to battery chargers, PTI 

20 believes that the method that has been established 

21 to limit these type of ... are completely appropriate 

22 for the classes of product that are covered, that 

23 would be specifically classes two through four. We 

24 think the method and limits fulfill what our 

25 objectives are with respect to any regulation for 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

65

1 energy efficiency, that is, it provides both 

2 meaningful measure and meaningful benefit. We agree 

3 with the approach that the Department took with 

4 respect to vehicular powered battery chargers and 

5 that they’re essentially exempted by establishing 

6 those standards, because we don’t believe that they 

7 contribute to the energy consumption meaningfully in 

8 the United States.

9 And we believe the levels are appropriate 

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

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

12 opposite consideration, DOE should not go to the CEC 

13 levels of the new baseline because we believe that 

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

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

16 Department has found, and I think you heard earlier 

17 comment to the effect that there’s negative consumer 

18 benefit, and with respect to power tools and in 

19 particular, it provides no room left over in terms 

20 of energy improvement for programs such as Energy 

21 Star.

22 So with respect to Energy Star power tool 

23 manufacturers have been very active participants in 

24 the Energy Star battery chargers program. The 

25 larger portion of the Energy Star listings that you 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

66

1 can find on the website are power tool and similar 

2 product has been over the years, the steady 

3 transformation as our industry has signed on with 

4 more and more product, and this process of having 

5 center driven voluntary program has driven industry 

6 innovation with respect to energy efficiency. By 

7 creating any mandatory standard that would create a 

8 recalibration of the specification levels of Energy 

9 Star is understood, but having an overly restrictive 

10 standard such as CEC, takes a larger reset that 

11 could effectively eliminate all Energy Star 

12 offerings while providing no participants in the 

13 market, and that could have the effect of just 

14 eliminating the BCS program entirely in practice.

15 Thank you for the opportunity to make 

16 these comments for the Department, thanks for the 

17 special accommodations for allowing me to 

18 participate.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Larry. Other 

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

21 go straight into the PowerPoint slides that all of 

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

23 hear from Brian Booher. It’s – in my experience 

24 it’s unusual to have so much extensive comment here 

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

(301) 565-0064

67

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

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

3 need to emphasize and you can do it very 

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

5 through here. So Brian, please.

6 Rulemaking Scope, Product Classes and

7 Market Assessment

8 MR. BOOHER: Good morning, everybody. 

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

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

11 of the rulemaking, product classes and the market 

12 assessment. The first step of the rulemaking 

13 process was to establish the scope of the rulemaking 

14 and divide battery chargers and EPSs into product 

15 classes. According to the statute, DOE can create 

16 product classes based on the type of energy used and 

17 other performance-relating features, with the goal 

18 to maintain the utility of different types of 

19 products. DOE does not want regulations to 

20 eliminate unique products.

21 So we’ll start with EPSs. The statutory 

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

23 convert household electric current into DC current 

24 or lower voltage AC current to operate the consumer 

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

(301) 565-0064

68

1 EPS is outside the product that it operates. It 

2 attaches to and obtains power from the mains. It 

3 outputs DC current or a lower voltage AC current and 

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

5 this definition encompasses wall adapters that can 

6 be used to charge batteries. About 80 percent of 

7 EPSs are actually part of a battery charging system.

8 In order to deal with this overlap between 

9 EPSs and battery chargers, DOE has revised its 

10 approach from the preliminary analysis. Whereas a 

11 wall adapter was only considered an EPS if it 

12 contained charge control, now DOE considers all wall 

13 adapters to be EPSs. The problem was that charge 

14 control functionality was never clearly defined and 

15 the more relevant question is whether the EPSs can 

16 operate the end use product directly, or whether the 

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

18 proposing to give special treatment to those EPSs 

19 that cannot operate an end user consumer product 

20 directly. We are calling these indirect operation 

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

22 operation products are best regulated by the battery 

23 charger standard and DOE is not proposing new EPS 

24 standards for product class N at this time. Product 

25 class N is indirect operation EPSs.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

69

1 So how do you determine if a product is an 

2 indirect or direct operation EPS? DOE developed 

3 this protocol. The first step is to charge the 

4 battery and then disconnect the EPS from the 

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

6 long it takes to start. This is the normal start-up 

7 time. Operate the product until it runs out of 

8 batteries and it stops functioning, then connect the 

9 EPS to the product again. Immediately turn the 

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

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

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

13 start up time is less than or equal to the normal 

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

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

16 battery start up time is greater than the normal 

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

18 operation product.

19 You know, the reasoning here is that if a 

20 product takes more than five seconds to start up 

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

22 drawing the power from the battery and not from the 

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

24 the battery before it can operate. And you can find 

25 this protocol outlined in full in the rule language.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

70

1 So these diagrams are a rough depiction of 

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

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

4 designed so it can provide power to the end use 

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

6 the bottom, all the power must flow through the 

7 battery. I have a question?

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Please. Go ahead.

9 MR. HABBEN: Going back to your dead 

10 battery –

11 MR. BROOKMAN: It’s Vic, right?

12 MR. HABBEN: Rick. Rick Habben from Wall 

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

14 definition for dead battery?

15 MR. BOOHER: It’s if the battery is 

16 completely exhausted of all charge. I don’t know –

17 MR. HAVEN: Is it that the product is not 

18 functioning or is it to a certain level determined 

19 what that battery is designed for?

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Please find a microphone, 

21 and say your name.

22 MR. SKAHAN: Chris Skahan, Navigant 

23 Consulting. There’s no official definition for dead 

24 battery, but in the indirect operation procedure 

25 it’s taken as the point where it can no longer 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

71

1 operate the end user application as it was intended.

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

3 MR. HABBEN: Yes, thank you for that 

4 clarification.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. You’re doing 

6 very well. Keep going.

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

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

9 product classes there on the left, and most non10 Class A EPSs are in the three product classes on the 

11 right. The exceptions are direct operation EPSs for 

12 some motorized applications, like some shavers and 

13 beard trimmers, and indirect operation Class A EPSs 

14 like some Blue Tooth headsets and MP3 players. 

15 And this is a useful decision tree for 

16 determining which of the seven product classes the 

17 EPS falls into, so if the device meets the 

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

19 whether it can directly operate a consumer product. 

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

21 If so, then determine whether it can output multiple 

22 simultaneous output voltages, if so, it is in 

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

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

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

(301) 565-0064

72

1 the output current –

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes.

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

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

5 have some external power supplies that have multiple 

6 outputs of the same voltage but they’re all 

7 independent. Would that still be Class X? How 

8 would we determine that?

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

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

11 it doesn’t matter, simultaneously –

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

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

14 all be the same voltage output, but there are 

15 multiple outputs and they’re independent.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Why don’t you describe 

17 again.

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

19 external power supply, would have four outputs of 

20 say 12 volts at 20 amps, but they’re all 

21 independent. The four outputs are independently 

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

23 that be a high power Class H?

24 MR. BOOHER: My colleague, Chris, will 

25 weigh in on that.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

73

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Chris.

2 MR. SKAHAN: Chris Skahan again. The 

3 definition for multiple- voltage external power 

4 supplies says that if there are multiple output 

5 voltages operating simultaneously, it doesn’t 

6 specify multiple different output voltages, so –

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

8 MR. BOOHER: So then the next distinction 

9 is between DC current and AC current output by the 

10 EPS. And then following that we have divided 

11 product classes into low voltage and basic voltage. 

12 The low voltage definition is an output voltage less 

13 than six volts and an output current greater than or 

14 equal to 550 milliamps, and this is the criteria 

15 used by the Energy Star EPS programs to determine 

16 low voltage EPS. So all of these distinctions are 

17 important factors to determine the utility of the 

18 product, and all of them can affect the performance.

19 The next few slides will be a market map 

20 diagram to show how these distinctions play out in 

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

22 million EPSs were shipped. 83 percent of those are 

23 considered Class A and are currently subject to the 

24 standards established in EISA 2007. In addition, 

25 many non-Class A EPSs are separately covered by 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

74

1 standards in California, shown here in the blue. 

2 About 80 percent of EPSs are part of a battery 

3 charging system, but many of these are not designed 

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

5 see how this triangle includes both Class A and non6 Class A EPSs. So these products will continue to be 

7 subject to existing standards in the portion of the 

8 market intersecting the green box, subject to EISA 

9 2007 and the portion of the market intersecting the 

10 blue box, subject to California’s standards.

11 You can also see how some EPSs for 

12 motorized applications, here above the triangle, 

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

14 examples are shavers and some beard trimmers.

15 So DOE estimated that about 74 million 

16 indirect operation EPSs shipped in 2009, which was 

17 roughly 20 percent of total shipments. And if we 

18 have any more questions on DOE’s approach to 

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

20 we get through the battery charger product class 

21 definition, and then we can address all the 

22 questions at once.

23 So moving on to battery chargers. A 

24 battery charger is a device that charges batteries 

25 for consumer products, including battery chargers
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

75

1 imbedded in other consumer products. It’s important 

2 to note here that a battery charger can be comprised 

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

4 end use product, or in a separate housing 

5 altogether. So it’s the entirety of this battery 

6 charging system that’s within the scope of the 

7 rulemaking.

8 This table shows the differences between 

9 the battery charger product classes. The first 

10 distinguishing factor is the type of input and 

11 output voltage. In product classes eight and nine, 

12 you can see how BCs with DC input are included 

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

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

15 and 10B, these devices, such as uninterruptable 

16 power supplies have a DC to AC converter 

17 additionally, so that can increase losses. Battery 

18 voltage and energy also drive the utility and 

19 performance of the battery charger. Going back to 

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

21 distinguished between EPSs with automatic voltage 

22 regulation and those without.

23 There at the top, product class one, 

24 that’s reserved for inductive battery chargers for 

25 use in a wet environment. DOE has also reserved an 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

76

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

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

3 power to charge in a dry environment.

4 So consumer products were mentioned in 

5 both the EPS and battery charger definition, and 

6 many of our stakeholders have commented on this 

7 issue already. The statutory definition of a 

8 consumer product is here. But for further guidance, 

9 there is a document that DOE has prepared located at 

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

11 to that document.

12 So these are the issues for comment that 

13 DOE is particularly interested in related to product 

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

15 all comments from stakeholders on these issues.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: We’ll leave these comment 

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

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

19 proposed approach to classifying EPSs that 

20 indirectly operate consumer products. Ric.

21 MR. ERDHEIM: Thanks, Doug. You described 

22 the process for determining whether something is 

23 direct or indirect, and we support the concept of 

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

25 efficiency issues for those products which are 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

77

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

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

3 operated directly from the EPS are expected to 

4 operate from the EPS, they would only operate in 

5 emergency situations. So what’s the energy issue 

6 that you’re trying to address when you distinguish 

7 between direct and indirect?

8 MR. BOOHER: I would say that the main 

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

10 can, is that the indirect operation EPSs are, in 

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

12 standard and any EPSs that can directly operate the 

13 consumer product should be regulated under the EPS 

14 standard.

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

16 further. I think your question tends to revolve 

17 around the usage profiles associated with those 

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

19 of a laptop computer. Obviously, a laptop computer 

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

21 there’s a substantial amount of time where the 

22 laptop computer is actually powered by the external 

23 power supply. Consequently, by setting these 

24 standard for the external power supply in that 

25 particular case, we feel we have the potential for 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

78

1 significant energy savings. There are other 

2 products where potentially the EPS can operate the 

3 end use consumer product, where the savings would be 

4 probably significantly less, based on the amount of 

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

6 have any information in this rulemaking currently, 

7 as to for those direct operating EPSs, how much time 

8 the EPS is actually connected to the product and 

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

10 every specific product type. We’ve got usage 

11 profiles associated with each product type, but we 

12 cannot give you that type of breakdown at this 

13 point.

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

15 back to you, Ric.

16 MR. ERDHEIM: So would you agree that if 

17 there was information showing that products were –

18 that could be operated directly, but rarely were, --

19 or let me put it to you – I’ll rephrase that.

20 If we had information showing that 

21 products could be, but rarely were used – powered by 

22 the EPS, would that be something that you would 

23 consider to say maybe we should move those products 

24 into Class N?

25 MR. PETROLATI: I can’t say we wouldn’t 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

79

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

2 information to submit during the rulemaking process 

3 so we can make a determination on that.

4 MR. ERDHEIM: Thank you. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Several 

6 questions here before you, giving you a chance –

7 Pierre.

8 MR. DELFORGE: Still on the first question 

9 on the indirect definition, we are concerned that 

10 the dead battery test with five seconds delay may 

11 not accurately identify indirect operations, and I 

12 think Vic used the example of a Notebook. I think 

13 similar comment with MP3 players and phones. There 

14 are some housekeeping functions when the battery is 

15 below certain level for a number of reasons which 

16 don’t necessarily mean that in normal operation the 

17 product is not operated directly from the EPS. So 

18 we’re concerned about using that definition for 

19 defining product class N.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Would you suggest an 

21 alternative to the five seconds?

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

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

24 and maybe either increase that to something which 

25 will cover as intended, the products – most of the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

80

1 products are directly operated by the EPS, or 

2 potentially a different mechanism.

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

4 Patrick? Patrick.

5 MR. CARRERA: Patrick Carrera from iRobot. 

6 iRobot is a leading company for home robotics. And 

7 by all means, we will support the rule for 

8 classification of Class N, because even though the 

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

10 the air, nevertheless for robots below the thresh 

11 level of operation for the battery, the robot will 

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

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

14 specific level of – above that threshold, it will 

15 not operate, simply enough. And I believe whatever 

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

17 combination out of the whole gamut of robots in the 

18 market. 

19 One thing that I definitely support the 

20 DOE specification is because home robots is a global 

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

22 important for us not to be certified or compliance 

23 our products with two different standards, whether 

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

25 EUP or the ERP directives in the guidance for 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

81

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

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

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

4 intended to operate is disconnected from the means, 

5 therefore it definitely is autonomous and the unit 

6 operates only with a battery charger. Although as 

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

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

9 entirely exempt of any – exempt of meeting any level 

10 of energy efficiency.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Vic.

12 MR. PETROLATI: Vic Petrolati. We are 

13 very interested in getting comments on this proposed 

14 test for determining whether or not a product is in 

15 indirect operation EPS and how it works with all of 

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

17 concerning this test, please provide that in your 

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

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

20 for this particular situation, which we think 

21 deserves an exclusion since these products are going 

22 to be covered under the battery charger regulations 

23 anyway. Thank you. 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s see. Ken.

25 MR. RYDER: Yes, this is Ken Ryder from 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

82

1 the California Energy Commission. Just a quick 

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

3 you say and you discussed not covering product class 

4 N products in this rulemaking, does that mean that 

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

6 products, or would it be that – what?

7 MR. PETROLATI: (answer off mic) I 

8 apologize. Vic Petrolati. There are Class A 

9 products within this product class. They are going 

10 to be required to remain at the efficiency levels 

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

12 stringent than Class A if they fit into this product 

13 class.

14 MR. RYDER: Fantastic. That answers the 

15 question.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Alex.

17 MR. BOESENBERG: I have a comment on item 

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

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

20 MR. BOESENBERG: Item nine, NEMA is 

21 concerned and will be submitting some comments for 

22 clarification on external power supplies that are 

23 used for building systems components, such as those 

24 permanently installed in electrical rooms near 

25 electrical entrances to buildings to power such 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

83

1 things as communication links, central processors 

2 for building lighting management systems, motorized 

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

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

5 existing classes.

6 Relative to item 33, no. Solid state 

7 lighting power supplies do not need to be a separate 

8 class because they are not covered by this 

9 rulemaking is our argument, because for starters, 

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

11 supply is almost always internal to the unit. 

12 Underwriters Laboratories as well as manufacturers 

13 list and test those products as a system, again, so 

14 reinforcing the internal status of the power supply. 

15 For those that have a no-load state, the performance 

16 of the power supply typically is zero power 

17 consumption. They wait to be – to have a light 

18 source attached, and only then will they do 

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

20 solid state nature, being electronics, means that 

21 dimming capability is frequently included in those 

22 products, and the DOE has a precedent for exempting 

23 dimming products such as fluorescent ballast 

24 rulemaking. Dimmable fluorescent ballasts were not 

25 subjected to the same strict energy use requirements 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

84

1 of a standard fluorescent ballast because dimming 

2 saves energy.

3 Also of course, we can call attention to 

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

5 test data for external power supplies for SSL 

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

7 because there are so few of those products that are 

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

9 solid state lighting is an emerging technology and 

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

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

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

13 As a result, the DOE would be sorely tried 

14 to gather any data that could reasonably be used to 

15 reflect the future of that market, because nobody 

16 knows what it is, and based on all those – well, the 

17 last point is, we discourage regulations for solid 

18 state except where absolutely necessary because its 

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

20 high rate of development – evolution and innovation, 

21 and when you regulate a product that is still 

22 immature, you risk hampering innovation by 

23 restricting choices of designs or alternative 

24 approaches that might pan out in the course of the 

25 market to find is the best way to do it, so to 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

85

1 speak.

2 So, based on all those points, we think 

3 SSL is an improper candidate for this rulemaking and 

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

5 already mentioned in several other lighting 

6 rulemakings that will be addressed in the next few 

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

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

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

10 market data and a little more idea of where the 

11 technology is heading. Thank you. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. I don’t think 

13 we addressed – yes, Vic, please.

14 MR. PETROLATI: Yes, a couple things. 

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

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

17 external power supply. We are aware of pictures of 

18 products including an external power supply that 

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

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

21 us the pictures of what you think are internal power 

22 supplies, and do not meet the definition of external 

23 power supply as written by Congress.

24 MR. BOESENBERG: We’ll do that.

25 MR. PETROLATI: Thank you. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

86

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

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

3 get some comment on item 34. Pierre.

4 MR. DELFORGE: So I have a comment, I 

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

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

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

8 Class A standard is amended. So could you clarify 

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

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

11 standard.

12 MR. BOOHER: I mentioned briefly how –

13 we’re not necessarily making a distinction between 

14 Class A and non-Class A in any of these product 

15 classes in particular, that’s not the defining 

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

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

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

19 that overlap. And non-Class A EPSs that, based on 

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

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

22 those – that we’re proposing today for those product 

23 classes.

24 MR. DELFORGE: How about Class A EPSs that 

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

(301) 565-0064

87

1 MR. BOOHER: Yes, I mean those – if we 

2 follow the decision tree, will still filter into 

3 classes B, C, D, and E.

4 MR. DELFORGE: All right, thank you.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 

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

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

8 How many of you are new to the Forrestal Building? 

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

10 badge if you’re walking around the Forrestal 

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

12 floor. Go back to the elevators and go down to the 

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

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

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

16 which means we’ll resume at 11:00 sharp. So we’ll 

17 see you back here at eleven.

18 (Whereupon, at 10:45 a.m., the meeting was 

19 recessed for a 15 minute period.)

20 MR. BROOKMAN: So we are going to resume

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

22 assessment overview.

23 Market Assessment

24 MR. BOOHER: Welcome back everybody. Hope 

25 we’ll all sufficiently caffeinated. Again, I’m 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

88

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

2 talking about the market assessment right now. 

3 The purpose of the market assessment is to 

4 analyze the consumer end uses of battery chargers 

5 and EPSs, and to characterize the markets for those 

6 products. The outputs of the market assessment are 

7 shipments, lifetimes and efficiency distributions 

8 for battery chargers and external power supplies, as 

9 well as general market trends that may affect power 

10 consumption – or energy consumption, excuse me.

11 So I’m going to talk about shipments and 

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

13 efficiency distributions right here, because those 

14 estimates were based on test data that we did as 

15 part of the engineering analysis, and then more so 

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

17 colleagues on those.

18 DOE used a bottom-up approach to 

19 characterize the market for battery chargers and 

20 EPSs, looking first at the applications that BCs and 

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

22 applications are the main drivers of the shipments, 

23 the lifetimes and the power requirements of these 

24 products, and we identified approximately 80 

25 applications that use BCs and/or EPSs, and all of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

89

1 those applications are outlined in Appendix 3A of 

2 the TSD.

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

4 our analysis, which was 2009, DOE estimated 

5 approximately 345 million products that were sold, 

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

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

8 very small proportions of the market, and for the 

9 purposes of our analysis, product class N made up 

10 about 20 percent, split evenly in our estimates 

11 between non-Class A and Class A.

12 These are the top 15 EPS applications by

13 shipment. You can see here that mobile phones is 

14 the biggest shipment. DOE actually estimated that 

15 in 2009 there were over 90 million mobile phones 

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

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

18 that DOE believes that due to standardization in the 

19 industry around the micro USB plug, the market for 

20 mobile phones will evolve in the near future and 

21 many phones will begin to ship without a power 

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

23 mobile phones, the majority are in product class C, 

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

25 some of the products that have been assigned to 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

90

1 product class N for the purpose of the analysis.

2 On the battery charger side, in the base 

3 year, there was 437 million battery chargers 

4 shipped. Again, the majority of these were in 

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

6 is also – there’s also significant shipments 

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

8 at the top 15 applications by shipments for battery 

9 chargers, you can see that Notebooks and power tools 

10 have been assigned to product class 4.

11 DOE found relatively few medium and high 

12 energy battery chargers on the market. And I guess 

13 another important point here is that some mobile 

14 phones have been assigned to product class 8 because 

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

16 and the same with some MP3 players.

17 This table shows the lifetimes, the 

18 average lifetimes of a number of key applications, 

19 and here, the lifetime of a battery charger and EPS 

20 is dictated by its associated application, and if 

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

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

23 lifetime is five years.

24 So the market assessment methodology is 

25 outlined in full in Chapter 3 of the TSD, and you 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

91

1 can explore all of our estimates in the market 

2 assessment workbook, which is also published on the 

3 DOE website. 

4 We’re seeking comments on all the 

5 estimates that we used for shipments and lifetimes 

6 for each application and product class, as well as 

7 any other questions and comments you may have today.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please, Jeff.

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

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

11 battery chargers. Okay. So you have mobile phones 

12 and MP3 players into product class 8 because they 

13 have USB input, correct?

14 MR. BOOHER: This was – yes, solely a USB 

15 charger, and based on retail surveys that we 

16 conducted and other market research.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Is that eight?

18 MR. BOOHER: That is product class 8.

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

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

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

22 volts. Could we potentially get that into there, 

23 even though it’s shipped with an EPS?

24 MR. BOOHER: No, because, if I understand 

25 correctly, the EPS that is shipped with that 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

92

1 Notebook computer is – contains some of the battery 

2 charger functionality. That –

3 MR. HAILEY: It does not. It absolutely 

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

5 There is no battery charger function whatsoever. 

6 The battery charger is solely contained in the 

7 Notebook.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: For all Notebooks, or your 

9 Notebook?

10 MR. HAILEY: I cannot speak for the rest 

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

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

13 way for Apple, isn’t it?

14 (response off mic)

15 MR. BROOKMAN: I think this is useful 

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

17 say it on the record. Push that little button 

18 there.

19 MR. DENKENBERGER: We’ll provide written 

20 comments.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Great.

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

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

24 scope. By the California definition, if you 

25 recommend or sell an EPS with your battery charging 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

93

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

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

3 class – probably the Class 3 even though they may 

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

5 recommended with them. And so by that analysis with 

6 the Notebook, we’ve determined we probably be class 

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

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

9 MR. BROOKMAN: You got a microphone?

10 MR. NARDOTI: Yes, this is Matt Nardotti

11 from Navigant. Part of the DOE test procedure has 

12 the same stipulation that if a manufacturer sells, 

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

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

15 would test the product, and that would be – that 

16 would dictate which product class you would fall 

17 under in terms of battery charger standard.

18 MR. HAILEY: So –

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

20 to DC conversion unit that you would you that you 

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

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

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

24 stipulated in the test procedures as well.

25 MR. HAILEY: But it’s in the test 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

94

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

2 need to be clear.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Jeff.

4 MR. BOOHER: I will also say that by 

5 assigning certain shipments to product class 8 for 

6 mobile phones, this was mainly for the purpose of 

7 the analysis and that doesn’t necessarily say 

8 anything about DOE’s position on where EPSs or 

9 battery chargers would fall for all of these 

10 products in general.

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

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

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

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

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

16 going to endeavor to entertain your questions here, 

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

18 them in and our capable computer person will do what 

19 she can to pass them forward. No additional 

20 comments on these? Market data, use in commercial 

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

22 certain applications that ship with UPSs. We’re 

23 moving on.

24 MR. BOOHER: So we’re – this was our 

25 normally scheduled break, but –
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

95

1 MR. BROOKMAN: We’re going to keep going.

2 MR. SKAHAN: Hello, everybody. I’m Chris 

3 Skahan with Navigant Consulting for anyone who 

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

5 you guys through the technology assessment, the 

6 screening analysis and the engineering analysis for 

7 external power supplies.

8 Technology Assessment, Screening Analysis,

9 Engineering Analysis

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

11 the technology assessment. And the purpose of the 

12 technology assessment is to examine the factors that 

13 affect the efficiency of battery chargers and 

14 external power supplies, and DOE does that by 

15 generating a list of specific technology options for 

16 improving efficiency. 

17 However, before you look at how to improve 

18 efficiency, you have to define what efficiency means 

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

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

21 two corresponding measures of operating efficiency. 

22 The first is no- load mode, where all the power 

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

24 measure that with an instantaneous power consumption 

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

(301) 565-0064

96

1 is an average efficiency measure at 25 percent, 50 

2 percent, 75 percent and 100 percent rated load 

3 capacity of the EPS. 

4 Next, there’s actually a couple more modes 

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

6 charge mode, where the battery chargers is charging 

7 the battery from a depleted state over a 24 hour 

8 period, and that’s measured in watt-hours. Next is 

9 maintenance mode, which is an instantaneous power 

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

11 battery charger is maintaining the battery charge, 

12 keeping it fully charged. Next, standby mode, where 

13 the battery is removed from the charger, the charger 

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

15 instantaneous power consumption, that the power 

16 drawn from the mains by the charger.

17 Last, is off mode where the battery is 

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

19 any on/off switches on the charger itself are 

20 switched to off.

21 Each one of these BC metrics is weighted 

22 and combined into a single metric called unit energy 

23 consumption, or UEC, which is measured in kilowatt 

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

25 on the UEC calculation in the battery charger 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

97

1 engineering analysis. This is just sort of a first 

2 look.

3 As I mentioned, DOE identifies specific 

4 options for improving the energy efficiency of EPSs 

5 and BCs, and because the two technologies are so 

6 closely related, several technology options actually 

7 apply to both types of products. For instance, 

8 we’ve listed improved transformer core material, 

9 low- power integrated circuits, shock schottky 

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

11 low- loss transistors. However, because BCs provide 

12 a different utility than external power supplies, 

13 certain options only apply to those products, for 

14 instance, the elimination of maintenance current, 

15 the elimination of no battery current, and the 

16 battery chemistry for the battery charger. And I 

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

18 these options, as well as some additional ones that 

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

20 So one of the main technology options that 

21 DOE looked at as a method to improve the efficiency 

22 of these products is the move toward switch- mode 

23 topologies from more inefficient linear designs. As 

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

25 tend to be bigger and less efficient than their 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

98

1 switch- mode counterparts. Unfortunately, in 

2 general, switch- mode power supplies tend to be 

3 noisier and generate more electromagnetic 

4 interference or EMI. 

5 And DOE looked into the impact of EMI on 

6 power supply performance in the non-Class A 

7 determination analysis, but through additional 

8 research, DOE has become informally aware of a 

9 potential decrease in utility with external power 

10 supplies for high power external power supplies in 

11 amateur radio applications having to do with EMI. 

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

13 there’s any decrease in consumer utility with these 

14 high power power supplies in amateur radio 

15 applications due to the existence of EMI filters and 

16 the fact that these power supplies are subject to 

17 FCC regulations for EMI emissions. 

18 However, today DOE is actively seeking 

19 comment on this assumption, as well as any 

20 additional design options that should be considered 

21 to mitigate any decrease in utility.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Comments on item 10? No 

23 comments. Okay. 

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

25 Screening analysis. And the purpose of the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

99

1 screening analysis is to tearpair down or screen out 

2 any of the technology options DOE identified in the 

3 tech assessment that could have negative 

4 consequences for consumers or manufacturers based on 

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

6 screening analysis is a list of design options that 

7 DOE considered as viable pathways to improving the 

8 energy efficiency of both BCs and EPSs.

9 As I mentioned, there is a list of 

10 criteria that DOE uses. Each one – each technology 

11 option is evaluated for 

12 • technological feasibility,

13 • practicability for to manufacture, to install 

14 and service, 

15 • Impacts on product utility or availability to 

16 consumers, and

17 • Impacts on health or safety.

18 If any technology option for either BCs or 

19 UPSs EPSs returns a negative consequence in any one 

20 of these four categories, it is subsequently 

21 screened out and not considered as a viable option 

22 to improve the energy efficiency of BCs and UPSs 

23 EPSs in each prospective engineering analysis.

24 For this rulemaking, DOE did not screen 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

100

1 out any technology options for external power 

2 supplies. However, for BCs, there were three 

3 options that were not considered in the engineering 

4 analysis. Those were lowering the charging current 

5 or increasing the voltage, hazard of capacitive 

6 reactance, and non-inductive chargers for 

7 toothbrushes and other wet applications.

8 So up to this point in the analysis, DOE 

9 has established a framework for the possible 

10 pathways for improving energy efficiency for these 

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

12 analysis that it starts to examine the relationship 

13 between costs and the energy efficiency of EPSs and 

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

15 efficiency curves, examples of which are shown in 

16 these two graphs for both EPS energy consumption 

17 metrics, as well as the battery charger unit energy 

18 consumption metric.

