[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 211 (Tuesday, November 3, 2009)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56928-56976]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-26192]



[[Page 56927]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Department of Energy





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



10 CFR Part 430



Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Determination 
Concerning the Potential for Energy Conservation Standards for Non-
Class A External Power Supplies; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 211 / Tuesday, November 3, 2009 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 56928]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[Docket No. EERE-2009-BT-DET-0005]
RIN 1904-AB80


Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Determination 
Concerning the Potential for Energy Conservation Standards for Non-
Class A External Power Supplies

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Proposed determination.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA or the Act), as 
amended, requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to issue a final 
rule by December 19, 2009, that determines whether energy conservation 
standards for non-Class A external power supplies (EPSs) are warranted.
    In this document, DOE proposes to determine that energy 
conservation standards for non-Class A external power supplies are 
warranted. This document informs interested parties of the analysis 
underlying this proposal, which examines the potential energy savings 
and the direct economic costs and benefits that could result from a 
future standard. In this document, DOE also announces the availability 
of a technical support document (TSD), which provides additional 
analysis in support of the determination. The TSD is available from the 
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Web site at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external.html.

DATES: Written comments on this document and the TSD are welcome and 
must be submitted no later than December 18, 2009. For detailed 
instructions, see section VI, ``Public Participation.''

ADDRESSES: Interested parties may submit comments, identified by docket 
number EERE-2009-BT-DET-0005 and/or Regulation Identifier Number (RIN) 
1904-AB80, by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     E-mail: [email protected]. Include docket 
number EERE-2009-BT-DET-0005 and/or RIN 1904-AB80 in the subject line 
of the message.
     Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 
Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, Technical Support 
Document for Non-Class A External Power Supplies, docket number EERE-
2009-BT-DET-0005 and/or RIN 1904-AB80, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 
Washington, DC 20585-0121. Please submit one signed paper original.
     Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Building Technologies Program, 6th Floor, 950 L'Enfant 
Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024. Please submit one signed paper 
original.
    For additional instruction on submitting comments, see section VI, 
``Public Participation.''
    Docket: For access to the docket to read background documents, the 
technical support document, or comments received, go to the U.S. 
Department of Energy, Resource Room of the Building Technologies 
Program, Sixth Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024, 
(202) 586-2945, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 
except Federal holidays. Please call Ms. Brenda Edwards at the above 
telephone number for additional information about visiting the Resource 
Room. You may also obtain copies of certain documents in this 
proceeding from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's 
Web site at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Victor Petrolati, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4549. E-mail: 
[email protected].
    Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585. 
Telephone: (202) 586-8145. E-mail: [email protected].
    For further information on how to submit or review public comments, 
contact Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 
1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone 
(202) 586-2945. E-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of the Proposed Determination
    A. Background and Legal Authority
    B. Scope
II. Methodology
    A. Market Assessment
    1. Introduction
    2. Shipments, Efficiency Distributions, and Market Growth
    3. Product Lifetimes
    4. Distribution Channels and Markups
    5. Interested Parties
    6. Existing Energy Efficiency Programs
    B. Technology Assessment
    1. Introduction
    2. Modes of Operation
    3. Functionality and Circuit Designs of Non-Class A EPSs
    4. Product Classes
    5. Technology Options for Improving Energy Efficiency
    C. Engineering Analysis
    1. Introduction
    2. Data Sources
    3. Representative Product Classes and Representative Units
    4. Selection of Candidate Standard Levels
    5. Methodology and Data Implementation
    6. Relationships Between Cost and Efficiency
    D. Energy Use and End-Use Load Characterization
    1. Introduction
    2. Modes and Application States
    3. Usage Profiles
    4. Unit Energy Consumption
    E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
    F. National Impact Analysis
III. Results
    A. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
    B. National Impact Analysis
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act of 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act of 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
V. Public Participation
    A. Submission of Comments
    B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comments
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Summary of the Proposed Determination

    EPCA requires DOE to issue a final rule determining whether to 
issue energy efficiency standards for non-Class A EPSs. DOE has 
tentatively determined that such standards are technologically feasible 
and economically justified, and would result in significant energy 
savings. Thus, DOE proposes to issue a positive determination.
    DOE analyzed multiple candidate standard levels for non-Class A 
EPSs and has determined that it is technologically feasible to 
manufacture

[[Page 56929]]

EPSs at some of these levels because EPSs with energy efficiencies 
meeting these levels are currently commercially available.
    DOE further determined that standards for non-Class A EPSs could be 
economically justified from the perspective of an individual consumer 
and from that of the Nation as a whole. For all EPSs that DOE analyzed, 
at least one standard level could be set that would reduce the life-
cycle cost (LCC) of ownership for the typical consumer; that is, any 
increase in equipment cost resulting from a standard would be more than 
offset by energy cost savings.
    Standards could also be cost-effective from a national perspective. 
The national net present value (NPV) of standards could be as much as 
$512 million in 2008$, assuming an annual discount rate of 3 percent. 
This forecast considers only the direct financial costs and benefits to 
consumers of standards, specifically the increased equipment costs of 
EPSs purchased from 2013 to 2042 and the associated energy cost 
savings. In its determination analysis, DOE did not monetize or 
otherwise characterize any other potential costs and benefits of 
standards such as manufacturer impacts or power plant emission 
reductions. If the final determination is positive, then such impacts 
would be examined in a future analysis of the economic feasibility of 
particular standard levels in the context of a standards rulemaking.
    DOE's analysis also indicates that standards would result in 
significant energy savings--as much as 0.14 quads of energy over 30 
years (2013 to 2042). This is equivalent to the annual electricity 
needs of 1.1 million U.S. homes.
    Further documentation supporting the analyses described in this 
notice is contained in a separate technical support document (TSD), 
available from the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's 
Web site at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external.html.
    This document's information and format are unique to this 
determination analysis and do not establish a precedent for future 
determination analyses of the Appliance Standards Program. The unique 
nature of this document results from the statutory requirement that the 
determination be published as a rule (i.e., notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NOPR) and final rule). In addition, although Congress, 
through the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), 
Public Law 110-140 (Dec. 19, 2007), directed DOE to perform this 
analysis, some of the analyses and information contained in this 
document were developed earlier as part of the determination analysis 
required by EPACT 2005.

A. Background and Legal Authority

    Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety of provisions designed to 
improve energy efficiency. Part A of Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) 
provides for the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products 
Other Than Automobiles. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005) 
amended EPCA to require DOE to issue a final rule determining whether 
to issue efficiency standards for battery chargers (BCs) and EPSs. DOE 
initiated this determination analysis rulemaking in 2006, which 
included a scoping workshop on January 24, 2007 at DOE headquarters in 
Washington, DC. The determination was under way and on schedule for 
issuance by August 8, 2008, as originally required by EPACT 2005.
    However, EISA 2007 also amended EPCA by setting efficiency 
standards for certain types of EPSs (Class A) and modifying the 
statutory provision that directed DOE to perform the determination 
analysis (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I), as amended). EISA 2007 removed 
BCs from the determination, leaving only EPSs, and changed the amount 
of time allotted to complete the determination to 2 years after the 
date of EISA 2007's enactment, i.e., by December 19, 2009.
    In addition to the existing general definition of EPS, EISA 2007 
amended EPCA to define a ``Class A external power supply'' (42 U.S.C. 
6291(36)(C)) and set efficiency standards for those products (42 U.S.C. 
6295(u)(3)). As amended by EISA 2007, the statute further directs DOE 
to publish a final rule by July 1, 2011 to evaluate whether the 
standards set for Class A EPSs should be amended and, if so, include 
any amended standards as part of that final rule. The statute further 
directs DOE to publish a second final rule by July 1, 2015, to again 
determine whether the standards in effect should be amended and to 
include any amended standards as part of that final rule.
    Because Congress has already set standards for Class A EPSs and 
separately required DOE to perform two rounds of rulemakings to 
consider amending efficiency standards for Class A EPSs, the 
determination analysis under 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I) does not 
include these products. Therefore, DOE is interpreting 42 U.S.C. 
6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I) as a requirement for a determination analysis that 
will consider in its scope only EPSs outside of Class A, hence ``non-
Class A EPSs.'' This determination is scheduled for issuance by 
December 19, 2009 and is the subject of this notice. The determination 
will address whether efficiency standards appear to be warranted for 
non-Class A EPSs, i.e., whether it appears that such standards are 
technologically feasible and economically justified and would result in 
significant conservation of energy (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)).
    EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA also require DOE to issue a final rule 
prescribing energy conservation standards for BCs, if technologically 
feasible and economically justified, by July 1, 2011 (42 U.S.C. 
6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(II)). This rulemaking has been bundled with the 
rulemaking for Class A EPSs, given the related nature of such products 
and the fact that these provisions share the same statutory deadline. 
DOE initiated the energy conservation standards rulemaking for BCs and 
Class A EPSs by publishing a framework document on June 4, 2009, and 
holding a public meeting at DOE headquarters on July 16, 2009. If DOE 
issues a positive determination for EPSs falling outside of Class A, it 
may consider standards for these products within the context of the 
energy conservation standards rulemaking for BCs and Class A EPSs 
already underway.
    In addition to the determination and energy conservation standards 
rulemakings, DOE has conducted test procedure rulemakings for BCs and 
EPSs. The test procedure for measuring the energy consumption of 
single-voltage EPSs is codified in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix 
Z, ``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of 
External Power Supplies.'' DOE modified this test procedure, per EISA 
2007, to include standby and off modes. DOE proposed a test procedure 
for measuring the energy consumption of multiple-voltage EPSs in its 
NOPR published in the Federal Register on August 15, 2008. 73 FR 48054. 
DOE has set the target date of October 31, 2010 to finalize the test 
procedure for multiple-voltage EPSs.
    For more information about DOE rulemakings concerning BCs and EPSs, 
see the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Web site at 
http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external.html.

B. Scope

    The present determination analysis considers only those EPSs 
outside of Class A, or non-Class A EPSs. EPCA, as amended by EPACT 
2005, defines an EPS. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(A).

[[Page 56930]]

    EISA 2007 later amended EPCA, inserting a definition for Class A 
EPS. See 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C).
    Thus, the determination analysis concerns those devices that fit 
the definition of an EPS (from EPACT 2005) but do not fit the 
definition of a Class A EPS (from EISA 2007).
    Considering the above definitions, DOE identified four types of 
power conversion devices on the market to analyze for its determination 
on non-Class A EPSs: (1) Multiple-voltage EPSs--EPSs that can provide 
multiple output voltages simultaneously; (2) high-power EPSs--EPSs with 
nameplate output power greater than 250 watts; (3) medical EPSs--EPSs 
that power medical devices and EPSs that are themselves medical 
devices; and (4) EPSs for battery chargers (EPSs for BCs)--EPSs that 
power the chargers of detachable battery packs or charge the batteries 
of products that are fully or primarily motor operated.
    Class A EPSs, by definition, may provide only one output voltage at 
a time and have nameplate output power no greater than 250 watts. 
Multiple-voltage and high-power EPSs fall outside this group. Medical 
EPSs and EPSs for battery chargers are specifically excluded from Class 
A and can be considered non-Class A EPSs.
    DOE considers both EPSs that power medical devices and EPSs that 
are themselves medical devices to be non-Class A EPSs. A literal 
reading of EPCA would exclude from Class A only those EPSs that are 
themselves medical devices. As EPCA states, ``The term `class A 
external power supply' does not include any device that requires 
Federal Food and Drug Administration listing and approval as a medical 
device in accordance with section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360c).'' 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C) However, a 
search of FDA's product classification database for ``power supply'' 
reveals only one EPS that is a medical device--auxiliary power supply 
(alternating current (AC) or direct current (DC)) for external 
transcutaneous cardiac pacemakers. Furthermore, all EPSs used with 
medical devices must meet the special requirements of UL 60601 
(Underwriters Laboratories standard for power supplies for medical 
devices), discussed further in section 2.2.3 of the TSD. Accordingly, 
because the exclusion applies to ``any device'' covered by the FDA's 
listing and approval requirements, DOE interprets EPCA to also exclude 
from Class A those EPSs that power medical devices. Consistent with 
this approach, DOE analyzed those EPSs that power medical devices that 
are consumer products for purposes of today's proposed determination.
    Lastly, DOE considered EPSs that power the chargers of detachable 
battery packs or charge the batteries of products that are fully or 
primarily motor operated. DOE refers to these two groups of products 
collectively as ``EPSs for BCs.'' Products that are fully or primarily 
motor operated include portable rechargeable household appliances such 
as handheld vacuums, personal care products such as shavers, and power 
tools.
    EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007, defines a detachable battery as ``a 
battery that is (A) contained in a separate enclosure from the product; 
and (B) intended to be removed or disconnected from the product for 
recharging.'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(52)) The phrase ``contained in a separate 
enclosure from the product'' appears earlier within the Class A EPS 
definition. In this context, the definition limits Class A EPSs to 
devices ``contained in a separate physical enclosure from the end-use 
product,'' i.e., a separate component outside the physical boundaries 
of the end-use consumer product. (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i)(IV)) 
Similarly, when applied to detachable batteries, this phrase can also 
be interpreted to mean ``wholly outside the physical boundaries of the 
end-use consumer product.'' BCEPS Framework Document, p. 21 (June 4, 
2009), available at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external_std_2008.html. This is in 
contrast to batteries contained in an enclosure wholly or partly inside 
the physical boundaries of the end-use consumer product (e.g., inside a 
battery compartment).
    Further, detachable batteries must be ``intended to be removed or 
disconnected from the product for recharging.'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(52)(B)) 
Thus, even if a battery is not contained inside the product, it may not 
be considered detachable unless it is also intended to be removed or 
disconnected from the product for recharging.
    Several popular models of camcorders employ wall adapters that can 
be used to power the camcorder and charge its battery. Even though 
these batteries are not contained inside the product, it is not 
necessary to remove them for charging. Rather, the wall adapter plugs 
directly into the camcorder body or into a cradle that accepts the 
entire camcorder. Because the batteries do not need to be removed for 
recharging, DOE does not consider these batteries detachable. 
Accordingly, wall adapters for these camcorders are included in the 
Class A EPS definition (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(ii)(II)) and, therefore, 
are not analyzed in this determination.
    The statute does not provide clear guidance for determining which, 
if any, of the devices that power battery-charged products are EPSs and 
leaves open the issue of how DOE should classify the wall adapters that 
are part of battery charging systems. Because ``external power supply'' 
has a specific legal meaning, the term ``wall adapter'' is used to 
refer to the potentially larger set of external power converters for 
consumer products. DOE's initial review of these products indicates 
that some of these wall adapters for battery chargers could be 
electrically equivalent to the wall adapters that power applications 
other than battery chargers. However, while all wall adapters ``convert 
household electric current into DC current or lower-voltage AC 
current,'' as stated in the statutory definition (42 U.S.C. 
6291(36)(A)), at least some wall adapters for battery chargers also 
provide additional charge control functions necessary for battery 
charging. These additional functions may add to the cost and power 
consumption of the wall adapter. These wall adapters generally are not 
interchangeable, but are designed to be components of specific BCs.
    DOE is considering adopting one of two approaches relevant to this 
determination analysis with respect to when a wall adapter would be 
categorized as an EPS. The approaches differ in their scope of coverage 
for EPSs. Under the first approach (Approach A), DOE would consider 
only those wall adapters that do not provide additional charge control 
functions to be EPSs. These EPSs have constant-voltage output that is 
electrically equivalent to Class A EPSs. Under the other approach 
(Approach D), DOE would consider wall adapters with and without charge 
control functions to be EPSs. These include EPSs with constant-voltage 
output equivalent to Class A EPSs as well as those that do not have 
constant-voltage output, which may indicate the presence of charge 
control. The approaches are described in greater detail in section 
3.2.3.3 of DOE's framework document for the BC and EPS energy 
conservation standards rulemaking (available at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external_std_2008.html). Interested parties are encouraged 
to refer to the framework document for more detail and provide input to 
DOE on the approaches. (Other approaches described in that document are 
not used in today's analysis because either they