19 Traditionally, the way these curves go is, 

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

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

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

23 the EPS active- mode efficiency. As the number 

24 increases, the price goes up. Somewhat counter25 intuitively, and this is going to be important to 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

101

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

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

3 number indicates a more efficient product. So you 

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

5 the manufacturer’s line selling price increases. 

6 And now I’m going to talk about the 

7 engineering analysis DOE conducted for external 

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

9 which Brian outlined earlier. 

10 As a high level overview, and we’re going 

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

12 we move through the presentation here, but just as 

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

14 conducting its engineering analysis.

15 The first step was to choose 

16 representative product classes based on market 

17 volumes and existing standards. Within those 

18 representative product classes, DOE identified 

19 specific representative units using market survey 

20 data, it looked at the market and where things 

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

22 representative units. From there each one of these 

23 representative units was analyzed and a set of 

24 candidate standard levels of efficiency or CSLs were 

25 developed, based on benchmark levels of performance, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

102

1 including maximum technologically feasible or max 

2 tech efficiency level. 

3 In order to corroborate DOE’s choices of 

4 these CSLs, it conducted testing on representative 

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

6 choices. Once those were established, DOE reached 

7 out to manufacturers, and under an NDA secured their 

8 cost information for what it would take to meet each 

9 subsequent CSL above the current standard. To make 

10 the data comparable, all the manufacturer data was 

11 scaled to the DOE representative units identified 

12 earlier on in the analysis. And finally, DOE marked 

13 up the resulting costs to the manufacturer selling 

14 price, which is the cost used in the final cost15 efficiency curves.

16 So as I mentioned, the first step DOE took 

17 is to identify representative product classes. For 

18 these four product classes, only one is deemed 

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

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

21 class, DOE looked at four representative units and 

22 developed CSLs based on those four units, the 

23 results of which are scaled to the remaining product 

24 classes, C, D, and E.

25 So, like I said, DOE looked at four 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

103

1 representative units within the representative 

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

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

4 watts, based on a set of criteria which is listed 

5 below. 

6 • First they had to be within the representative 

7 product class

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

9 to be sure there would be many units to test 

10 and support DOE’s choices for CSLs

11 • Lastly, we wanted to identify a wide range of 

12 output power in order to curve-fit a continuous 

13 function for the proposed standard.

14 For each representative unit, DOE looked 

15 at a set of five candidate standard levels, ranging 

16 from the baseline which is the current EISA 2007 

17 standard for external power supplies, all the way up 

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

19 manufacturer input through manufacturer interviews 

20 and other external discussions. Because EPSs are 

21 regulated with two metrics simultaneously, DOE took 

22 the approach of using a matched pair of efficiency 

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

24 going to explain more what that means on the next 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

104

1 slide here, but the important thing to remember is 

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

3 for an active- mode efficiency, as well as a 

4 discreet no- load power dissipation metric.

5 So as I was saying, the matched pairs 

6 approach uses a specific active- mode efficiency and 

7 no- load power for each CSL for each rep unit. So 

8 the graph here shows an example for the 18 watt 

9 representative unit. Each one of these colored 

10 right angles, if you will, demonstrates the matched 

11 pair DOE used in its analysis, ranging from the 

12 baseline CSL-0, which is that light green right 

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

14 technologically feasible level, and you can see that 

15 no metric ever decreases in stringency as you move 

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

17 these choices of matched pairings, DOE also 

18 conducted multiple tests which are illustrated by 

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

20 points which most closely match their selected 

21 matched pairings for CSL-0, CSL-1, and the best in 

22 market, CSL-3.

23 Additionally, those matched pairings were 

24 used to determine intermediate CSL-2 as a mid-point 

25 between unit number 941 and number 118. But the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

105

1 overall point, or the reason for doing this matched 

2 pairs approach is because DOE doesn’t have any 

3 evidence to date to suggest that these two metrics 

4 can be separated and examined as independent 

5 variables, or a separate cost efficiency analysis 

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

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

8 certain that modifying the circuitry to improve one 

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

10 in order to create the truest possible cost 

11 efficiency curve, DOE looked at incremental 

12 improvements to both metrics simultaneously.

13 So once each one of these CSLs was 

14 created, DOE reached out to manufacturers to gather 

15 their data on their products that most closely 

16 resembled the representative units under a non17 disclosure agreement for both efficiency, no load, 

18 and cost. What DOE found was that the manufacturer 

19 data often did not align exactly with the CSLs and 

20 even the rep units that DOE had identified 

21 initially. And you can see that demonstrated for 

22 both active mode efficiency and no load power, where 

23 each one of these dotted lines represents a CSL for 

24 a specific representative unit, and each one of the 

25 data points represents a manufacturer data point. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

106

1 Again, this is illustrative. None of this is actual 

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

3 data points line up exactly on each line. 

4 So DOE was faced with the problem of how 

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

6 answer that, it developed a series of scaling 

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

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

9 Chapter 5 of the TSD, as well as we provide examples 

10 of how everything was done.

11 So depending on where the manufacturer 

12 information came from, because DOE talked to 

13 everyone from component manufacturers of external 

14 power supplies, to ODMs, original design 

15 manufacturers, all the way up to OEMs, which means 

16 there’s a variety of input sources which required 

17 scaling for certain different metrics. For 

18 instance, output cord length. Talking to component 

19 manufacturers who often do reference designs for 

20 external power supplies, their efficiency numbers 

21 did not factor into things like cord loss, because 

22 their numbers were measured based on a PCV PCB, 

23 direct coreboard contact. So in order to account 

24 for those losses as well as the cost, the 

25 information we received from them was scaled for 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

107

1 efficiency as well as cost.

2 Similarly, for output power, we would talk 

3 to a manufacturer, they would give us information on 

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

5 supply they made. The DOE representative unit is 60 

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

7 representative unit, DOE scaled for output power for 

8 both efficiency and cost, as components tend to be 

9 more robust for higher output powers, higher 

10 switching currents, things like that.

11 Lastly, there was scaling for output 

12 voltage in the efficiency as all things being the 

13 same for a given output power, a higher output 

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

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

16 representative unit, the representative voltage is 

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

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

19 that. But it was scaled afterwards to bring that 

20 efficiency information to the representative unit at 

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

22 look at the details in Chapter 5 of TSD.

23 So as I mentioned, DOE looked – gathered 

24 data from a variety of different input sources, 

25 ranging from component manufacturers all the way up 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

108

1 to OEMs, to developed a series of markups. In 

2 order to make the data most comparable, DOE brought 

3 all the cost information to a single point, the 

4 manufacturer production cost, which is the cost that 

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

6 the components as well as labor and utilities, and 

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

8 selling price is the price the OEM pays the ODM for 

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

10 someone mentioned Dell earlier, and again, this is 

11 just an example. Someone might -- you know, you 

12 might have a stamp of Dell on an external power 

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

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

15 an ODM.

16 Lastly, I just want to point out that 

17 these additional markups for retailing retail and 

18 consumer were factored into the analysis, just not 

19 at this stage of the analysis. All that the 

20 engineering is concerned with is up into the 

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

22 it reaches the original equipment manufacturer, the 

23 OEM.

24 Once all the data was brought to the 

25 manufacturer’s selling price at the representative 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

109

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

2 data to develop a single cost efficiency curve. And 

3 took the approach of doing 3-D aggregation as its 

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

5 spheres represents a scaled manufacturer data point 

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

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

8 out, so down here, would be CSL-0, which you can see 

9 has an associated no- load power and average active10 mode efficiency in 2-D, as well as the 

11 manufacturer’s selling price in the third dimension. 

12 Since this is CSL-0 and we look at incremental 

13 manufacturer selling price, the price here is zero 

14 and subsequently increases for each additional CSL.

15 To develop the cost efficiency curve, DOE 

16 did a curve fit through all these spheres in 3-D 

17 space, and then used the resulting equation of that 

18 red line you see there to estimate the costs exactly 

19 at the CSLs it identified for each representative 

20 unit.

21 Lastly, because product class B was the 

22 only class directly analyzed for the external power 

23 supplies supply engineering analysis, DOE had to 

24 scale the results to the remaining product classes, 

25 C, D, and E. And the scaling methodologies were 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

110

1 based on existing efficiency programs as well as 

2 inherent technical characteristics of the power 

3 supplies themselves. For instance, basic voltage 

4 output, EPSs, are have to meet more stringent 

5 efficiency metrics than, for instance, the low6 voltage output EPSs, because by definition, low7 voltage EPSs tend to be a lower voltage and a higher 

8 output current, which means you have higher 

9 resistive or conductive losses and the low- voltage 

10 output EPSs cannot meet the same efficiency levels 

11 as a basic voltage output, all things being the 

12 same.

13 Similarly, AC- to- DC conversion EPSs have 

14 more stringent no load requirements than the AC- to15 AC conversion EPSs, that’s mostly due to the fact 

16 that the AC- to- DC conversion EPSs have secondary 

17 circuitry that allow them to go into low- power 

18 states when there is no load present on the output. 

19 Whereas AC- to- AC supplies typically do not.

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

21 engineering analysis for product classes X and H, 

22 which are the multiple- voltage and high power 

23 product classes, respectively. In the early stages 

24 of this rulemaking, DOE looked at the possibility of 

25 setting standards for non-Class A EPSs, which at 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

111

1 that time included product classes X and H, and 

2 generated a set of CSLs as well as associated costs 

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

4 purposes of this NOPR, DOE took those inputs and 

5 applied the same analytical structure that I just 

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

7 to generate the cost- efficiency curves for X and H. 

8 Only multiple voltage and high power EPSs 

9 were directly analyzed for this NOPR where medical 

10 and some motorized applications and ...detachable

11 battery EPSs were rolled into the direct operation 

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

13 and E.

14 So as I mentioned, DOE only looked at 

15 product classes X and H for this NOPR and within 

16 each product class there was only one representative 

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

18 that was a 203 watt, and -- or product class X that 

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

20 watt. The resulting cost- efficiency curves for 

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

22 increase in efficiency yielded a higher manufacturer 

23 selling price over the current baseline. However, 

24 high powered EPSs showed a negative trend from the 

25 baseline to higher order CSLs, based on test units 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

112

1 where the baseline CSL was a linear power supply and 

2 CSL-1 was a more efficient and also less costly 

3 switch- mode design.

4 So in order to create the higher ordered 

5 CSLs for the high power product class H beyond the 

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

7 345 watt representative unit to generate new best8 in- market and max tech CSLs with the associated 

9 costs. And while there was – yes.

10 MR. TAYLOR: This is Jay Taylor with 

11 Schneider Electric. When you say less costly, your 

12 CSL-1 was a switching power supply –

13 MR. SKAHAN: Yes.

14 MR. TAYLOR: -- are you just speaking from 

15 the material cost point of view?

16 MR. SKAHAN: Yes.

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

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

19 things.

20 MR. SKAHAN: Yeah. For the purposes of 

21 the engineering analysis, we look at – we take the 

22 BOM cost and mark that up to the manufacturer 

23 production cost, and finally to the manufacturer’s 

24 selling price. So for our baseline unit, that ended 

25 up being a very large and very expensive linear 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

113

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

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

3 whereas the CSL-1 was a much smaller, more 

4 efficient, power supply. So the materials cost was 

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

6 negative trend there. But we do – we do welcome 

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

8 power power supplies, as well as the methodologies 

9 for generating these higher order CSLs because the 

10 existing standard – or the standard proposed for 

11 today is based on scaled CSLs from the 120 watt 

12 representative unit.

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

14 DOE seeks comments on its methodology for generating 

15 CSL-3 and CSL-4 for high powered EPSs. No comments 

16 on CSL, the methodology for CSL-3 and CSL-4. Yes, 

17 please. Dave?

18 MR. DENKENBERGER: Dave Denkenberger,

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

20 external power supplies that were larger power? 

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

22 other –

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

24 the battery charger –

25 MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay, so –
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

114

1 MR. SKAHAN: So they were not – for 

2 consumer electronics that were just subject to 

3 external power supply regulation, DOE could only 

4 identify one consumer application and one subsequent 

5 representative unit.

6 MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. Thanks.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments here? 

8 Okay. 

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

10 to turn it to Peter Protopappas to go over the 

11 battery charger engineering analysis.

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

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

14 MR. DELFORGE: I have a comment on the 

15 engineering analysis results on the methodologies, 

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

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

18 MR. PROTOPAPPAS: Hi, Peter Protopappas 

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

20 the engineering analysis for the battery chargers, 

21 for the battery charger part of the rule. So 

22 similar to EPSs we walk through the engineering 

23 analysis in stages, beginning with choosing 

24 representative product classes based primarily on 

25 market data and volumes. And unlike the EPS rule we 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

115

1 didn’t have existing standards to base those product 

2 classes off of. Next we selected representative 

3 units in each of those product classes. We 

4 developed candidate standard levels. We’ll go 

5 through those first in terms of the different 

6 definitions, and levels. We tested and tore down 

7 representative units to evaluate the material cost 

8 associated with different energy efficiency levels. 

9 We discussed those results with manufacturers 

10 through manufacturer interviews. We then generated 

11 the final cost curves and unlike EPSs, we ended by 

12 scaling based on the range of varied energies in 

13 each product class.

14 We’ve been over these before in the 

15 earlier part of the analysis. Here are the product 

16 classes that we analyzed for the various engineering 

17 analysis. Again, they’re mostly divided by 

18 input/output type, battery energy, and then we 

19 talked – Brian talked a little bit about some of the 

20 special characteristics of product class 1 and 10, 

21 which differentiate them from the rest of the 

22 product classes.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Closer to the microphone.

24 MR. PROTOPAPPAS: Okay. So here we’re 

25 looking at the chosen representative battery energy 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

116

1 units for each of the product classes. As you can 

2 see, each representative unit has a representative 

3 voltage and battery energy, and here are some of the 

4 typical applications that we chose to represent, 

5 based on market data, those different product 

6 classes.

7 Similar to EPSs, we chose definitions for 

8 the CSLs based on those available on the market up 

9 to and including the maximum technologically

10 feasible level, in this case indicated by 

11 manufacturers and technical experts. So here, most 

12 of the – almost all of the CSLs for zero, one, and 

13 two, they were based off test data, and then we use 

14 manufacturer and technical expert data to determine 

15 the CSL-3, which in most cases is the maximum 

16 technologically feasible level. 

17 At this point in the process we began to 

18 develop – we combined the test procedure outputs to 

19 develop the unit energy consumption or UEC equation, 

20 and as stated before, that’s stated measured in 

21 kilowatt hours per year.

22 So here I’m going to begin talking about 

23 what the UEC equation, how it was developed and how 

24 it measures the unit energy consumption for battery 

25 chargers. So what we’re looking at here is a 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

117

1 typical output for a 24 hour metered charge test. 

2 Everything under the blue curve, what we’re looking 

3 at here under the blue curve, is the measured energy 

4 power over the 24 hour period, and here we’re 

5 looking at a typical 24 hour charge. From this test 

6 we’re getting three outputs: that’s the 24 hour 

7 charge energy, the maintenance mode power, and the 

8 battery energy. 

9 So the first I spoke about is that 24 hour 

10 energy. The second is the yellow dotted line which 

11 is instantaneous maintenance mode power, and we find 

12 that typically over the last five hours of the test, 

13 that’s the average power over the last five hours 

14 after the battery is done charging. And then, 

15 finally, with the secondary test we can determine 

16 that red area, which is the battery energy and 

17 that’s from the dead battery discharge test.

18 Now I’m going to go over the actual 

19 equation we used and developed to measure unit 

20 energy consumption and bear with me, because I’m 

21 going to jump back and forth between this slide and 

22 the previous slide to kind of visualize what I’m 

23 talking about.

24 So when we’re looking at this equation I 

25 want you to keep in mind that the variables that are 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

118

1 indicated by blue are products of the test 

2 procedure, and those that are indicated by red are 

3 assumptions based on usage profiles and usage data. 

4 And those are all indicated in the test procedure, 

5 there’s a table.

6 So the first part of the equation is – we 

7 talked before about the four modes of a battery 

8 charger: active mode, maintenance mode, standby 

9 mode, and off mode. Indicated by the red box here, 

10 we’re looking at active mode. I’m actually going to 

11 go back now and talk about how we can visualize 

12 active mode in this 24 hour charge test. So, I’ll 

13 try to stay close. Ideally, I’d be close to the 

14 screen. 

15 So what we’re doing in that part of the 

16 equation is we’re taking the 24 hour energy, which

17 is indicated by the blue – the entire blue area, and 

18 we’re subtracting out the average maintenance mode 

19 power, which is the instantaneous power at the 

20 yellow line multiplied by the hours that – the five 

21 hour period. So then we’re subtracting that out. 

22 And then we’re taking the battery energy part of 

23 that red box and we’re subtracting that out. So what 

24 we’re left with is the area to the left of the 

25 dotted green line, which is the active mode energy 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

119

1 minus the losses from the battery energy. So 

2 finally, that part of the equation is multiplied by 

3 N which is the number of charges per day, and we 

4 have active mode energy.

5 Similarly here, what we’re doing is we’re 

6 taking, for the maintenance mode power, taking 

7 instantaneous power and we’re multiplying by the 

8 time that the battery charger is in that mode, and 

9 that’s the – T, A, and M is the active and 

10 maintenance mode time, and we’re subtracting out the 

11 charge time which is the time that the battery 

12 charger is actually charging in active mode. And 

13 the result there is the maintenance mode power.

14 Similarly, we’re taking the – an 

15 additional test is the standby test. We’re taking 

16 the power in that mode and we’re multiplying by the 

17 time and that’s the same thing for the off mode.

18 So all of these modes together, multiplied 

19 by 365, gets us the annual energy consumption for 

20 that particular battery charger being tested.

21 During the analysis we found that there 

22 were some issues determining the time of charge for 

23 a lot of products. Because of that, we broke out 

24 that base equation into two separate equations, and 

25 one equation – and this outlined in the rulemaking 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

120

1 language – is for products that have charge and or 

2 maintenance time less than or equal to the threshold 

3 charge time, and those charge times are indicated in 

4 the rule language. The second equation is for those 

5 products that have charge or maintenance that are 

6 greater than the threshold charge time. And as 

7 you’ll see here, the TC has now been removed from 

8 the equation, which was an assumption, and we’re 

9 going with an output, which is TCD, of the test 

10 procedure. So that’s the time to completely charge

11 – a fully discharged battery. 

12 The biggest difference between these two 

13 equations as you can see is the second equation 

14 doesn’t have a part for maintenance mode, and we’ve 

15 just adjusted to scale that back to represent what 

16 the battery’s doing in the full active mode which 

17 represents the annual energy consumption in that 

18 case, which is the battery time is above the 

19 threshold charge time.

20 As a result of these equations, we then 

21 took our representative units and we plugged them in 

22 and we got representative CSL levels and 

23 corresponding watt hour per year for each of the 

24 product classes. Here we’re looking at product 

25 classes one through five. Same here, we’re looking 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

121

1 at the product classes six through ten, and here are 

2 the representative levels for the chosen 

3 representative units.

4 Next, once we determined how we were going 

5 to measure the UEC for each of the batteries, we 

6 conducted testing and tear downs. Here we purchased 

7 several battery chargers at various rated battery 

8 energies in each of the product classes. Each was 

9 tested then according to the DOE test procedure, and 

10 we got those corresponding UECs, we selected those 

11 units that were closest to each of the CSLs and we 

12 tore those down. And we tore these down along with 

13 a company called iSuppli who’s an expert in consumer 

14 products manufacturing costed BOMs. They do that by 

15 tearing down the units and then estimating the cost 

16 based on manufacturer data and industry standards. 

17 They created BOMs which essentially inventoried all 

18 components of battery chargers that affect battery 

19 charging and different efficiency levels.

20 We took that data and we entered into NDAs 

21 with various manufacturers in each of the different 

22 markets for the product classes and they provided us 

23 with additional costs for designs with specific 

24 parameters across the various energy efficiency 

25 levels. We took that data, and in most cases, we 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

122

1 used test data, however, in product classes one and

2 ten, we relied heavily on manufacturer data to 

3 produce the cost efficiency relationships.

4 Finally, we took input from manufacturers 

5 to develop in each of the product classes that 

6 maximum technology feasible level which I alluded to 

7 before. Most all CSLs up to the max level are 

8 mostly dependent on testing and tear down and 

9 manufacturer input, but the max tech is solely based 

10 on manufacturer input.

11 Another output of the discussion from the 

12 manufacturers and the costing is getting the markups 

13 – this is similar to what we talked about in the EPS 

14 part of the analysis and here you can see the 

15 average manufacturer markups for each of the product 

16 classes. And again, this is at the point – before 

17 the OEM gets the product if they aren’t producing it 

18 themselves, the same point at which we take the 

19 markup for the EPS rule.

20 During the analysis, we needed to adjust 

21 for the range of battery energies that were 

22 available in each of the product classes. So we 

23 took that representative unit and we scaled it to 

24 account for the range of battery energies that would 

25 be expected in those product classes. And the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

123

1 scaling was based on the three metrics, which is 24 

2 hour, energy maintenance mode power, and standby 

3 power.

4 So using the usage profiles, we then 

5 scaled those products up to account for the range of 

6 battery energies. In some cases, at the lower end of 

7 the battery energies, without adjusting, using a 

8 boundary condition, we found that it would be too 

9 stringent, so using this equation which was derived 

10 from the base equation, we developed a boundary 

11 condition at the lower level for each product class 

12 that was needed. As was pointed out in some of the 

13 comments, product class one and eight were not 

14 scaled and have a constant standard.

15 What we’re looking at here is a graphical 

16 representation of our scaling. As you can see to 

17 the far left, the flat lines, that’s a 

18 representation of the boundary condition that was 

19 developed from the equation I noted on the previous 

20 slide, and then to the right, based on the usage and 

21 the type of battery used, we scaled up as you can 

22 see, at increasing slope. I want to point out in 

23 this case we’re looking at product class four, and 

24 these are the proposed standards which we’ll talk 

25 about at the end of the presentation. The top line 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

124

1 and the yellow line, the green and yellow lines, are 

2 CSL-0 and 1, and in this case those are primarily 

3 nickel cadmium technologies, and the bottom two are 

4 typically lithium ion. So you can see there, we 

5 adjusted based on the different units in that 

6 product class and the different technologies to get 

7 to the various levels.

8 Towards the end of our analysis, after 

9 taking all this into consideration, we noticed that 

10 for product class 10, which the proposed level based 

11 on all the analysis is the maximum technologically 

12 feasible level, and that’s based on manufacturer 

13 input for CSL-3. We found that we were unable to 

14 test any products that performed as well as 

15 manufacturers had stated was possible. Now, we 

16 realize that this may be because of the fact that 

17 the manufacturer data that we received was not 

18 equivalent to what the DOE test procedure output. 

19 But instead we realized, or assumed, that it may be 

20 based on the power supplied directly to the battery, 

21 and not by the other functions in the unit. And in 

22 this case, we’re talking about product class 10, 

23 this is mostly uninterruptable power supplies.

24 In order to investigate and account for 

25 this discrepancy, DOE acquired additional units and 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

125

1 tested those UPSs with a slight modification to the 

2 test procedure by adding a reading for battery input 

3 power, and that battery input power is the power 

4 delivered directly to the battery from the battery 

5 terminals, as opposed to the other reading in the 

6 test procedure, which is from the wall to the unit.

7 We developed an adder and then we applied 

8 that adder to each of the product class 10 product 

9 classes, in this case we actually broke it up to 

10 those basic units which have minimal additional 

11 functionality and those 10b units which are units 

12 with automatic voltage regulation and other 

13 functionality.

14 Just to get a little bit more into how we 

15 determined this adder and how we progressed in our 

16 analysis, what we see here is our additional 

17 testing, and overlaid were the CSLs at that point in 

18 the analysis, as our data was telling us. On this 

19 graph, the yellow part of the bar represents the 

20 battery input power – that’s that additional 

21 measurement we included in the test procedure for 

22 this additional testing. The green part is the rest 

23 of the power that is measured, so the full bar is 

24 the measured test procedure metric, and the yellow 

25 bars are our additional measurement. And we’re just 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

126

1 – here is a sample of units and as you can see, the 

2 units to the far left actually confirms our 

3 assumption there that we’re basically looking at the 

4 battery input power equal to that maximum 

5 technologically feasible level that was indicated by 

6 the manufacturers.

7 So bear with me here, we’re going to get 

8 into how we developed that adder specifically. So 

9 what we’re looking at here on the top dotted line is 

10 our best in market unit, which is – actually that’s 

11 the unit that we saw in the previous slide, and that 

12 red dot is the measured test procedure level. And 

13 as I said before, we took those levels and we scaled 

14 those up based on the battery energy, so that’s why 

15 you have an increasing slope on that. Our 

16 representative battery energy level is between 60 

17 and 80, indicated by that black line. The dotted 

18 line on this graph represents the battery input 

19 power for that representative unit. As you can see 

20 it’s lower, and it’s also scaled to the same way 

21 that the dotted – the red dotted line is. That 

22 delta there is point four watts.

23 We took that point four watts and we took 

24 the manufacturer indicated maximum technology 

25 feasible energy use which was indicated by 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

127

1 manufacturers to be point two, and we applied that 

2 point four – in this case it’s a basic unit – to 

3 achieve our maximum technologically feasible level, 

4 which is indicated by that solid red line. So we 

5 did this for all the CSLs. We scaled all the CSLs 

6 based on this which is from the previous slide, and 

7 as you can see, for the red line here which is CSL8 2, we have that same red dot which indicates that 

9 that’s the market unit.

10 So now –

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Now we have – hit the –

12 MR. PROTOPAPPAS: Sorry. Here we have a 

13 comment –

14 MR. TAYLOR: This is Jay Taylor with 

15 Schneider Electric. Unfortunately, the one unit 

16 that you chose that was best in market is no longer 

17 in the market. And one out of the 12 units that 

18 were listed in the data.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: You want to say more why 

20 it’s not in the market?

21 MR. TAYLOR: Well, first of all, it’s not 

22 a Schneider product.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

24 MR. TAYLOR: So I can’t say why it is or 

25 why it was withdrawn or why it’s no longer in the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

128

1 market, I just know you can’t buy it as a new 

2 product any longer. Now, the flip side of that is 

3 we’re still back to the characteristic curve that’s 

4 been provided by this spec that no units pass. Now 

5 my assumption of AVR is VI, the equivalent of VI in 

6 62040-3, and then my assumption is also that the 

7 equivalent to non-AVR is VFD. And unless you come 

8 back – so the AVR and non-AVR constructs by DOE, 

9 they’re not used in the industry at all. So unless 

10 we come up with some kind of equivalency between the 

11 two of them, I think that these things apply, I just 

12 don’t know that they apply. But I look at the 

13 characteristic and look at the information available 

14 and with no units that pass I still question that 

15 the curve is the appropriately placed location.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Is that equivalency easily 

17 done, or is that pretty tough.

18 MR. TAYLOR: Well, we participated with 

19 California and did it. I believe that it’s just a 

20 matter of working through what we need.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Keep going.

22 MR. PROTOPAPPAS: Yeah. That concludes my 

23 presentation for the battery charger engineering 

24 analysis. Are there any other questions?

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Please, yes.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

129

1 MR. CARRERA: Pat Carrera, iRobot. You 

2 should also make a comparison study or interject 

3 there in your data, using autonomous robots, and you 

4 will see some variation there, because – so your 

5 expectations will be there. When you have 

6 autonomous robots you have motorized parts, you have 

7 sensors, and they do require more than a minimum 

8 threshold level to operate, so you will see the 

9 difference there.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Joanna, you 

11 want – please.

12 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. Going back to 

13 the equations describing the UEC, can you explain 

14 again what the difference is between TC and TCD?

15 MR. PROTOPAPPAS: TC was assumed charge 

16 time based on the – TC is an assumption based on the 

17 input from the manufacturers and the assumed time 

18 based on the voltage and the battery that that 

19 battery would take to charge. TCD is, through the 

20 test procedure, it’s an output of the test procedure 

21 and it’s a measurement of how long the battery 

22 charger is charging and when an indicator light or 

23 some other light or a drop in the data shows that 

24 that charge is no longer charging, so it’s a much 

25 closer representation of the time of charge. You 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

130

1 want to add –

2 MR. NARDOTTI: Matt Nardotti. TCD is the 

3 length of the charge in maintenance mode test, which 

4 in most cases is 24 hours, that’s by default of the 

5 test procedure.

6 MS. MAUER: So it’s not the time to charge 

7 -- to fully charge the battery?

8 MR. NARDOTTI: No.

9 MS. MAUER: Okay. 

10 MR. NARDOTTI: It’s the length of that 

11 test.

12 MS. MAUER: To charge the battery is not 

13 an output of the test procedure.

14 MR. NARDOTTI: Right, exactly.

15 MS. MAUER: So the description of TCD as 

16 time to completely charge a fully discharged battery 

17 is – is that what it’s describing?

18 MR. NARDOTTI: TCD should be – so that 

19 should be changed to say the time – the duration of 

20 the charge in maintenance mode test. So our slide 

21 is incorrect.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Matt, repeat it one more

23 time. It should say –

24 MR. NARDOTTI: The TCD is the duration of 

25 the charge in maintenance mode test. And if you 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

131

1 look in the rule language section, TCD is described 

2 there, and that’s an appropriate – you can find out 

3 what that value is from 5.2 in the test procedure, 

4 Appendix 1.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay? Ken.

6 MR. RIDER: Yes, Ken Rider. And I have a 

7 question. Your representative units, especially in 

8 – well, I think for every representative unit, were 

9 pretty distant in terms of battery capacity –

10 MR. PROTOPAPPAS: Are we looking here?

11 MR. RIDER: Sure, that’s a good thing to 

12 look at. So you can see that the capacity of the 

13 batteries for representative units were pretty 

14 fairly evenly spaced, and I was just wondering, in 

15 choosing a representative unit, was there a lot of 

16 overlap in – I guess the product classes are 

17 differentiated by voltage, and I’m just wondering if 

18 you were to differentiate 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 by battery 

19 capacity, how much overlap – how many products would 

20 get shoved from one category to another.

21 MR. PROTOPAPPAS: By battery capacity?

22 MR. RIDER: Yes. So right now –

23 MR. PROTOPAPPAS: You’re talking about the 

24 ampere rating of the battery?

25 MR. RIDER: The watt-hour rating 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

132

1 determined by the test procedure, and you have –

2 currently, if it’s a certain voltage that’s how you 

3 determine whether you’re class 2, 3, or 4, and 

4 between 5 and 6 as well, so however, you notice that 

5 the representative units have a large spread around 

6 battery capacity. So I’m just wondering if you were 

7 to use battery capacity instead of voltage to 

8 determine product class, if that would upset the 

9 representative units that you chose, or if you would 

10 end up with the same representative units.

11 MR. PROTOPAPPAS: I don’t have an answer 

12 right now, but I think it’s something that we can 

13 look into.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Daniel, you have –

15 you want to use that microphone? Daniel has 

16 something that came in from a person on the web.

17 MR. LAUF: Daniel Lauf from D&R. The 

18 comment is from Larry Albert, and it’s regarding the 

19 battery charger. So the test procedure uses the 

20 last four hours to determine maintenance power. But 

21 the equation displayed uses five hours of 

22 maintenance power. So – when this is backed out –

23 do you have any comments on that?

24 MR. PROTOPAPPAS: I’ll let Matt respond.

25 MR. NARDOTTI: So I can comment on that. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

133

1 And the reason – this is Matt Nardotti from Navigant 

2 – and the reason we backed out five hours of 

3 maintenance mode is because if you look at the test 

4 procedure in 5.2, the assumption is to run the test 

5 – like if a manufacturer has an indicator light, you 

6 run a test for an initial five hours after that 

7 product’s indicator light comes on, or if you have 

8 to calculate the duration of the test, you calculate 

9 the time to charge a product plus an additional five 

10 hours. So, when you have your E24 measurement, that 

11 should be – that consumes – five hours of that 

12 portion of the test is in maintenance mode, assumed 

13 to be in maintenance mode. It’s just that the last 

14 four hours are used to determine what the 

15 maintenance mode power is. So that the unit is 

16 actually in maintenance mode for five hours, but 

17 four hours of the test is what’s used.

18 MR. LAUF: Okay. 

19 MR. NARDOTTI: Does that make sense?

20 MR. LAUF: Yeah.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: That makes sense to me. 

22 Okay. Let’s see, Alex first, and then to Dave.

23 MR. BOESENBERG: I have a question also 

24 about the UEC calculation, to make sure that I 

25 didn’t zone out. This is for all product classes?
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

134

1 MR. PROTOPAPPAS: Correct.

2 MR. BOESENBERG: Okay. And so you said 

3 365, that is – that is your equation for estimated 

4 annual energy --

5 MR. PROTOPAPPAS: Correct.

6 MR. BOESENBERG: -- use and savings? 

7 Particularly for the product classes that include 

8 power tools, just a personal observation – I never 

9 charge my cordless drill every day. So has the DOE 

10 included any scaling factors for products that are 

11 not charged every day?

12 MR. PROTOPAPPAS: I think when you look at 

13 usage in each product class, they vary, and they 

14 vary by user.

15 MR. NARDOTTI: So this is Matt Nardotti 

16 again. Our usage profiles that were developed – and 

17 I think Dan will get into this a little bit later, 

18 we have one usage profile, which is – one usage 

19 profile for each product class, and that was a 

20 weighted assumption of each mode of – time spent in 

21 each mode of operation for the entire application 

22 set for that product class.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Are you saying Alex, the 

24 interpretation is not as simple as that? You’ve 

25 done a profile and –
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

135

1 MR. NARDOTTI: Right. So for product 

2 class 4, there’s lap tops that spend a certain 

3 amount of time in each mode of operation. There’s 

4 power tools that spend – they have a different usage 

5 profile. And so we weight the usage profiles.

6 MR. BOESENBERG: Okay. So your answer to 

7 my final question is yes?

8 MR. NARDOTTI: Yes.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Dave, go ahead.

10 MR. DENKENBERGER: Dave Denkenberger. So 

11 the point four watt adder, are you saying this is 

12 the difference between automatic voltage regulation 

13 and not? Peter?

14 MR. PROTOPAPPAS: Correct.

15 MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay, so –

16 MR. PROTOPAPPAS: No, I’m sorry. It’s the 

17 difference between our – the point four is the 

18 difference – is representing basically the other 

19 functionality which may not have been considered 

20 when we talked about point two as a max tech level. 

21 So there is – there is a difference. I don’t have 

22 both of them up here, but the AVR CSLs are shifted 

23 based on the average difference in the AVR. Off the 

24 top of my head I don’t know exactly how we shifted 

25 it, but if you look at the equations which were 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

136

1 represented earlier, and we’ll see later, there are 

2 two different equations for AVR and for basic units.

3 MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. But for a UPS 

4 without automatic voltage regulation, then your 

5 representative unit analysis would apply?

6 MR. PROTOPAPPAS: Correct.

7 MR. DENKENBERGER: So your max tech, CSL8 3, is point one seven (.17) watts, correct? I think 

9 it was listed –

10 MR. PROTOPAPPAS: At the representative 

11 unit, yes. It’s where that line crosses, so –

12 MR. NARDOTTI: This is Matt, at point two, 

13 that’s the point one seven (.17), right. Before we 

14 did the adder, that’s the CSL that we had at max 

15 tech.

16 MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. So you’re saying 

17 that even for a UPS without AVR, there is an adder, 

18 correct?

19 MR. NARDOTTI: Yes, and that’s represented 

20 by –

21 MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. And there’s a 

22 different adder when you add AVR?

23 MR. NARDOTTI: Exactly.

24 MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. And you’re 

25 saying so that is why your CSL representative unit 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

137

1 has about 1.5 kilowatt hours per year, whereas your 

2 standard is about 5 kilowatt hours per year.

3 MR. NARDOTTI: Correct.

4 MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Matt says yes. Okay. 

6 Thanks, Matt. Ric.

7 MR. ERDHEIM: Ric Erdheim with Philips. I 

8 wanted to follow up on Matt’s response on usage 

9 profiles. So you do have usage profiles for the 

10 different products, and then you combine the usage 

11 profiles in the various categories, correct?

12 MR. BROOKMAN: He says yes.

13 MR. ERDHEIM: Matt says yes. So when you 

14 look at slide 39, 56 percent of all the EPSs are in 

15 Class B and when you look at slide 41, 57 percent of 

16 all the battery chargers are in product class 2. 

17 And so the question I have is, even though you’re 

18 using the usage profiles, by averaging so many 

19 different products, do you wind up – you’re doing 

20 the average, but you’re not dealing with products 

21 that are more unique or extreme. In other words, 

22 are we dealing with a situation where the person’s 

23 average body temperature is 98.6, but he died.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: You’ll have to repeat the 

25 question, I think.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

138

1 MR. ERDHEIM: Oh, God. It was a long 

2 question.

3 MR. PROTOPAPPAS: We could also push this 

4 to the usage profile –

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Peter, go ahead.

6 MR. PROTOPAPPAS: If you’d like we could 

7 push this discussion to the usage profile section.

8 MR. ERDHEIM: That’s fine. I was actually 

9 going to ask the question then, but Matt got into it 

10 now, so we can defer that.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s defer that, then. 

12 Okay. Jeff.

13 MR. HAILEY: Just one comment on the NOPR, 

14 that the UEC equations given give you an output in 

15 watt-hours per year, and yet your limits are in 

16 kilowatt hours per year. And some of our 

17 counterparts have looked at that and scratched their 

18 heads, going, this doesn’t make sense. So, it would 

19 be good if you could scale the UEC equations 

20 appropriately to give an output in kilowatt hours 

21 per year.

22 MR. PROTOPAPPAS: That’s something we’ll 

23 take into account.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: I see several heads around 

25 the room, nodding in agreement with that statement. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

139

1 Ken?

2 MR. SALAETS: I was just going to say 

3 divide by 1000 on the equation, and that’s in the 

4 NOPR as well.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks. Do we have 

6 more from the web? Daniel, please, go ahead. And 

7 Pierre, shall we cue you here, is this a good time?

8 MR. DELFORGE: I mean it depends on what 

9 snags – are we going to discuss the results of the 

10 engineering analysis, I think that would be more 

11 appropriate.

12 MR. PROTOPAPPAS: The results are 

13 presented at the end of the presentation.

14 MR. DELFORGE: So I think I would rather 

15 you go now.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Daniel.

17 MR. LAUF: This is Dan Lauf again from 

18 D&R, and the comment is from Dan Jackal on the 

19 webinar. He points out that the UEC equations 

20 presented may be slightly different than what’s 

21 actually in the NOPR, and that there may be some 

22 parentheticals added. So, unless you have any 

23 specific comments, now it may be something to look 

24 into later to verify.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. I’m still not clear. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

140

1 Do you want to present now?

2 MR. DELFORGE: Yes, please.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Can you cue Pierre’s 

4 slides? You want to present from there? And Emily 

5 will advance your slides.

6 MR. NARDOTTI: Can I just address that 

7 comment that came in? Doug?

8 MR. DELFORGE: Slide 3 please.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Slide 3. 

10 MR. NARDOTTI: Doug, can I just address 

11 that –

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. One thing 

13 from Matt.

14 MR. NARDOTTI: So this is Matt Nardotti 

15 again. In the NOPR there is a discussion where we 

16 walked through the evolution of the UEC equation, 

17 however, in the rule language, there are two 

18 equations which are the exact same equations that 

19 Peter just presented on the second slide, and those 

20 are the ones that will be used. But there is – we 

21 walk through why that’s evolved and getting into the 

22 charge time issue that Peter alluded to. 

23 PARTICIPANT: (comment off mic)

24 MR. NARDOTTI: Well the NOPR’s not 

25 incorrect, it just goes through how it’s changed. I 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

141

1 think the issue is the NOPR summary that was 

2 originally released had no parentheses, but then the 

3 TSD did have those parentheses.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: And you guys didn’t think 

5 they were looking at this stuff.

6 (Laughter.)

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks for that 

8 clarification, it’s very helpful. Now, Pierre, 

9 you’re on. Go ahead.

10 MR. DELFORGE: Thank you. I want to 

11 comment on the LCC which results from the 

12 engineering analysis. This is from the TSD and it 

13 shows that for the 60 watt power supplies, the LCC 

14 is negative, and we believe the reason it is 

15 negative is because of the cost curve, and this is 

16 just plotting data from the TSD Page 182. If you 

17 look at the cost curve, in blue, for 60 watts power 

18 supplies, that’s above the baseline. To reach 88 

19 percent efficiency the cost is $1.30, but the same 

20 cost curve for 120 watts is around thirty cents, so 

21 there’s a $1.00 difference here, which doesn’t make 

22 sense unless the data assumes that the 120 watt 

23 already has a different topology ... specification, 

24 and we don’t believe this is necessary to include 

25 that. So as a result, I think we are over-
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

142

1 estimating the cost of 60 watts – the cost of 

2 efficiency for 60 watt power supplies.

3 So if we look at the 120 watt curve, which 

4 we believe is much more representative of the cost 

5 of increasing efficiency of these power supplies 

6 would be that the LCC for 60 watt power supplies 

7 would be positive. And not only would it be 

8 positive, but I think by using that cost curve, we 

9 think that we could increase the level cost 

10 effectively, and if you look at the difference – and 

11 this is again from the TSD, between CSL-3 and CSL-4, 

12 there’s a large difference between these two CSLs. 

13 We think that CSL-3 is not the most stringent level 

14 which is cost-effective.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: CSL-3 is red.

16 MR. DELFORGE: The red line, yes. And we 

17 could have CSL-3.5, higher than CSL-3, which could 

18 be cost-effective. 

19 So this looks at the data from the test 

20 data from the TSD, and the data points that are 

21 circled are the best in market units for 60 watt 

22 power supplies. And these represent the Energy Star 

23 V2 plus about one percent margin on level five, plus 

24 one percent margin. But it’s not represented cost25 effective threshold in the market. We say that it 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

143

1 should be based not just on these levels, but on a 

2 high level of cost-effectiveness.

3 What we propose based on this 120 watt 

4 cost curve, is to test the CSL-3 at both 80.5 and 89 

5 percent efficiency, and based on this curve, we 

6 believe that at least at 80.5, and possibly at 89 

7 percent levels should be cost-effective. Thank you. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Are there 

9 questions on anything that Pierre presented. Yes –

10 you have to find a microphone –

11 PARTICIPANT: (off mic) That’s all right, 

12 I just wonder if he could clarify the acronyms.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Clarify the acronyms, 

14 Pierre?

15 MR. DELFORGE: The TSD, technical support 

16 documents. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Technical support document, 

18 Chapter 5, Page 182 – it may be hard to read from 

19 the back of the room. Ari.

20 MR. REEVES: Ari Reeves, D&R. Pierre, I 

21 just wanted to see – are you suggesting that DOE 

22 should look at a CSL that is above CSL-3 across all 

23 the nameplate output powers?

24 MR. DELFORGE: Yes.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks. That’s 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

144

1 good. Now, we’re still considering, on slide 90, 

2 this issue for comment. Comment on its methodology 

3 for generating product class 10, CSLs based on 

4 battery input power, and input from manufacturers. 

5 Additional comments? That was quite a methodology, 

6 I have to say. Quite extensive. Additional

7 comments on this? Ken.

8 MR. RIDER: Just a point of clarification. 

9 Will this require modification to the test 

10 procedure, and would this portion be to consider 

11 these adders, would it be done in the form of a 

12 standard, or would it be done in the test procedure 

13 in Appendix Y?

14 MR. BROOKMAN: I’m not sure –

15 MR. RIDER: This new measurement – they 

16 discussed a new measurement.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, I’m not sure who here 

18 might address that.

19 MR. PETROLATI: Let me start for 

20 addressing that. The reason that the adder was put 

21 in, Ken, was that we do realize that there is a 

22 problem in the test procedure in that the test 

23 procedure incorporates in its measure, measurement 

24 of this additional functionality in this particular 

25 product class. The perfect solution, of course, if 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

145

1 we could find it, would be to revise the test 

2 procedure such that additional functionality is not 

3 measured. We’re not certain at this point how to do 

4 it, but we are taking that into account currently in 

5 this process through the standard. And, Matt, is 

6 there anything else that you want to add to that? 

7 Okay. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: So, Jeff, please.

9 MR. HAILEY: Yes, so as part of industry, 

10 we’ve had a discussion within ITI, in the energy 

11 working group within ITI, about the flaws in the 

12 battery charging test procedure and it comes exactly 

13 around to that, that it does not comprehend other 

14 functions that may be on there. And there are also 

15 some other shortcomings in the assumptions that 

16 products can charge whenever it’s in an off mode. 

17 So we would very much like to see the test procedure 

18 modified to comprehend that there are other 

19 functions within the charger. You can’t isolate the 

20 charger, in many cases, so I just want to go on 

21 record as having said that. And we’ve had that 

22 discussion with California, and we’re getting there 

23 here, and specifically the Class 10, I think it’s 

24 really very apparent.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Vic.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

146

1 MR. PETROLATI: Yes, and just to follow up 

2 on that. We want your comments as to how that test 

3 procedure should be revised to eliminate this 

4 additional functionality, and whether or not it can 

5 be performed properly under those circumstances. 

6 Thank you. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Ric.

8 MR. ERDHEIM: I have a question going back 

9 to the slides – the external power supplies with the 

10 DOE estimate of EPS markups.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s go back to that 

12 slide. Which one is it?

13 MR. ERDHEIM: I think it’s slide 64.

14 MR. PROTOPAPPAS: I’ll go back, but I 

15 think this is for Chris.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Maybe you can 

17 address it. Ask your question.

18 MR. ERDHEIM: So, I’d just like some 

19 clarification as to the nomenclature up there and 

20 when you guys obtain these cost estimates, as far as 

21 what the markups would be, was that – how is that 

22 based as far as volume of units that were quoted, 

23 and the volumes and stuff, and I guess my real 

24 question is, if this is based on millions of units 

25 when you’re talking a price markup. You know, not 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

147

1 all manufacturers and not all products are going to 

2 be sold in those types of quantities, so that 

3 drastically affects your pricing and your markups. 

4 And also I’m curious as far as on your retailer to 

5 consumer, there seems to be some indication that the 

6 costs that were used were not the actual retail, but 

7 they were cost that the manufacturer sold them to. 

8 I was wondering why that was.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Chris.

10 MR. SKAHAN: This is Chris Skahan. So 

11 there are a couple different things in your question 

12 there. First of all, in terms of volumes, all the 

13 markups along that chain were derived based on the 

14 markups with several different manufacturers, 

15 usually producing products in the millions, like you 

16 talked about, especially with BOM to the ODM markup, 

17 or the BOM to MPC markup. And this is actually 

18 going to get addressed a little bit later in the 

19 downstream in more depth. 

20 And I guess to your second point, about 

21 the retail cost, the engineering analysis, like I 

22 said, only goes to the manufacturers selling price, 

23 which is the price that the OEM pays the ODM for the 

24 power supply. Like I said, the retail and those 

25 markups to consumers, for one, it’s hard to 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

148

1 determine the retail price of a power supply because 

2 it’s ultimately sold with the product that it 

3 powers. There’s only a couple of instances where 

4 you can actually do that effectively. But those 

5 markups are considered, again, in the downstream 

6 analysis. So for the purpose of the engineering, we 

7 only go to the OEM price.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Ric.

9 MR. ERDHEIM: So when you’re taking those 

10 numbers, though, and you’re doing a cost benefit to 

11 the consumer, you actually have to take the cost 

12 that the consumer’s going to be paying for the 

13 product.

14 MR. SKAHAN: Yes.

15 MR. ERDHEIM: And was that done?

16 MR. SKAHAN: Yes. But not in the 

17 engineering. Later.

18 MR. ERDHEIM: Okay. Thanks.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: So, Rick, and anybody else 

20 in the room, if you have different numbers, I’m sure 

21 the Department would like to see that. So more 

22 detail on this later.

23 I’d like to close on this segment and take 

24 final comments on this issue if there’s anything 

25 else to be said, because it’s just about time for us 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

149

1 to go to lunch, and we’ve really made a tremendous 

2 amount of progress this morning. We’re a little bit 

3 behind schedule, but the quality of the comment and 

4 the exchange has been excellent. So I thank you for 

5 that. It’s now almost 12:30. It takes just about 

6 an hour to eat and get back here. I’ll give 

7 instructions on that in just a moment. So let’s 

8 resume at 1:30 here in this room. You can leave 

9 your stuff in this room. This room will be locked 

10 up or supervised. You may – the best place to go is 

11 to go down to the ground floor and walk about 100 

12 yards that way to there’s a big cafeteria. There’s 

13 also a subway sandwich shop right where the coffee 

14 shop is, almost directly below us on the ground 

15 floor.

16 You need to wear this badge. You might 

17 need to have an ID to get back through security as 

18 you reenter from the cafeteria into the Forrestal 

19 Building proper. Maybe, maybe not. Hard to say. 

20 You will have to clear through a screening x-ray 

21 machine. Scanner, thank you. I think that’s it. 

22 We’ll resume at 1:30. Don’t leave. Don’t go off 

23 campus, stay close by, because you won’t get back in 

24 time. And we’ll see you back here. Leave stuff 

25 here.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

150

1 (Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the meeting in 

2 the above captioned matter was adjourned for lunch 

3 recess, to reconvene at 1:37 p.m.)

4 AFTERNOON SESSION

5 1:37 p.m.

6 Energy Use and Markups Analysis

7 MR. LAUF: Hello and welcome back from 

8 lunch. My name is Dan Lauf and I am with D&R 

9 International. Today, I am going to talk to you 

10 about the energy use analysis. The energy use 

11 analysis draws on product class level data from the 

12 engineering analysis and application level data from

13 the market assessment, along with usage assumptions 

14 made specifically for this analysis. The outputs of 

15 the analysis are annual energy consumption estimates 

16 for battery chargers and external power supplies for 

17 each application and product class. Annual energy 

18 consumption is also referred to as unit energy 

19 consumption – or UEC – and is measured in kilowatt 

20 hours per year. All of the assumptions are outlined 

21 in chapter 7 of the TSD and in the energy use 

22 workbook on DOE’s website.

23 DOE did not change its methodology for the 

24 NOPR, but it did make a number of changes to its 

25 usage profile assumptions – particularly where new 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

151

1 data was available. Data for these usage 

2 assumptions – which I will explain later – is from a 

3 variety of sources, including published reports, 

4 stakeholder input, and DOE assumptions. There has 

5 been some question about the accuracy of DOE’s usage 

6 assumptions, but since DOE found empirical data on 

7 40% of applications, which represent 80% of annual 

8 BCEPS energy consumption, it is confident in its 

9 assumptions. A complete list of the assumptions 

10 that DOE made is available in the Excel workbook 

11 available at the link on this slide.

12 Now I will walk through the overall 

13 approach to calculating energy use for BCs and EPSs. 

14 BCs and EPSs are unique in that they are power 

15 conversion devices and not typically the end-use 

16 products. Thus, energy consumption for BCs and EPSs 

17 is the difference between the energy that flows into 

18 the BC or EPS and the energy that flows out to the 

19 application or battery.

20 BC and EPS energy use is a function of a 

21 couple of inputs, including the power requirements 

22 of the battery or application, consumer usage 

23 patterns, and the efficiency of the BC or EPS. Power 

24 requirements were determined in the engineering 

25 analysis and usage patterns were estimated in the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

152

1 energy use analysis. DOE assumes that use does not 

2 vary with efficiency, so there is no take-back or 

3 rebound effect.

4 To illustrate how energy consumption is 

5 calculated, I will go through two examples – one for 

6 EPSs and one for BCs. For EPSs, the application we 

7 will look at is notebook computers. And I’ll run 

8 through the various inputs that we used and then sum 

9 up with how DOE goes about calculating energy 

10 consumption. So the first two inputs that we have 

11 for EPSs are what are known as application states 

12 and loading points. These are important because the 

13 nameplate output power of an EPS illustrates the 

14 maximum amount of power that that EPS can provide to 

15 an application. But it’s important to note that the 

16 application rarely requires, if ever, that much 

17 power. The amount of power that it actually 

18 requires from the EPS is dictated by how it’s used 

19 at any given moment. So those are the application 

20 states.

21 So you can see here, when a laptop is 

22 charging the battery and actively operating, it 

23 requires – and we got this from test data – it 

24 requires about 66 percent of the nameplate output 

25 power of the EPS. Whereas, if it’s in sleep mode, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

153

1 it only requires 1.6 percent.

2 DOE then makes assumptions of how these 

3 products are used. There’s been a little bit of 

4 confusion about that these usage profiles are 

5 intended to represent, so I’ll clarify by saying, 

6 they’re not – for each application, they’re not 

7 intended to necessarily represent any specific user. 

8 They’re intended to represent the average across all 

9 users. And sometimes DOE does this by looking at 

10 multiple user types and taking some sort of a 

11 weighted average. It did do this in this case with 

12 notebook computers. You can see we had one 

13 published source that identified two user types for 

14 notebooks, one user type that usually leaves their 

15 notebook plugged in, and the other that usually 

16 unplugs their notebooks, possibly for travel or 

17 other reasons. 

18 DOE assumed that 40 percent of notebook 

19 users fell in the former case, and 60 percent in the 

20 latter case. So you can see their unique usage 

21 profile estimates. These are measured in hours, and 

22 the total usage profile for any EPS should sum up to 

23 168 hours which are the number of hours in a week. 

24 And so we have an estimate for the amount of time 

25 that the EPS is providing power to the application 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

154

1 in each application state as well as the amount of 

2 time in no load mode and in unplugged mode. Taking 

3 an average of these two user types, using a weighted 

4 average usage profile which you can see on the 

5 right, that’s the usage profile that DOE used for 

6 its analysis. 

7 DOE has a couple of efficiency metrics 

8 that we received through the engineering analysis, 

9 so these were discussed earlier in the day. You can 

10 see we have active mode efficiency, which increases 

11 as the CSL or the efficiency level increases, which 

12 makes sense, and no load power decreases. 

13 So to summarize those inputs, EPSs are 

14 categorized by nameplate output power. Multiplying 

15 that output power by the loading point yields the 

16 power requirements of the EPS at any given 

17 application state. The EPS’s efficiency then 

18 determines the amount of power that’s lost in the 

19 conversion process. That power loss is essentially 

20 the consumption of the EPS. And then usage profiles 

21 tell us how long the EPS spends in any given 

22 application state. So basically, the product of 

23 these yield the UEC or that no energy consumption. 

24 These were analyzed values for each application 

25 state. By summing down across all the application 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

155

1 states, we have an estimate of the annual energy 

2 consumption of the EPS, and we do this for each CSL. 

3 And as you can see, and as is to be expected, the 

4 annual energy consumption declines as the efficiency 

5 level increases.

6 So I’ll now turn to battery chargers and 

7 describe a fairly similar concept. So for each 

8 application for battery chargers, DOE estimates the 

9 number of chargers per day, the time spent in 

10 active, maintenance, no battery or standby, and off 

11 modes. And then combines –

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, we have a question.

13 MR. LAUF: Sure.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Please say your name.

15 MR. SHEIKH: Shahid from Intel. On your 

16 previous slide, could you go back, please? Was this 

17 duty cycle based on some study?

18 MR. LAUF: The usage profiles were. So 

19 you're talking about these, and they were based on a 

20 published study, and again, where possible we used 

21 empirical data.

22 MR. SHEIKH: Is this based on residential 

23 only or enterprise notebooks too?

24 MR. LAUF: I believe the study focused on 

25 notebook use in general, but because we have the two 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

156

1 user types, we adapted it to our interpretation of 

2 how a residential user –

3 MR. SHEIKH: The study is quoted 

4 somewhere?

5 MR. LAUF: Yes, it’s a study that was put 

6 out by NRDC, and the link that I had earlier in the 

7 presentation to the UEC Workbook outlines all of the 

8 studies that DOE looked at and the assumptions that 

9 it gathered from those studies. It also shows the 

10 situations where data wasn’t available, and DOE 

11 needed to make an assumption, so of course – any 

12 data for any application is very much appreciated.

13 MR. SHEIKH: Thank you. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Rick, go ahead.

15 MR. HABBEN: Rick from Wahl. On your next 

16 slide, well, the slide that has the CSLs, when you 

17 determined –

18 MR. BROOKMAN: EPS or BC?

19 MR. HABBEN: For the EPSs. How do you –

20 how do you determine what the CSL levels are? I 

21 mean, how is that – is that a percentage that they 

22 go up in –

23 MR. LAUF: What do you mean what the CSL 

24 levels are? I had to reidentify those efficiency 

25 metrics.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

157

1 MR. HABBEN: Yeah, how do you determine, 

2 you know, how much more efficient a CSL-2 should be 

3 versus a three?

4 MR. LAUF: So that was described a little 

5 bit earlier in the engineering analysis, and I’ll 

6 actually defer to Chris if he’s available.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, go on.

8 MR. SKAHAN: This is Chris Skahan, 

9 Navigant. So the CSLs, I did actually, I went 

10 through that in the engineering analysis. But CSL-0 

11 – I’ll just walk through them – is based on the 

12 current EISA standard. CSL-1 was based on the 

13 Energy Star program that EPA had for external power 

14 supplies. CSL-2 is an intermediate level that we 

15 determined based on test data between CSL-1 and CSL16 3. CSL-3 is the best- in- market unit, the unit 

17 that we tested, it was the most efficient unit that 

18 we could find. And then CSL-4 was based on 

19 manufacturer input, so the maximum technology 

20 feasible efficiency level that manufacturers gave us 

21 for every single rep unit.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Jeff, you want to 

23 get in here?

24 MR. HAILEY: Jeff Hailey. If you go to 

25 slide 95, you identified these stages. You said 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

158

1 this was taken empirically. What was your sample 

2 set to determine this? And I am assuming we have 

3 similar sample sets for all of the various usage 

4 models you have, but I’m just curious about how 

5 large your sample set was.

6 MR. LAUF: Again, that’s something that 

7 I’d defer to Chris to answer this – Chris, do you 

8 know that off-hand? How many notebooks we tested?

9 MR. SKAHAN: Maybe we can dig that out.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

11 MR. LAUF: Then I can tell you that we do 

12 have – that DOE tested a couple of different 

13 products to get a general idea for how those loading 

14 points work in different – you’re talking about 

15 loading point values or –

16 MR. HABBEN: Correct, and if you took a 

17 sample size of two, that may not be very 

18 representative. I was hoping to hear you took a 

19 sample size of 20 to 30 products to come up with 

20 these numbers. And you said a couple, so that 

21 concerns me that these may not be representative.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Chris, please.

23 MR. SKAHAN: This is Chris Skahan. Yes, 

24 it was part of what I was trying to convey with the 

25 engineering, is that we had a specific list of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

159

1 criteria for selecting the representative units that 

2 we chose, as well as associated applications. And I 

3 had a small sample set – those black dots, if you 

4 remember, those were all tested data points. So 

5 there was a significant amount of testing done for 

6 each representative unit and a specific application. 