[[Page 56931]]

would conflict with statutory requirements, i.e., Approach B, or would 
be equivalent in scope to Approach A, i.e., Approach C.) DOE will 
consider all comments received in its selection of an approach.
    The present determination analysis includes only those devices that 
are EPSs under Approach A (wall adapters without charge control). Under 
Approach A, this draft determination finds that energy efficiency 
standards are economically justified, technologically feasible, and 
would result in significant energy savings. Based on the data collected 
to date, the set of EPSs under Approach A is a subset of EPSs under 
Approach D. Thus, DOE believes that were it to adopt the broader 
Approach D, the energy savings potential from standards for non-Class A 
EPSs would be greater compared to Approach A. DOE seeks comment on 
whether Approach A reasonably estimates the minimum amount of 
significant energy savings under this analysis.
    While the approaches noted above address the question of what is 
and is not an EPS, there are additional scoping issues unique to non-
Class A EPSs. In particular, there are four criteria under which an EPS 
could be considered non-Class A: (1) Multiple output voltages, (2) high 
output power, (3) designed for medical use, and (4) designed for 
battery charging. This determination analysis examines EPSs that meet 
any one of these criteria, but not those EPSs that meet multiple 
criteria. These EPSs remain within the scope of the determination, 
however. For instance, this analysis does not evaluate EPSs such as the 
Astec Electronics power supply model DPT54-M, which has three 
simultaneous output voltages and UL 60601 medical certification, 
although it does address EPSs with either multiple output voltages or 
medical certification under UL 60601. Based on its review of the 
available data, DOE believes that there are few products that fall into 
this ``multiple criteria'' category. Accordingly, a separate analysis 
for these types of products was not conducted because the energy 
savings potential from incorporating these devices into the analysis 
would again be greater compared to the analysis under Approach A.

II. Methodology

A. Market Assessment

1. Introduction
    To understand the present and future market for non-Class A EPSs, 
DOE gathered data on these EPSs and their associated applications. DOE 
also examined the industry composition, distribution channels, and 
regulatory and voluntary programs for non-Class A EPSs. The market 
assessment provides important inputs to the LCC analysis and national 
energy savings (NES)/NPV estimates.
    This notice is not intended to provide a general background on the 
market for all EPSs, but rather to present specific information for 
those EPSs outside of Class A. For additional background information on 
EPSs in general, see the framework document and the companion draft 
technical report published on June 4, 2009.
a. Overview
    External power supplies are designed for use with an associated 
consumer product. The market for these consumer products drives the 
market for EPSs. References to an EPS application refer to the consumer 
product that the EPS powers and not the conversion function of the EPS 
itself. Energy savings potential for EPSs is thus a function of usage 
and sales volume of applications powered by EPSs, in addition to EPS 
efficiency.
    Because EPSs are typically sold with their end-use application, 
shipment data for EPSs alone are not directly available. Therefore, DOE 
estimated EPS shipments based on applications known to use them. The 
amount of energy an application uses over the course of a year will 
directly affect the amount of savings that can be expected by improving 
the efficiency of the EPS. The product application determines the power 
requirements, usage profile, and load profile of the EPS.
    For its market analysis, DOE first identified those applications 
known to use non-Class A EPSs. DOE then analyzed shipments and energy 
usage data for those applications to calculate shipments and energy 
usage of the associated EPSs. DOE considered applications for which 
publicly available data exist or for which industry and other 
interested parties provided data.
    Applications for each of the four types of non-Class A EPS DOE 
identified are discussed below.
b. Multiple-Voltage External Power Supplies
    The consumer product market for EPSs with multiple simultaneous 
outputs (multiple-voltage EPSs) is limited. For consumer products that 
require multiple voltages, most manufacturers indicated that it is more 
cost effective to specify a single output EPS and employ local DC-DC 
converters located within the application rather than a multiple-
voltage EPS. Multiple-voltage EPSs are commonly used in only two 
circumstances:
    (1) Low-volume applications, such as lab equipment and product 
prototypes, where designing and implementing an internal splitter would 
be cost-prohibitive. Because low-volume applications are, by 
definition, limited in market size, DOE will not consider EPSs for 
these products further.
    (2) High-volume applications where space limitations may cause 
manufacturers to seek alternatives to an internal power supply with 
voltage splitting circuitry.
    DOE has identified three consumer product applications that 
sometimes use multiple-voltage EPSs: Video game consoles, multi-
function devices (MFDs), and home security systems.
    The Xbox 360, manufactured by Microsoft Corporation, is one video 
game console that uses a multiple-voltage EPS. This EPS functions much 
like the internal power supply of a desktop computer, providing 
separate voltage levels for standby, monitoring, and processing 
functions. Competing systems such as the Nintendo Wii and Sony 
PlayStation 3 use internal power supplies.
    Multi-function devices duplicate the functions of some or all of 
the following devices: Copiers, printers, scanners, and facsimile 
machines. These devices are also commonly referred to as ``all-in-one'' 
systems or multifunction printers. MFDs eliminate the need to purchase 
and maintain multiple pieces of office equipment and typically are used 
in small- or home-office settings. A single multiple-voltage EPS design 
can be used across multiple MFD models, eliminating the need to design 
and build several different internal splitters. Also, using a multiple-
voltage EPS may allow the MFD to have a smaller form factor, which 
refers to the physical size of the application.
    Security systems in homes may include entry detection, video and 
thermal detection, and emergency and fire alert systems. Such equipment 
is often used in conjunction with a security subscription through which 
a security services company monitors the equipment for the consumer. In 
this way, security equipment is distributed and used in a similar 
manner to cable set-top boxes and Internet modems provided by 
telecommunications companies. In comments submitted to DOE following 
the Standby and Off Mode Test Procedure NOPR Public Meeting on 
September 12, 2008, the Security Industry Association indicated

[[Page 56932]]

that some of these products may be powered by multiple-voltage EPSs 
(Docket No. EERE-2008-BT-TP-0004. Security Industry Association, No. 7 
at p. 2.). However, in a follow-up interview on March 19, 2009, SIA 
indicated that the equipment powered by these multiple-voltage EPSs is 
limited to fire alarm systems, specifically to power horns and strobe 
light control circuitry in commercial buildings, not homes. Based on 
this information, DOE did not analyze the multiple-voltage EPSs used to 
power security equipment as part of the draft analysis. DOE encourages 
interested parties to submit additional data on the use of multiple-
voltage EPSs with home security equipment. DOE also encourages 
interested parties to submit information about any other consumer 
product applications for multiple-voltage EPSs they are aware of.
c. High Power External Power Supplies
    High-power EPSs--those with output power greater than 250 watts--
are rarely used to power consumer products. Internal power supplies are 
generally preferred for higher powered applications. Industry experts 
give three reasons for this preference. First, internal power supplies 
offer increased ventilation options, including fans, vent slats, and 
cooling fins, all of which would be difficult to include in most EPS 
designs without increasing bulk. Second, most applications that would 
require such a high power input will already be large, which means the 
increase in volume from the internal power supply would have a 
proportionally small effect. Third, power regulation and voltage drop 
are much easier to control with an internal supply due to the shorter 
transmission distances.
    For these reasons, there are few circumstances in which an 
appliance uses a high-power EPS rather than an internal power supply. 
In fact, many appliances already use internal power supplies at a wide 
range of power levels. Major applications for high power internal power 
supplies include audio amplifiers, televisions, and computers.
    Amateur radio equipment is the only consumer product application 
DOE identified as using high-power EPSs. (Other applications identified 
include laboratory testing equipment and other low-volume applications 
that were not considered for analysis.) Amateur radio operators 
typically use high-power EPSs when they need to power multiple 
components simultaneously and transmit at output powers between 100 and 
200 watts. (Interview with the with the American Radio Relay League on 
August 18, 2008.) Operators typically use an EPS with nameplate output 
power greater than 250 watts to allow for a cushion should equipment 
requiring additional power be added to the set-up. This is often the 
case for portable transmission setups, such as those used at amateur 
radio fairs or in emergency situations. In both cases, the need to 
power multiple components while maintaining sufficient transmission 
power requires an EPS with a suitably high output.
    However, in home or office use, most radio operators use a more 
standardized setup. In this environment, most amateur radio equipment, 
including transmission equipment, is designed to run directly off mains 
power, using internal power supplies. In addition, when transmitting at 
higher power, a radio operator will likely use a separate signal 
amplifier that contains an internal power supply. Therefore, EPSs are 
seldom used in fixed transmission setups.
d. External Power Supplies for Medical Devices
    EPSs are used to power a wide variety of medical devices, from 
laboratory test equipment to home care devices. As discussed further in 
section 2.2.3 of the TSD, EPSs are required by the Federal Food and 
Drug Administration (FDA) to meet labeling, safety and durability 
requirements such as those included under UL 60601. To maintain 
certification, the medical device manufacturer must always use the same 
components in the device, including those used in the EPS. Therefore, 
once a device is certified, its EPS cannot be exchanged for a different 
EPS model without re-certification. An EPS model must also use the same 
individual components for the entirety of the production cycle. These 
requirements tend to lengthen the design cycles for medical device EPSs 
because after being designed they must be registered, which can take up 
to 2 years. Despite long design cycles, there are already medical 
device EPSs on the market that meet the energy efficiency standards for 
Class A EPSs that took effect on July 1, 2008. (SL Power Web site 
(Accessed October 30, 2008) http://www.slpower.com/ProductDetails.aspx?CategoryID=46.)
    For this determination, DOE examined medical devices designed for 
in-home use that employ EPSs, specifically sleep therapy devices, 
nebulizers, portable oxygen concentrators, blood pressure monitors, and 
ventilators. EPSs for these medical devices exhibit a broad range of 
nameplate output powers, similar to those of Class A EPSs.
    Sleep therapy devices include continuous positive airway pressure 
(CPAP), bi-level positive airway pressure (biPAP), automatic positive 
airway pressure (autoPAP), and similar machines used to treat 
obstructive sleep apnea. Some sleep therapy devices are battery 
powered, some plug directly into mains, and others are powered by EPSs, 
which typically have nameplate output power of approximately 30 to 35 
watts. (Schirm, Jeffrey. Personal Communication. Philips Electronics, 
NV. Phone call with Matthew Jones, D&R International. December 15, 
2008.)
    Nebulizers administer liquid medication as a mist that can be 
inhaled into the lungs. They are commonly used to treat asthma and 
chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The EPSs that provide 
power to nebulizers tend to have nameplate output power in the range of 
10 to 20 watts. Of the 26 nebulizer models DOE identified, only four 
employ EPSs; the remainder use internal power supplies. (Models using 
EPSs include the PARI Trek S, Omron Comp Air Elite Model NE-C30, Omron 
Micro Air Model NE-U22VAC, and John Bunn Nano-Sonic Nebulizer Model 
JB0112-066. An EPS is an option for Omron Micro Air, which is typically 
powered with primary batteries. The EPS cannot charge these batteries. 
The other nebulizers are sold with an EPS to power the product but 
offer rechargeable battery packs as an optional accessory.)
    Portable oxygen concentrators absorb nitrogen from the air to 
provide oxygen to the user at higher concentrations, eliminating the 
need for oxygen tanks. These devices typically use higher powered wall 
adapters ranging from 90 to 200 watts. The wall adapters are used to 
charge batteries, but can also operate the device directly.
    Blood pressure monitors are used by those who must take frequent 
readings of their blood pressure. Most digital units operate with 
primary batteries; however, some units are also sold with an EPS or 
offer an optional EPS. (The Omron IntelliSense blood pressure meter, 
model HEM780, has an EPS rated at 6V and 500 mA but can also be powered 
by primary batteries (``AA,'' ``AAA,'' ``C,'' among others).) The EPSs 
for blood pressure monitors that DOE identified have a nameplate output 
power of 3 watts.
    Though most commonly found in hospitals, ventilators are also 
available for home use. While most models have internal power supplies, 
some use EPSs with output power in the range of approximately 100 to 
150 watts.