7 I can assure you there’s more than two units. So 

8 yes, there was a significant sample size. What it 

9 is, I don’t remember off hand.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Your analysis says that 

11 these were statistically significant sample sizes.

12 MR. SKAHAN: Yes.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Ken – pardon 

14 me, Pierre.

15 MR. DELFORGE: Just a quick comment, if 

16 you could go back to the notebook load points. We 

17 have recent data by Energy Star, by EPA on Energy 

18 Star-6, which shows some loading point for idle, 

19 which is a good proxy for normal operation, which is 

20 significantly lower than 28 percent. I think most 

21 of it is between 10 to 20 percent.

22 MR. LAUF: Okay. And that would be – if 

23 there is more data like that, the Department would 

24 appreciate seeing it, we can incorporate it into the 

25 analysis. So, thank you.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

160

1 MR. SHEIKH: One more question.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes.

3 MR. SHEIKH: Shahid from Intel again. On 

4 slide number 96, so what you show here is – trying 

5 to clarify – is the number of hours per week spent 

6 in charging the battery and using unplugged versus 

7 plugged, is that how you read it?

8 MR. LAUF: Yes, not just charging the 

9 battery, but in any of the possible applications 

10 it’s used for.

11 MR. SHEIKH: No, no. It’s an example, 

12 charging the battery, when you are unplugged, 

13 usually unplugged, you’re spending 5.75 hours per 

14 week, and then you’re plugged, usually plugged in, 

15 you’re spending 1.13 hours per week?

16 MR. LAUF: Yes, so for each of these 

17 possible user types, and they were described in the 

18 report as – or we described them as a user typically 

19 plugs in their application, versus when they 

20 typically unplug. So, it’s two user types who use 

21 their battery charger or use their application in 

22 different ways, so the left column describes the 

23 usage patterns for one user type. The column in the 

24 middle describes the usage pattern for a different 

25 user type, so there will be some variation there. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

161

1 Taking the average of the two, or the weighted 

2 average of the two leads to an assumed –

3 MR. SHEIKH: So a user who is unplugged is 

4 spending more time charging the battery?

5 MR. LAUF: Yes.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Brian.

7 MR. BOOHER: We have a question here from 

8 the webinar from Richard Hodson. Can you please 

9 describe the no load condition further? Is it that 

10 the laptop power adapter is connected to the wall 

11 but no laptop connected?

12 MR. LAUF: Yes.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So, keep going, 

14 you’re doing good.

15 MR. LAUF: So now I’ll proceed to battery 

16 chargers. As I mentioned, DOE has a couple of 

17 inputs to this analysis, including the usage profile 

18 in item one, which I already described. And then a 

19 number of energy consumption metrics that were 

20 derived in the engineering analysis, and those were 

21 discussed earlier. I’ll run through them again very 

22 quickly. So this is the usage profile for battery 

23 chargers for notebooks, once again. It’s from a 

24 different source, but it is consistent with the 

25 other source that we saw, and you can see here we 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

162

1 have an estimate of the number of charges per day, 

2 the active plus maintenance mode in hours per day,

3 no battery mode, off mode, and unplugged mode. And 

4 again, this is all measured in hours per day for 

5 battery chargers, rather than hours per week. So, 

6 of course, summing down would give 24 hours.

7 We then have a couple of energy 

8 consumption metrics again from the energy analyses. 

9 Feel free to stop me if you have any questions, 

10 although I’ll go through them and describe them 

11 quickly since they were explained earlier. We have 

12 24 hour energy consumption; charge time measured in 

13 hours, battery energy in watt-hours; maintenance 

14 power in watts; and no battery power also in watts, 

15 and these vary depending on the CSL that we’re 

16 looking at. And once again, it’s the usage profile 

17 that remains constant across efficiency levels.

18 So the equation that we use to combine 

19 these – if you want to refer back to it, they’re on 

20 slides I believe, 77 and 78 in your handout, and 

21 they yield these estimates for unit energy 

22 consumption by mode of operation and summing across 

23 those gives a total estimate of unit energy 

24 consumption, or annual energy consumption for 

25 battery chargers at each efficiency level. Yes.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

163

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead.

2 MR. RIDER: This is Ken Rider, California 

3 Energy Commission. Two questions on what you just 

4 showed. On the slide before this, your no batter 

5 power for CSL-2 and 3 – for 3, the no battery power 

6 was increased. Can you explain what the rationale 

7 is behind that? And also – well, let’s get to that 

8 then I’ll ask the second question.

9 MR. LAUF: So the rationale – Matt, do you 

10 want to take this? He’s asking why the no battery 

11 power for CSLs 2 and 3, why it increased in 3?

12 MR. NARDOTTI: I would have to go back and 

13 look at the TSD write up in that section.

14 MR. RIDER: But it would be contained in 

15 the –

16 MR. NARDOTTI: It should be in the TSD.

17 MR. RIDER: Okay. All right. Second 

18 question I wanted to ask is you have the total UEC 

19 numbers calculated using the duty cycle and the 

20 assumed performance that you just presented. 

21 MR. LAUF: Yes.

22 MR. RIDER: So you’ve got a different 

23 equation for actually calculating UEC for the 

24 standard. What would the standard outputs be for –

25 or I guess I’m wondering – these aren’t the same 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

164

1 results that you’d get from the standards equation, 

2 right?

3 MR. LAUF: It’s my understanding that the 

4 difference is for this analysis since we’re -- what 

5 we’re looking for analytical purposes at the 

6 specific usage profiles for the application, so we 

7 don’t have that one usage profile that’s applied for 

8 the product class. So that would be – the bigger 

9 difference here is that the usage profile inputs are 

10 specific to each application. And the energy use 

11 metric, which I showed on the previous slide, are 

12 specific to each product class.

13 MR. RIDER: I guess I’m wondering how does 

14 that translate, when you’re doing this, you know, 

15 national impact, and then you’re having a different 

16 requirement actually – you’re not actually requiring 

17 this level, you’re doing this other equation, how 

18 you can show that you’re going to get to these 

19 levels given that you’re playing a different UEC 

20 requirement than what’s presented here for CSLs zero 

21 through three.

22 MR. LAUF: And the coefficients – the 

23 usage coefficients that are meant to be used for 

24 compliance are really supposed to be representatives 

25 of the average use across a product class. So, they 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

165

1 don’t necessarily need to be looked at as 

2 representative of any specific use, but really as 

3 coefficients that should be used to determine 

4 whether or not a product is in compliance with the 

5 standard. And then for the national impact 

6 analysis, since we’re looking – this really comes 

7 before that, and it’s the usage impact – inputs for 

8 each application that we’re --

9 MR. RIDER: Okay. Maybe I’ll ask my 

10 question again when we get – maybe when we get 

11 further along I’ll raise – reask this question 

12 because it’s about how this translates – you’re 

13 saying the CSLs are going to drive you to these 

14 UECs, but the compliance isn’t going to be on the 

15 same UEC that you’ve got here, so I’m just wondering 

16 – so I’ll ask it again later.

17 MR. LAUF: Okay. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes.

19 MR. SHEIKH: Shahid again from Intel. So 

20 just to clarify Ken’s point. So your original 

21 equation is that was shown earlier before lunch, 

22 they were based on a different modeling which is –

23 MR. LAUF: No, we used the same equations 

24 to calculate –

25 MR. SHEIKH: Same coefficients?
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

166

1 MR. LAUF: Same equations, but different 

2 coefficients. So the coefficients that we use in 

3 this analysis are based on the usage patterns for 

4 each individual application. Then for compliance, 

5 since we’re looking at an entire product class, we 

6 then look at all of the usage coefficients for 

7 products in that product class and try to determine 

8 what an approximate average would be.

9 MR. SHEIKH: Weighted average based on the 

10 volumes or energy usage or what?

11 MR. LAUF: Shipments, I believe.

12 MR. SHEIKH: Shipments. That methodology 

13 is somewhere, you know, explained?

14 MR. LAUF: Yes, it’s all explained in, I 

15 believe, the TSD.

16 MR. SHEIKH: Thank you. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

18 MR. LAUF: So at this point I’ll pause for 

19 any other questions that you have on the energy use 

20 analysis. DOE is also seeking comments specifically 

21 on its usage assumptions. I explained where you can 

22 find those, so if there’s any other data that we 

23 overlooked, we’d love to hear about it. Also 

24 loading points and other assumptions that were made.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Ric.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

167

1 MR. ERDHEIM: Ric Erdheim with Philips. 

2 So I think this is the point to ask the question I 

3 had asked earlier. So someone had raised the issue 

4 of infrequent charge, and Matt said that that was 

5 considered as part of the usage profile, and that 

6 all the different products were then averaged. And 

7 I guess we heard it’s – used a weighted average. My 

8 question related to the fact that when you look at, 

9 for EPS class B, which is on slide 39 – you don’t 

10 have to go back to it, but just to reference – 56 

11 percent of the products were in – of the EPSs were 

12 in product class B and for battery chargers, 57 

13 percent of the battery chargers were in product 

14 class 2, and of the 15 largest categories of battery 

15 chargers, 11 of those 15 had at least some products 

16 in product class 2. And so my question, I 

17 appreciate the work that you’ve done on the usage 

18 profiles, but in averaging over such a large class 

19 of products, don’t you wind up not considering, or 

20 treating certain products that might be at the end 

21 differently, such that you won’t get the average 

22 results would bring you? And again, I’m speaking –

23 I’m using the example of infrequent charge, but it 

24 could be for something else.

25 MR. LAUF: And you’re talking about 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

168

1 averaging for analytical purposes or to determine 

2 compliance – for the coefficients that were used to 

3 determine compliance?

4 MR. ERDHEIM: Well, I understand you’re 

5 averaging all of this data to come up with the 

6 coefficients, right. And so you’ve got an average 

7 coefficient, but for a particular product, the usage 

8 profile may be very different than the average, and 

9 therefore you’ve got an energy use requirement that 

10 doesn’t really make any sense for that particular 

11 product. I understand you can’t have a different 

12 standard for every product, otherwise not only would 

13 Vic be retiring, his children would be retiring 

14 because it would take so long. But again, those two 

15 classes are so large that it leads you to think 

16 maybe they should be subdivided to look more 

17 carefully at different characteristics so you don’t 

18 have this unintended effect.

19 MR. LAUF: Appreciate that input.

20 MR. PETROLATI: And Ric, I think you 

21 stated it clearly, but we are limited in terms of 

22 looking at these things from a product class 

23 standpoint, and the product classes have been 

24 defined in accordance to the parameters and 

25 specifications of either the battery charger or the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

169

1 external power supply, and we would not be allowed 

2 to look at different end use consumer products 

3 unless the performance characteristics of the 

4 battery charger led us to develop another product 

5 class that happened to break out these products in a 

6 different manner. So we would be very happy if you 

7 could provide us comments as to how we might change 

8 our product class, but that wouldn’t necessarily be 

9 on a different end use consumer products that are 

10 within that product class. 

11 MR. ERDHEIM: I think this came up at the 

12 last hearing, Vic, and if I remember the slide 

13 correctly, and it’s not in this slide deck – I don’t 

14 want to take too much time, but I think it said you 

15 consider this and such other factors as the 

16 Department thinks are appropriate. And that’s the 

17 part where I said well, why couldn’t you then 

18 consider that? So we need to – I need to go back 

19 and –

20 MR. PETROLATI: Fair enough.

21 MR. ERDHEIM: -- suggest to you that maybe 

22 you can do it, and then if you can do it, is there a 

23 basis for doing it. But I think those product 

24 classes are so broad that you may wind up having 

25 unintended consequences of products that fall at an 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

170

1 end.

2 MR. PETROLATI: Okay.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Ari, did you want to chime 

4 in?

5 MR. REEVES: Sure. Ric, this is Ari 

6 Reeves. I don’t think your concern extends to 

7 external power supplies, because when it comes to 

8 determining compliance with the external power 

9 supplies standards, there’s no consideration for 

10 usage, the usage profile doesn’t factor into that. 

11 It’s only in the case of battery chargers where 

12 we’re looking to combine the energy performance of 

13 multiple modes into a single metric, the UEC metric, 

14 that a single duty cycle is required. 

15 And then just to emphasize again what Dan

16 said earlier about the – for analytical purposes we 

17 use these application-specific duty cycles or usage 

18 profiles, and again, that’s in order to arrive at 

19 the most accurate estimates possible of the real 

20 costs and benefits of the proposed standards. And 

21 we felt that calculating energy use and thus energy 

22 savings at the application level was the right way 

23 to go, both in EPSs and in BCs.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you, Ari. 

25 Brian has a question or comment from someone on-
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

171

1 line.

2 MR. BOOHER: Yes, and this is related to 

3 this point. This is a question from Henry Sully. 

4 Usage profiles seem to be a point of contention. 

5 Why not eliminate usage profiles entirely and just 

6 use charging efficiency as a requirement. And then 

7 he goes on to say, isn’t it the goal to improve 

8 efficiency and not regulate usage?

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

10 MR. LAUF: Sure, and at least, from what 

11 we’re looking at here, I don’t believe DOE is 

12 looking to regulate usage, it is regulating 

13 efficiency. The reason why it takes these usage 

14 profiles into account for the analysis is like Ari 

15 described, to truly understand how these products 

16 are used so then DOE can go ahead and estimate 

17 exactly how much energy is consumed by each battery 

18 charger or power supply.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: We’re still looking for 

20 additional comment, should there be any, on item 22 

21 and 23, usage profiles and loading points. Have we 

22 covered it? Are we ready to move on now? Move on.

23 MR. LAUF: So now I’ll switch gears away 

24 from the energy analysis and move over to the 

25 markups analysis. The purpose of the markups 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

172

1 analysis is to take the estimates of cost that were 

2 estimated in the energy use analysis and step those 

3 up to a final retail price. So DOE does this by 

4 looking at markups applied to various stages in the 

5 distribution process. 

6 So this figure here will look familiar. 

7 It is a simplified model of the distribution 

8 process, or distribution path for battery chargers 

9 and power supplies. In the engineering analysis, 

10 DOE estimated the manufacturer’s selling price 

11 indicated in the middle there. That’s the price 

12 that the battery charger or power supply 

13 manufacturer will sell the completed BC or EPS unit

14 to the OEM, and in this case, the OEM that we’re 

15 referring to is the end use application 

16 manufacturer.

17 So this analysis picks up there and 

18 applies two markups to the manufacturer’s selling 

19 price. One is the markup applied by the OEM, the 

20 next is the markup applied by the retailer. And 

21 then the analysis goes on to estimate or calculate 

22 sales tax as well. So DOE does recognize that 

23 distribution for these products can be variable and 

24 very complex, but DOE makes the simplifying 

25 assumption that the most common path to market 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

173

1 dictates the final product price. So this model 

2 here is intended just to represent that common path 

3 to market for most BCs and EPSs.

4 Now there’s very limited data available on 

5 actual markups applied to BCs and UPSs, and this is 

6 true for a couple of reasons. First of all, it is 

7 typically held confidential by manufacturers, but 

8 also battery chargers and power supplies are 

9 components of other end use products, and so it’s 

10 difficult to tease out when a consumer buys an 

11 application what they’re actually paying for that 

12 battery charger or the EPS. So to estimate the 

13 markups applied to these products at those two 

14 stages of distribution, DOE assumed that the 

15 company-wide markup – the average markup applied to 

16 all of the company’s products could be a proxy for 

17 the markup applied to the battery charger and the 

18 EPS. DOE goes about estimating this by looking at 

19 corporate gross margins, which it was able to glean 

20 through public financial filings, and it looked up 

21 filings from 83, end use product manufacturers, 

22 retailers and distributors, and then looked 

23 application by application to see which of those 

24 manufacturers and which of those retailers would be 

25 a part of the distribution path for each EPS and 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

174

1 used a combination of those – or EPS or BC and used 

2 a combination of those markups to step up the price 

3 to a retail price.

4 So DOE actually estimates two markups for 

5 each application – for each BC and EPS. For 

6 products that are more efficient than the baseline,

7 or CSL-0, DOE estimates one markup that’s applied to 

8 the baseline cost, known as the baseline markup, and 

9 that’s represented here by the green bars, and one 

10 markup that’s applied to the incremental cost known 

11 as the incremental markup. 

12 The baseline markups are intended to 

13 relate price to cost for the baseline component of 

14 the product’s price and cover all of an OEM or 

15 retailer’s expenses, including profit. The 

16 incremental markup, however, is only intended —it 

17 covers the incremental changes in the customer price 

18 due to standards, or due to increased efficiency. 

19 So DOE assumes that some distribution costs remain 

20 fixed as efficiency increases. These might include 

21 overhead and general labor. And then there are 

22 other costs that vary with efficiency, and then of 

23 course companies also need to cover products in – or 

24 profits in the incremental markup as well.

25 So since the incremental markup does not 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

175

1 cover all of the cost, but only those costs that 

2 vary, it’s typically slightly lower than the 

3 baseline. So to illustrate an example. This is a 

4 hypothetical product here, with a baseline MSP of 

5 $10.00. The baseline markup is 50 percent or 1.5, 

6 so for CSL-0, that baseline cost would be stepped up 

7 from $10.00 to $15.00. For a more efficient version 

8 of that product, say at CSL-1, there is a $2.00 

9 incremental cost that arose due to the increase –

10 the components needed to increase efficiency. So 

11 the incremental markup, as I mentioned, would most 

12 likely be less than the baseline markup, so we’re 

13 seeing here it’s a 15 percent markup applied to that 

14 incremental component of cost, so the baseline cost 

15 still steps up from $10.00 to $15.00. That 

16 incremental cost steps up from $2.00 to $2.30, 

17 leading to a final product price of $17.30. 

18 Comments?

19 MR. ERDHEIM: Yeah, this is Rick from 

20 Wahl. Where did you get the information that just 

21 because your efficient product markup of $2.00 it 

22 would still increase your 150 percent. Why do you 

23 think you can apply it on the base, but not the 

24 efficient product?

25 MR. LAUF: So this is actually the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

176

1 approach that DOE has been using for a number of 

2 years in a number of different product categories. 

3 And it’s intended to get at the fact that it can be 

4 difficult to pass this entire cost along to 

5 consumers with the full markups, so retailers and 

6 manufacturers –

7 MR. ERDHEIM: I think I can tell you for 

8 sure that that’s no longer accurate, at least on our 

9 dealings with retailers. The retailers aren’t going 

10 to take less points on their markup just because you 

11 had a price increase on your product. They’re still 

12 going to want their same margins, I can guarantee 

13 you that. So I think this is an incorrect 

14 assumption that you’re making.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: How should they do it, 

16 Rick?

17 MR. ERDHEIM: Well, I think that you’re 

18 pretty accurate on your baseline product, of your 

19 one and half times. I think you should carry that 

20 over on your efficient product, so basically, if 

21 you’re adding $2.00 to your manufacturer’s sale 

22 price, then it’ll be $3.00 added to your retail 

23 price.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. And if 

25 there are any other – well, Ken was in the queue, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

177

1 but maybe Dave, you’ve got comments that are 

2 specific follow-on.

3 MR. ERDHEIM: I don’t.

4 MR. DENKENBERGER: Yeah, I mean the 

5 thought here is that if you have the same product 

6 that you’re selling, same sized product, then it may 

7 take the same amount of time to check it out or to 

8 load it on the shelves, so those are costs that 

9 wouldn’t go with just making the product more 

10 efficient.

11 MR. LAUF: Exactly.

12 MR. DENKENBERGER: So – and the shipping 

13 cost as well. You know, if it doesn’t weigh any 

14 more it might not be any greater shipping cost.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Let me – let Rick follow 

16 on. Ken, hang on.

17 MR. HABBEN: It’s mixed in with all of 

18 this.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Go ahead.

20 MR. HABBEN: Well, it’s just what exactly 

21 is it that this incremental cost is? Is it to 

22 recover shelf space? Is it just pure profit? Are 

23 retailers just going to take the efficiency and mark 

24 it up 1.5 and just make a bunch of money on a more 

25 expensive products? I guess that’s really at the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

178

1 root of what my question was, which relates to what 

2 both of these gentlemen are saying, which is, what 

3 is it that DOE’s – is it just trying to recoup some 

4 cost that the retailers are going to have to deal 

5 with the efficiency, or is it profit to those 

6 retailers, what is it?

7 MR. LAUF: The incremental markup – there 

8 are costs that will scale with efficiency, so it 

9 could be marketing materials, it could be for the 

10 OEM, because this applies at that level as well. 

11 There are R&D costs and other materials costs and 

12 just building added efficiency into – and new 

13 applications and end use products. So the 

14 incremental markup is intended to cover those costs 

15 and then cover some measure of profit as well. But 

16 again, like the gentleman from ECOVA pointed out, 

17 not all costs are assumed to increase just because a 

18 product is made more efficient, which is why that 

19 markup that you see here is lower.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Rick, follow on.

21 MR. HABBEN: So when I’m looking at your 

22 slide here, what I’m assuming is that the

23 manufacturer sale price, he had to increase that 

24 $2.00. And I guess what I’m saying is that when you 

25 take a product and you increase it by $2.00 and 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

179

1 you’ve got to sell it to the retailer for that 

2 $2.00, the retailer is still going to – they have a 

3 set amount of points of profit that they are going 

4 to make on every product, and just because you sell 

5 a product at a higher price to them doesn’t mean 

6 that they’re going to take a lower profit and sell 

7 it at the same price. It doesn’t work like that. 

8 So what they’re going to do, is if you mark it up by 

9 $2.00, they’re going to still take their same amount 

10 of profit and that percentage is still based on 

11 that, and the one and a half times is a fairly 

12 accurate number. I think it’s kind of low, still, 

13 but it’s fairly accurate. It depends on your 

14 retailer.

15 MR. LAUF: So are you saying that the 

16 final price that consumers would see would be 

17 $18.00, or that –

18 MR. HABBEN: Yes, the consumer is going to 

19 spend –

20 MR. LAUF: -- pressure from the retailer 

21 that the added cost that the 70 cents would have to 

22 be taken out elsewhere?

23 MR. HABBEN: No, I’m saying the consumer 

24 is going to spend $18.00 for that product, and 

25 there’s – I hope other manufacturers around here 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

180

1 will back me up.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: I see Corey, and then to 

3 Rick.

4 MR. WATKINS: Yes, Corey from Schumacher. 

5 I think that part of what happens when we look at 

6 this analysis is that we’re not looking at the 

7 fundamental difficulties that we have in selling to 

8 many of our fine retailers that we sell to. They 

9 just absolutely are not going to absorb this, and 

10 any sort of calculation that suggests that they are 

11 is only made in the public sector, not the private. 

12 If you raise the price $2.00, they’re going to make 

13 the same margins because Wall Street says you’ve got 

14 to make the same margins. In fact, they’re grinding 

15 on them daily to actually increase what those 

16 margins are. It is not going to be passed on for 

17 the common good, or for saving energy, or anything 

18 else. 

19 If you have, I guess by way of analogy, we 

20 recently had a value added tax that changed in 

21 China, and as a manufacturer we only raised the 

22 price the amount that we absorbed. Let’s say for 

23 argument’s sake, that was $1.00. The retailer 

24 didn’t just raise his price $1.00. He took that 

25 price and multiplied it times his margin, which 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

181

1 actually make the cost to the consumer $2.00 in this 

2 hypothetical. So certainly, any sort of analysis 

3 that looks at what the retail price is going to be, 

4 the retailer is absolutely not going to absorb that. 

5 They’re going to raise the end user price.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Ric, you’re next.

7 MR. ERDHEIM: Ric Erdheim with Philips. I 

8 agree completely. If you look at any quarterly or 

9 annual report for a retailer, what they’re concerned 

10 about is not only the gross profits, but the 

11 margins, and you’ll see sometimes gross profits may 

12 go up but the margins will go down and the stock 

13 market will crush the stock because the margins have 

14 gone down. So margins are a key factor that all 

15 retailers are using. And I mean Corey’s exactly 

16 right. They’re going to do everything to keep the 

17 margins that they need to show Wall Street that 

18 they‘re growing their margins, not shrinking their 

19 margins.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional comments 

21 on this? Vic, please.

22 MR. PETROLATI: Yeah, just one other 

23 comment. Again, this has been an issue that has 

24 been in play for a number of product regulations 

25 that DOE has gone forward with. And your comments 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

182

1 are not dissimilar from the comments made by many of 

2 the other manufacturer groups as part of this. 

3 Anyway, I would appreciate you making those comments 

4 as part of the record so that they can be 

5 considered. Obviously, the statements you made here 

6 will be considered. The Department has taken a 

7 different position in the past on other rulemakings, 

8 and I’m not sure if there’s anything here that’s 

9 different than what was stated in those other 

10 previous rulemakings. But I just wanted to make you 

11 aware of that. Anyway, just make sure that your 

12 comments are directed to us concerning this.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Corey, go ahead.

14 MR. WATKINS: We’ll address that in the 

15 comments, I guess, Vic what I’m hearing you saying 

16 is like we’ve always done it this way, so we’re 

17 going to continue even if we know it’s wrong, and 

18 certainly the retailers are going to absorb that 

19 cost, right, so if you say or if the analysis says 

20 that look, we’ve done it this way, we’ve done it in 

21 other scenarios so we’re going to carry on doing it 

22 this way, well all you’re doing is not being 

23 completely forthcoming on what the facts are.

24 MR. PETROLATI: Okay. Let me respond to 

25 that. And I didn’t mean it exactly in that manner, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

183

1 Corey. The Department has evaluated this issue, and 

2 even has a paper that Lawrence Berkeley National 

3 Laboratory put together to evaluate the approach 

4 that is being used. So the Department has taken a 

5 position that the position that was identified by 

6 Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory is a perfectly 

7 reasonable position why there shouldn’t be a full 

8 markup. Now I think what we might be able to do is 

9 provide everybody here a little more information as 

10 to how the Department made this decision in the past 

11 so that you can critique the way it was made.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, Charlie 

13 Stephens.

14 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Northwest 

15 Energy Efficiency Alliance. I work for an 

16 organization that spends millions of dollars or has 

17 spent millions of dollars to look at the marketplace 

18 for products that have undergone several rounds of 

19 energy efficiency standards upgrades, clothes 

20 washers, refrigerators, and that sort of thing, and 

21 we can’t get at the data that’s down in the 

22 distributor level or the retailer level all the 

23 time, but we can see what happens at the retail 

24 level. In fact, we collect that data over a long 

25 period of time and all of our – I can’t say where it 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

184

1 disappears, but I can tell you that the markups 

2 you’re suggesting here at 1.5 on the more efficient 

3 products, do not show up at the retail level in 

4 general. I don’t know where they go. I can’t say 

5 what happens to it, but it is not the case, based on 

6 our data, that those same markups show up at the 

7 retail level when you actually look at the price of 

8 last year’s model that was less say what happens to 

9 it, but it is not the case, based on our data, that 

10 those same markups show up at the retail level when 

11 you actually look at the price of last year’s model 

12 that was less efficient versus this year’s model 

13 that’s more efficient, essentially the same product. 

14 So again, I don’t know where those markups go, but 

15 the fact is they don’t arrive at retail from all the 

16 data we see.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: In the northwest, Charlie?

18 MR. STEPHENS: Right, in the four states 

19 of the Northwest and in the studies that we’ve seen 

20 from other people that we use in our own work.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Would this be nationwide?

22 MR. STEPHENS: Sometimes, yes.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. You’re next. Say 

24 your name, please.

25 MR. BECK: Dennis Beck from the California 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

185

1 Energy Commission. And if I can kind of extend what 

2 Mr. Petrolati was saying to industry on this, and 

3 coming from a state regulator on this is, I think 

4 not only what – the markups that they’ve used in the 

5 past have been based on some data and some analysis 

6 that they had and there’s been nothing that’s been 

7 given to them in the interim that has changed the 

8 way that they do that analysis. So in the comments 

9 that industry would provide, it wouldn’t simply be –

10 and please correct me if I’m wrong – if my 

11 assumption is incorrect, Mr. Petrolati, but what the 

12 Department needs is not just an assertion from 

13 industry that the markups have to be the same for or 

14 are going to be required to be the same from the 

15 retailer for the baseline and the incremental, but 

16 also some actual data and some actual hard 

17 information that backs that up, and I don’t know 

18 whether that can be done through the NDA that the 

19 Department has with the manufacturers or not, but 

20 this is the same kind of issue that we run into on 

21 the state level where industry or manufacturers or 

22 the stakeholders will make assertions but not 

23 necessarily back it up with data that we can use to 

24 verify those assumptions.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Jay, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

186

1 please. And in a little bit we’re moving on because 

2 I think we’re starting to double back on ourselves.

3 MR. TAYLOR: With all due respect for the 

4 requests for information specifically around costs 

5 and volume, every time we get a request like that it 

6 must be analyzed under the anti-trust regulations 

7 that exist, not only in the United States, but 

8 worldwide. So a lot of the reason you don’t get 

9 costing information from manufacturers has to do 

10 with the laws we operate under and the codes of 

11 conduct that we’re required to comply with.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: And NDAs don’t –

13 MR. TAYLOR: NDA does not preclude that 

14 because the Department of Energy, like the EPA, is 

15 subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Vic.

17 MR. PETROLATI: Yeah, Jay, we normally 

18 have done the NDAs through our contractors, and once 

19 they’re done through the contractors, the data that 

20 we get is more or less aggregated, consequently, 

21 even if we do get a Freedom of Information request, 

22 generally we’re not providing what you would 

23 consider your proprietary data through that request. 