[[Page 56933]]

e. External Power Supplies for Certain Battery Chargers
    This group is composed of EPSs for two types of battery chargers: 
(1) Battery chargers used to charge detachable battery packs, and (2) 
battery chargers that charge the batteries of products that are fully 
or primarily motor operated. The term ``detachable battery'' means a 
battery that is (A) contained in a separate enclosure from the product; 
and (B) intended to be removed or disconnected from the product for 
recharging. DOE's interpretation of ``detachable battery'' is explained 
in section I.B.
    Under its interpretation of the term ``detachable battery,'' DOE 
has not identified any non-motor operated applications with an EPS that 
powers the charger of a detachable battery pack. DOE invites interested 
parties to submit any information they have about applications of this 
type that use non-Class A EPSs.
    DOE identified a number of motor-operated, battery-charged products 
that use wall adapters. The applications DOE identified can be divided 
into two groups: rechargeable power tools and cordless rechargeable 
household appliances. The latter can be further subdivided into kitchen 
appliances (e.g., can openers and electric knives), personal care 
appliances (e.g., electric toothbrushes, shavers, and trimmers), and 
floor care appliances (e.g., handheld vacuums and robotic vacuums).
    Although there are many grades of cordless-rechargeable power 
tools--ranging from entry-level, do-it-yourself (DIY) tools intended 
for occasional homeowner use to high-end tools designed for frequent 
use by professionals--all can be purchased and used by consumers and, 
thus, are considered consumer products. However, it appears that very 
few, if any, professional-grade power tools use wall adapters. Instead, 
the charging base is plugged directly into mains. Thus, DOE only 
considered DIY tools.
    DOE has included in the present determination analysis only those 
devices that are EPSs under Approach A (only those wall adapters that 
do not provide additional charge control functions are EPSs), with the 
understanding that the set of EPSs under Approach A is a subset of EPSs 
under Approach D (wall adapters with charge control functions are also 
EPSs). Thus, the analysis presents the minimum level of expected energy 
savings from a potential standard for these products. If DOE were to 
later adopt Approach D (i.e., include coverage of wall adapters with 
charge control functions), the energy savings potential from standards 
for non-Class A EPSs would either increase or remain unchanged, but 
would not decrease below the current analysis' projected energy savings 
potential.
2. Shipments, Efficiency Distributions, and Market Growth
a. Overview
    Based on its market analysis, DOE estimates that 11.3 million non-
Class A EPSs are sold in the United States each year. For the national 
impact analysis, DOE also created forecasts of market size to 2032, the 
last year of sales in the analysis. Table II.1 summarizes DOE's 
estimates of market size and growth rate for each type of non-Class A 
EPS. These estimates are discussed in detail in the subsections that 
follow.

  Table II.1--Market Size and Growth Prospects for Non-Class A External
                             Power Supplies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Market size
                                              in 2008      Annual growth
      Type of external power supply         (shipments         rate
                                             per year)       (percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple-Voltage EPSs for Multifunction        5,085,000               1
 Devices................................
Multiple-Voltage EPSs for Xbox 360......       4,000,000               3
High-Power EPSs.........................           3,000               0
Medical EPSs............................       1,450,000               3
EPSs for Cordless Rechargeable Floor             297,000               1
 Care Appliances *......................
EPSs for Cordless Rechargeable Power             499,400               2
 Tools *................................
                                         -------------------------------
    Total...............................      11,334,400  ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DOE estimates that a maximum of 5 percent of the wall adapters that
  ship with products of this type are EPSs under Approach A.
Source: DOE estimated long-run growth rates by examining published
  shipments growth estimates (both past and projected) from the Consumer
  Electronics Association (CEA) (``U.S. Consumer Electronics Sales and
  Forecasts 2004-2009'', Consumer Electronics Association, July 2008),
  Appliance Magazine (``31st Annual Portrait of the U.S. Appliance
  Industry'', Appliance Magazine, September 2008) the Darnell Group
  (External AC-DC Power Supplies Worldwide Forecasts, Third Edition.
  Special estimate for North America, Darnell Group. May 2008), and
  others.

    In addition to assessing the size of the market for each EPS type, 
DOE also assessed the efficiency of those EPSs. DOE defined four 
candidate standard levels (CSLs) for each EPS type and described market 
distribution in terms of efficiency across those levels (section 
II.C.4) DOE also created two base-case forecasts of efficiency 
distribution to 2032. These efficiency distributions describe the 
market in the absence of a standard and are required as a point of 
comparison in the national impact analysis. DOE's characterizations of 
present-day efficiency and its efficiency forecasts are also discussed 
in detail in the following subsections.
b. Multiple-Voltage External Power Supplies

EPSs for Multifunction Devices

    In field research, DOE found that Hewlett-Packard (HP) manufactures 
all those MFDs that currently use multiple-voltage EPSs. In August 
2008, DOE visited five retail outlets to determine which MFDs use 
multiple-voltage EPSs. DOE inspected 87 unique MFD models for sale at 
Best Buy, Circuit City, Office Depot, Staples, and Target. Of these 87 
models, 16 used multiple-voltage EPSs; the remainder either had 
internal power supplies or used single-voltage EPSs. Many of these 
models were among the top-selling MFDs on Amazon.com, BestBuy.com, and 
CircuitCity.com.
    In a written comment DOE received in October 2008 in connection 
with its Standby and Off Mode Test Procedure rulemaking, HP indicated 
that it plans to phase out multiple-voltage EPSs. It stated, ``About 
45% of HP's total current usage of external-style power supplies is 
made up [multiple-voltage output power supplies (MVOPS)]. HP is 
planning to eliminate the use of MVOPS by early 2010. So our product 
designs will consist entirely of [single-voltage output power 
supplies].'' (Comment from Hewlett-Packard dated October 29, 2008. 
Docket Number EERE-2008-BT-

[[Page 56934]]

TP-0004. Comment 30.) Nevertheless, DOE is including multiple-
voltage EPSs for MFDs in its analysis as some MFDs may continue to ship 
with multiple-voltage EPSs after 2010, or new applications with similar 
power requirements may be introduced.
    Based on the available data, DOE estimated that 5,085,000 multiple-
voltage EPSs for MFDs shipped for sale in the United States in 2008. 
Using data from Gartner Dataquest and the Consumer Electronics 
Association, DOE estimated that about 20 million inkjet printers and 
MFDs shipped in 2008. (Gartner Dataquest. ``Gartner Says United States 
Printer and MFP Shipments Declined 4 Percent in Second Quarter of 
2006.'' August 2006. Last accessed February 27, 2009,  http://www.gartner.com/it/page.jsp?id=496184&format=print.; Consumer 
Electronics Association. U.S. Consumer Sales and Forecasts, 2004-2009. 
July 2008. CEA: Arlington, VA.) According to Gartner Dataquest, HP 
controlled 56.4 percent of the inkjet printer/MFD market in the second 
quarter of 2006. DOE assumed HP's market share remained unchanged in 
2008, resulting in shipments of 11.3 million HP inkjet printers and 
MFDs that year. As HP claimed that 45 percent of its EPSs are multiple-
voltage EPSs, DOE estimated that 5,085,000 multiple-voltage EPSs for 
use with MFDs (45 percent of 11.3 million) were shipped in 2008. Given 
HP's stated intent to discontinue use of multiple-voltage EPSs, DOE 
assumed in its model a modest market growth rate of 1 percent annually.
    DOE defined four CSLs for multiple-voltage EPSs for MFDs (Table 
II.2) DOE tested two multiple-voltage EPSs for MFDs, and neither unit 
tested above CSL 0. Thus, DOE assumed that all units on the market 
today are at CSL 0.

                   Table II.2--Efficiency of Multiple-Voltage External Power Supplies for MFDs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Minimum
                                                    active mode    Maximum  no-    Market share
         Candidate standard level (CSL)             efficiency      load power       (percent)       Shipments
                                                     (percent)          (W)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0. Current Level................................              81            0.50             100       5,085,000
1. Mid Level....................................              86            0.45               0               0
2. High Level...................................              90            0.31               0               0
3. Higher Level.................................              91            0.20               0               0
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    All Levels..................................  ..............  ..............             100       5,085,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimated the market distribution across CSLs using test data from two units.

    DOE examined two base case efficiency forecasts in its national 
impact analysis. In the first, efficiency does not improve during the 
period of analysis. In the second, which considered spillover effects 
from existing Class A EPS standards, non-Class A EPSs for MFDs 
gradually become more efficient throughout the period of analysis, with 
three-quarters of the market still at CSL 0 and the remainder at CSL 1 
in 2032, the last year of sales.

EPSs for the Xbox 360

    The NPD group estimates that since its release of the Xbox 360 in 
November 2005, more than 14 million units have been sold in the United 
States at an annual average of 4 million units. (NPD Group, reported 
from http://www.joystiq.com archives, last accessed February 28, 2009.) 
Because demand for a specific video game console is generally driven by 
novelty, the majority of shipments for a given model tend to occur 
early in its production cycle, with shipments generally decreasing over 
time as newer competing consoles or next-generation consoles become 
available. Therefore, DOE assumed a market size of 4 million units in 
the base year.
    The market for video game consoles, including the Xbox 360, has 
grown considerably in recent years, and analysts expect the market to 
continue growing annually at between 5 percent (``U.S. Consumer 
Electronics Sales and Forecasts 2004-2009,'' Consumer Electronics 
Association, July 2008) and 10 percent (``External AC-DC Power Supplies 
Worldwide Forecasts, Third Edition.'' Special estimate for North 
America by the Darnell Group. May 2008.) Because the market for the 
Xbox 360 represents a subset of the console market, DOE developed a 
conservative growth forecast for this market of 3 percent annual 
growth.
    DOE defined four CSLs for multiple-voltage EPSs for the Xbox 360 
(Table II.3). An estimated 95 percent of units on the market today--
those units sold with the Xbox 360--have average active-mode efficiency 
of 86 percent and consume 0.4 watts in no-load mode. Replacement units, 
which have poorer energy performance, comprise the remaining 5 percent 
of the market.

                 Table II.3--Efficiency of Multiple-Voltage External Power Supplies for Xbox 360
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Minimum
                                                    active mode    Maximum  no-    Market share
         Candidate standard level (CSL)             efficiency     load power  W     (percent)       Shipments
                                                     (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0. Generic Replacement..........................              82           12.33               5         200,000
1. Manufacturer Provided........................              86            0.40              95       3,800,000
2. EU Qualified Level...........................              86            0.30               0               0
3. Higher Level.................................              89            0.30               0               0
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    All Levels..................................  ..............  ..............             100       4,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimates are based on test data and market share of generic replacements for the Xbox 360 EPS.


[[Page 56935]]

    DOE examined two base-case efficiency forecasts in its national 
impact analysis. In the first, efficiency does not improve during the 
period of analysis. In the second, EPSs for the Xbox 360 gradually 
become more efficient. No units remain at CSL 0 in 2018, the sixth year 
after the standard is assumed to take effect. By 2032, one-quarter of 
the market has moved up to CSL 2, while the remainder is at CSL 1.
c. High Output Power External Power Supplies
    Due to the highly specialized and relatively uncommon application 
of high power external power supplies, only about 30,000 units are in 
use. (Communication with the American Radio Relay League (August 2008). 
Despite the inherent limitations of high-power EPSs and the increasing 
use of internal power supplies for home amateur radio equipment setups, 
DOE expects the market for high-power EPSs to remain level throughout 
the analysis period based on input from the Amateur Radio Relay League. 
Given an average lifetime of 10 years and assuming that the same number 
of new units is put into service each year that is taken out of 
service, it follows that approximately 3,000 new units are put into 
service each year. (DOE interview with manufacturer, September 15, 
2008.)
    Table II.4 shows the four CSLs DOE defined for high-power EPSs. 
Line frequency EPSs account for an estimated 60 percent of the market; 
switched-mode EPSs comprise the remaining 40 percent. Line frequency 
EPSs historically have been preferred over switched-mode EPSs for 
amateur radio applications. However, they are slowly losing market 
share to switched-mode EPSs, which are considerably more efficient and 
much less expensive.

                          Table II.4--Efficiency of High Power External Power Supplies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Minimum
                                                    active mode     Maximum no-    Market share
         Candidate standard level (CSL)             efficiency      load power       (percent)       Shipments
                                                     (percent)          (W)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0. Line Frequency...............................              62           15.43              60           1,800
1. Switched Mode--Low...........................              81            6.01              40           1,200
2. Switched Mode--Mid...........................              84            1.50               0               0
3. Switched Mode--High..........................              85            0.50               0               0
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    All Levels..................................  ..............  ..............             100           3,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimates are based on test data and manufacturer interviews.

    In the first base-case efficiency forecast in its national impact 
analysis, efficiency does not improve during the period of analysis. In 
the second forecast, increased consumer preference for switched-mode 
high-power EPSs and spillover effects from existing Class A EPS 
standards lead to efficiency improvements in high-power EPSs. In this 
second forecast, high-power EPSs at CSL 2 are introduced in 2010 and 
gradually become more efficient throughout the period of analysis. By 
2032, 38 percent of units remain at CSL 0, 40 percent are at CSL 1, and 
the remaining 22 percent have reached CSL 2.
d. External Power Supplies for Medical Devices
    DOE examined those medical devices that are used in home-care 
settings and employ an EPS. An estimated 1.45 million of these devices 
shipped in 2008. (External AC-DC Power Supplies Worldwide Forecasts, 
Third Edition. Special estimate for North America by the Darnell Group. 
May 2008.) This market is expected to grow at an average rate of 11.4 
percent per year between 2008 and 2013. The reasons for this growth are 
numerous. Over this period, the population aged 65 and older is 
expected to grow at 2.5 percent per year, compared to 0.75 percent per 
year for the population under age 65. (U.S. Population Projections.'' 
U.S. Census Bureau. 2008.) Demand for home care devices is increasing 
as the high cost of hospital stays encourages home care. (``DME Market 
of the Future.'' Home Care Magazine. July 1, 2000.) Patients' demands 
for greater portability are also driving an increase in the number of 
medical devices that can operate on battery power, some of which 
require wall adapters. (``Oxygen Concentrator Market Opportunities, 
Strategies, and Forecasts, 2005 to 2011.'' Wintergreen Research. 2005.) 
Finally, in some cases, medical device manufacturers can bring new 
products to market faster by using an EPS. (Personal communication. 
Phone call with Marco Gonzalez, Director of Supplier Management for 
Power. Avnet Inc. September 30, 2008.) This last trend in particular is 
increasing the number of medical devices using EPSs with output power 
greater than 90 watts. DOE forecasts the long term growth rate of 
medical device EPSs for consumer products to be 3 percent per year.
    Additionally, the market for sleep therapy devices shows 
significant potential for growth. Based on available studies, DOE 
estimates that approximately 20 million Americans experience a moderate 
form of obstructive sleep apnea, which causes the afflicted to stop 
breathing momentarily during sleep. (``What is Sleep Apnea?'' National 
Heart Lung and Blood Institute Diseases and Conditions Index. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/SleepApnea/SleepApnea_WhatIs.html.) As the number of diagnoses of obstructive sleep apnea 
increases, demand for sleep therapy devices, one of the most common 
treatments for the condition, increases as well. DOE estimates that 
approximately 50 percent of sleep therapy devices, or about 1 million 
new units annually, are powered by EPSs. (Schirm, Jeffrey. Personal 
communication. Philips Electronics, NV. Phone call with Matthew Jones, 
D&R International. December 15, 2008.)
    Nebulizers are commonly used to treat asthma and chronic 
obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). An estimated 22 million Americans 
have been diagnosed with asthma, and an additional 12 million Americans 
have been diagnosed with COPD. (``What is Asthma?'' National Heart Lung 
and Blood Institute Diseases and Conditions Index. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/Asthma/Asthma_WhatIs.html.; 
``What is COPD?'' National Heart Lung and Blood Institute Diseases and 
Conditions Index. http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/Copd/Copd_WhatIs.html.) The prevalence of COPD is increasing as the 
population ages. The incidence of asthma has also increased over time. 
A June 2005 report, ``U.S. Nebulizers and Markets,'' indicates that 
portable nebulizers, which are more likely to

[[Page 56936]]

employ EPSs, have taken market share from non-portable units. (``U.S. 
Nebulizers and Markets.'' Frost & Sullivan. June, 2005.) From the 
available data, DOE estimates shipments of nebulizers to be 3 million 
units per year. However, DOE observed only a few examples that use 
EPSs. Accordingly, DOE assumes 15 percent of nebulizers, or 450,000 
units per year, employ an EPS.
    DOE did not consider the remaining three applications--ventilators, 
blood pressure monitors, and portable oxygen concentrators--further in 
the determination analysis. Very few ventilators or blood pressure 
monitors employ EPSs. Due to time constraints, DOE did not analyze or 
develop cost-efficiency curves for medical EPSs with high output power, 
so portable oxygen concentrators also were not included in the 
analysis. DOE may examine these products as part of a possible future 
standards rulemaking for medical EPSs.
    DOE defined four CSLs for medical EPSs (Table II.5). DOE believes 
that roughly 66 percent of medical EPSs sold into the market today meet 
the Federal standard for Class A EPSs and could be labeled according to 
the international efficiency marking protocol with a ``IV''. The 
international efficiency marking protocol, initiated by the ENERGY STAR 
program and adopted by the U.S., Australia, China and Europe, provides 
a system for power supply manufacturers to designate the minimum 
efficiency performance of an external power supply, so that finished 
product manufacturers and government representatives can easily 
determine a unit's efficiency. Under this protocol manufacturers place 
a roman numeral from I (less efficient) to V (more efficient) on an EPS 
that corresponds to the EPS's efficiency. For instance, the mark of 
``IV'' corresponds to the efficiency of the EISA 2007 standard. More 
information on the protocol can be found on the ENERGY STAR Web site 
at: http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/International_Efficiency_Marking_Protocol.pdf.
    DOE based its view regarding the ability of medical EPSs to satisfy 
current Federal Class A standards enacted by Congress on available test 
results and its understanding that SL Power, a leading manufacturer of 
medical EPSs, is designing its EPSs for medical devices to meet the 
standard for Class A EPSs. Competing medical EPS manufacturers such as 
Elpac and GlobTek are also beginning to offer EPSs that meet the Class 
A standard. From this information, DOE assumes that 17 percent of units 
are less efficient and that the remaining 17 percent of units are more 
efficient.

                            Table II.5--Efficiency of Medical External Power Supplies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Minimum
                                                    active mode    Maximum  no-    Market share
         Candidate standard level (CSL)             efficiency     load power  W     (percent)       Shipments
                                                     (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0. Less than the II Mark........................              66            0.56              17         246,500
1. Meets the IV Mark............................              76            0.50              66         957,000
2. Meets the V Mark.............................              80            0.30              17         246,500
3. Higher Level.................................              85            0.15               0               0
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    All Levels..................................  ..............  ..............             100       1,450,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimated shipment distributions based on test results from six units.

    In the first base-case efficiency forecast in the national impact 
analysis, efficiency does not improve during the period of analysis. In 
the second forecast, additional manufacturers adopt Class A EPS 
standards for medical device EPSs, which are projected to become 
gradually more efficient throughout the period of analysis. By 2032, 5 
percent of units remain at CSL 0, 54 percent of the market is at CSL 1, 
and the remaining 41 percent of units are at CSL 2.
e. External Power Supplies for Certain Battery Chargers
    As noted above, DOE identified several battery-powered applications 
that could potentially use non-Class A EPSs. Many of these applications 
were excluded from further consideration because DOE's analysis 
indicated they accounted for only a trivial amount of non-Class A EPS 
energy consumption. Battery-powered kitchen appliances were excluded 
because only a small number of units are sold annually. Personal care 
products were excluded because wall adapters used to power these 
products typically incorporate battery-charging circuitry and are 
unlikely to be EPSs under Approach A. Furthermore, personal care 
products that employ EPSs spend the vast majority of their time 
unplugged and stowed. (Comments on the Framework Document for Battery 
Chargers and External Power Supplies (74 FR 26816). Philips Electronics 
(Philips, No. 22 at p. 3).) Lawn mowers and yard trimmers were excluded 
because those models that have wall adapters are unlikely to be EPSs 
under Approach A. However, DOE did include two of these applications in 
the determination analysis: Floor care appliances and power tools.

Floor Care Appliances

    DOE estimated that almost 6.5 million cordless rechargeable floor 
care appliances shipped in 2007. (Based on estimates of all stick 
vacuum and handheld vacuum shipments in ``31st Annual Portrait of the 
U.S. Appliance Industry,'' Appliance Magazine, September 2008.) DOE 
further estimates that approximately 90 percent or 5.9 million of those 
units use wall adapters. (Wayne Morris. Personal Communication. 
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. Letter to Victor Petrolati 
(DOE) and Michael Scholand (Navigant Consulting). August 11, 2006.) DOE 
lacks reliable data to determine what fraction of these wall adapters 
provide constant voltage and are therefore EPSs. In the absence of 
reliable data, DOE's preliminary estimate is that a maximum of 5 
percent of these wall adapters, or 297,000 units per year, are EPSs 
(see Table II.6). DOE welcomes input on the accuracy of these 
estimates.

[[Page 56937]]



                              Table II.6--Annual Shipments of Floor Care Appliances
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Cordless rechargeable units
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                         With wall adapter
          Type of floor care appliance                 Total                     -------------------------------
                                                                       Total                      Without charge
                                                                                       Total       control (EPS)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Handheld Vacuums................................       5,580,000       3,683,000       3,315,000         166,000
Stick Vacuums...................................       4,500,000       1,800,000       1,620,000          81,000
Robotic Vacuums.................................       1,000,000       1,000,000       1,000,000          50,000
                                                 =================
    All Types...................................      11,080,000       6,483,000       5,935,000         297,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite the stable market for floor care appliances, improvements 
in battery technology and the greater adoption of robotic vacuums may 
enable growth in the cordless rechargeable segment of the market. 
(``Robot Home Vacuum Cleaning, Cooking, Pool Cleaning, and Lawn Mowing 
Market Strategy, Market Shares, and Market Forecasts, 2008-2014.'' 
Electronics.ca Publications. January 2008.) Thus, DOE forecasts 1 
percent annual growth in the size of the market for cordless 
rechargeable floor care appliances.
    DOE defined four CSLs for EPSs that power the BCs of cordless 
rechargeable floor care appliances (Table II.7). Based on test data 
from 12 EPS units, DOE believes that three-quarters of EPSs for floor 
care appliances sold today meet or exceed the Federal standard for 
Class A EPSs and could be labeled according to the international 
efficiency marking protocol with a ``IV'' or ``V.'' DOE assumes that 8 
percent of these units are somewhat less efficient, but could still be 
labeled with a ``II,'' while the remaining 17 percent of units are even 
less efficient.

        Table II.7--Efficiency of External Power Supplies for Cordless Rechargeable Floor Care Appliances
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Minimum
                                                    active mode    Maximum  no-    Market share
         Candidate standard level (CSL)             efficiency      load power       (percent)       Shipments
                                                     (percent)          (W)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0. Less than the II Mark........................              24            1.85              17          50,490
1. Meets the II Mark............................              45            0.75               8          23,760
2. Meets the IV Mark............................              55            0.50              58         172,260
3. Meets the V Mark.............................              66            0.30              17          50,490
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    All Levels..................................  ..............  ..............             100         297,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimated market distributions based on test data of 12 Class A EPSs.

    In the first base-case efficiency forecast in the national impact 
analysis, efficiency does not improve during the period of analysis. In 
the second forecast, EPSs for BCs that power cordless rechargeable 
floor care appliances gradually become more efficient throughout the 
period of analysis. By 2032, 5 percent of units remain at CSL 0, 20 
percent of units are at CSL 1, 52 percent of units are at CSL 2, and 
the remaining 23 percent of units are at CSL 3.

DIY Power Tools

    DOE estimates that 499,400 wall adapters without charge control 
(EPSs) are sold annually for use with rechargeable power tools. This is 
a preliminary estimate based on the assumptions shown in Table II.8. As 
noted above, professional tools, which DOE assumed account for 50 
percent of shipments, do not employ wall adapters. The remaining 50 
percent, the DIY tools, can be divided into those with a detachable 
battery and those with an integral battery. DOE assumed that the former 
account for 30 percent and the latter 20 percent of the market. Based 
on data obtained from the Power Tool Institute, DOE estimated that 80 
percent of DIY tools with detachable batteries and 100 percent of DIY 
tools with integral batteries employed wall adapters. DOE's preliminary 
estimate is that a maximum of 5 percent of those 9,990,000 wall 
adapters lack charge control and, thus, are considered EPSs under 
Approach A.