24 So there is a mechanism through the contractors to 

25 do NDA, and again, I think Dennis’ recommendation is 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

187

1 excellent here. If we can get hard data that shows 

2 this, potential markup being actually applied for 

3 all of these products at the 1.5, and again, we 

4 might be able to do that in the NDA, that would be 

5 helpful.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

7 MR. LAUF: So I think we’ve covered that 

8 and thank you again for those comments, they’re very 

9 helpful. So this slide here, just shows the average 

10 markups that were calculated – it’s intended to be 

11 illustrative because again, we do have more specific 

12 markups that were calculated for particular 

13 applications. Those are all available in the TSD in 

14 Chapter 6, and also in the market assessment 

15 workbook, which is available on DOE’s website.

16 So at this point I’ll pause for any other 

17 comments, questions or input that you have.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Would you call out anything 

19 here specifically, or have we covered it largely?

20 MR. LAUF: I think we’ve covered it 

21 largely. Really it would just be any kind of 

22 information --

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Supplemental comments here 

24 before we move on. Okay. So who’s next up? 

25 Pamela? Let me note we’re making good progress but 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

188

1 we’re about an hour behind, and I think we’ll 

2 probably make it up by the end of the day, but we’re 

3 not getting out of here a lot early, I don’t think. 

4 Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

5 MS. COSTELLO: Hi. I’m Pam Costello with 

6 Navigant Consulting and I’m going to be talking 

7 about the Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

8 analysis. The purpose of the life-cycle cost 

9 analysis is to assess the impact on the consumer due 

10 to energy conservation standards. It’s conducted 

11 from the consumer’s perspective and shows the cost 

12 of owning and operating a product over the product’s 

13 lifetime. 

14 As you can see from this diagram, the 

15 life-cycle cost is made up of two main components, 

16 total installed cost and operating cost of the 

17 product which is discounted to present value. The 

18 installed cost is made up of the purchase price of 

19 the product and any installation cost, which for 

20 these products, DOE assumes is zero. The operating 

21 costs are made up of unit energy consumption, energy 

22 cost, and any maintenance or repair costs, which DOE 

23 also assumes as zero for these products. This 

24 allows DOE to calculate the total life-cycle cost 

25 for each standard level considered. Results are 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

189

1 then expressed as life-cycle cost savings or the 

2 baseline LCC minus the standard level LCC. Simple 

3 payback periods are also calculated and reported for 

4 each level. 

5 After receiving comments during the 

6 preliminary analysis, DOE made two main changes to 

7 the LCC. First, in the preliminary analysis, DOE 

8 analyzed battery chargers and EPSs in the 

9 residential sector as the reference case and in the 

10 commercial sector as the sensitivity. For the NOPR 

11 analysis, a weighted average of residential and 

12 commercial sectors was used as the reference case.

13 All application inputs to the LCC were 

14 specified as either residential or commercial. DOE 

15 sampled each application based on its shipments 

16 weighting and used the appropriate residential or 

17 commercial inputs based on this sample. This method 

18 allowed for an examination of the LCC results for a 

19 given representative unit or product class in total, 

20 and provided more specificity as to the appropriate 

21 input values for each sector.

22 Second, in the preliminary analysis, DOE 

23 used base case market efficiency distributions for 

24 each representative unit or product class. Using 

25 this approach, DOE noticed that efficiency 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

190

1 distributions could be heavily influenced by one or 

2 two very common applications. To help prevent this, 

3 in the NOPR analysis, base case market efficiency 

4 distributions specific to each application were 

5 derived and included in the analysis where there was 

6 sufficient data to do so. This approach insured 

7 that market distributions for applications with 

8 fewer shipments were not disproportionately skewed 

9 by the market distributions of applications of major 

10 shipments.

11 This table here shows the results for 

12 external power supplies at the selected TSL which 

13 for all EPSs was TSL-2. As you can see LCC results 

14 are generally positive for the selected TSL for 

15 EPSs.

16 This table here shows the selected TSL 

17 results for all of the battery charger product 

18 classes. You can see that these results are all 

19 positive and range anywhere from about 16 cents to 

20 about $40.00. Also as you can see here, we have a 

21 place holder for product class nine, because no 

22 standard is being proposed for this product class. 

23 DOE feels that no level is economically justified 

24 for this product class as every level has negated 

25 LCC savings.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

191

1 So we can pause here for any comments on 

2 the LCC.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Ric.

4 MR. ERDHEIM: Ric Erdheim, Philips. Can 

5 you go back to slide 115.

6 MS. COSTELLO: This one.

7 MR. ERDHEIM: So I understand there was 

8 some contention about the way you did the LCC, but 

9 this shows the LCC at 60 watt is negative, and at 

10 the 2.5 watt, barely positive.

11 MS. COSTELLO: Yes, so the four 

12 representative units on the top are all part of 

13 product class B, so overall the LCC savings for 

14 product class B is positive. But we wanted to 

15 select a uniform TSL for all the representative 

16 units in that product class.

17 MR. ERDHEIM: But is that because you 

18 averaged those four representative products 

19 together?

20 MS. COSTELLO: We don’t actually ever 

21 present a total LCC for EPS product classes, just by 

22 the way the representative units are. We just 

23 present them for representative units. But overall 

24 the benefits for that TSL had the most positive 

25 benefits.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

192

1 MR. ERDHEIM: But would this slide show, 

2 again assuming the data is correct, that for 

3 external power supplies at 60 watts from AC – using 

4 AC to DC basic voltage, that the LCC is negative?

5 MS. COSTELLO: Yes.

6 MR. ERDHEIM: Okay. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Your name, please.

8 MR. SPITAELS: Jim Spitaels with Schneider 

9 Electric. You made a statement to the effect that 

10 DOE assumed the installation cost was zero in the 

11 financial models?

12 MS. COSTELLO: Uh-huh.

13 MR. SPITAELS: Can we infer from that that 

14 anything with a non-zero installation cost, say it 

15 requires an electrician to be installed, is out of 

16 scope?

17 MS. COSTELLO: No.

18 MR. PETROLATI: That is the correct 

19 answer.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Vic Petrolati.

21 MR. PETROLATI: Yes, sorry, that is the 

22 correct answer, no. But please provide us 

23 information on this specific project that needs an 

24 installation cost so we can consider it as part of 

25 our evaluation. And I did want to point out, and I 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

193

1 don’t think it’s necessary to Rick that 60 watt EPS 

2 unit, of course, is not a product class. Those are 

3 four representative units within the product class.

4 MR. ERDHEIM: So just to put a finish on 

5 this, based on the point I was raising before, so 

6 you used four representative units, so you’ve 

7 decided on the product class, but it’s at least 

8 conceivable that you might, instead of having 

9 product class B, you might have product class B-1, 

10 B-2, B-3, B-4, and have different standards for –

11 based on the LCCs.

12 MR. PETROLATI: Yes, that certainly is 

13 considerable, yes.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Were you finished?

15 MR. ERDHEIM: Yeah.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Joanna.

17 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. So I guess my 

18 question gets back to the engineering analysis, but 

19 I think as Pierre’s slides were showing the 

20 manufacturer data showed that it’s significantly 

21 more expensive to improve the efficiency of the 60 

22 watt unit compared to the 120 watt unit which is not 

23 a result that I think we would expect, so I think 

24 the question for DOE is, what is the explanation for 

25 why the analysis shows a significantly higher cost 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

194

1 to improve the efficiency of the 60 watt unit 

2 compared to the 120 watt unit?

3 MR. BROOKMAN: So, Chris, yes. Chris is 

4 right there, Chris.

5 MR. SKAHAN: So every one of our cost6 efficiency curves for all of those representative 

7 units that you see up there were generated based on 

8 manufacturer data. So, any of the costs and 

9 associated markups, but ultimately the same markups 

10 were used for our representative units, so the 

11 difference is going to come from those initial costs 

12 that we received from manufacturers. As to reason 

13 why it’s more expensive for a 60 watt versus a 120 

14 watt, I can’t really address that. I thought – I 

15 think it was Pierre – mentioned earlier about a 

16 possible topology switch when you get toward the 

17 higher power, more efficient EPSs, you usually 

18 require more components. That could possibly skew 

19 those cost results. 

20 But in terms of an actual efficiency 

21 standard, the 60 watt and the 120 watt, when you 

22 look at a continuous function, are required to meet 

23 the same efficiency standard. But the reason this 

24 LCC is negative is because of that 60 watt cost 

25 efficiency curve. It’s as this slide shows, is much 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

195

1 flatter than the 120 watt curve, so the deltas 

2 between the CSLs are much – the slope is much lower.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Vic.

4 MR. PETROLATI: Chris, did we do a tear 

5 down analysis on a 60 watt?

6 MR. SKAHAN: Yes.

7 MR. PETROLATI: Okay. But we used 

8 manufacturer’s data rather than the tear down 

9 analysis?

10 MR. SKAHAN: Yes.

11 MR. PETROLATI: Okay. And could you 

12 indicate to the stakeholders what the tear down 

13 analysis indicated?

14 MR. SKAHAN: Well, the tear down data for 

15 the purposes of the NOPR was only used to help 

16 support our choices of CSLs. During the preliminary 

17 analysis we did do tear downs on representative 

18 units and attempted to cost those out for every 

19 single rep unit within the product class. 

20 Unfortunately, the data showed a negative trend, so 

21 as efficiency increased, the cost actually 

22 decreased, based on the numbers that we received 

23 from iSuppli, which is the company that Peter 

24 mentioned that was used for BCs. So we had problems 

25 with that original data, and we got overwhelming 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

196

1 comments that had problems with that original data, 

2 as to be expected. So, the suggestion was to use 

3 only manufacturer data, which is what DOE ended up 

4 doing. So any results were entirely based on what 

5 manufacturers told us.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Joanna, did you have an 

7 additional question?

8 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. I think we just 

9 encourage DOE to go back and look at that cost 

10 analysis for this product class, because again, it’s 

11 a result that I don’t think that we would expect to 

12 see. I don’t think we’d expect that it would be 

13 significantly more expensive. So we would encourage 

14 DOE to go back and look especially if, you know, 

15 it’s not clear to stakeholders what – what those 

16 costs are based on, what the assumptions are about 

17 technology changes, so it’s hard to evaluate those 

18 results.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Rick.

20 MR. HABBEN: I guess I would just like to, 

21 as a manufacturer, I’d like to maybe put a little 

22 bit of clarification in it. It seems like it’s hard 

23 to get through to, you know, some of the people here 

24 is that so much of this cost, when you’re talking 

25 about changes in components, depends on the amount 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

197

1 of volume that you’re purchasing. And there’s no 

2 volumes ever mentioned in any of these cost 

3 analysis. So if you have a manufacturer that’s 

4 maybe making cell phones or computers or whatever, 

5 and they’re selling millions and millions of these 

6 units a year, the costs, and the incremental cost 

7 are going to be much less than some of the smaller 

8 manufacturers, such as ourselves, that are selling a 

9 couple hundred thousand pieces a year on a 

10 particular item. We cannot get those same type of 

11 good costs that a manufacturer can get when they’re 

12 selling millions of. So this is maybe why you’re 

13 seeing some of the difference in data and getting 

14 some of these different costs on the 120 watt versus 

15 the 60 watt. So I just want to throw that out there 

16 that nobody’s considering that, and that is a huge 

17 factor if you’ve ever went to quote components.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks. Chris. Okay. 

19 Alex. Pardon me, thanks to Rick, now to Chris.

20 MR. SKAHAN: Sorry, I just wanted to kind 

21 of go back to the original question where DOE was 

22 encouraged to go back and reexamine those test and 

23 tear down results, and as part of this NOPR 

24 analysis, we talked to manufacturers about why we 

25 were getting these negative cost- efficiency curves. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

198

1 And there were a number of reasons provided to try 

2 and explain out the data. But ultimately, none were 

3 substantial enough where DOE felt comfortable using 

4 that data to do this analysis, so again, we relied 

5 on the manufacturers for all of our cost- efficiency 

6 analysis. But I will say, possibly – and I would 

7 like to – this is – we do ask for comment on this, I 

8 believe, in the NOPR. 

9 But one scenario we heard was that 

10 possibly the EPSs we purchased for test and tear 

11 down were designed in different years, so that as 

12 the years moved on, the costs for a certain 

13 component decreased over time so that we were 

14 comparing units that were designed from, say, 2007 

15 and another one that was designed in 2009, where we 

16 may have seen, as things got more integrated, a 

17 lower overall cost for higher efficiency products. 

18 And we do explain that in the NOPR, and I believe 

19 the TSD, and we’d look for comment on that.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

21 MR. PETROLATI: Chris, one more thing I 

22 want you to address. Rick’s point concerning ... --

23 this is Vic Petrolati – in the tear down analysis, 

24 from what I remember, we looked at two different 

25 volume figures for those costs in the tear down 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

199

1 analysis. Did the manufacturer interviews include 

2 the analysis in terms of the various volumes 

3 associated with those costs.

4 MR. SKAHAN: Yeah, we talked to all high 

5 volume manufacturers, so in the millions, which, to 

6 your point tends to create overall costs for each 

7 individual representative unit, each design. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: That was an issue you 

9 covered in the manufacturer interviews?

10 MR. SKAHAN: Yes.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. Alex, 

12 thanks for being patient.

13 MR. BOESENBERG: Alex Boesenberg, NEMA. I 

14 have a question regarding the list of assumptions in 

15 the LCC section of the NOPR for EPS. Specifically, 

16 if I recall correctly, the life-cycle cost analysis 

17 estimate for installation cost was zero? Since the 

18 definition of an external power supply includes

19 those that can be hard wired, it is logical that a 

20 licensed electrician is usually required or 

21 encouraged for that event, which means, you know, 

22 $100 to $150 bucks an hour if you’re lucky. So how 

23 is the installation cost zero in that case?

24 MR. NARDOTTI: Matt Nardotti from 

25 Navigant. I guess just the answer would be that for 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

200

1 the time being, we’ve assumed zero installation 

2 cost, but to Vic’s point earlier, any data that you 

3 can provide to change that assumption, we would be 

4 happy to consider that.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Charlie 

6 Stephens.

7 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Northwest 

8 Energy Efficiency Alliance. We do a lot of this 

9 sort of thing all the time and I think what will 

10 prove to be important, if there is any, is the 

11 incremental installation cost, due to energy 

12 efficiency. It isn’t enough that it costs money, it 

13 has to cost more money for the more efficient 

14 product, and I think you may be hard pressed to find 

15 that data. But – I’m not very worried about it, not 

16 that you wouldn’t do it, but what it usually does is 

17 just increase the overall numbers in the life-cycle 

18 cost table.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: You’d be hard pressed to 

20 find that data, or you’d be hard pressed –

21 MR. STEPHENS: You’d be hard pressed to 

22 find an increase due to efficiency in this

23 particular case.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: I’ve got you. Ken – same 

25 thing, you were reinforcing – you also – Dave, same 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

201

1 thing as Charlie? Okay. I’m glad we clarified 

2 that. Additional comments here? Where are you?

3 MS. COSTELLO: Ready.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: You’re ready?

5 MS. COSTELLO: Uh-huh. So I think we’ll 

6 turn it back over to Dan.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Back to Daniel. How we 

8 doing with our folks on the web? Are they still 

9 with us? They are. How many do we have on there, 

10 about? Wow, 52 participants via the web.

11 MR. PETROLATI: I told you we should 

12 charge.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: (Laughter) A subscription 

14 fee or something. Okay. Dan.

15 MR. LAUF: Hello, once again, Dan –

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Those of you that are on 

17 pins and needles, we are probably going to go until 

18 ten, 15 more minutes or so, and then we’ll take a 

19 break. We’ll see where we are. Okay? Go ahead.

20 Shipments Analysis

21 MR. LAUF: So once again, my name is Dan 

22 Lauf and I’m with D&R International. I’ll be 

23 talking to you about three more analyses now, the 

24 Shipments Analysis, the National Impact Analysis, 

25 and then briefly about the Regulatory Impact
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

202

1 Analysis. So I’ll start off with shipments.

2 The purpose of the shipments analysis is 

3 to forecast how much shipments and efficiency will 

4 change throughout the duration of the analysis 

5 period, so both in the years leading up to the 

6 effective date of the federal standard, and then 

7 following the federal standard. So outputs are 

8 forecasts of shipments and forecasts of energy 

9 efficiency distributions across the CSLs through 

10 2042.

11 And just for reference, when I refer to 

12 the analysis period, it’s 30 years of shipments 

13 following the effective date of the standard, so in 

14 this case for the analysis, that effective date was 

15 assumed to be 2013, so it’s looking at products 

16 shipped from 2013 through 2042. So the basic 

17 structure of this analysis involves two stages. 

18 It’s that period leading up to the effective date, 

19 and then 30 years following the effective date.

20 In the period leading up to 2013, it’s expected 

21 that shipment volumes may increase or decrease due 

22 to any number of factors and that efficiency for the 

23 products overall may improve due to factors outside 

24 of standards, so these are not due to federal 

25 standards. After the federal standards take place, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

203

1 the shipments can once again continue to change. 

2 Efficiency will change due to those standards, and 

3 they may change further due to external factors.

4 Leading up to 2013and beyond, DOE assumed 

5 that shipments would increase by .75 percent per 

6 year, and this change mirrors population growth. 

7 DOE made this assumption because it understands that 

8 there’s a good deal of complexity in terms of how 

9 these products will change, and it can be very 

10 difficult to look a couple years out in the consumer 

11 electronics market, let alone 30. And the various 

12 changes and trends that it sees with its 

13 applications will ultimately balance out to a rate 

14 of growth that’s equal to population growth. 

15 DOE does not assume that the mix of 

16 applications is going to change over time. This is 

17 a simplifying assumption. And it also believes that 

18 there’s no real difference in terms of shipments 

19 between the base case and the standards case. 

20 There are a couple of changes that DOE 

21 also assumed for efficiency leading up to 2013, so 

22 these are changes that would take place before the 

23 standard takes effect. The first is a modest 

24 increase in EPS efficiency. This is due to 

25 standards that took effect in Europe in 2011, and I 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

204

1 believe they were at the Energy Star level. DOE 

2 believes that since Europe represents such a large 

3 share of the global market there will be some 

4 spillover of that standard into the US market, and 

5 DOE therefore shifted a portion of the products 

6 falling in CSL-0 to CSL-1, which is equal to the 

7 Energy Star level. I’ll show you exactly how this 

8 was done in the next slide.

9 Now DOE also recognizes that the CEC 

10 standard will be taking effect in February 2013, and 

11 this will impact BC efficiency distributions in the 

12 US. DOE assumes that there will continue to be less 

13 efficient products outside of California, so it 

14 didn’t touch the efficiency of those products. 

15 However, we assume that the products in California 

16 will shift up to meet the California standard. 

17 California GPD represents 13 percent of the US GDP, 

18 so DOE shifted 13 percent of the products below the 

19 California standard levels up to that standard 

20 level. 

21 And those efficiency levels are 

22 represented in the figure in this slide. So for 

23 each battery charger product class, there is a CSL 

24 that best approximates the CEC standard. We’ll get 

25 into how exactly that was figured out a little later 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

205

1 in the day. This figure shows EPS efficiency 

2 distributions, both in 2009 and 2013 for each 

3 product class and representative unit. Each pair of 

4 horizontal bars represents a product class. You see 

5 product class B at the top, C, D, E, X, and H. The 

6 upper bar shows what the efficiency distribution was 

7 in 2009, and this was derived through product 

8 testing. And then the lower bar for each product 

9 class shows what the distribution will be in 2013, 

10 or at least what DOE believes it will be.

11 So, if you recall, the change that 

12 happened in the market here was that European EPS 

13 efficiency standards took effect. DOE assumed that 

14 50 percent of the products in CSL-0, and these only 

15 affect class A EPSs, so it doesn’t impact product 

16 class X or product class H, 50 percent of the EPSs 

17 in CSL-0 were shifted up to meet CSL-1. CSLs 2, 3, 

18 and 4 were not impacted by the standard, so those 

19 remain unchanged.

20 For battery chargers, it’s the CEC 

21 standard that will impact the market by the time the 

22 federal standard takes effect. And once again it’s 

23 those products in California that will be shifted up 

24 to meet the California efficiency levels. So 

25 looking at product class 2 for example, DOE believes 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

206

1 that the California level is approximately 

2 equivalent to CSL-2, so you can see in 2009 there 

3 were 21 percent of BCs in this product class at CSL4 0, and 26 percent were at CSL-1. Each of those was

5 reduced by 13 percent and those products were moved 

6 up to CSL-2. So the overall market share at CSL-2 

7 goes from 51 percent to 57 percent. And a similar 

8 exercise was done for each product class.

9 After standards take effect, DOE once 

10 again shifts its efficiency distributions to reflect 

11 that, and it assumes that shipments will follow a 

12 rollup response to standards. This essentially 

13 means that every product that is less efficient than 

14 the standard will move up to meet the federal 

15 standard. Products above the standard won’t be 

16 impacted. 

17 So the example that we’ll look at right 

18 now is product class 2. The standard that DOE is 

19 proposing is at CSL-1, so you can see in the base 

20 case, where there is no standard, 18 percent of the 

21 market falls at CSL-0. Once that standard takes 

22 effect, that 18 percent will move up to CSL-1 and 

23 the market share at CSL-1 moves from 22 percent to 

24 40 percent. Had the standard been set at CSL-2, the 

25 40 percent of products at CSL-0 and CSL-1 would be 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

207

1 shifted up to CSL-2. So this just illustrates how 

2 that would work at any standard level. And I’ll 

3 emphasize once again, products above the proposed 

4 standard are assumed not to shift in efficiency one 

5 way or the other.

6 So at this point I’ll pause for comment, 

7 particularly on the methodology that was employed in 

8 this analysis.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Ric.

10 MR. ERDHEIM: Ric Erdheim, Philips. On 

11 slide 122, Dan, I just have a question.

12 MR. LAUF: Sure.

13 MR. ERDHEIM: So if you look at product 

14 class B, you find much lower efficiencies for 2.5 

15 watts than for the other three representative units. 

16 Is there any technological reason for that, or is 

17 that just the way the data fell out?

18 MR. LAUF: It is what the data showed. I 

19 would defer to Chris if there’s a technological 

20 reason for it.

21 MR. SKAHAN: Yes. So the 2.5 watt EPSs do 

22 typically show, or do tend to have lower 

23 efficiencies than the rest of our representative 

24 units, and you can see that the current use standard 

25 accounts for that. There is a significant roll off 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

208

1 below 51 watts for the required efficiency, and that 

2 is based on the technical limitations of the 

3 topology. For all representative units, you were 

4 talking about a five volt, 2.5 watt power supply, 

5 which will have typically higher conduction losses. 

6 The loss ratio between a 2.5 watt power supply 

7 versus a 120 watt power supply is much greater, so 

8 the efficiencies will be lower.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Perhaps we should go 

10 back to the issue boxes.

11 MR. LAUF: Sure.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: There you see 19, 20, 21, 

13 and 24 and 25. Please scan down there and see if 

14 you have any additional comments on these. Is there 

15 anything here in particular you would push out for 

16 comment?

17 MR. LAUF: Nothing in particular, really. 

18 Any of the assumptions that we made, specifically in 

19 terms of how shipments are projected or how 

20 efficiency distributions will be shifted in the 

21 years leading up to or following the standard.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes.

23 PARTICIPANT: Yes, and this is – the CEA 

24 brought up their study that they submitted to the 

25 Energy Commission. It projects future improvements 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

209

1 in energy efficiency. I was just curious to know if 

2 that part of the report, if the CEA would recommend 

3 those efficiency trends to be considered by the DOE 

4 or not. That’s part of the Berkeley groups – and 

5 you said – I’m just wondering if in this instance, 

6 you would recommend or not recommend the 

7 considerations of that report.

8 MR. JOHNSON: We’ll be submitting 

9 comments.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks, Doug.

11 MR. SHEIKH: Shahid from Intel. On slide 

12 122 –

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Is your microphone on?

14 MR. SHEIKH: Yeah.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

16 MR. SHEIKH: So looking at 2009 versus 

17 2013, is this looking at with no regulation?

18 MR. LAUF: With no federal regulation. So 

19 changes due to regulations in Europe.

20 MR. SHEIKH: What was that?

21 MR. LAUF: This is looking at scenarios in 

22 2009 and 2013 with no federal regulation.

23 MR. SHEIKH: Right.

24 MR. LAUF: So the shift is due to 

25 regulation in Europe, but that’s independent of what 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

210

1 DOE is doing here.

2 MR. SHEIKH: Are you saying, industry on 

3 its own, will actually lower some efficiencies in 

4 some cases? Right?

5 MR. LAUF: Improve efficiency.

6 MR. SHEIKH: No, from CSL-0 –

7 MR. LAUF: Products are being shifted from 

8 CSL-0 to CSL-1, which is the level that Europe set 

9 their standard at. So it’s assuming that there’s 

10 going to be some spillover from that standard. So 

11 CSL-0 is less efficient than CSL-1. I’ll just look 

12 at those top two bars there, so the 2.5 watt rep 

13 unit, in 2009, 84 percent of the market is at CSL-0, 

14 so that’s at the level that would just meet the EISA 

15 standard. Let’s assume that by 2013 half of those 

16 units, so 42 percent, will be shifted up to the next 

17 higher efficiency level, so CSL-1, so you’ll see 

18 then, that CSL-1 market share goes from seven 

19 percent to 49 percent.

20 MR. SHEIKH: So that percent is the 

21 volume, right?

22 MR. LAUF: That’s percent of total 

23 shipments in that product class. Yes.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Pierre.

25 MR. DELFORGE: Regarding the rate of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

211

1 growth, you’ve taken the assumption based on 

2 population growth of 0.75 percent. I believe this 

3 is much lower than the historical growth, in at 

4 least some of the product categories, particularly 

5 electronics. I’d like you to comment on why not use 

6 the historical growth, or at least something which 

7 is a little bit more realistic than just population 

8 growth. Because I believe it significantly 

9 underestimates the number of products that will 

10 realistically be in the market by 2013.

11 MR. LAUF: Sure, and I’m just curious --

12 you said just historical growth for electronics in 

13 general going across the board?

14 MR. DELFORGE: Only products in scope, 

15 but, you know, if you look at electronics in 

16 particular, the growth is more in the high single or 

17 even double digits on an annual basis.

18 MR. LAUF: Okay. And if you do have a 

19 source to that effect, it would be very helpful to 

20 see the data, so the Department can consider 

21 incorporating it into its analysis. So if that’s 

22 something you could provide in comments, it would be 

23 appreciated.

24 MR. DELFORGE: Okay. 

25 MR. LAUF: Thank you. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

212

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on 

2 this? Yes, Ari.

3 MR. REEVES: Ari Reeves. I’ll just say 

4 one thing on that, which is that you are thinking 

5 about certain projections of increasing market size 

6 for certain applications, but what you might not be 

7 thinking about at the same time is the decreasing 

8 market size of other applications that use BCs and 

9 EPSs, so this estimate that we arrived at that 

10 mirrors population growth takes account of the fact 

11 that applications for BCs and EPSs will come and go 

12 over the next 30 years, and we don’t really know 

13 whether on balance that will end up yielding a 

14 larger number of such applications and individual 

15 units, or a smaller number.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, 

17 Doug.

18 MR. JOHNSON: Doug Johnson with CEA. 

19 Sorry if I missed this point if it was made earlier, 

20 but with reference to slide 126, what drives DOE to 

21 make these assumptions and projections to the year 

22 2042 in the national impact analysis?

23 MR. LAUF: I’ll actually defer to Vic. Do 

24 you know the answer to that?

25 MR. PETROLATI: I know the answer, and 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

213

1 it’s not going to be necessarily one that’s going to 

2 be different for any product. This is the standard 

3 approach that has been used for DOE on all its 

4 products, is to look at a 30 year life cycle, and 

5 more or less, a 30 year range of the savings. So, 

6 obviously, Doug, there is a lot of different 

7 lifetimes associated with all the products that we 

8 regulated. The way to normalize that information is 

9 to take it over a 30 year term and to try to project

10 potential savings so they can compare to other 

11 product regulations. And we know there are some 

12 pitfalls with doing that.

13 MR. JOHNSON: So it’s DOE practice, but 

14 not statutory requirement?

15 MR. PETROLATI: Correct. That’s right.

16 MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. I think we’re going 

18 to move on.

19 MR. LAUF: That concludes the shipments 

20 analysis.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: So, let me see, the next 

22 series of –

23 MR. LAUF: So we’re part way through this 

24 series. We have the national impacts, regulatory, 

25 and manufacturer impacts analyses.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

214

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Can we take a break now? I 

2 think we’ve got a fair amount to continue – finish 

3 this segment? Okay. Do you think it will go rather 

4 quickly?

5 MR. LAUF: Yes.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Let’s do it.

7 National Impact and Regulatory Impact Analyses

8 MR. LAUF: Okay. So I’ll move straight to 

9 the national impact analysis now, and the purpose of 

10 this is to really estimate the national impact of 

11 standards, again in that analysis period, so 2013 

12 through 2042. The outputs that I’m about to 

13 describe are looking at the benefits and costs 

14 specifically to consumers, and there’s another 

15 analysis that we have that we’ll discuss later that 

16 looks at those impacts to manufacturers. 

17 So there are three main outputs to this 

18 analysis:

19 • The first are national energy savings, measured 

20 in quads;

21 • There are also the net consumer benefits, so 

22 these are energy cost savings less the 

23 incremental product cost increases that would 

24 result from standards;
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

215

1 • And then there are net social benefits. These 

2 are net consumer benefits plus the monetized 

3 social benefits of avoided power plant 

4 emissions.

5 There are a number of inputs to this 

6 analysis. This is one of the downstream analyses, 

7 so most of what you heard today were the upstream 

8 analyses, and the majority of them do feed into the 

9 NIA. Specifically regarding the inputs that you’re 

10 looking at here, there are a few that we get from 

11 outside areas. In particular, we use a 3 percent 

12 and a 7 percent discount rate, and these were 

13 provided through OMB guidance. We also use a couple 

14 inputs from EIA’s annual energy outlook, such as 

15 electricity price forecasts and a site to source 

16 conversion factor.

17 For each product class and in each 

18 standards case, DOE calculates the per unit cost 

19 increase and the per unit energy savings that would 

20 result through standards. DOE then forecasts the 

21 number of units in use – so this has to do with both 

22 shipments and lifetime – and the energy savings each 

23 year from 2013 through 2052. Now there’s a reason

24 why we’re looking to 2052 and that’s because we’re 

25 looking at shipments through 2042, and the maximum 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

216

1 lifetime for a BC or EPS application is ten years, 

2 so we look at those shipments through 2042, and then 

3 we accumulate benefits or costs of those products

4 that were shipped through the end of their useful 

5 lives, so that would bring us to 2052. Combining 

6 the above inputs determines the NES and the consumer 

7 benefits.

8 I’m not going to go through all of the 

9 results -- that’s actually something that we will 

10 discuss later when DOE discusses its proposed 

11 standards -- but I will illustrate here an example 

12 of the net consumer benefits and how those are 

13 calculated.

14 In the upper portion of the chart, you’ll 

15 see a number of green bars. Those are national 

16 energy cost savings to consumers each year from the 

17 products that are in use. On the bottom of the 

18 chart you’ll see a number of yellow bars. Those are 

19 the national improvement costs from the purchase of 

20 more efficient products, so those are the 

21 incremental cost increases. DOE looks at costs 

22 through 2042 -- the last products shipped in the 

23 analysis -- but continues to accrue the benefits of 

24 those last products through the end of their useful 

25 lives. For this product class -- the two and a half 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

217

1 watt rep unit of product class B --you can see that 

2 that goes out to about 2047 or so. So the 

3 difference between the green bar and the yellow bar

4 -- the energy cost savings and the national 

5 improvement costs -- yields the net savings. This 

6 can either be positive or negative. And by 

7 discounting those later years and summing across all 

8 the years in the analysis, you have the net present 

9 value of those net savings, or what we are referring 

10 to as the net consumer benefits.

11 And I should mention that this was done 

12 for every product class and at every potential 

13 standard level for comparison purposes. Question.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Ken.

15 MR. RIDER: Can you help me understand 

16 something.

17 MR. LAUF: Sure.

18 MR. RIDER: If, on a per unit basis, 

19 you’ve shown the LCC to be positive for a product, 

20 why the nationwide impact is negative in those first 

21 couple years? If every unit sold is going to have a 

22 positive LCC, why do we end up with this negative ... 

23 I’m probably just missing something.

24 MR. LAUF: No, I can explain that, and 

25 that’s because in the first couple years, we’re 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

218

1 selling a number of products at that efficiency 

2 level but it takes a couple of years to accrue 

3 energy savings. So the payback period usually isn’t 

4 less than a year. It may be a couple years. So it 

5 takes a couple years for enough energy cost savings 

6 to accrue to offset that increase in product costs.

7 MR. RIDER: Alright. Thanks.

8 MR. SHEIKH: Shahid from Intel. Was that 

9 LCC analysis, was that based on five years or was it 

10 ten years?

11 MS. COSTELLO: (response off mic)

12 MR. SHEIKH: That was for eight years?

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Restate it, please.

14 MS. COSTELLO: I don’t know the lifetimes 

15 off the top of my head, but they’re based on –

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Based on the lifetime of 

17 the product.

18 MS. COSTELLO: Based on the lifetime of 

19 the product. This is Pam Costello.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: And those lifetimes –

21 MR. LAUF: The NIA is based on the same 

22 lifetimes, and they vary depending on the 

23 application. So on average it’s about four to five 

24 years, but it can range to as few as two for some 

25 applications or as much as ten years for others. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

219

1 And that’s all taken into account in the analyses.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

3 MR. LAUF: So to contextualize the energy 

4 savings that we’re looking at for battery chargers 

5 and power supplies, this chart here shows the 

6 projected energy savings for EPSs in the left red 

7 bar; BCs are the red bar on the right, and those are 

8 compared to a few other recently announced final 

9 rules from the Department of Energy, from 2010 and 

10 2011. 

11 So you can see here – and Vic stated this 

12 earlier in his presentation – on DOE’s projects one 

13 quad of energy savings from EPSs and about one and a 

14 quarter to one and a third quads for BCs. 

15 DOE recognizes that there’s a good deal of 

16 uncertainty in many of these analyses, so to account 

17 for this in the NIA, we performed a couple of 

18 sensitivity analyses to account for that 

19 uncertainty. And the first is one in which the 

20 price elasticity of demand was taken into account, 

21 so that really looks at an alternative scenario in 

22 which shipment volume is expected to decrease 

23 slightly due to an increase in product prices. 

24 Just as there was assumed to be some 

25 spillover of the EU standard into the US, the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

220

1 Department also looks at a situation in which 

2 there’s some spillover of the CEC standard into 

3 other areas of the US. So, we looked at the extreme 

4 case in which the CEC standard becomes the de facto 

5 standard for the US. So this doesn’t mean that 

6 federal standards are set at that level, but what 

7 DOE did is shift all of those efficiency 

8 distributions that you saw earlier that fell below 

9 the CEC standard up to that level, and then looked 

10 at the cost and benefits of setting a federal 

11 standard under that scenario.

12 And I’ll pause now just to mention that 

13 detailed assumptions and results for all of these 

14 sensitivity analyses are available. They’re in 

15 Appendices 10A and 10B of the TSD. 

16 So to conclude the last two sensitivity 

17 analyses that were considered: one looked at 

18 alternative price trend for costs throughout the 

19 analysis period, and another looked at alternative 

20 price trends, and that’s specifically the situation 

21 in which the incremental cost declined slightly over 

22 time as manufacturers ramp up production at the more 

23 efficient levels.

24 MR. SHEIKH: Question?

25 MR. LAUF: Yes.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

221

1 MR. SHEIKH: On the previous slide.

2 MR. LAUF: Okay. 

3 MR. SHEIKH: Shahid. So what was the net 

4 – this was energy savings?

5 MR. LAUF: Yes.

6 MR. SHEIKH: What was the net consumer 

7 savings in dollars for EPSs or battery chargers?

8 MR. LAUF: So for –

9 PARTICIPANT: (comment off mic)

10 MR. LAUF: Right, we’ll cover that for 

11 each product class later on. And if you look at the 

12 beginning of your presentation, I think they 

13 presented a slide that showed the total net present 

14 value of consumer benefits for BCs and EPSs.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: So if you go ahead to the 

16 next slide, comment box 26. DOE seeks comment on 

17 the methodology employed for conducting the national 

18 impact analysis, including the calculations for 

19 national inventory, national energy savings, and net 

20 present value. Comments on that? Rick.

21 MR. HABBEN: Yeah. I’m just going to kind 

22 of repeat – kind of what we stated earlier, that we 

23 don’t think that the cost to actually make the 

24 improvements was accurate, as far as going to the 

25 retail, and so that would affect these numbers as 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

222

1 well. So I just wanted to put that on the record.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. And Rick, I 

3 don’t want to put you on the spot, but do you think 

4 you could come forward with some data to support 

5 that for the Department through the NDA mechanism, 

6 through Navigant, or not? Can they expect it or 

7 not?

8 MR. HABBEN: Yeah, I think we can see what 

9 we can do if it’s through the consulting firms.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Good. Thank you. 

11 It’s helpful. Let’s get this information out there 

12 in a protected sort of a way. Okay. You want to do 

13 one more segment and then we’ll take a break?

14 MR. LAUF: Actually I have one more slide 

15 and then I’m done and we can move on to the 

16 manufacturer’s impact analysis. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

18 Regulatory Impact Analysis

19 MR. LAUF: This slide describes the 

20 regulatory impact analysis. So this is detailed in 

21 Chapter 17 and Appendix 17A of the TSD, and DOE was 

22 directed by Executive Order 12866 to perform this. 

23 Essentially what DOE did is look at a number of 

24 alternatives to setting standards. It used the NIA 

25 model to weigh the costs and benefits of those, and 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

223

1 then compare those net benefits to the cost and 

2 benefits of standards. 

3 So DOE looked at six possible 

4 alternatives. Those included:

5 • Consumer rebates,

6 • Consumer tax credits,

7 • Manufacturer tax credits,

8 • Voluntary energy efficiency targets – so that 

9 would be a program similar to Energy Star,

10 • Early replacement, or

11 • Bulk government purchases.

12 Again, if you’re curious about the details 

13 of this analysis and wish to comment on that, it’s 

14 all available in Chapter 17, but suffice it to say 

15 that DOE did not find that any of those alternatives 

16 were as beneficial or more beneficial to consumers 

17 than federal standards.

18 So are there any questions on that?

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Comment?

20 MR. LAUF: Okay. Thank you very much.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Quite a few slides on 

22 manufacturer impact analysis, so let’s break now. 

23 It’s almost ten after. Let’s start back at 3:25. 

24 We are in the home stretch, so hang with us here. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

224

1 3:25 we’ll resume. You already know where the 

2 restrooms are. There’s a Coke machine down on the 

3 ground floor just as you go left towards the coffee 

4 shop, it’s tucked away in an alcove on your left. 

5 You need to look for it.

6 (Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the meeting was 

7 recessed for a 21 minute period.)

8 MR. BROOKMAN: We’re about to embark on 

9 manufacturer impact analysis and we’re going to hear 

10 from Hayden.

11

12 Manufacturer Impact Analyses

13 MR. H. COOK: Hi. My name is Hayden Cook 

14 from Navigant Consulting. I’ll be discussing the 

15 manufacturer impact analysis or MIA that was 

16 conducted for this NOPR. The MIA slides present 

17 three things:

18 • First, they present an overview of how the MIA 

19 was conducted,

20 • Second, they briefly discuss the manufacturer 

21 impacts at the proposed standard levels, and

22 • Third, they introduce the MIA topics DOE is 

23 seeking comment on. 

24 The main purpose of the MIA is to assess 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

225

1 the impacts of standards on battery charger and EPS 

2 manufacturers. A second purpose is to identify and

3 estimate the impacts on manufacturer subgroups. And 

4 the final portion of the MIA involves a discussion 

5 on direct employment, manufacturing capacity, and 

6 the regulatory burden.

7 The main tool DOE uses to evaluate the 

8 impact of standards on manufacturers is a discounted 

9 cash flow model called the government regulatory 

10 impact model, or GRIM. The major output from this 

11 model is industry net present value or INPV, which 

12 is a metric used to represent the quantitative 

13 impact standards have on manufacturers.

14 For the MIA, DOE also conducted interviews 

15 with manufacturers to refine the inputs of the model 

16 and to understand the qualitative impacts that 

17 standards may have. 

18 This slide shows the basic structure of 

19 the MIA process, which takes place in three 

20 different phases. In the first phase, which 

21 occurred during the preliminary analysis, DOE used 

22 publicly available information such as 

23 manufacturers’ annual reports to develop a profile 

24 of each industry. The next two phases were 

25 conducted as part of the NOPR analysis. In phase 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

226

1 two, DOE developed the cash flow spreadsheets that 

2 are used to estimate the impacts on each industry, 

3 and the interview guides that are used to gather 

4 information from manufacturers during interviews. 

5 In phase three, DOE conducted interviews with 

6 manufacturers and used the information to further 

7 develop the analyses and to finalize the inputs that 

8 went into the GRIM. 

9 Switching from the MIA methodology to the 

10 specifics about this rulemaking, these next two 

11 slides present the key issues we learned from some 

12 of the manufacturers concerning battery chargers and 

13 EPSs. And some of these, if not most of these, have 

14 been previously brought up in today’s discussion.

15 First, some manufacturers expressed 

16 concern about how different applications are grouped 

17 together within the same product class and would 

18 have to meet an equivalent standard. For battery 

19 chargers, DOE is using one UEC equation for each 

20 product class, therefore, the individual usage 

21 profile of an application might be different than 

22 the individual profile of the product class that 

23 it’s grouped into. DOE’s battery charger MIA 

24 evaluates the manufacturer impacts on an 

25 application-specific basis to give the MIA more 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

227

1 granular results.

2 Second, some manufacturers expressed 

3 concern about the potential increase in the price of 

4 a battery charger application due to standards. 

5 Some battery charging applications compete directly 

6 with applications that use another form of energy, 

7 such as gasoline, disposable batteries, or a power 

8 cord. An increase in the cost of a battery charger 

9 could cause some consumers to switch to these non10 battery charging applications. As Dan brought up, I 

11 believe, DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis 

12 examining the price elasticity effects of an 

13 increase in the price of a battery charger on all 

14 applications. 

15 Third, some battery charger manufacturers 

16 stated it could be difficult to separate the battery 

17 charger function from other functions, therefore 

18 manufacturers wanted to make sure that DOE’s test 

19 procedure clearly separates out the charging portion 

20 of the energy consumption. DOE tried to take this 

21 factor into consideration, especially for UPS 

22 manufacturers.

23 Fourth, manufacturers are concerned that 

24 an application could be subject to a battery charger 

25 standard and a separate EPS standard for the same 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

228

1 application. DOE is aware that this could place a 

2 difficult burden on application manufacturers, 

3 therefore DOE is proposing to leave the standard for 

4 indirect EPSs, those are EPSs that cannot directly 

5 operate an application, at their current standard 

6 level.

7 Fifth, manufacturers stated they expect 

8 standards to negatively impact profitability. 

9 Manufacturers are concerned standards will increase 

10 their MPC and they may not be able to pass those 

11 increases on to their consumers. DOE evaluated a 

12 range of profitability or markup scenarios in the 

13 MIA that take these specific concerns into account.

14 Lastly, manufacturers indicated they might 

15 have to remove useful features in order to meet 

16 higher efficiency standards. DOE’s engineering 

17 analysis generally attempts to only analyze utility 

18 neutral design changes that meet the potential 

19 standards. Therefore, the impacts presented in the 

20 MIA generally do not assume that manufacturers are 

21 removing any features that provide a significant 

22 utility to consumers. Further, a manufacturer’s 

23 decision to remove useful features in order to meet 

24 a standard would be primarily a business decision 

25 and would be made by those individual manufacturers 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

229

1 and not covered as part of the MIA.

2 DOE examined the impacts of battery 

3 charger standards on application manufacturers or 

4 OEMs since DOE believes that application 

5 manufacturers would be most directly financially 

6 impacted by a battery charger standard. Also, 

7 application manufacturers are the ones who typically 

8 design the battery chargers for their applications, 

9 and for most battery chargers the testing would be 

10 done after the battery charger is fully integrated 

11 into the application.

12 In order to address concerns that some 

13 battery charger application manufacturers could be 

14 disadvantaged by standards relative to others, DOE 

15 conducted a subgroup analysis on battery charger 

16 applications, and DOE identified four application 

17 subgroups. These are:

18 1. small appliances,

19 2. consumer electronics,

20 3. power tools, and

21 4. high energy.

22 All battery charger applications were 

23 grouped into one of these four industry subgroups. 

24 DOE separately examined the potential effects of 

25 standards on each industry subgroup when applicable. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

230

1 Moving on to the markup scenarios 

2 analyzed. This slide presents an overview of the 

3 profitability or markup scenarios DOE ran for the 

4 MIA. DOE analyzed two profitability scenarios for 

5 EPSs, a flat markup and a preservation of operating 

6 profit markup. And they analyzed three 

7 profitability scenarios for the battery charger MIA. 

8 Those were a flat markup, a pass-through markup, and 

9 a constant price markup.

10 With the flat markup, manufacturers earned 

11 the same markup percentage as they do in the base 

12 case on any increase in the MPC due to a standard. 

13 This generally represents the upper bound or least 

14 severe impact on manufacturers for the battery 

15 charger and the EPS MIAs. With a preservation of 

16 operating profit, manufacturers earned the same 

17 operating profit in the base case as they do in the 

18 standards case in the year after the standard goes 

19 into effect. This generally represents the lower 

20 bound or most severe impact on manufacturers for the 

21 EPS MIA. 

22 With a pass-through markup, manufacturers 

23 are able to fully pass on the costs of any increase 

24 in the MPC, but are not able to earn any additional 

25 revenue from that increase in the MPC. With a 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

231

1 constant price markup, application MSPs remain 

2 unchanged in the standards case compared to the base 

3 case, so manufacturers do not increase the price of 

4 the applications at all due to standards. This 

5 generally represents the lower bound for the battery 

6 charger MIA.

7 In addition to the markup scenarios 

8 selected, three other main factors drive INPV at 

9 each TSL level. These factors, which are specific 

10 to each application, are the application’s 

11 efficiency distribution, which are the capital and 

12 product conversion costs associated with converting 

13 all the applications that fall below the standard to 

14 meet that standard – sorry, in the efficiency 

15 distribution, which is the – the efficiency 

16 distribution at the time the standard goes into 

17 effect. And then second is the conversion costs 

18 which are the capital and product conversion costs 

19 associated with converting all applications that 

20 fall below the standard to meet that standard. And 

21 lastly, the relative incremental increase in the 

22 price of the battery charger compared to the 

23 application MPC.

24 DOE calculated the conversion costs on an 

25 application-specific basis, based on three factors. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

232

1 These are the share of products within each 

2 application that fall below the standard level; the 

3 magnitude of the technology change from one CSL to a 

4 higher CSL; and the normal research and development 

5 and capital expenditure costs for that application 

6 in the base case.

7 The markup scenarios and the conversion 

8 costs described in the previous slides yields the 

9 EPS INPV results shown here. This slide shows the 

10 EPS manufacturer impact for product classes B, C, D, 

11 and E. Throughout these next slides the column 

12 highlighted in yellow are the TSLs that are proposed 

13 in the NOPR.

14 These are the remaining INPV impacts for 

15 EPS manufacturers, covering product classes H and X. 

16 The range of impacts shown in these tables 

17 correspond to the different markup scenarios that 

18 were used during the MIA. 

19 Moving on to battery chargers. These next 

20 three slides present the INPV impacts on battery 

21 charger application manufacturers, and the first 

22 table shows the battery charger manufacturer impact 

23 for product class 1, in the second table for product 

24 classes 2, 3, and 4. Also as previously mentioned 

25 about the industry subgroups for battery chargers, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

233

1 in the NOPR the INPV results are shown by industry 

2 subgroup for product classes 2, 3, and 4, which is 

3 the only product class grouping that has a variety 

4 of different subgroups across the product class 

5 grouping.

6 Here two more battery charger product 

7 class application groupings for product classes 5 

8 and 6, and for product class 7. In this last INPV 

9 slide result, the INPV impacts are for the remaining 

10 battery charger product classes, which cover product 

11 class 8 and product class 10.

12 One of the criteria DOE looks at is the 

13 impacts of standards on small businesses. To be 

14 considered a battery charger or EPS small business 

15 manufacturer, the Small Business Administration or 

16 SBA sets a limit of 500 total employees or less for 

17 those manufacturers. DOE used publicly available 

18 information to identify potential small business 

19 manufacturers, such as SBA’s database, DOE’s 

20 compliance certification management system, various 

21 trade association lists, and the websites Hoovers 

22 and Dunn & Bradstreet. Also during the interview 

23 process, DOE asked manufacturers if they were aware 

24 of any potential small businesses that might exist 

25 in their markets that they compete in.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

234

1 After refining the list of potential small 

2 businesses based on DOE’s initial research, DOE 

3 contacted the remaining small businesses to 

4 determine if they met SBA’s definition of a small 

5 business manufacturer. DOE found only one battery 

6 charger small business manufacturer, and did not 

7 find any EPS small business manufacturers.

8 DOE also conducted a domestic employment 

9 analysis along with the small business manufacturer 

10 analysis. DOE did not identify any domestic EPS 

11 manufacturers and only one domestic battery charger 

12 manufacturer, which is the same as the small 

13 business identified in the previous slide. Based on 

14 DOE’s analysis, it estimates a total of 100 domestic 

15 employees involved in battery charger and EPS 

16 manufacturing, and based on these findings, DOE does 

17 not expect the proposed standards to have a 

18 significant impact on domestic manufacturing 

19 employment. 

20 However, DOE is aware that this is a 

21 highly fragmented market with many applications, and 

22 public resources may not be comprehensive in all 

23 instances, therefore DOE requests comment on any 

24 known domestic EPS manufacturers and any additional 

25 domestic battery charger manufacturers and whether 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

235

1 they qualify as a small business.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. Holly.

3 MS. EVANS: Holly Evans. Did you evaluate 

4 the impact of small businesses that sell EPSs or 

5 battery chargers with their products, or just the 

6 manufacturers of the EPSs and the battery chargers? 

7 For example, if a company sells an end product that 

8 has a bundled device, but it meets the definition of 

9 a small business, did you evaluate the impact on 

10 those entities?

11 MR. H. COOK: We are looking at small 

12 business impacts for application manufacturers, if 

13 that’s what you’re asking for.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please, Spencer.

15 MR. STOCK: Spencer Stock, Lester 

16 Electrical. I just want to go on the record that we 

17 take exception to the no significant impact based 

18 upon the fact that we are the one identified US 

19 small business manufacturer, and that, you know, the 

20 current economic climate that loss of US jobs, 

21 however many they be, 100 or 1000, 10,000 is 

22 significant, so we just want to go on record with 

23 that.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Doug.

25 MR. JOHNSON: Doug Johnson, CEA. Many of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

236

1 our 2000 member companies are small businesses and I 

2 would agree with the statement made by Holly a 

3 moment ago, that it’s important for the Department 

4 to look at the impact on small businesses that make 

5 products that use battery chargers or external power 

6 supplies, or that sell those products.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 

8 comments on direct employment and small business 

9 impacts? Okay. 

10

11

12

13 Employment Impact, Utility Impact, and 

14 Environmental Impact Analyses

15 MS. IYAMA: Good afternoon. I am Sanaee

16 Iyama with then Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, and 

17 I’m going to present four of the additional analyses 

18 which were developed in at the NOPR stage, starting 

19 with the employment impact analysis.

20 The purpose of this analysis is to assess 

21 the impact of standards on national employment. 

22 And just now Hayden talked about the direct 

23 employment impacts, but here we’re looking at 

24 indirect employment impacts. DOE used the ImSET 

25 model, which is the acronym for Impact of Sector 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

237

1 Energy Technologies. It allows assessing changes 

2 in national employment as a result of standards.

3 On this next slide, we’re showing an 

4 example of the results for external power supplies 

5 expressed in thousands of jobs. And again, these 

6 are the indirect employment impacts. The range 

7 represents two situations. The first one where all 

8 of the money spent on imported EPSs returns to the 

9 US economy, and then the second situation 

10 represents a scenario where none of the money spent 

11 on imported EPSs returns to the US economy.

12 And next we have the utility impact 

13 analysis. So the purpose of this analysis is to 

14 assess the impact of standards on domestic 

15 electricity suppliers. And the method that DOE has 

16 used in the past, and that we’re using in this 

17 rulemaking is to apply a modified version of the 

18 NEMS model called NEMS-BT. NEMS stands for 

19 National Energy Modeling System. It’s the current 

20 model used by the EIA when developing the energy 

21 forecasts that you can find in their Annual Energy

22 Outlook reports. 

23 The inputs to the model are the national 

24 energy savings coming from the NIA, the national 

25 impact assessment, and the outputs are expressed in 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

238

1 terms of forecast of electricity generation, as 

2 well as in terms of avoided capacity resulting from 

3 the different considered standard levels in 

4 comparison to a base case.

5 And here we have, just to illustrate, an 

6 example of the type of results that you can find in 

7 the utility impact analysis. Here it’s the example 

8 of external power supplies. We have the reduction 

9 in electric generating capacity expressed in 

10 gigawatts for the different TSLs and different 

11 product classes.

12 And I’ll move on to the emissions 

13 analysis, which is – which purpose is to assess the 

14 impacts of standards on air emissions from 

15 electricity power plants. Again, here we’re using 

16 the NEMS-BT model, which allows estimating 

17 reductions in national emissions for different 

18 types of emissions. And we looked at carbon 

19 dioxide, mercury, and nitrogen oxides for the 

20 states where these emissions are not capped. For 

21 the states where nitrogen oxide emissions are 

22 capped, as well as for sulfur dioxide where there’s 

23 an existing legislation capping these emissions, 

24 DOE states that applying standards do not have an 

25 impact on these emissions.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

239

1 Here again, an example of the results of 

2 the emissions analysis for external power supplies. 

3 We have the cumulative emission reductions over the 

4 analysis period for the different product classes 

5 at the different TSLs. And in yellow, is the – we 

6 highlighted the proposed TSL. So These are the 

7 physical emission reductions. 

8 However, DOE also monetizes the emission 

9 reductions, and the way to do so is by using the 

10 most current social cost of carbon values developed 

11 through interagency review. Social cost of carbon 

12 is intended to represent the monetized value of the 

13 incremental damage caused by greenhouse gases 

14 emissions, and here on this slide you have the 

15 approximation of the values that we used for 

16 monetizing carbon emissions. And DOE also monetized 

17 nitrogen oxide emissions.

18 And on this next slide we have the example 

19 of the monetized emission reduction for product 

20 classes B, C, D, and E for external power supplies. 

21 Different values are calculated with different 

22 rates, and typically when calculating net social 

23 benefits, which is the sum of the net present value 

24 and monetized emissions, DOE uses the carbon value 

25 calculated at a $22.3/t rate, and a nitrogen oxide 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

240

1 value calculated with the medium rate.

2 So that’s all for the downstream analysis 

3 that we conducted.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: So that’s a whole lot of 

5 data. A whole lot. Please feel free to back us up 

6 and ask questions about any of it. I see Ken first.

7 MR. RIDER: Yeah, so for your lower case, 

8 you said – and I’m referring to slide, I believe, 

9 150 – the low case was the situation where no, I 

10 believe, correct me if I’m –

11 MS. IYAMA: Six.156?

12 MR. RIDER: -- where no money returns to 

13 the US that is spent on the incremental cost for 

14 efficiency.

15 MS. IYAMA: So none of the money spent on 

16 the imported EPSs returns to the US economy. Yes.

17 MR. RIDER: Right. And is that including 

18 the price with the retailer markup and sales tax?

19 MS. IYAMA: Yes.

20 MR. RIDER: So I would just recommend – I 

21 mean sales tax is obviously not money that’s going 

22 to be outside of the United States, and the base 

23 case not include money paid for sales tax and also 

24 money paid in a retail markup, which is pretty much 

25 guaranteed to be US dollars, and especially sales 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

241

1 tax, and back that out and into your minimum amount 

2 of – in your low end calculation.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Ken. So we 

4 really went through a lot of data there, let me 

5 emphasize again. Any other questions or comments on 

6 these series of employment impacts, emission 

7 analyses, utility impacts. Yes, Doug.

8 MR. JOHNSON: It’s Doug Johnson with CEA. 

9 Can you explain the rationale with the seven and the 

10 three percent discount rates?

11 MS. IYAMA: So these are the rates that we 

12 used in the NIA as well, and for nitrogen oxide 

13 they‘re also the discount rates that DOE uses, but 

14 I’m not sure I have the explanation –

15 MR. PETROLATI: Yes, Doug?

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Vic, please.

17 MR. PETROLATI: Those are required to be 

18 analyzed by the Office of Management and Budget. So 

19 we are specifically required to analyze both of 

20 those rates, three percent and seven percent 

21 discount rates.

22 MR. JOHNSON: Okay. Thank you.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Other questions.

24 MR. SHEIKH: Yes, the question. Shahid 

25 from Intel. On slide 152. So the purpose of this 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

242

1 is to show that what is the reduction in – how many 

2 power plants you don’t need or is it to understand 

3 the impact of this on unemployment?

4 MS. IYAMA: Here we’re looking at the 

5 impact of standards on domestic electricity 

6 suppliers and here it’s mostly looking at, yeah, at 

7 avoided generating capacity, so avoided power plants 

8 that you wouldn’t have to build.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: And this is – it says “in 

10 2042” – it’s not cumulative. It’s in 2042.

11 MS. IYAMA: It’s cumulative until 2042.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: And this aligns with that 

13 overall savings numbers that we had looked at 

14 earlier?

15 MS. IYAMA: Yes, because the inputs to the 

16 utility impact analysis, or the inputs to the NEMS17 BT model that we’re using, are the national energy 

18 savings that were presented earlier.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, go ahead, Dave.

20 MR. DENKENBERGER: Dave Denkenberger. So 

21 the unit of gigawatts is a power, so isn’t this 

22 power in a given year?

23 MS. IYAMA: I believe it’s the cumulative, 

24 but I will check.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Dave, would you restate the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

243

1 question please?

2 MR. DENKENBERGER: So basically, a 

3 gigawatt is a unit of power, which is a continuous 

4 rate of use of energy. And so that would be 

5 something that would be happening at all time, 

6 basically. And I mean these are roughly consistent 

7 with, you know, half a gigawatt is a power plant, 

8 roughly. So that would be consistent with saving a 

9 power plant for that entire time. It’s not a 

10 cumulative number.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: I see. Okay. Do you have 

12 any additional comment on this? No additional 

13 comment. Okay. Thanks for that. Pierre.