                                               Table II.8--Shipments of Cordless Rechargeable Power Tools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                           Wall adapter
                                                            Percent of      Annual unit      With wall       With wall    without charge   Wall adapter
                   Type of power tool                        shipments       shipments        adapter         adapter         control     without charge
                                                                                             (percent)                       (percent)        control
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Professional............................................              50      11,350,000               0  ..............  ..............               0
DIY with Detachable Battery.............................              30       6,810,000              80       5,450,000               5         272,400
DIY with Integral Battery...............................              20       4,540,000             100       4,540,000               5         227,000
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    All Tools...........................................             100      22,700,000  ..............       9,990,000  ..............         499,400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 56938]]

    According to forecasts from the Darnell Group, the market for 
cordless rechargeable power tools will continue to grow at an average 
annual rate of 10.6 percent until 2013. This growth is attributed to a 
falling cost for increasingly powerful and flexible tools. DOE believes 
that short-term growth will be tempered by the slowdown in the 
construction and remodeling industries. Given these factors, DOE 
estimates long-term shipments growth of 2 percent per year.
    DOE defined four CSLs for EPSs that power the BCs of cordless 
rechargeable power tools (Table II.9). Based on test data from 12 EPS 
units, DOE believes that three-quarters of power tool EPSs sold into 
the market today meet or exceed the Federal standard for Class A EPSs 
and could be labeled according to the international efficiency marking 
protocol with a ``IV'' or ``V.'' DOE assumes that 8 percent of units 
are somewhat less efficient, but could still be labeled with a ``II,'' 
while the remaining 17 percent of units are even less efficient.

                 Table II.9--Efficiency of External Power Supplies for Rechargeable Power Tools
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Minimum
                                                    active mode    Maximum  no-    Market share
         Candidate standard level (CSL)             efficiency    load power (W)     (percent)       Shipments
                                                     (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0. Less than the II Mark........................              38            1.85              17          84,898
1. Meets the II Mark............................              56            0.75               8          39,952
2. Meets the IV Mark............................              64            0.50              17          84,898
3. Meets the V Mark.............................              72            0.30              58         289,652
                                                 ---------------------------------------------------------------
    All Levels..................................  ..............  ..............             100         499,400
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimated market distributions based on test data of 12 EPSs.

    In the first base-case efficiency forecast in the national impact 
analysis, efficiency does not improve during the period of analysis. In 
the second forecast, the less efficient EPSs for BCs that power 
cordless rechargeable power tools gradually become more efficient 
throughout the period of analysis. By 2032, 5 percent of units remain 
at CSL 0 and the market for units at CSL 1 increases to 20 percent. 
EPSs at CSL 2 and CSL 3 continue to comprise 17 percent and 58 percent 
of the market, respectively.
3. Product Lifetimes
a. Overview
    DOE considers the lifetime of an EPS to be from the moment it is 
purchased for end-use up until the time when it is permanently retired 
from service. Because the typical EPS is purchased for use with a 
single associated application, DOE assumes that the EPS will remain in 
service for as long as the application does. High-power EPSs are the 
exception, as they are purchased separately, not as part of another 
end-use consumer product. Table II.10 shows the values for EPS lifetime 
that DOE used in its draft analysis. Where there are multiple 
applications with different lifetimes for a single type of EPS, DOE 
calculated a weighted-average lifetime for that EPS type using the 
applications' shipment volumes as weights. Additional detail on each 
EPS type is given in the subsections below. DOE seeks comments on its 
assumptions for product lifetime.

        Table II.10--Lifetime of External Power Supplies by Type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Average
                        Type of EPS                            lifetime
                                                                years
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple-Voltage EPSs for MFDs.............................            5
Multiple-Voltage EPSs for Xbox 360.........................            5
High-Power EPSs............................................           10
Medical EPSs...............................................            8
Wall Adapters for Certain Battery Chargers.................            5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE estimates are based on numerous sources. See subsections below for
  detail.

b. Multiple-Voltage External Power Supplies
    For the Xbox 360, DOE assumed an average console lifetime of 5 
years, which is roughly the time between console generations. While 
consoles, especially modern consoles, may have extremely long 
functional lifetimes, this may differ significantly from the length of 
time they will actually be used. When a new console is introduced, the 
industry stops developing and releasing new games for that console's 
predecessor. Consumers then begin retiring the older system in favor of 
the new one. Thus, while the console may in fact remain functional, it 
will no longer remain in use.
    Based on availability dates for video game consoles from the 
current leaders in the console market (Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft), 
DOE determined an average period of 5 years between generations of 
consoles. Table II.11 lists these consoles by manufacturer. In each 
line of consoles, DOE assumed that the effective run of a console ended 
upon release of the next generation of console. In many cases, the 
older consoles are still available for purchase, and some overlap will 
occur, as consumers continue to use older systems. However, DOE 
anticipates that within 2 years of release, the majority of consumers 
will prefer to use newer consoles. Therefore, DOE considers an estimate 
of 5 years to be a suitable value for the average effective lifetime 
for video game consoles, including the Xbox 360 and any subsequent 
console that may use a non-Class A EPS.

                          Table II.11--Video Game Console Release Dates by Manufacturer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               North American
            Manufacturer                     Console            release date     Years until subsequent release
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nintendo...........................  Nintendo..............               1985  6.
                                     Super Nintendo........               1991  5.
                                     Nintendo 64...........               1996  5.
                                     Game Cube.............               2001  5.

[[Page 56939]]

 
                                     Wii...................               2006  Currently available.
Sony...............................  Playstation...........               1995  5.
                                     Playstation 2.........               2000  6.
                                     Playstation 3.........               2006  Currently available.
Microsoft..........................  Xbox..................               2001  4.
                                     Xbox 360..............               2005  Currently available.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: http://www.thegameconsole.com/; http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/video/hov/.

    In a recent interview, Robbie Bach, President of Entertainment and 
Devices Division at Microsoft, stated that, ``The life cycle for this 
generation of consoles--and I'm not just talking about Xbox, I'd 
include Wii and PS3 as well--is probably going to be a little longer 
than previous generations.'' (http://xbox.joystiq.com/2009/01/12/xbox-360-life-cycle-to-be-a-little-longer-than-previous-generat) It is 
unclear whether this statement would apply only to this particular 
generation of consoles, or to all future console development cycles 
generally. In light of this uncertainty, DOE considers 5 years to be an 
appropriate estimate for console lifetime.
    Multifunction devices are also assumed to have an average useful 
lifetime of 5 years, according to Appliance Magazine. (``31st Annual 
Portrait of the U.S. Appliance Industry,'' Appliance Magazine, 
September 2008.)
c. High Output Power External Power Supplies
    As described above, DOE normally calculates the life of an EPS 
based on the end-use application that the EPS is intended to power. 
High-power EPSs, however, are sold separately from their end-use 
applications. DOE cannot use the lifetime of the end-use application as 
a proxy, as the EPS may power different and multiple applications. 
Therefore, DOE based the lifetime of these EPSs on the functional 
lifetime of the EPS itself. Based on input from industry experts, DOE 
estimates that these EPSs have an average functional lifetime of 10 
years. (Based on interviews conducted with the American Radio Relay 
League (August 2008) and Astron (December 2008).)
d. External Power Supplies for Medical Devices
    DOE assumed an average lifetime of 8 years for medical device EPSs. 
According to a representative of SL Power, medical devices in general 
have an average lifetime of 11 years. (Tim Cassidy, SL Power. Committee 
Workshop before the California Energy Resources Conservation and 
Development Commission meeting transcript. 1/30/06 California Energy 
Commission.) However, this determination analysis focused on medical 
devices for use in home care settings, which generally have shorter 
lifetimes. Medicare guidelines state that durable medical equipment 
must have a lifetime of at least 5 years before a replacement is 
eligible to receive reimbursement. (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services. CMS Manual System Pub. 100-02 Medicare Benefit Policy, 
Transmittal 30, Change Request 3693. February 18, 2005.) The length of 
product warranties and comments from users in online discussion forums 
suggest that sleep therapy devices can last 7 to 12 years before 
replacement is necessary. (American Sleep Apnea Association. Apnea 
Support Forum discussion amongst users on sleep therapy device 
lifetimes. January 25, 2007. http://www.apneasupport.org/about8124.html.) Given the similarities in form and function, DOE 
assumes nebulizers have a comparable lifespan.
e. External Power Supplies for Certain Battery Chargers
    Based on input from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers 
and the Power Tool Institute, DOE estimated an average lifetime of 5 
years for EPSs for battery chargers for floor care appliances and DIY 
power tools. (Data for floor care products from ``31st Annual Portrait 
of the U.S. Appliance Industry,'' Appliance Magazine, September 2008. 
Data for power tools courtesy of the Power Tool Institute.)
4. Distribution Channels and Markups
    In the LCC, payback period (PBP), and national impacts analyses, 
DOE compared the energy cost savings from standards with changes in 
purchase price due to increases in initial cost resulting from 
standards. DOE estimated the incremental consumer cost associated with 
setting a standard at CSLs 1-4.
    To obtain end-user (consumer) product prices, DOE started by 
estimating the efficiency-related materials cost (ERMC) for each CSL. 
See section II.B.5 for a discussion of this cost. DOE marked up these 
costs to obtain factory price or manufacturer selling price (MSP) 
estimates, and then studied the distribution value chain for EPSs 
moving from manufacturer to end-user. From that analysis, which 
included volume estimates and typical markups applied by actors in the 
distribution chain, DOE calculated a manufacturer-to-retail markup to 
convert MSP estimates to retail price estimates. DOE then applied a 
sales tax estimate to the retail price estimates to arrive at end-user 
product prices.
    Consumer product manufacturers, or original equipment manufacturers 
(OEMs), initiate the manufacture of most non-Class A EPSs. An OEM 
contracts with an EPS manufacturer to supply an EPS that meets the 
requirements of the OEM's consumer product. The EPS manufacturer then 
designs and assembles the device from component parts (e.g., 
transformers, diodes, capacitors, semiconductors) made by various 
component manufacturers. The completed EPS is then sent to the OEM to 
be packaged and sold. While this process may be initially more 
expensive than using stock, off-the-shelf EPSs, OEMs prefer it since 
the EPS will then exactly fit the requirements of the intended 
application and the up-front design costs can be amortized over a large 
volume of sales. (Collon Lee. Personal Communication. Astec Power, 
Carlsbad, CA. February 16, 2006.) In addition, due to the special 
requirements of battery chargers and the design and registration 
process for medical devices, stock EPSs are not always available to 
meet the power requirements of these applications.
    Table II.12 shows total markups for each type of non-Class A EPS. 
The total markup is the ratio of the after-tax consumer price to the 
ERMC or after-tax consumer price as a multiple of ERMC. The specific 
distribution channels and individual markups DOE used in its analysis 
for each type of non-Class A

[[Page 56940]]

EPS are discussed in section 1.2 of the TSD.

      Table II.12--Markups for Non-Class A External Power Supplies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Total dollar markup
                                                   (after-tax consumer
                  Type of EPS                     price as a multiple of
                                                         ERMC) $
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple-Voltage EPSs for MFDs.................                     3.18
Multiple-Voltage EPSs for Xbox 360.............                     3.15
High-Power EPSs................................                     1.80
Medical EPSs...................................                     3.60
Wall Adapters for Certain Battery Chargers:                         3.69
 Floor Care Appliances.........................
Wall Adapters for Certain Battery Chargers: DIY                     4.14
 Power Tools...................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Interested Parties
    DOE has identified several organizations--mainly trade associations 
and energy efficiency advocates--that may have an interest in this 
determination. Energy efficiency advocacy organizations with a 
demonstrated interest in DOE's rulemakings on BCs and EPSs include the 
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, the American Council for an 
Energy-Efficient Economy, Earthjustice, Ecos Consulting, the Natural 
Resources Defense Council, and Pacific Gas and Electric Company, among 
others. Several trade associations with member companies manufacture 
non-Class A EPSs or the consumer products they power. Section 1.3 of 
the TSD lists some of these associations. Table 1.5 of the TSD 
identifies the types of non-Class A EPSs in which each group is likely 
to have an interest. Table 1.6 gives examples of each association's 
member companies.
6. Existing Energy Efficiency Programs
    DOE has identified both voluntary and regulatory energy efficiency 
programs that may affect the efficiency of non-Class A EPSs sold in the 
United States. The five most important programs, summarized in Table 
II.13, include three domestic programs and two foreign programs. The 
three domestic programs are the Federal mandatory standard for Class A 
EPSs, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's voluntary ENERGY STAR 
standard for EPSs, and California's mandatory standard for so-called 
``State Regulated EPSs.'' Among the many foreign programs, two from the 
European Union are particularly noteworthy--the ``Eco-design of Energy-
using Products Initiative, Directive 2005/32/EC'' and the ``Code of 
Conduct on Efficiency of External Power Supplies, EU Standby 
Initiative.'' See section 1.4 of the TSD for a discussion of these 
programs.