14 MR. DELFORGE: Going back to the indirect 

15 employment impacts. So they include – does the 

16 model include the employment impact or benefits of 

17 reinvesting saved – money saved from lower 

18 electricity costs, due to the positive LCC, which 

19 should be significant?

20 MS. IYAMA: Yes, it looks at exactly the –

21 how the consumers respend the money that they save 

22 on their electricity bills, so how is this money 

23 reinjected in the US economy.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: So it is included. Rick.

25 MR. HABBEN: I guess I need you to go back 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

244

1 to slide 150 and I guess I’m not fully understanding 

2 what that slide is really telling me. If you could 

3 – I guess maybe just take an example, you know, 

4 product classes B, C, D, and E. Are we saying that 

5 the employment effects are going to go from negative 

6 1.4000 4 thousands to potentially a positive plus 

7 600 people? That’s what you’re saying during that 

8 year?

9 MS. IYAMA: Yes.

10 MR. HABBEN: And is that from the best to 

11 the worst? Is that where that range comes from, or 

12 is that just because of the amount of manufacturers, 

13 that’s just the given range?

14 MS. IYAMA: The range again, represents, 

15 the worst case which is none of the money that is 

16 spent on the imported EPSs –

17 MR. BROOKMAN: This is indirect.

18 MS. IYAMA: Yes.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Indirect, right?

20 MS. IYAMA: Indirect employment. Returns 

21 to the US economy and then the best case scenario 

22 where all the money spent on the imported EPSs 

23 returns to the US economy, so it provides a range.

24 MR. RIDER: Okay. So that’s – the 

25 negative 1.4 in this case to the positive point six, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

245

1 that’s the range of money not coming into the 

2 country, versus the money coming into the country.

3 MS. IYAMA: Here the results are expressed 

4 in thousands of jobs.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Brian. A question 

6 from the internet.

7 MR. BOOHER: Another question from the 

8 internet that has to deal with the general scope of 

9 the analysis, so we could hold off until all of the 

10 impacts analysis questions have been dealt with.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, let us know where it 

12 fits.

13 MR. BOOHER: Okay. If we have no more 

14 questions on impact analysis.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s follow on here. Ken.

16 MR. RIDER: This is my final question on 

17 this. Again, slide 150. So for these products, the 

18 life-cycle cost have been shown to be positive. So 

19 where I’m confused is that if you – if all the money 

20 you spend on the product leaves the United States, 

21 but then you save all this money in the United 

22 States on utility bills, we’re talking about 

23 indirect, not utility impacts, but the indirect 

24 effect is that consumers, even if all their money 

25 leaves the United States, they earn all this money 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

246

1 in the United States with utility savings. Why –So 

2 you’re going to have a net positive amount of money, 

3 even if they put it all in their bank accounts. Why 

4 –How do you get a negative shift, I guess, given 

5 that fact. How does the money – in other words, 

6 kind of on Pierre’s point – the money that you save, 

7 how is that invested, and how is that being looked 

8 at? Is that money leaving the United States as 

9 well?

10 MS. IYAMA: It’s – so Some of it will 

11 stay, some of it will be leaving the economy, but 

12 this is something that doesn’t change from the 

13 baseline to the standard case. We keep those these 

14 assumptions the same. We don’t assume that the 

15 consumers will change the way they spend their 

16 money, in the case of standards or in comparison to

17 the base case.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Dave.

19 MR. DENKENBERGER: So what is that 

20 percentage? So say you have an LCC savings. The 

21 consumer has more money to spend. What percent goes 

22 to the US and what percent goes abroad?

23 MS. IYAMA: I don’t have the precise 

24 assumptions that are used by the ImSET model, but 

25 it’s something that is embedded in the model.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

247

1 MR. SHEIKH: Question. The numbers on 150 

2 would be similar for battery chargers?

3 MS. IYAMA: It’s also – it’s in the same 

4 range of magnitude, and the results, the full 

5 results are presented in the TSD chapters.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Chapter what?

7 MS. IYAMA: So for the employment impact 

8 it’s Chapter 13, I believe.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Maybe we can confirm that. 

10 Thank you. So additional questions here before I go 

11 back to Brian? Okay, Brian.

12 MR. BOOHER: This is a question from 

13 Marcel Marchot. It’s about – in the test procedure, 

14 Appendix Y, the test procedure does not appear to 

15 cover an integral battery charger that – where 

16 there’s like multiple battery charging stations and 

17 it’s powered by only one EPS. I don’t know if we 

18 can address that.

19 MR. NARDOTTI: I don’t have a good answer. 

20 This is Matt Nardotti. I guess I don’t have a good 

21 answer. I’m not entirely sure what exactly is being 

22 asked. If I could perhaps see what the product was, 

23 get more information on the product, that might –

24 provide more information –

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, go ahead.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

248

1 MR. PETROLATI: Yes, please submit that as 

2 rulemaking, and it will be addressed. Thank you. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. So now 

4 we’re moving on to results and proposed standards. 

5 This is the – one of the final substantive elements. 

6 Ari, yes.

7 Summary of Results and Proposed Standards

8 MR. REEVES: Ari Reeves, with D&R. So I 

9 have a sequence of slides here that deal with the 

10 proposed standards and results. First for EPSs, and 

11 then for BCs. And what you’ll see is one or more 

12 slides that depict the proposed standards in the 

13 context of the TSLs that were analyzed, followed by, 

14 in most cases, two slides of results, summary 

15 results.

16 And in the interest of time, what I’d like 

17 to do is run through the EPS slides and then take 

18 comments, and then run through the BC slides and 

19 take comments on those. So I still have some 

20 remarks regarding labeling to follow.

21 So let’s start with EPS product class B, 

22 the basic-voltage external power supplies. What you 

23 see here on this chart is the EISA standard in cyan, 

24 perhaps, and above that, TSLs 1, 2, and 3. You can 

25 see that TSL-2 is the level that DOE has selected 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

249

1 for the standard. And then in the table just below, 

2 you can see the maximum power in no load that 

3 corresponds to each of those TSLs with the selected 

4 TSL in the red box. And this is the same format 

5 that you’ll see throughout this presentation.

6 For B, C, D, and E, conveniently, the 

7 active-mode efficiency standard for B and D are the 

8 same, and the TSLs analyzed for C and E are the same 

9 as one another, so we have two sets of active-mode 

10 efficiency curves. TSL-2, again, is the proposed 

11 TSL. As you can see, the EISA baseline in cyan at 

12 the bottom, right there, and then the no load mode 

13 standard down below. So AC/DC are the products in 

14 classes B and C, and classes D and E are the AC/AC 

15 EPSs.

16 So here we have a summary of results for 

17 product class B. In the upper left hand corner, the 

18 pie chart shows the applications for which the EPSs 

19 fall into this class:: notebook computers, LAN 

20 equipment, answering machines, and down the line. 

21 Over to the right there are four bar charts showing 

22 the average life-cycle costs. One note here is that 

23 what you see is not the total life-cycle cost of 

24 each of these units, but rather the life-cycle cost 

25 over and above the installed price, or the first 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

250

1 cost of the baseline unit. So the operating costs 

2 are total, but the installed price or first cost is 

3 incremental. 

4 And the little black boxes indicate the 

5 CSL that is at the proposed standard level. So you 

6 can see the four rep units there, the life-cycle 

7 cost for each of those. And then in the lower left, 

8 I’ll draw your attention to the efficiency 

9 distribution. This is much like the charts that Dan 

10 Lauf showed earlier, showing what percent of the 

11 market is at each level, and throughout this section 

12 of the presentation, what I’m showing is the base 

13 case efficiency distributions in 2013.

14 So if you look at EPS product class B as a 

15 whole, you can see that the net social benefits are 

16 maximized at TSL-2. DOE’s primary criterion for 

17 selecting standard levels was net social benefits. 

18 That’s what you see depicted on the left hand side. 

19 And then the table on the right hand side shows, in 

20 addition to net social benefits in the last row, 

21 several of the other factors that DOE considered 

22 when looking at selecting a level for the proposed 

23 standards for this class, and the same goes for 

24 other classes.

25 The national energy savings, the consumer 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

251

1 benefits, the change in industry net present value, 

2 CO2 emission savings, and the net social benefits.

3 If you move from product class B to B, C, 

4 D, and E taken together, what you see is that the 

5 net social benefits increase because you’ve got a

6 larger pool of products. Again, TSL-2 is the level 

7 that DOE selected for all four of these classes. 

8 And the blue and orange bars show the net benefits 

9 at a three-percent discount rate and at a seven10 percent discount rate.

11 So moving on to product classes X and H. 

12 I apologize this chart is a little bit busy, but 

13 since high power EPSs, the definition of those 

14 starts at 250 watts nameplate output power, you can 

15 see those are the ones off to the right there. The 

16 multiple voltage only goes up to 250. I’ll draw 

17 your attention first to the multiple voltage curves, 

18 the average active mode efficiency curves. TSL-1 

19 and TSL-2 are coincident. The red line there 

20 corresponds to both of those levels because the 

21 variation between those two is only in the maximum 

22 no load mode power, as seen in the table.

23 And for high power, we have the TSL-2 in 

24 red is the proposed level. And you can see the 

25 other two TSLs that were evaluated. TSL-1, down 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

252

1 below in yellow, and TSL-3 up above in blue.

2 So let’s look at some results for product 

3 class X, and then for product class H. For X, again 

4 we have one application, the video game console. 

5 This is the Xbox 360 EPS. The life-cycle costs are 

6 as shown in the chart just below. CSL-2 is the 

7 selected TSL, or CSL, which corresponds to TSL-2. 

8 And you can see from the efficiency distribution 

9 here, you’ve got basically all the market at two 

10 different levels, CSL-0 and CSL-1. The CSL-2 is the 

11 best in market. The five percent that you see there 

12 is aftermarket EPSs that are available for the Xbox 

13 360. And then the net social benefits on the right 

14 hand side, again, the selected TSL maximizes those,

15 and then other values shown in the table in the 

16 lower right.

17 MR. SHEIKH: Question on the previous 

18 slide?

19 MR. REEVES: Yeah.

20 MR. SHEIKH: On the table, change in 

21 industry NPVNPV. Can you explain that line, please?

22 MR. REEVES: Sure. You heard about the 

23 manufacturer impact analysis earlier. And a range 

24 of scenarios were evaluated for that, looking at 

25 different profitability scenarios. And so the range 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

253

1 of values you see there corresponds to that range of 

2 profitability scenarios from a worst case to a best 

3 case scenario.

4 MR. SHEIKH: Worst case is negative?

5 MR. REEVES: Indeed. Yes. For product 

6 class H, again, we have one application, the amateur 

7 radios, or EPSs for amateur radios. This is the 

8 first time that you’ve seen the whole life-cycle 

9 cost. For this product class and for all of the 

10 battery charger product classes we looked at the 

11 total installed price, rather than just the 

12 incremental installed price. Again, the selected 

13 TSL is highlighted in green, over on the right, or 

14 in a little black box on the left. And we estimate 

15 that the market will be evenly split between CSL-0, 

16 the baseline, and CSL-1 prior to federal standards 

17 taking effect. And CSL-3 in this case is the best 

18 in market CSL. So that’s EPSs.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s pause. Yes. 

20 Comments on these EPS tables, all of these product 

21 categories. Yes. Ric.

22 MR. ERDHEIM: Ric Erdheim, Philips. Ari, 

23 I just have a question on slide 162. You’ve got the 

24 net social benefits for product class B.

25 MR. REEVES: Uh-huh.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

254

1 MR. ERDHEIM: But earlier, on slide 115, 

2 DOE had the life-cycle cost for the four 

3 representative class B voltages. I’m wondering 

4 whether you have the net social benefits broken down 

5 by the four representative units.

6 MR. REEVES: I don’t have it in this 

7 presentation, however, I know that you can obtain 

8 those from the NIA workbook, the national impact 

9 analysis workbook, and they may also appear in the 

10 TSD.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Dan. Dave.

12 MR. DENKENBERGER: Dave Denkenberger. In 

13 the best case scenario of the industry NPV industry 

14 gets to charge the same markups on a more expensive 

15 product, so wouldn’t that be beneficial to industry?

16 MR. H. COOK: This is Hayden Cook. This 

17 basically has to do with conversion costs. If 

18 conversion costs are large enough, where 

19 manufacturers can’t recoup those costs, even with 

20 the markup, then those results will be negative.

21 MR. DENKENBERGER: But I thought the 

22 assumption was that they would be able to pass those 

23 conversion costs through.

24 MR. H. COOK: It’s not conversion costs, 

25 it’s the increase in the MPC that they’re able to 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

255

1 pass through.

2 MR. DENKENBERGER: MPC is?

3 MS. CLEARY: Manufacturer production cost. 

4 So it’s just the production cost. It’s not the 

5 total.

6 MR. DENKENBERGER: I see. You’re saying 

7 variable versus fixed costs on the manufacturers?

8 MR. CARMICHAEL: This is Rob Carmichael, 

9 Navigant. Exactly. So it’s a one-time cost, one 

10 time investment, cash outflow, versus an increase in 

11 the variable cost per product.

12 MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. So you’re saying 

13 the manufacturer would not always pass through the 

14 one-time cost.

15 MR. CARMICHAEL: Right. Exactly. So 

16 really there are two factors working against each 

17 other, offsetting factors. So one is the conversion 

18 cost. It’s a one-time outflow. And the second is 

19 the marked up increase in product cost. So if it’s 

20 a relatively flat curve, they’re really not marking 

21 up a whole lot, but it could be that the one-time 

22 outflow is large enough to offset that.

23 MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. Thanks.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. Holly.

25 MS. EVANS: Holly Evans. I’m looking at 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

256

1 slide 161, the bottom left chart. So does this 

2 chart show that the limits are set so CSL-3 level,

3 only those blue products would be able to be sold in 

4 the United States? Is that what that chart is 

5 showing?

6 MR. REEVES: What it’s showing is what we 

7 expect the market distribution to be prior to the 

8 standards taking effect, but with the standard in 

9 effect the whole market would move up to that CSL-3.

10 MS. EVANS: Okay. I guess I’m trying to 

11 compare with the Energy Star program, which sets a 

12 limit at 25 percent of the market, and usually the 

13 voluntary programs are designed to kind of reward 

14 the top performers, and this seems to set a 

15 mandatory standard at a percentage of the market 

16 that is just so stringent. I mean, has there been 

17 any consideration of percentages of the products, 

18 and how to reward like the top percentages in order 

19 to make the limits stringent, but also recognize 

20 that, you know, there needs to be some recognition 

21 of where the technology is?? Has that been 

22 considered?

23 MR. REEVES: I can say that that’s not 

24 explicitly considered in the analytical process;;

25 however, that might be something that DOE takes into 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

257

1 account.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Please say your name 

3 for the record.

4 MR. CLINGER: (off mic) Hi. This is John 

5 Clinger from ICF International. I just wanted to 

6 remind everyone that the EPS program, Energy Star 

7 program ...

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Has been sunset you said? 

9 Rick, go ahead.

10 MR. HABBEN: So I just wanted to go on the 

11 record. We had a discussion a little bit earlier 

12 off line, but regarding the product class C EPSs, 

13 for some of our products, they are extremely low 

14 voltage and looking at slide 160, they’re extremely 

15 low voltage and have high current outputs. So at 

16 this point I don’t think the technology is available 

17 for the voltage and current levels that we are 

18 currently using to meet a TSL-2 level. So I’ll be 

19 commenting on that further, but to meet those 

20 efficiency requirements with those voltage and 

21 currents, it’s currently impossible to do.

22 MR. REEVES: So just for the record, 

23 you’re referring to a low voltage AC/DC EPS?

24 MR. HABBEN: With high current. Yes.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So these 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

258

1 comments have been useful. Additional comments on 

2 this series of slides, EPSs? Yes, Jeff.

3 MR. HAILEY: Hi. Jeff Hailey, Dell. Just 

4 to reiterate. As an industry group within ITI and 

5 what was related earlier in the opening comments 

6 from ITI, we believe that, you know, this TSL-2 –

7 I’m not sure that it’s fully comprehended on the net 

8 social benefit basis, based on what it’s going to 

9 take to get there and the volumes that are produced, 

10 and the cost to the consumer. I’m not sure that’s 

11 been totally reflected in this analysis in the net 

12 social benefits here, and, you know, just to 

13 reiterate what we said at the beginning within ITI, 

14 I think going down to the next level is a better 

15 consideration, and I’m not sure the net social 

16 benefit is truly accurate here.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Are we ready to 

18 move on?

19 MR. REEVES: Okay. On to battery 

20 chargers. We’ll start at the beginning with product 

21 class 1. As mentioned earlier, the standards being 

22 proposed for product class 1 are constants across 

23 the range of battery energies. I believe this 

24 product class theoretically extends up to 100 watt25 hours. Is that correct? Well, no limit, I’m told.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

259

1 So you see the standards here with the 

2 baseline at the top. This is different from EPSs. 

3 Baseline is at the top and the highest efficiency 

4 level analyzed is down at the bottom with UEC 

5 decreasing as you make the battery charger more 

6 efficient.

7 Next is a quick summary of results on two 

8 slides. First, here we have one application, 

9 primarily, almost exclusively rechargeable 

10 toothbrushes in this class. W. We can show energy 

11 use by CSL here in the chart in the upper right. 

12 And you’ll see these for all the battery charger 

13 product classes. In the dark red, that’s the unit 

14 energy consumption of the representative unit each 

15 year, decreasing from 8.7 kilowatt hours a year at 

16 CSL-0 to 1.3 kilowatt hours per year at CSL-3. And 

17 then the corresponding energy savings in light pink.

18 In the lower left, an efficiency 

19 distribution in 2013, just as we saw for the EPSs,

20 with CSL-2 being the selected CSL;; that’s in the 

21 light green over to the right. And then in the 

22 lower right, the average life-cycle cost. Again, 

23 these are the total average life-cycle costs, not 

24 incremental. And you can see that they’re minimized 

25 at CSL-2, and that’s the case for all the battery 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

260

1 charger product classes;; that is, life-cycle costs 

2 are minimized at the selected TSL. 

3 Again, net social benefits are maximized 

4 at TSL-2. Maybe this bears repeating just once 

5 again that net social benefits are the sum of the 

6 net consumer benefits and the monetized emission 

7 savings.

8 There is a summary of other results over 

9 on the right hand side. Let me point out that your 

10 handout has different numbers in the table. I just 

11 caught that error last night. So the slides here 

12 are correct, but the handouts are not.

13 Moving on to battery charger product class 

14 2. Again you see the TSLs that were examined. TSL15 1 was selected for the proposal. Here we’ll move on 

16 to product class 3. These look similar to one 

17 another. The only thing to point out here is that 

18 there’s a kink in the bar as shown earlier, as 

19 explained earlier. The required maximum UEC would 

20 be a constant at low battery energies and then at 

21 some point would turn up and increase as battery 

22 energy increases. Similarly for product class 4.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes.

24 MR. NARDOTTI: There’s also another – this 

25 is Matt Nardotti – for product classes 3 and 4, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

261

1 there’s a change to the legend relative to the 

2 handout. The yellow lines on both of these 

3 equations represent TSL-1 and 2. And then the red 

4 line is TSL-3 and black is TSL-4.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: State it again, Matt.

6 MR. NARDOTTI: So on the UEC battery 

7 energy plots for product classes 3 and 4, the yellow 

8 line is TSL-1 and 2, the red line is TSL-3, and the 

9 black line is TSL-4.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

11 MR. REEVES: Okay. So let’s look at some 

12 results for product classes 2, 3, and 4. As for the 

13 other product classes, the pie chart shows what 

14 applications fall into these classes. The bar 

15 charts directly underneath show how the unit energy 

16 consumption of products at each CSL varies and 

17 declines as you move towards the right. And the 

18 efficiency distributions at the bottom show market 

19 efficiency distribution in 2013, prior to standards 

20 taking effect.

21 And I’ll point out here that these are

22 efficiency distributions after we’ve taken account 

23 of the California standards and their effect on the 

24 efficiency of battery chargers in the market.

25 PARTICIPANT: You say after?
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

262

1 MR. REEVES: After, yes. So the other 

2 half of the story for 2, 3, and 4 relates to life3 cycle costs and net social benefits and the other 

4 benefits in the lower right. You can see again, 

5 life-cycle costs are minimized at the selected TSL 

6 or CSL – or selected efficiency level, let’s say, 

7 and again, the net social benefits are maximized at 

8 TSL-1, which represents CSL-1 in all three of these 

9 product classes. 

10 And so the energy savings numbers – energy 

11 and other numbers that you see in the lower right 

12 are for all three classes taken together. Again, 

13 you can find the results for the individual product 

14 classes, I believe they’re in the notice, the TSD, 

15 and in the analytical workbooks, all of which are 

16 available from DOE’s website. Okay. 

17 Here we see the standards being proposed 

18 for product class 5 in the context of the other TSLs 

19 that were examined. The proposed standard is at 

20 TSL-2 which corresponds to CSL-2. 

21 And similarly, for product class 6, so 

22 let’s look at the results for those. These are the 

23 battery chargers with battery energies between 100 

24 and 3000 watt hours, the medium energy ones. And 

25 the pie charts show the applications – toy ride-on 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

263

1 vehicles being predominating predominant in product 

2 class 5, electric scooters in product class 6. 

3 These are what I think of as the most fun 

4 applications because you can ride on them, so 

5 product classes 5 and 6 are special for me. The bar 

6 charts in the middle show the UECs at each TSL, and 

7 again, efficiency distributions at the bottom, and 

8 CSL-2 is the light green portions.

9 And additional results for product classes 

10 5 and 6 are the life-cycle costs on the top half of 

11 the slide, and the net social benefits on the lower 

12 left. , and other impacts in the lower right.

13 Okay. Product class 7, the high powered 

14 EPSs-energy battery chargers. DOE examined three 

15 TSLs, and the TSL-1 is the proposed standard. 

16 Another product class, with a single application, in 

17 this case, golf cars. You can see what we believe 

18 is the efficiency distribution in the marketplace on 

19 the lower left, and on the – there actually isn’t a 

20 CSL-3 defined, so this is an error on the slide. 

21 You can ignore that label, CSL-3 with the blue. The 

22 energy use is shown in the upper right – . You can 

23 see that it decreases by 63 kilowatt hours a year 

24 moving from CSL-0 to CSL-1, and then by an 

25 additional amount going from 1 to 2. And the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

264

1 average life-cycle costs are minimized at CSL-1.

2 Next slide shows the net social benefits 

3 and other impacts projected for standards for 

4 product class 7.

5 Then product class 8 has again three TSLs 

6 that were looked at; TSL-1 is the level where the 

7 standard is being proposed. Several applications 

8 here – MP3 players being the primary one. You can 

9 see that there’s very little energy use at all CSLs 

10 for products in this class, ranging from a high of 

11 point nine kilowatt hours a year, to a low of point 

12 two kilowatt hours a year. So this shows up in the 

13 life-cycle cost chart immediately below. You see 

14 that almost the entire life-cycle cost of these 

15 products is the installed price, that is the up16 front cost and not the operating cost, very little 

17 difference from one CSL to another. So the 

18 decrease, the upfront cost is minimized at CSL-1, 

19 the first cost of the product, and that’s where the 

20 savings come from, primarily. So you can see very 

21 little energy savings in this class – point zero 

22 zero nine six (.0096) quads, but a substantial 

23 amount of dollar savings from moving products from 

24 CSL-0 to CSL-1.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Rick.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

265

1 MR. HABBEN: On your slide there, that 

2 should say product class 8 at the bottom?

3 MR. REEVES: Yes, sorry about that.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Ken, did you –

5 MR. RIDER: Yes. So the operating cost is 

6 the operating cost of the battery charger system 

7 itself. I just wanted to point out that for these 

8 products, there’s an additional loss that isn’t 

9 incorporated here which is the conversion from AC to 

10 DC that’s going to happen outside of this product. 

11 So just like to point out that these are in the very 

12 low end of an estimate of what the energy 

13 consumption will be as they will eventually be 

14 connected to a computer or to some other product 

15 that will have to do that work for it, and so that I 

16 at least think that these life-cycle costs – the 

17 estimates of the operating costs are low for these 

18 products.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

20 MR. REEVES: That brings us to product 

21 class 10, which is, as you know, has been split into 

22 10A and 10B. So you see the standards for 10A on 

23 this slide, or rather the TSLs, and then shift them 

24 all up about 3.7 watts or watt-hours I think – or 

25 kilowatt hours, rather, to get to this slide, which 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

266

1 is for the products with AVR.

2 So you can see here we have – you can see 

3 immediately the effects of the California standard:

4 that 13 percent on the right hand side of the 

5 efficiency distribution chart is products being 

6 increased – increasing in efficiency to meet that 

7 California standard, which we approximate with CSL8 3. And we consider it to be the max tech level.

9 Somebody mentioned earlier that there was 

10 a product at CSL-2, but there is no longer – it’s no 

11 longer on the market.

12 And here you can see the net social 

13 benefits are maximized at this max tech level, TSL14 3, which coincides, roughly speaking, with the 

15 California standard. And I have a set of slides a 

16 few down the road here to compare – to look at the 

17 California standards in a little bit more detail.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Would you recommend we take 

19 comments now on all the preceding before we go to 

20 the CEC comparison? Or should we do that – let’s 

21 illuminate the –

22 MR. REEVES: Let’s take a few comments 

23 now.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. We’ve already had 

25 some. Additional comments on all of these proposed 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

267

1 standard levels? Rick.

2 MR. ERDHEIM: Ric Erdheim with Philips. 

3 I’m looking at the last item, which is an additional 

4 item, where DOE’s asking for compliance for input on 

5 the length of compliance period for battery 

6 chargers. For at least Class A external power 

7 supplies, you have a two year mandate. I think 

8 you’re proposing two years for the nonClass A. But 

9 for battery chargers you don’t have a requirement, 

10 but we would say, and I think most industry would 

11 say, in general, a minimum of two years is necessary 

12 to make the sorts of changes that we’re talking 

13 about. The problem is that we have a very unique 

14 situation in that for product classes, battery 

15 charger classes 2 through 6, the California 

standards go into effect February 1st 16 . At least at 

17 the proposal stage, the DOE has found that those 

18 standards present a negative net present value, and 

19 you’ve not proposed those levels, you’ve proposed 

20 different levels. 

21 So under your mandate you’re supposed to –

22 your statutory requirements but you’re looking for 

23 net present value that’s positive. So if you did 

24 the normal two years, we would then have the 

25 California standards go into effect, and in effect 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

268

1 by lack of action, you would result in net negative 

2 present value as you’ve currently found. So I think 

3 because of this unique situation I guess we would 

4 argue for at least product classes two through four,

5 and maybe 5 and 6 would want to agree, that you 

6 should have a much shorter compliance period so that 

7 we don’t run into this problem dealing with 

8 California. So I would say normally we would say 

9 two years at minimum two years, but because of this 

10 unique circumstance, at least with those products -–

11 I’m not talking about product class 10 because 

12 they’ve got different issues-- but for 2 through 4,

13 which we have, and then 5 and 6 also where you found 

14 there’s a net negative present value, unless you act 

15 soon, we’re going to result in a net negative 

16 present value as a result of California. So we 

17 would urge you to act much more quickly for those 

18 categories.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Jen.

20 MS. CLEARY: This is Jennifer Cleary with 

21 AHAM. I think our comments echo Rick’s in large 

22 part, but I just – so I don’t want to repeat what he 

23 said, but I do just – I think we may be a little 

24 narrower, so I do want to offer some additional 

25 comments. In all other cases, AHAM believes that 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

269

1 proper lead-in time is necessary, generally, for our 

2 products, that’s three years. In this case, two 

3 years, and we believe strongly that should be 

4 adhered to. But this is a unique case for all the 

5 reasons that Rick mentioned, and I won’t go into 

6 those again. And so under these circumstances, for 

7 product classes two through four, and with respect 

8 to the products that AHAM covers we’ll have details 

9 in our written comments, we do support the July 2013 

10 effective date, or at least a very quick action by 

11 DOE for the reasons that Rick mentioned as well.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, 

13 Jay.

14 MR. TAYLOR: So Vic and I talked about 

15 this briefly over lunch, but our view on the 

16 category 10 about – we have an opportunity here to 

17 do the design twice. And one of the things we’re 

18 concerned about is having to do the design twice. 

19 Currently we’re engaged in the California 

20 regulations. We’re targeting them, but the scope is 

21 smaller than the current regulations proposed by 

22 DOE, or what was in the NOPR, and so we could, and 

23 probably withwill, withdraw some of the systems from 

24 the California marketplace simply because we won’t 

25 be able to get them finished in time, and the amount 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

270

1 of difference between the spec and what we’re 

2 capable of achieving is larger than we could do it. 

3 But we could still withdraw a handful of systems and 

4 have the other systems ready to deploy into the 

5 marketplace to cover what was there and meet the 

6 requirement in the timeframe. 

7 When you start broadening the standard,

8 and then also there’s a fair amount of uncertainty 

9 because some of the names have changed. AVR and 

10 non-AVR – I don’t know whether that translates into 

11 things that we had defined with the California

12 regulation. So given that level of uncertainty, 

13 that’s what our concern would end up being.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: I’m sure you’ll go into 

15 considerably – considerable detail in your written 

16 comments about how you would like the Department to 

17 handle this, with dates and the whole thing?

18 MR. TAYLOR: Yes. Yes, and we will be 

19 following up with pretty verbose written comments.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, Rick.