                  Table II.13--Selected Energy Efficiency Programs for External Power Supplies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Country/region                        Authority                      Program/institution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States...........................  Mandatory..................  Federal standard for Class A EPSs.
United States...........................  Voluntary..................  ENERGY STAR for EPSs.
California..............................  Mandatory..................  State standard for ``State Regulated
                                                                        EPSs''.
European Union..........................  Mandatory..................  Eco-design of Energy-using Products (EuP)
                                                                        Initiative, Directive 2005/32/EC.
European Union..........................  Voluntary..................  Code of Conduct on Efficiency of External
                                                                        Power Supplies, EU Standby Initiative.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Technology Assessment

1. Introduction
    This technology assessment examines the technology behind the 
design of non-Class A EPSs and focuses on the components and subsystems 
that have the biggest impact on energy efficiency. (Note that the term 
``technology assessment'' is different from ``technical support 
document.'' The TSD is the supporting document for this notice on a 
proposed determination for non-Class A EPSs. The technology assessment 
is a section within both this notice and the supporting TSD.)
a. Definitions
    DOE is conducting a determination analysis for non-Class A external 
power supplies defined by EPCA, as amended by EPACT 2005. EPCA defines 
an external power supply as ``an external power supply circuit that is 
used to convert household electric current into DC current or lower-
voltage AC current to operate a consumer product'' (42 U.S.C. 
6291(36)(A)) but section 301 of EISA 2007 further amended this 
definition by creating a subset of EPSs called Class A External Power 
Supplies. EISA 2007 defined this subset as those external power 
supplies that, in addition to meeting several other requirements common 
to all external power supplies, are ``able to convert to only 1 AC or 
DC output voltage at a time'' and that have ``nameplate output power 
that is less than or equal to 250 watts.'' (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(i)) 
EPCA excludes an EPS from Class A if it ``requires Federal Food and 
Drug Administration listing and approval as a medical device'' or if it 
``powers the charger of a detachable battery pack or charges the 
battery of a product that is fully or primarily motor operated.'' (42 
U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)(ii)) This determination analysis only considers non-
Class A external power supplies.
b. The Role of Power Converters
    EPSs are power converters that support consumer products; hence, 
their operation and design is primarily governed by the consumer 
products they support (Figure II.1). Generally, an EPS supplies power 
at a constant output voltage and is interchangeable among consumer 
products with similar power requirements.

[[Page 56941]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.000

c. Functionality and Modes of Operation
    The technology assessment begins by analyzing the modes in which 
EPSs operate and their functionality. Of these modes, active mode has 
the largest effect on the power converter's size and efficiency because 
the maximum amount of power passes through the EPS in active mode. In 
no-load mode the power converter is disconnected from the load; 
however, no-load power consumption is indicative of power consumption 
at low load. In each operational mode, the EPS is designed to provide 
certain functionality to the consumer product.
d. EPS Circuit Design
    This section discusses how EPSs are designed, with specific 
consideration to the functionality requirements of the consumer 
applications that they power.
e. Efficiency Metrics
    This section discusses the metrics used to measure and compare EPS 
efficiency.
f. Product Classes
    This section discusses how DOE groups products into ``product 
classes'' for different energy-efficiency standards when a product's 
characteristics constrain its energy efficiency.
g. Technology Options for Efficiency Improvement
    The final section of the technology assessment evaluates technology 
options for improving energy efficiency. DOE analyzed the components in 
the power converter that consume significant power, such as 
transformers, or influence power consumption of other components, such 
as integrated circuits (ICs). By identifying sources of power loss and 
possible methods for improvement, the technology assessment discusses 
technology options that would allow a manufacturer to design a power 
converter with similar design characteristics to have the same 
functionality but with improved efficiency.
h. Overlapping Terminology
    The technology assessment discusses external power supplies with 
terminology that occasionally overlaps. This is because EPSs are used 
with a broad array of products with use in many different applications. 
In particular, ``class'' is discussed in this document in four 
different contexts:
     ``Class A'' and ``non-Class A.'' EPCA defines a subset of 
external power supplies as ``Class A'' based on criteria discussed in 
section II.B.1.a. External power supplies outside of the definition of 
Class A, are termed ``non-Class A.''
     ``Product class.'' DOE uses ``product class'' as a term of 
art in conducting energy efficiency rulemakings to delineate groups of 
products (discussed further in section II.B.4).
     ``Class I'' and ``Class II.'' Safety rating agencies use 
Class I and II to differentiate among products with and without a 
connection to ground, respectively. This issue particularly affects 
medical EPSs, discussed in the TSD.
     ``Class B digital devices.'' The Federal Communications 
Commission (FCC) regulates products for electromagnetic interference 
based on whether the product is used for non-residential or residential 
purposes, designated as Class A or Class B, respectively. (For 
information regarding the FCC definitions of Class A and Class B 
digital devices, see http://www.arrl.org/tis/info/part15.html#Definitions.) Electromagnetic interference particularly 
affects high-power EPSs, discussed in the TSD.
2. Modes of Operation
a. Active Mode
    For the determination analysis, DOE used the definition of active 
mode codified in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Z: ``Active mode 
is the mode of operation when the external power supply is connected to 
the main electricity supply and the output is connected to a load.''
    In this mode, EPS efficiency is the conversion efficiency when the 
load draws some or all of the maximum rated output power of the EPS. In 
addition to providing that output power, the EPS also consumes power 
due to internal losses as well as overhead circuitry. The amount of 
power the EPS consumes varies with the power demands of the load; 
together, those two parameters define the EPS's efficiency at a 
particular loading point:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.001


Where [eta]EPS is the EPS efficiency,
PEPS--consumption is the power consumed by the external 
power supply itself,
Pin is the power from mains into the external power 
supply, and
Pout is the power out of the external power supply to the 
consumer product.

    EPS active mode efficiency varies with the amount of output power 
(Figure II.2). Typically, EPSs are inefficient at low load (0 percent 
to 20 percent of maximum rated output power of the EPS) and more 
efficient at larger loads (between 20 and 100 percent of maximum rated 
output power), which occurs when the consumer product is fully 
functional and demanding more power. The lower efficiency at lower 
output current is due to the proportionally larger power consumption of 
internal EPS components relative to output power. At higher power, EPS 
losses are

[[Page 56942]]

proportionally not as great and therefore have less impact on EPS 
efficiency. The EPS test procedure evaluates active mode conversion 
efficiency at four loading points: 25 percent, 50 percent, 75 percent, 
and 100 percent of maximum rated output power, which captures a general 
picture of EPS efficiency. Figure II.2 shows an example of a typical 
efficiency curve for an EPS in active mode.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.002

b. No-Load Mode
    For the determination analysis, DOE used the definition of no-load 
mode codified in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Z: ``No load mode 
means the mode of operation when the external power supply is connected 
to the main electricity supply and the output is not connected to a 
load.''
    EPS consumption in no-load is a measure of EPS internal power 
consumption, since the EPS is not connected to the load. However, the 
EPS might provide functionality. For example, certain consumer products 
may require the EPS to deliver output power within moments of being 
connected. Thus, the EPS may consume power to provide the useful 
function of reduced start-up time. Nonetheless, EPS power consumption 
can still be low (less than 1 watt) in no-load mode for non-Class A 
EPSs.
c. Standby and Off Modes
    As directed by EISA 2007, DOE amended its test procedures for 
battery chargers and external power supplies to address standby and off 
modes on March 27, 2009. (74 FR 13318) In those test procedures, DOE 
defines standby mode and off mode. Standby mode is the condition in 
which the EPS is in no-load mode and, with products equipped with 
manual on-off switches, all such switches are turned on. Off mode is 
also only applicable to those EPSs that have a manual on-off switch, 
and is defined as the time when the EPS is (1) connected to the main 
electricity supply; (2) the output is not connected to any load; and 
(3) all manual on-off switches are turned off.
3. Functionality and Circuit Designs of Non-Class A EPSs
    Non-Class A EPSs are designed to provide certain types of 
functionality, for which they have particular circuit designs. The TSD 
discusses these aspects of non-Class A EPSs in detail.
4. Product Classes
    DOE divides covered products into classes by the type of energy 
used, the capacity of the product, and any other performance-related 
feature that justifies different standard levels, such as features 
affecting consumer utility. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) For example, when 
compared with a standard device, a device with additional functionality 
that provides extra utility to the consumer would be grouped in a 
separate product class if the additional functionality affects its 
efficiency. DOE then conducts its analysis and considers establishing 
or amending standards to provide separate standard levels for each 
product class. Because output power and output voltage have the largest 
impact on achievable EPS efficiency, DOE considered both criteria when 
developing EPS product classes for the determination analysis.
a. Product Class Distinctions for Multiple-Voltage EPSs
    There is a small market for multiple-voltage EPSs, which are 
primarily used in printing and video game console applications. 
Accordingly, DOE is considering dividing multiple-voltage EPSs into two 
product classes, listed in

[[Page 56943]]

Table II.14, to account for these separate applications.

                                                 Table II.14--Product Classes for Multiple-Voltage EPSs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Nameplate output power
                                       -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              < 100 watts                                              >=100 watts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Class.........................  Multiple-Voltage Product Class 1.......................  Multiple-Voltage Product Class 2.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Multiple-Voltage Product Class 1 relates to multiple-voltage EPSs 
for printing applications. These EPSs tend to have an even distribution 
of power between the outputs. Multiple-Voltage Product Class 2 relates 
to multiple-voltage EPSs for video game applications. These EPSs tend 
to have an uneven distribution of power between the outputs, where one 
output accounts for most of the output power. These product classes 
also have different nameplate output power ratings. Multiple-Voltage 
Product Class 1 is representative of units that are less than 100 
watts. Multiple-Voltage Product Class 2 is representative of units that 
are greater than or equal to 100 watts.
b. Product Class Distinctions for High-Power EPSs
    There is a small market for high-power EPSs which have one primary 
application: ham radios. There are few technical differences among 
these EPSs that affect efficiency, none of which are significant for 
the current analysis. Therefore, DOE is considering placing high-power 
EPSs into one product class, listed in Table II.15.

            Table II.15--Product Classes for High-Power EPSs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Nameplate output power
                                           -----------------------------
                                                     > 250 watts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Class.............................  High Power Product Class 1.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    High-Power Product Class 1 relates to high-power EPSs for ham 
radios, which all have nameplate output voltage at 13.8 volts. Unlike 
higher-power Class A EPSs, High-Power Product Class 1 EPSs typically 
require more overhead circuitry. These EPSs often include two 
integrated circuits; Class A EPSs often have one. The second IC 
generally becomes necessary for EPSs around 170 watts.
c. Product Class Distinctions for Medical EPSs
    Both medical and Class A EPSs have diverse markets with many end-
use applications. The primary difference is that medical EPSs have 
additional safety requirements that result in higher costs. However, 
those requirements have a negligible effect on their efficiency. 
Therefore, DOE is considering placing medical EPSs in the same product 
classes as Class A EPSs, listed in Table II.16.

                                  Table II.16--Product Classes for Medical EPSs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Nameplate output power
            Nameplate output voltage             ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        <4 watts             4-60 watts           >60 watts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<=12 volts......................................  Medical Product       Medical Product      Medical Product
                                                   Class 1.              Class 2.             Class 3.
>12 volts.......................................  Medical Product       Medical Product      Medical Product
                                                   Class 4.              Class 5.             Class 6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Two variables in combination define A product class for medical 
EPSs: nameplate output voltage and nameplate output power. There are 
two variations on nameplate output voltage and three variations on 
nameplate output power, which results in six total product classes 
(Table III.16).
    DOE is considering criteria for product classes for medical EPSs. 
Output power and output voltage are the leading criteria, as with Class 
A EPSs. Additional criteria are specific to medical EPSs, including the 
number of output voltages and output cable length. DOE is aware of very 
few medical EPSs with multiple-voltage outputs (section II.B.5) and is 
not considering a separate product class for these EPSs at this time. 
Medical device EPSs used with liquids may require long output cables 
for safety reasons, which will constrain EPS efficiency because longer 
cables have higher resistance and are therefore less efficient.
d. Product Class Distinctions for EPSs for BCs
    EPSs for BCs and Class A EPSs also have diverse markets with many 
end-use applications. The primary difference is that EPSs for BCs are 
specifically used with battery-charging applications. However, under 
Approach A, EPSs for BCs are viewed as electrically equivalent to Class 
A EPSs. Therefore, DOE is considering dividing EPSs for BCs into the 
same product classes as Class A EPSs, listed in Table II.17.

                                  Table II.17--Product Classes for EPSs for BCs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Nameplate output power
            Nameplate output voltage             ---------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        <4 watts             4-60 watts           >60 watts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<=12 volts......................................  EPS for BC Product    EPS for BC Product   EPS for BC Product
                                                   Class 1.              Class 2.             Class 3.
>12 volts.......................................  EPS for BC Product    EPS for BC Product   EPS for BC Product
                                                   Class 4.              Class 5.             Class 6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 56944]]

    Similar to medical EPSs, two variables in combination define six 
product classes for EPSs for BCs: Nameplate output voltage and 
nameplate output power.
5. Technology Options for Improving Energy Efficiency
    DOE considered several technology options that may improve the 
efficiency of Class A and non-Class A EPSs (discussed in further detail 
in the TSD):
    Improved Transformers. In line-frequency EPSs, the transformer has 
the largest effect on efficiency. Transformer efficiency can be 
improved by using cores and windings with lower-loss material, such as 
lower electrical resistance, or by adding extra material.
    Switched-Mode Power Supply. Line-frequency EPSs often use linear 
regulators to maintain a constant output voltage. By using a switched-
mode circuit architecture, a designer can limit both losses associated 
with the transformer and the regulator. The differences between the two 
EPS types are discussed in the TSD.
    Low-Power Integrated Circuits. The efficiency of the EPS can be 
further improved by substituting low-power IC controllers to drive the 
switching transistor, which can switch more efficiently in active mode 
and reduce power consumption in no-load mode. For instance, the IC can 
turn off its start-up current (sourced from the primary side of the 
power supply) once the output voltage is stable. This increases 
conversion efficiency and decreases no-load power consumption. In 
addition, when in no-load mode, the IC can turn off the switching 
transistor for extended periods of time (termed ``cycle-skipping'').
    Multi-Mode Integrated Circuits. These ICs combine current limiting, 
temperature limiting, over-voltage, and under-voltage functions, which 
allow the controller to adjust to a wide range of loads. At full loads, 
the IC works in a high frequency pulse-width modulation mode. As the 
load decreases, the IC can shift into a variable frequency mode and at 
no load the IC can use a fixed peak current, multi-cycle modulation 
scheme.
    Schottky Diodes and Synchronous Rectification. Both line-frequency 
and switched-mode EPSs use diodes to rectify output voltage. Schottky 
diodes and synchronous rectification can also replace standard diodes 
to reduce rectification losses, which are increasingly significant at 
low output voltage. Schottky diodes have a lower voltage drop than 
standard diodes and thus result in less power loss. Synchronous 
rectification replaces the diodes with a transistor for even less power 
loss.
    Low-Loss Transistors. The switching transistor dissipates energy 
due to its drain-to-source resistance (RDS--ON) when the 
current flows through the transistor to the transformer. Using 
transistors with low RDS--ON can reduce this loss.
    Resonant Switching. In addition to reducing the RDS--ON 
of the transistor, power consumption can be lowered further by the IC 
controller decreasing switching voltage transients (the sharp changes 
in voltage that come from opening or closing the circuit with a 
transistor) through zero-voltage or zero-current switching. The power 
consumption of the transistor (as it switches from on to off or vice 
versa) is influenced by the product of the transitional voltage across 
the RDS--ON and the transitional current flowing through it. 
An IC can control the timing of switching to minimize the presence of 
significant current and voltage at the same time, although some 
components are typically needed in addition to the IC to achieve the 
desired resonance or quasi resonance.
    Resonant (``Lossless'') Snubbers. In switched-mode EPSs, a common 
snubber protects the switching transistor from the high voltage spike 
that occurs after the transistor turns off by dissipating that power as 
heat. A resonant or lossless snubber recycles that energy rather than 
dissipating it.

C. Engineering Analysis

1. Introduction
    The purpose of this engineering analysis is to determine the 
relationship between a non-Class A EPS's efficiency and its ERMC. (The 
efficiency-related materials cost includes all of the efficiency-
related raw materials listed in the bill of materials but not the 
direct labor and overhead needed to create the final product. The 
materials cost forms the basis for the price consumers eventually pay.) 
This relationship serves as the basis for the underlying costs and 
benefits to individual consumers (section II.B) and the Nation (life-
cycle cost analysis and national impacts analysis). The output of the 
engineering analysis provides the ERMC at selected, discrete levels of 
efficiency for six EPSs ``representative'' of non-Class A EPSs. This 
section details the development of this analysis and includes 
descriptions of the analysis structure, inputs, and outputs with 
supporting material in the TSD. DOE welcomes comments from interested 
parties on all aspects of this analysis.
    To develop this analysis, DOE gathered data by interviewing 
manufacturers, conducting independent testing and research, and 
commissioning EPS teardowns. Through interviews, manufacturers provided 
information on the relative popularity of EPS models and the cost of 
increasing their efficiency. To validate the information provided by 
manufacturers, DOE performed its own market research and testing. To 
independently establish the cost of some of the tested units, DOE 
contracted iSuppli Corp., an industry leader in the field of 
electronics cost estimation. For a detailed discussion of these data 
sources, see section II.C.2.
    In section II.C.3, DOE presents representative product classes and 
representative units, which allows DOE to focus its analysis on a few 
specific power converters and subsequently transfer the results to all 
units. DOE began the engineering analysis by identifying the 
representative product classes and selecting one representative unit 
for analysis from each of the representative product classes. The 
representative product classes are a subset of the product classes 
identified in section II.B. The representative units, in turn, are 
theoretical idealized models of popular or typical devices within the 
representative product classes.
    Although the efficiency of power converters in the market forms an 
almost continuous spectrum, DOE focused its analysis at select CSLs 
(section II.C.4). In the engineering analysis, DOE examined the cost of 
meeting each CSL for each representative unit. The resulting 
relationship was termed an ``engineering curve'' or ``cost-efficiency 
curve.'' The outputs of this analysis are the cost-efficiency points 
that define those curves and are presented in section II.C.6.
2. Data Sources
a. Manufacturer Interviews
    In 2008, on behalf of DOE, Navigant Consulting, Inc. (Navigant 
Consulting) interviewed nine manufacturers to obtain data on what makes 
non-Class A EPSs unique in terms of market and technical requirements 
as well as their possible efficiencies and resultant costs. At the 
request of some manufacturers, Navigant Consulting entered into non-
disclosure agreements whereby it can present to DOE general information 
about the non-Class A EPS market and technology, but no confidential 
data specific to any individual manufacturer. These interviews enabled 
Navigant Consulting to obtain general information about the non-Class A 
EPS market and

[[Page 56945]]

technology to conduct the analysis but without attributing any 
particular data to an individual manufacturer. The interviews were 
generally structured to elicit information similar to the information 
DOE presents in the TSD. DOE continues to seek input from interested 
parties regarding all aspects of the rulemaking, cost and efficiency 
data in particular.
    Because of the limited markets for multiple-voltage EPSs, Navigant 
Consulting identified two manufacturers in addition to Microsoft that 
produce EPSs for the Xbox 360, but they had limited availability for 
interviews. Although Microsoft speculated on two discrete steps to 
improve the efficiency of multiple-voltage EPSs and their costs, none 
of the manufacturers provided detailed cost-efficiency points for a 
wide range of efficiencies. For the other application of multiple-
voltage EPSs, multiple-function devices, both an OEM and its EPS 
supplier provided market and cost-efficiency data.
    For high-power EPSs, DOE identified 10 manufacturers of EPSs for 
ham radios. Of these, LHV Power and Diamond Antenna agreed to be 
interviewed; the other manufacturers of high-power EPSs are based in 
Asia, and their U.S.-based sales staff declined to participate in the 
interviews. The manufacturers that did participate provided discrete 
cost-efficiency points, but did not provide comprehensive data for the 
high-power EPS CSLs presented in section II.C.4.
    The market for medical EPSs has various manufacturers and of these, 
four agreed to be interviewed, while other companies were contacted but 
were not responsive to requests for an interview. The interviews 
focused on the different technical and legal requirements for medical 
EPSs, in contrast to Class A EPSs. Although none of the manufacturers 
provided a complete cost-efficiency curve, some were able to cite the 
differences in technology options and costs for EPSs that did and did 
not meet EISA 2007 standards (section II.C.6.c). The other 
manufacturers discussed the technical requirements for medical EPSs, 
but did not provide cost information.
    DOE is analyzing EPSs for BCs that are wall adapters without charge 
control that are used with certain battery charging applications, as 
explained in section I.B and discussed in the TSD. Navigant Consulting 
has not yet identified and interviewed manufacturers of EPSs for BCs, 
relying instead on teardowns of Class A EPSs.
    DOE welcomes additional data from interested parties on any non-
Class A EPSs.
b. Independent Testing and Research
    DOE reviewed online distributor catalogs to independently assess 
the market for non-Class A EPSs. DOE used this information in choosing 
representative product classes, presented in section II.C.3.
    To independently verify efficiency data, DOE obtained and measured 
the efficiency of 18 non-Class A EPSs (Table II.18). All EPSs were 
bought online through distributors' Web sites, except one multiple-
voltage EPS that a manufacturer loaned to DOE contractors for testing. 
For comparison, DOE also examined 16 Class A EPSs with characteristics 
similar to the medical EPSs and EPSs for BCs under consideration. EPSs 
with a single output voltage were subjected to the DOE test procedure 
for EPSs. (10 CFR 430, subpart B, appendix Z) EPSs with multiple output 
voltages were subjected to the test procedure that DOE had previously 
proposed (but has not yet adopted) for multiple-voltage EPSs. (73 FR 
48079-83)

                                Table II.18--Non-Class A EPSs Tested for Efficiency by DOE, Sorted by Type and Efficiency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Average                 Efficiency-related materials
                                                                        Nameplate     Nameplate   active-mode    No-load                cost
             Index                     Type             Topology      output power     output      efficiency    power W   -----------------------------
                                                                            W         voltage V    (percent)                     $            Source
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
218...........................  Multiple Voltage.  Switched-mode....         40        16, 32              84         0.26        $2.77  DOE.
217...........................  Multiple Voltage.  Switched-mode....         40        16, 32              86         0.27         2.99  DOE.
216...........................  Multiple Voltage.  Switched-mode....        203         5, 12              81         5.16
213...........................  Multiple Voltage.  Switched-mode....        203         5, 12              82        12.33         6.45  iSuppli.
214...........................  Multiple Voltage.  Switched-mode....        203         5, 12              85         0.40
203...........................  Multiple Voltage.  Switched-mode....        203         5, 12              86         3.29         9.08  iSuppli.
404...........................  High Power.......  Linear regulated.        345            13.8            51        12.60
401...........................  High Power.......  Linear regulated.        345            13.8            62        15.43       115.32  iSuppli.
402...........................  High Power.......  Switched-mode....        345            13.8            81         6.01        33.64  iSuppli.
403...........................  High Power.......  Switched-mode....        345            13.8            84         6.65
301...........................  Medical..........  Switched-mode....         18            12              78         0.33         2.23  iSuppli.
302...........................  Medical..........  Switched-mode....         20            12              80         0.29         2.27  iSuppli.
130...........................  Class A..........  Linear regulated.         14.4          12              64         0.56         1.49  DOE.
117...........................  Class A..........  Switched-mode....         18            12              78         0.65         2.00  iSuppli.
120...........................  Class A..........  Switched-mode....         18            12              78         0.56         2.22  iSuppli.
118...........................  Class A..........  Switched-mode....         18            12              81         0.27         1.96  iSuppli.
106...........................  Class A..........  Switched-mode....          2.5           5              63         0.13         1.13  iSuppli.
105...........................  Class A..........  Switched-mode....          2.5           5              67         0.13         0.75  iSuppli.
103...........................  Class A..........  Switched-mode....          1.75          5              74         0.12         0.77  iSuppli.
17............................  Class A..........  Line-frequency,            5             5              36         1.85         1.16  DOE.
                                                    linear regulated.
27............................  Class A..........  Line-frequency,            5             5              49         1.42         1.54  DOE.
                                                    switched-mode
                                                    regulated.
22............................  Class A..........  Switched-mode....          5             5              59         0.42         1.29  DOE.
25............................  Class A..........  Switched-mode....          5             5              66         0.64         1.45  DOE.
37............................  Class A..........  Switched-mode....          5             5              66         0.66         1.50  DOE.
18............................  Class A..........  Switched-mode....          5             5              70         0.54         1.46  DOE.
21............................  Class A..........  Switched-mode....          5.2           5.2            71         0.10         1.63  DOE.
24............................  Class A..........  Switched-mode....          5             5              72         0.11         1.34  DOE.
8.............................  Class A..........  Switched-mode....          5             5              73         0.11         1.06  DOE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 56946]]

c. Teardown Cost Estimates
    DOE contracted iSuppli Corp. to tear down and estimate the 
materials cost for select units. For this analysis, DOE only considered 
the materials cost of components related to efficiency: the ERMC. 
Direct labor and overhead as well as non-production costs are accounted 
for in the markup from ERMC to efficiency-related manufacturer's 
selling price (MSP), as in Figure II.3. These cost estimates also 
account for the typical number of units produced by the manufacturer as 
well as the manufacturer's location (and associated labor rates). Table 
II.18 shows the results of the cost estimates.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.003

    iSuppli provided DOE with a complete list of components, referred 
to as the ``bill of materials,'' for each product. DOE grouped 
components into three categories based on their impact on cost and 
efficiency: directly related, secondarily related, or not related to 
efficiency (Table II.19). For example, components such as transistors 
and capacitors are considered to have a direct effect on efficiency. 
DOE grouped enclosures and printed circuit boards (PCBs) as secondary 
since they tend to vary with efficiency, but do not directly affect it. 
Components such as labels and screws that have no relation to 
efficiency were considered not related. DOE used costs for components 
with a direct relation to efficiency to generate cost estimates (listed 
in Table II.18). Secondary components are not included in the 
efficiency-related cost estimate because DOE does not believe that they 
should be included in the cost of materials affecting efficiency. In 
developing the cost-efficiency curves in section II.C.3, DOE only 
considered the efficiency-related costs.
    DOE seeks input on which of the components listed in Table II.19 
should be included in the efficiency-related cost estimates, in 
particular the secondary components.