21 MR. HABBEN: Again, I don’t want to take a 

22 lot of time, but I want to echo what Ric Erdheim and 

23 Jennifer from AHAM said about product classes 2 

24 through 4, that we would like DOE to pursue on 

25 implementing those as quickly as possible and we 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

271

1 would concur that the July date is acceptable for 

2 those product classes. We’d like DOE to move on it.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Do we have 

4 other – I guess we will rely on written comments. 

5 Do we have other product manufacturers who wish to 

6 echo that, just so we have it here on the record at 

7 this time? Forward written comments then. Okay. 

8 So those were useful comments. You see item 1, 8, 

9 36 and an additional item listed there. Please scan 

10 through them, even though we’re all getting a little 

11 tired out, let’s make sure we do our diligence right 

12 now. Yes. Please. We have someone comment from the 

13 internet.

14 MR. BOOHER: Larry Albert says that PTI 

15 supports the earliest practical adoption of the DOE 

16 levels for product classes 2 through 4.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. That’s helpful. 

18 I’m looking at Ken and Dave. You have something? 

19 No? Not at this time, okay. So then we’re going to 

20 move on.

21 MR. REEVES: We’re on slide 190 now. This 

22 table here compares DOE’s proposed standard levels 

23 with thisthe California standard, or rather the CSL 

24 that DOE has identified that best approximates the 

25 CEC standard. And you can see that in the case of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

272

1 product classes 2 through 6, the California standard 

2 is set at a level that’s higher than where DOE’s 

3 proposing to set its standards. For product classes 

4 1 and 8, the California standard is best 

5 approximated by our – the DOE baseline level. And 

6 for product classes 7 and 10, they’re roughly 

7 equivalent. 

8 So I’m going to show you a series of two 

9 slides that hone in just on product classes 2 though 

10 6. So in this slide here, we compared the net 

11 social benefits at the two levels. And I just want 

12 to be clear here that what we’re showing is the 

13 projected national impacts, not impacts in 

14 California, but national impacts with all the 

15 assumptions and caveats underlying DOE’s analysis at 

16 these two levels, the DOE proposal on the left, and 

17 the CEC standards on the right.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Extrapolated.

19 MR. REEVES: Yeah, approximated. So, as 

20 you can see, the net benefits, both from a social 

21 and a consumer perspective, are positive in the case 

22 of the levels that DOE is proposing, and negative in 

23 the case of the California standard levels. This is 

24 product classes 2, 3, and 4 taken together, and the 

25 story is similar, though the numbers are a little 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

273

1 different, for product classes 5 and 6.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: So let’s just pause. 

3 Comments here? Joanna.

4 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. We believe that 

5 the DOE engineering analysis for battery charger 

6 product classes 2 through 4 is not complete because 

7 it hasn’t looked at improving efficiency – using an 

8 improved nickel design similar to that presented by 

9 ECOVA this morning, so we believe that the costs 

10 that DOE estimates for achieving the CEC levels are 

11 overestimated, and we think that if you look at a 

12 design based on something similar to what ECOVA

13 presented that you’d see very different results 

14 looking at the impact of the CEC levels. So we urge 

15 DOE to go back and examine a design based on that 

16 improved nickel chemistry. The current engineering 

17 analysis is based on available units on the market, 

18 and hasn’t looked at how you could achieve the 

19 similar high efficiency levels at a lower cost.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Ken.

21 MR. RIDER: This is Ken Rider, California 

22 Energy Commission. So first, I guess a second to 

23 step back to 36 and then move on to this. You know, 

24 DOE was interested to in how we can minimize the 

25 impact to industry, and in the comment that I read 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

274

1 at the beginning of this meeting, I mentioned that 

2 it’s the Energy Commission’s position that 

3 harmonizing standards is the best way to minimize 

4 impacts to manufacturers. Of course these graphs 

5 you presented here show quite negative net social 

6 benefits to the California- associated CSLs. These 

7 CSLs, first of all, are not perfectly aligned with 

8 the California standards, and secondly, I think 

9 there are a number of assumptions that we’ll embody 

10 in more detailed written comments that refute some 

11 of these negative estimated impacts. So that’s just 

12 from the Energy Commission’s perspective on these.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

14 MR. RIDER: And just to say on the record, 

15 we’ve also found and adopted standards that we 

16 believe to be cost-effective, and we’ve done our own 

17 analysis of this in the context of California, to 

18 show that these – and that’s what our proceedings 

19 showed at the end, was that these are positive on 

20 the right side, so there’s a difference of analysis 

21 here.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Vic Petrolati.

23 MR. PETROLATI: Yes. Just to respond to 

24 that. You know, we fully realize that our analysis 

25 is different because it is looking at the national 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

275

1 impacts. We fully realize that potentially the cost 

2 of electricity used in California was different than 

3 what we used as a national impact. We certainly 

4 believe there is the possibility that your standards 

5 are, in fact, cost-effective in California. We are 

6 not convinced at this point that they would be cost7 effective nation wide. That’s our concern at this 

8 point. At this point we would not be able to 

9 indicate to management or OMB that we should 

10 harmonize with the California standard currently 

11 because of the impacts that we’re showing.

12 MR. RIDER: And I think that’s part of the 

13 burden of the comment that we need to give, that the 

14 Energy Commission needs to submit to try to convince 

15 you otherwise.

16 MR. PETROLATI: Right. Exactly. Thank 

17 you. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks to both of 

19 you. Additional comments here on this CEC 

20 comparison. Yes. Dave.

21 MR. DENKENBERGER: So just comparing 

22 slides 191, so this is classes 2, 3, and 4, you show 

23 that for CSL-2 large negative values for net social 

24 benefits. However, if I’m understanding correctly, 

25 on slide 174, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

276

1 MR. PETROLATI: (comment off mic)

2 MR. DENKENBERGER: Ah.

3 MR. REEVES: Yeah, so I can clarify, I 

4 think. CSL-2 is TSL-2 for product class 2. But 

5 CSL-2 is TSL-3 for product classes 3 and 4. So in 

6 order to arrive at those California comparison 

7 numbers, we had to pick values from different TSLs 

8 for the different product classes.

9 MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. And then my next 

10 question is how did you arrive at the comparison 

11 between the DOE CSLs and the levels?

12 MR. REEVES: For somebody from Navigant.

13 MR. NARDOTTI: This is Matt Nardotti. So 

14 if you remember, one of the things that Peter 

15 addressed during the engineering analysis was that 

16 we needed to scale from a representative unit to all 

17 the battery energies for a given product class. And 

18 when we did that, we broke down the individual 

19 performance parameters that go into the UEC 

20 calculation. So --24- hour energy, maintenance mode 

21 power, and standby mode power-- and for each of 

22 those individual performance parameters we developed 

23 a function relative to battery energy – so: P-key 

24 P-maintenance as a function of battery energy, E24 

25 as a function of battery energy, and standby mode 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

277

1 power as a function of battery energy. And when you 

2 compare our E24, the equation that we developed for 

3 that, that went into that scaling equation, we 

4 compared that to the CEC requirement for E24 and 

5 then the combination of the maintenance mode and 

6 standby mode functions that we created relative to 

7 the combined maintenance mode and standby mode 

8 allotment that CEC requires.

9 So we looked at our CSLs on the 

10 performance parameter level, not ; we didn’t put the 

11 CEC standard into a UEC. 

12 MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Vic.

14 MR. PETROLATI: Is it advisable to show 

15 the graphs, do you still have those as backups?

16 MR. NARDOTTI: Yeah, we do have those, so 

17 we could show those.

18 MR. REEVES: On this computer?

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Are they in the packet?

20 (discussion off mic.)

21 MR. REEVES: You asked about 2, 3, and 4, 

22 I think?

23 MR. DENKENBERGER: Yes.

24 MR. REEVES: So here’s 2, and the CEC 

25 standard is shown in the dotted blue line, and so we 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

278

1 – let’s see, CSL-3 was used to approximate that.

2 MR. DENKENBERGER: I was just curious. 

3 How did you develop the scaling factors for these 

4 lines that you’ve drawn here?

5 MR. NARDOTTI: Say again? This is Matt, 

6 and this is – this is outlined in the engineering 

7 chapter, Chapter 5, but what we – this is all based 

8 on test data. So when we tested a range of products 

9 across the different battery energies, we could see 

10 how each of these parameters changed with respect to 

11 battery energy, and so we could create a best fit 

12 line through those.

13 MR. RIDER: Right, so I guess my question 

14 is is your – the proposed standard is on a kilowatt 

15 hour basis, and it scales by kilowatt hour based on 

16 duty cycle, so I’m wondering how you back calculate 

17 that into something that scales by watt hours. 

18 Because we’re not talking about the raw data, we’re 

19 talking about the standards themselves and comparing 

20 one standard to another standard. How do you get 

21 from the standard scaled by E battery in kilowatt 

22 hours and the DOE standard, so how do you see that 

23 scale?

24 MR. NARDOTTI: So there is no perfect 

25 examination, right. There is no perfect way to 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

279

1 compare UEC to what California was comparing. So 

2 the best we could do was see how our – the rep units 

3 and how the different parameters change with respect 

4 – we put our standard basically into the terms of 

5 your standard before we aggregated and made 

6 assumptions about usage profile. And so before 

7 doing that assumption about usage profile, we could 

8 make a comparison of our products at each CSL level, 

9 or at each CSL relative to this California standard.

10 MR. DENKENBERGER: Makes sense.

11 MR. REEVES: I misspoke: it’s CSL-2 that

12 is the closest approximation of the CEC standard. 

13 Here’s product class 3; again, CSL-2 is the – was 

14 selected as the nearest approximation.

15 (discussion off mic)

16 MR. NARDOTTI: This is Matt. CSL-2 and 3 

17 are very close to each other, so it’s just very hard 

18 to see.

19 MR. REEVES: Oh, I see. And again, for 

20 product class 4, it’s CSL-2.

21 MR. HABBEN: Will these be made available 

22 on the web?

23 MR. PETROLATI: (off mic) Yes, 

24 absolutely.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So then we have –
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

280

1 take final comments on this segment, and then we 

2 have another slide or two, one on labeling – a 

3 couple on labeling, then we’re pretty much there. 

4 Rick.

5 MR. HABBEN: I just wanted to make a final 

6 comment that was in this section, that was kind of 

7 made earlier from Doug from the CEA that, you know, 

8 we had submitted a report, --AHAM, along with CEA, -

9 -that had discrepancies as far as the numbers 

10 regarding what the California Energy Commission 

11 Report originally stated, and which our report 

12 corrected some of their numbers and found some

13 negative benefits. So I think that more aligns with 

14 what DOE was actually getting in their numbers as 

15 well.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

17 Jennifer.

18 MS. CLEARY: Jen Cleary. Yes, AHAM agrees 

19 with DOE’s analysis. We think it more accurately 

20 reflects the situation, and we’ll provide that more 

21 in our written comments. And as Rick said, along 

22 with CEA, we pointed this out to CEC as well.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Let’s look at 

24 labeling.

25 Labeling
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

281

1 MR. REEVES: Okay. I’ll keep this brief. 

2 So DOE – there already is a labeling requirement for 

3 Class A EPSs, which was put in place by Congress 

4 with EISA 2007. So what DOE is proposing here is to 

5 extend that to the other EPSs within – several other 

6 EPSs that are being dealt with within this 

7 rulemaking, and battery chargers, and to propose a 

8 different marking for the higher levels that DOE is 

9 proposing today for Class A EPSs, specifically, the 

10 Roman numeral VI. 

11 So the proposal is to have the Roman 

12 numeral VI marking on all direct operation EPSs, and 

13 then have a similar marking for indirect operation 

14 EPSs, which can be broken out into two groups, the 

15 Class A and the non-Class A. So the Class A 

16 indirect operation EPSs already have a marking 

17 requirement and comment incumbent upon them, because 

18 they are Class A EPSs. But for easy identification 

19 of these EPSs and differentiation of these from 

20 those for which higher standards are being proposed, 

21 DOE is proposing to require this N or similar kind 

22 of marking be placed in conjunction with the Roman 

23 numeral. And the exception to this would be in 

24 cases where the EPS, though it is indirect 

25 operation, meets the higher standards of the higher 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

282

1 direct operation EPSs. Then there’s no need to 

2 differentiate them, they meet the prevailing 

3 standard for the regular run-of-the-mill direct 

4 operation EPS, so they can just bear that marking 

5 and don’t need the N. 

6 And then I’ll also add that for non-class 

7 A EPSs, while DOE is not proposing new standards for 

8 these products today, DOE is proposing a marking to,

9 again, enable for easy identification of these EPSs 

10 and differentiation between these and those for 

11 which standards do apply. And the marking here, 

12 EPS-N is what is included in the proposal. And all 

13 of this again is detailed in the rule section, the 

14 rule language section, that follows the preamble of 

15 the Notice.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Ken.

17 MR. RIDER: The NOPR discusses security 

18 EPSs as something that was changed in legislation. 

19 They have no standby mode standard. I may have 

20 missed it, but does the labeling proposal in this 

21 rulemaking address the labeling for security system 

22 power supplies?

23 MR. REEVES: DOE did include that, and DOE 

24 is seeking comment from the public on what would be 

25 an appropriate marking for those products, yes.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

283

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Rick.

2 MR. HABBEN: So I guess I need a 

3 clarification at the beginning here. So in indirect 

4 operation, non class N EPSs, potentially then, that 

5 could be a battery charger so you would have the 

6 battery charger symbol on the product and then you 

7 would have this marking on the actual EPS, is that 

8 correct? 

9 MR. REEVES: Correct.

10 MR. HABBEN: Okay. So then my other 

11 suggestion, and we can do this as a comment, is I 

12 would prefer that maybe we just have the circle with 

13 an N on it and eliminate the EPS, because as many of 

14 these EPSs get very small, the labels get very small 

15 so the circles are not very big in diameter. So by 

16 the time you try and get four letters on a circle 

17 that’s maybe 50,000ths 50 thousandths in diameter, 

18 you can’t read anything. So my proposal would be 

19 maybe just go with the letter N.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Doug. Yes.

21 MR. JOHNSON: Thank you. Doug Johnson 

22 again with CEA. We’ll make this comment again in 

23 our written submission, but we think it’s important 

24 to have some flexibility about the physical labeling 

25 that is allowed for labeling on packaging as opposed 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

284

1 to the physical device. Thank you. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Jennifer.

3 MS. CLEARY: Jen Cleary. I just have a 

4 couple of questions. I believe that California will 

5 allow the mark to be on the packaging, and so we 

6 just have some – having kind of two different 

7 marking schemes, it introduces some complexities and 

8 I think we’re wondering will DOE allow maybe early 

9 compliance with its marking requirements to address 

10 the potential time where there’s no preemption, 

11 which could be a very short period of time, and also 

12 how would DOE treat – like if, for example, a 

13 manufacturer were to choose to put the California 

14 marking on the packaging, how would DOE treat that 

15 situation after preemption? Would it be viewed as a 

16 statement about energy that has not been made in 

17 compliance with DOE requirements and therefore like 

18 a labeling violation, for example? Would DOE 

19 consider using its enforcement discretion in that 

20 type of situation? I think we just – we don’t have 

21 – we’ll try and think of some proposed solutions as 

22 well, but we were just trying to see if this was 

23 something that DOE had been thinking about to date.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Kido.

25 MR. KIDO: These are all issues that DOE 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

285

1 is currently considering, so to the extent that 

2 you’ve got any specific ideas as to how we might 

3 want to handle some of those issues, I encourage you 

4 to submit those in comments. And I would add that 

5 nothing has been finalized yet in terms of the 

6 labeling requirements at this time, so to the extent 

7 that anyone’s got some input on that issue, we would 

8 encourage you to provide something. These are all 

9 issues that DOE is currently considering, so to the 

10 extent that you’ve got any specific ideas as to how 

11 we might want to handle some of those issues, I 

12 encourage you to submit those in comments. And I 

13 would add that nothing has been finalized yet in 

14 terms of the labeling requirements at this time, so 

15 to the extent that anyone’s got some input on that 

16 issue, we would encourage you to provide something.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Jeff.

18 MR. HAILEY: Hi, Jeff Hailey with Dell. 

19 So the Roman numerals IV and V are part of the 

20 international marking protocol that is published by 

21 the EPA. It’s part of the now, as John Clinger with 

22 ICF said, defunct Energy Star for external power 

23 supplies. Level VI is not contained in that, and so 

24 at this point, if we were to go with this level VI 

25 marking, we would potentially have to put the V on 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

286

1 there as well for international acceptance of this. 

2 So I’m wondering, are we going to be working – are 

3 you going to be working with the Environmental 

4 Protection Agency to update the international 

5 marking protocol for level VI? I’m just not certain 

6 what’s going to happen there. So it’s just a 

7 question to you. How are we going to resolve that 

8 potential issue?

9 MR. PETROLATI: We already have. We have 

10 worked with EPA. We are going to be revising the 

11 international marking protocol as part of our 

12 rulemaking.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Vic. Please.

14 MR. BECK: Dennis Beck with the CEC. Ms. 

15 Cleary brought up an issue. I don’t know if it was 

16 articulated quite correctly, or I would articulate 

17 it a different way in terms of the labeling 

18 requirement. That certainly, we in California want 

19 to make sure that DOE’s labeling requirement 

20 dovetails with ours as best as possible, and I think 

21 that that would include some guidance on preemption. 

22 I know the Department does not typically go out and 

23 make statements necessarily about preemption, but 

24 the preemption rules differ from labeling and 

25 testing than they do from standards, depending on 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

287

1 the situation. So it may be a situation where the 

2 labeling has a preemptive effect that precedes the 

3 preemptive effect of the standards themselves. So 

4 we would want to make sure that we work with the 

5 Department and that we let people know what –

6 because the question we’ll get is what do we need to 

7 put on there? And it’s certainly, I don’t think 

8 it’s anything that the Department would need to take 

9 an enforcement action against anybody, particularly 

10 the state of California, but they would want to 

11 provide us, certainly, with their opinion about what 

12 provisions apply at which time so we can coordinate 

13 our message with industry and let them know what 

14 they need to be putting on their products.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Brian, 

16 do you have one from the web?

17 MR. BOOHER: Yes, we have a request from 

18 Susan Anderson to please clarify the difference 

19 between direct and indirect operation. And I’ll 

20 just do this very briefly. DOE developed a protocol 

21 for distinguishing direct and indirect operation, 

22 and essentially a direct operation EPS is designed 

23 so that the power can flow directly to the end use 

24 application; whereas an indirect operation EPS, all 

25 of the power flows through the battery, and the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

288

1 battery charger.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Finish the next 

3 slide so we can finish this labeling segment. Ari.

4 MR. REEVES: So I have two slides here on 

5 DOE’s proposal relative to battery chargers. 

6 There’s a marking here you can see in big, bold, 

7 black and white, BC III. Simply, the idea here was 

8 to create something that was similar to the EPS 

9 marking that would be suitable for BCs. As many of 

10 you already know that, California’s requirement is 

11 that there be a marking that says, I think, just BC 

12 for standards- compliant battery chargers. And 

13 here, DOE is contemplating there being maybe an 

14 international marking protocol for BCs, but whether 

15 or not there is such a protocol materializes, 

16 there’s an allowance for there to be markings 

17 showing that products meet some protocol – meet some 

18 standard, but a standard that’s lower than DOE’s

19 standard, that’s BC II, and then BC-I for BCs that 

20 meet no established standard, and . This is 

21 parallel to thisthe international marking protocol 

22 that exists today for EPSs.

23 And then lastly, DOE received a proposal 

24 from NRDC that specified locations for the battery 

25 charger marking, and you can see that here. I think 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

289

1 that California’s requirement is that the marking 

2 appear on – either on the packaging or on the 

3 housing of the battery terminals.

4 MR. RIDER: This is Ken. That’s correct.

5 MR. REEVES: Okay. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Brian.

7 MR. BOOHER: We have one more question 

8 from the web. Larry Albert is asking on behalf of 

9 Jen Cleary, whether the California marking during 

10 the preemption period would violate federal 

11 requirements regarding making a claim of efficiency 

12 not supported by federal regulations. And this was 

13 specifically directed at Mike Kido. I can repeat 

14 the question if you --

15 MR. KIDO: No, that’s all right. We’ll 

16 have to take a closer look at that. I’m not going 

17 to provide an answer at this point.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: And Jennifer, I wasn’t 

19 sure, I thought you wanted to get back in the queue 

20 a moment ago. Did you get your comment in? You’re 

21 all set. That one? Okay, fine. Michael, you –

22 MR. KIDO: I had a real quick factual 

23 question. A number of folks have mentioned these, I 

24 guess within the battery charger context, these more 

25 efficient nickel based systems, and I was wondering 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

290

1 are those particular types of systems currently 

2 available on the market?

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Dave, did you raise that 

4 one?

5 MR. DENKENBERGER: There is a variety of 

6 efficiency within nickel. And the – I think it’s 

7 Page 5-89 in the TSD talks about – graphs the 24 

8 hour efficiency of nickel and lithium, and one thing 

9 we notice is that the most efficient nickel chargers 

10 are actually on the trend line, the average, for 

11 lithium chargers. So, yes, there are products on 

12 the market that are nickel-based that are more 

13 efficient than the average nickel charger. We are 

14 not aware of products that meet the stricter level 

15 that are commercially available, which is why we 

16 have built one. Two of them, actually.

17 PARTICIPANT: Can I add to that? And we 

18 looked at what it would take to move a nickel 

19 charger to compliance with the California standard, 

20 not necessarily yours, but the majority of it was in 

21 reducing the maintenance mode power and switching 

22 into a lower power mode. There’s data in the DOE 

23 data set and the California Energy Commission data 

24 set where you can look at existing products in their 

25 maintenance modes, and imagine if they turned off, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

291

1 what their annual energy consumption or, in our 

2 case, their maintenance mode would look like. And 

3 so you can easily model, using existing data, what 

4 that efficient nickel cadmium charger would be if it 

5 just had the simple feature to turn off, 

6 essentially, into a lower power mode, or into a 

7 lower trickle mode.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Ari, I wasn’t sure that you 

9 finished this. Did you finish it?

10 MR. REEVES: I did, yes.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: So now is the – yes, Holly.

12 MS. EVANS: Holly Evans. A question. I 

13 think I know the answer to this, but I just want to 

14 clarify for the record. So if you have a wall 

15 adapter that’s an external power supply, and it also 

16 powers a battery chargers or charges a battery, that 

17 product would need to have both the EPS label as 

18 well as the battery charger label. Is that correct? 

19 MR. REEVES: Correct.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: So, we’ve gone through the 

21 slides. Why don’t you flash up the last slide which 

22 shows how people submit their comments.

23 MR. REEVES: Oh, yes.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: And as we promised first 

25 thing this morning, now is yet another opportunity 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

292

1 to take closing remarks – to make any other 

2 statement that you think is necessary at this time, 

3 surrounding the meeting today.

4 And I’m handing out the evaluation forms. 

5 Please take 30 seconds to fill them out. 

6 Closing comments? Yes, Dave.

7 Closing Comments

8 MR. DENKENBERGER: So this may be 

9 answered. There was a note on the pollution impacts 

10 that there’s already a cap for SOX, I believe. And 

11 so therefore the standard would not affect 

12 emissions, which is true, but it could reduce the 

13 compliance to the cap, as in, if we’re reducing 

14 battery charger energy and EPS energy, and we’re 

15 reducing sulfur dioxide from there, then that means 

16 we have to spend less money to, for instance, reduce 

17 sulfur dioxide emissions from coal power plants. 

18 Was that considered?

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Use the microphone, please. 

20 Thank you.

21 MS. IYAMA: This is Sanaee. Right now the 

22 emissions analysis only looks at carbon dioxide, 

23 mercury, and nitrogen oxides.

24 MR. DENKENBERGER: Okay. So I would go on 

25 the record to say please consider that reduction in 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

293

1 compliance cost associated with that reduced battery 

2 charger and EPS emissions.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Tim Ballo.

4 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo with Earth Justice. 

5 We actually made that argument repeatedly a few 

6 years ago and what we found out was that to the 

7 extent it has any impact at all in the sulfur 

8 dioxide allowance prices within the realm of noise, 

9 so it just – you just can’t really estimate a 

10 variable – an accurate number for the impact.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments here at 

12 the end. Joanna Mauer.

13 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. So just a 

14 question on the engineering analysis. Has DOE 

15 assumed a specific cost per kilowatt hour of 

16 different battery chemistries for the battery cost 

17 itself? So what the cost per kilowatt hour the 

18 battery energy is for different battery chemistries?

19 MR. NARDOTTI: No.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Matt.

21 MR. NARDOTTI: If I understand you 

22 correctly.

23 MS. MAUER: I guess my – so the battery 

24 charger system, the cost of the battery charger 

25 system includes the cost of the battery itself, so 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

294

1 what are the assumptions about – the data on – I 

2 wasn’t able to find in the TSD or the spreadsheets, 

3 what the assumptions were for the cost of batteries 

4 themselves.

5 MR. NARDOTTI: So for –This is Matt 

6 Nardotti. For the product classes with the NiCad 

7 batteries and the lithium batteries, DOE assumed, 

8 talking with manufacturers, that the lithium 

9 batteries tend to have an incremental cost. I don’t 

10 know what the percentage is, relatively, to the 

11 nickel-based batteries. And so for the CSL where we 

12 tore down a product with a lithium ion battery, 

13 there’s an incremental battery cost, and that should 

14 be in the tear down results that are in one of the 

15 Chapter 5 appendices.

16 MS. MAUER: All right, so you’re saying –

17 MR. NARDOTTI: So there is an incremental 

18 cost for lithium.

19 MS. MAUER: -- the incremental cost –

20 MR. NARDOTTI: Relative to NiCad 

21 batteries.

22 MS. MAUER: Okay. Is that in the analysis 

23 of maintenance costs where you’re replacing the 

24 battery before – where the battery fails before the 

25 product fails? Because I know there is – that was 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

295

1 the only piece of information that I could find was 

2 a case where you’re replacing the battery during the 

3 life of the product, so you incorporate the 

4 incremental cost of the lithium battery when you 

5 replace it.

6 MR. NARDOTTI: Right.

7 MS. MAUER: If it’s possible to provide 

8 also the cost of the – kind of the absolute costs of 

9 the batteries, the nickel and lithium, that would be 

10 useful.

11 And my other question is, are those 

12 battery costs based on a certain year?

13 MR. NARDOTTI: Whenever the tear down was 

14 conducted.

15 MS. MAUER: Okay. I think we’d encourage 

16 – the trend is seeing a significant decrease in cost 

17 of lithium batteries, so if that tear down was 

18 conducted several years ago and we’re talking about 

19 a standard that won’t go into effect for a couple 

20 years, we’d urge DOE to incorporate the trend we’re 

21 seeing in lithium costs, declining over time.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional closing remarks? 

23 Yes, Dave.

24 MR. DENKENBERGER: So the manufacturer 

25 impacts, we would recommend that DOE consider a 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

296

1 scenario where the manufacturer can pass on the 

2 retooling cost, or the one-time cost, because we 

3 think that is realistic.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Final 

5 comments. Yes, Ken.

6 MR. RIDER: I would like to bring up again 

7 the issue that I brought up a little bit earlier, 

8 which was that the UECs calculated in the 

9 engineering analysis are different from the UECs as 

10 you would calculate them in the compliance equation. 

11 And I’ll include this in comment, be interested to 

12 see and to encourage the DOE to look at whether the 

13 compliance equation will push appliances to comply 

14 at the levels that they proposed in the engineering 

15 analysis, as the UECs – the compliance equation 

16 doesn’t require performance at the levels that are 

17 discussed in the engineering analysis. So I look at 

18 the bare minimum, I think all the roll up analysis 

19 DOE did, both at what is the bare minimum for 

20 someone to comply with the regulations, and I think 

21 that the engineering analysis, because of the 

22 difference in the equation for UEC, isn’t 

23 considering the bare minimum to comply with the 

24 compliance equations that are proposed in the NOPR.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. So, for 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

297

1 my part, I want to thank you and I will turn it 

2 over to Vic. It’s been a very constructive 

3 meeting, a tremendous amount of content that 

4 covered a lot of very, very positive comment, and 

5 so, back to Vic Petrolati.

6 MR. PETROLATI: Again, I just want to 

7 remind everybody the comment period closes, not on 

May 25th, but on May 29th 8 , in accordance with our 

9 NOPR. Please get your comments in in written form. 

10 I think, just like Doug has indicated, I want to 

11 thank everybody for their input at this meeting. I 

12 think we’ve learned a lot. I think the comments 

13 and the criticisms have all been constructive, and 

14 I think we’ve got some work to do, obviously, 

15 before we issue a final rule.

16 Again, we need your comments, and we need 

17 them in writing to get the best product out as 

18 possible.

19 Thank you again for the amount of time 

20 that you’ve spent, not only here at the meeting, 

21 but reviewing our 1500 pages of documents to be 

22 prepared to come to this meeting. That is the 

23 tough part. So we thank you quite a bit in terms 

24 of being a stakeholder as part of this process. 

25 That’s it from me.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

298

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Safe travels.

2 (Whereupon, at 5:20 p.m., the meeting in 

3 the above captioned matter was adjourned.) 

4

5

6

7

8

9
Executive 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, ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR 

BATTERY CHARGERS AND EXTERNAL POWER SUPPLIES

Were held as herein appears and that this is the 

original transcript thereof for the file of the 

Department, Commission, Board, Administrative Law 

Judge or the Agency.

Further, I am neither counsel for nor related to 

any party to the above proceedings.

Wendy Greene 

 Official Reporter

Dated: May 7, 2012