                      Table II.19--Component Categorization for Bill of Materials Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Component family                 Component type        Efficiency grouping       Efficiency impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Batteries............................  Disposable.............  Battery pack...........  Not related.
Batteries............................  Other..................  Battery pack...........  Not related.
Batteries............................  Rechargeable...........  Battery pack...........  Secondary.
Discrete Semiconductor...............  Other..................  Electronics............  Direct.
Discrete Semiconductor...............  Rectifier..............  Electronics............  Direct.
Discrete Semiconductor...............  Thyristor..............  Electronics............  Direct.
Discrete Semiconductor...............  Diode..................  Electronics............  Direct.
Discrete Semiconductor...............  Diode--Schottky........  Electronics............  Direct.
Discrete Semiconductor...............  Transistor.............  Electronics............  Direct.
Display..............................  Color LCD..............  Other..................  Not related.
Display..............................  Monochrome LCD.........  Other..................  Not related.
Display..............................  Color OLED.............  Other..................  Not related.
Display..............................  Monochrome OLED........  Other..................  Not related.
Display..............................  Other..................  Other..................  Not related.
Electro-Mechanical...................  Antenna................  Other..................  Not related.
Electro-Mechanical...................  Connector..............  Other..................  Not related.
Electro-Mechanical...................  Connector (output cord   Output cord--Secondary.  Secondary.
                                        only).
Electro-Mechanical...................  Other..................  Other..................  Not related.
Electro-Mechanical...................  PCB....................  PCB--Secondary.........  Secondary.
Electro-Mechanical...................  Relay..................  Other..................  Not related.
Electro-Mechanical...................  Switch.................  Other..................  Not related.
Mechanical...........................  Plastics & Elastomers--  Other..................  Not related.
                                        consumer product parts.
Mechanical...........................  Plastics & Elastomers--  Case--Secondary........  Secondary.
                                        wall adapter case only.
Mechanical...........................  Metal..................  Other..................  Not related.
Mechanical...........................  Metal--case only.......  Case--Secondary........  Secondary.
Mechanical...........................  Metal--heatsinks only..  Heatsinks..............  Direct.
Mechanical...........................  Other..................  Other..................  Not related.
Integrated Circuit...................  Analog.................  Electronics--IC........  Direct.
Integrated Circuit...................  Logic..................  Electronics--IC........  Direct.
Integrated Circuit...................  Memory.................  Electronics--IC........  Direct.
Integrated Circuit...................  Multi-Chip IC..........  Electronics--IC........  Direct.
Integrated Circuit...................  Other..................  Electronics--IC........  Direct.
Optical Semiconductor................  LEDs...................  Electronics............  Direct.
Passive..............................  Capacitor..............  Electronics............  Direct.

[[Page 56947]]

 
Passive..............................  Coupler/Balun..........  Electronics............  Direct.
Passive..............................  Crystal................  Electronics............  Direct.
Passive..............................  Filter.................  Electronics............  Direct.
Passive..............................  Isolators/Circulator...  Electronics............  Direct.
Passive..............................  Magnetic...............  Electronics............  Direct.
Passive..............................  Magnetic (transformer    Electronics--Transforme  Direct.
                                        only).                   r.
Passive..............................  Oscillator.............  Electronics............  Direct.
Passive..............................  Piezoelectric Component  Electronics............  Direct.
Passive..............................  Resistor...............  Electronics............  Direct.
Passive..............................  Resonator..............  Electronics............  Direct.
Passive..............................  Sensor.................  Electronics............  Direct.
Passive..............................  Tuner..................  Electronics............  Direct.
Passive..............................  Other..................  Electronics............  Direct.
Miscellaneous........................  Box Packaging, Printed   Other..................  Not related.
                                        Matter.
Miscellaneous........................  Other..................  Other..................  Not related.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition to the units that iSuppli tore down, DOE purchased and 
created estimated ERMCs for two 40-watt multiple-voltage EPSs, one 
14.4-watt Class A EPSs, and nine approximately 5-watt Class A EPSs 
(Table II.18). Rather than have iSuppli tear down these units, DOE 
chose to perform its own teardowns due to budget and time constraints. 
To create the ERMCs, DOE subject matter experts cataloged the 
efficiency-related components to create a bill of materials. DOE used 
the bill of materials and resources on component prices such as parts 
catalogs and iSuppli component prices to develop the ERMCs (section 
II.C.5.a and chapter 4 of the TSD. Lastly, DOE scaled the ERMCs from 
the test unit values to representative unit values using techniques 
presented in section II.C.5.d
3. Representative Product Classes and Representative Units
    Based on the product classes for each type of non-Class A EPS, DOE 
selected representative product classes and representative units. DOE 
focused on representative product classes in its analysis. Results from 
representative product classes can be scaled to other product classes 
not analyzed. Representative units are theoretical versions of EPSs 
where all of an EPS's characteristics are defined, except efficiency 
and cost. By varying the efficiency of the representative units, DOE 
can evaluate the resultant costs to determine the cost-efficiency 
relationship.
    Table II.20 lists the application, nameplate output power, 
nameplate output voltage(s), and production volume that specify non-
Class A representative units. Output power affects both efficiency and 
cost. At higher powers, fixed losses in the EPS are proportionally 
smaller, making it cheaper for manufacturers to build EPSs with higher 
efficiencies. However, larger components that are necessary at higher 
powers result in higher costs. Output voltage affects efficiency but 
not cost, because EPSs with higher output voltage have consequently 
lower output current and associated losses. Production volume is the 
number of units a manufacturer annually produces for an EPS design. 
Higher production volumes allow manufacturers to leverage greater 
economies of scale, resulting in lower per-component and overall costs 
for the EPS. See chapter 4 of the TSD for a detailed discussion of each 
representative unit and its characteristics.

                              Table II.20--List of Non-Class A Representative Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Production
   Type of non-Class A EPS       Application     Output power W   Output voltage   Second output  volume  units/
                                                                        V           voltage  V         year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multiple Voltage.............  Multi-Function              40               16                32       1,000,000
                                Device.
Multiple Voltage.............  Video Game.....            203                5                12       4,000,000
High Power...................  Ham Radio......            345               13.8  ..............           1,000
Medical......................  Nebulizer *....             18               12    ..............          10,000
EPSs for BCs.................  Vacuum.........              1.8              6    ..............       1,000,000
EPSs for BCs.................  DIY Power Tool.              4.8             24    ..............       1,000,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* ``A nebulizer is a device used to administer medication to people in the form of a mist inhaled into the
  lungs. It is commonly used in treating cystic fibrosis, asthma, and other respiratory diseases.'' Wikipedia.
  ``Nebulizer.'' 2008. (Last accessed December 17, 2008.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebulizer

4. Selection of Candidate Standard Levels
    Selection of CSLs followed the identification of representative 
product classes and representative units. Although the ERMC of a unit 
appears in the aggregate as a continuous function of efficiency, for 
analysis purposes, DOE focused on discrete CSLs. Note that the term 
``CSL'' implies an eventual standard, although standard setting is 
beyond the scope of this determination analysis. DOE uses the term 
``candidate standard level'' because it is a term of art for these 
discrete levels and because the CSLs may eventually lead to a specific 
standard level. DOE developed CSLs based on the data sources discussed 
in section II.C.2.
    For each of the six representative units, DOE created four CSLs, 
although it may create more levels in future analysis or in response to 
comments from interested parties. These CSLs are intended to reflect 
the efficiencies in the market, although they do not necessarily 
include the highest efficiencies. The CSLs in this analysis are 
sufficient to demonstrate whether DOE should

[[Page 56948]]

conduct a standards rulemaking because they allow DOE to show the 
possibility of savings at a CSL above the baseline, which is the key 
criterion of the determination analysis. In future analysis, DOE may 
include a max-tech CSL to reflect the highest achievable efficiency.
    Specifically in this analysis, CSLs are based on (1) EPSs that have 
been tested and torn down, (2) data points provided in manufacturer 
interviews, and (3) the International Efficiency Marking Protocol for 
External Power Supplies. (Energy Star. ``International Efficiency 
Marking Protocol for External Power Supplies.'' 2008. (Last accessed 
November 18, 2008.) http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/International_Efficiency_Marking_Protocol.pdf) In choosing the basis for CSLs, DOE gave the highest 
priority to units that were torn down and tested because DOE had 
complete data for efficiency and cost. If test and teardown data were 
not available, then DOE used data points from manufacturers. If no data 
were directly available, DOE referred to the International Marking 
Protocol. DOE presents a detailed discussion of the CSLs in chapter 3 
of the TSD.
5. Methodology and Data Implementation
    As mentioned previously, DOE purchased, tested, and tore down EPS 
units to obtain data to identify the cost-efficiency relationship for 
non-Class A EPSs. DOE subject matter experts measured the efficiency of 
all units using the appropriate DOE test procedure and a Yokogawa WT210 
power meter. DOE contracted iSuppli Corporation to determine the ERMC 
for most of the tested units. Due to budgetary and time constraints, 
DOE developed a methodology to estimate the ERMC for other tested 
units, as discussed in section II.C.5.a.
    In some cases, after DOE obtained cost and efficiency data for the 
test units, the data did not always directly apply because of 
differences between the test unit and the representative unit. DOE 
attempted to purchase units for testing and teardown that have all the 
characteristics of the representative units. Nonetheless, this was not 
always possible due to limited product availability in the market and 
changes to the representative units' characteristics. As a result, the 
costs and efficiencies of certain test units are not directly 
applicable to the representative units. DOE developed a methodology to 
scale cost and efficiency data for test units to estimate what those 
values would be if the test units had the characteristics of the 
representative units.
    Nameplate output power, nameplate output voltage, and production 
volume all influence the cost and efficiency of an EPS in various 
degrees. For example, manufacturers often offer EPSs that share a 
common design and have the same nameplate output power, but differ in 
voltage. These differences in voltage will result in differences in 
achievable efficiency, but will not affect cost. Table II.21 outlines 
the impacts of changes to the three characteristics on cost and 
efficiency and the models that were developed to account for them.

    Table II.21--Impact of EPS Characteristics on Cost and Efficiency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Cost               Efficiency
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Output Voltage..............  No impact...........  Efficiency increases
                                                     with voltage; see
                                                     model in section
                                                     II.C.5.c.
Output Power................  Cost increases with   Efficiency increases
                               power but decreases   with power; see
                               with volume; see      model in section
                               combined model in     II.C.5.b.
                               section II.C.5.d.
Production Volume...........  Cost increases with   No impact.
                               power but decreases
                               with volume; see
                               combined model in
                               section II.C.5.d.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. DOE Method for Estimating Efficiency-Related Materials Cost
    DOE contracted with iSuppli to tear down and obtain high-volume 
production-cost estimates for 12 EPSs when developing non-Class A cost-
efficiency curves. To obtain further cost-efficiency points, DOE tore 
down additional EPSs and estimated their high-volume materials costs. 
DOE used results from its cost estimates to develop portions of the 
cost-efficiency curves for the 18-watt medical EPS, the 40-watt 
multiple-voltage EPS, and the 1.8-watt and 4.8-watt EPSs for BCs 
representative units.
    To estimate the cost of an EPS, DOE first created a bill of 
materials for the EPS's efficiency-related components and estimated the 
prices of the components at volumes consistent with the iSuppli 
teardown prices. DOE used two sources of information to develop its 
cost estimates: (1) High-volume component prices from iSuppli bills of 
materials, and (2) low-volume component prices from distributor 
catalogs. iSuppli provided DOE with a spreadsheet containing high-
volume cost estimates for almost 1,000 individual components. To 
supplement that data, DOE also reviewed online catalog prices for 
components at volumes of 500 units. Depending on the information 
available, DOE used one of four methods to determine the price for each 
component (Table II.22). These methods allowed DOE to estimate with 
reasonable accuracy the high-volume materials costs for a larger number 
of units than would have been possible using the iSuppli teardowns 
alone. See chapter 5 of the TSD for more detailed information on these 
methods.

           Table II.22--Illustration of Low-Volume to High-Volume Component Cost Scaling Methods Used in the Non-Class A Engineering Analysis
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Cost estimate for specific
                                                           component                Variation of        Category-         Ratio of
        Component type           Method used ------------------------------------   iSuppli cost       average for        averages:      Basis for cost
                                                 High-volume       Low-volume     across component    iSuppli cost     iSuppli cost to      estimate
                                                   iSuppli           catalog          category                          catalog cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0603 Capacitor................            1   Available.......  Available.......                                                        Direct iSuppli
                                                                                                                                         cost.
Optocoupler...................            2   Not Available...  Available.......  Acceptable......  Calculated......                    Average iSuppli
                                                                                                                                         cost.

[[Page 56949]]

 
Field-Effect Transistor.......            3   Not Available...  Available.......  Excessive.......                    Calculated......  Scaled low-
                                                                                                                                         volume cost.
Unidentified Integrated                   4   Not Available...  Not Available...  Excessive.......  Calculated......                    Average iSuppli
 Circuit.                                                                                                                                cost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this example, DOE had a component cost for the 0603 capacitor 
directly from the iSuppli database. The 0603 capacitor is a surface-
mount capacitor often found on printed circuit boards. DOE used Method 
1 (direct substitution) to estimate the component's cost. This method 
is the simplest and most accurate because it relies on a one-to-one 
match between components in the two bills of materials.
    DOE did not have iSuppli component costs for direct substitution 
for the optocoupler in Table II.22, but did have iSuppli cost data for 
similar components. To account for this situation, DOE used Method 2, 
which estimated the cost of the optocoupler as the average iSuppli 
costs of similar components. In this method, DOE grouped the components 
from the high-volume iSuppli bills of materials into categories by 
component family, type, subtype, and any other relevant categories, and 
calculated an average materials cost for each category. To ensure that 
the averages were valid, DOE only used this approach if there were more 
than five cost estimates and a standard deviation less than $0.02. In 
this case, DOE substituted the category-average high-volume cost for 
the optocoupler.
    DOE also did not have direct iSuppli component costs for direct 
substitution for the field effect transistor (FET). Further, the 
average iSuppli component cost did not meet DOE's criteria for validity 
(sufficient number of data points and low variation). As a result, DOE 
did not estimate the true cost using the category-average cost because 
might not have been accurate. However, DOE was able to estimate the 
low-volume cost of the FET using catalogs. Although the high-volume 
cost estimate varied excessively, the ratios of high-volume to low-
volume cost estimates did not. DOE averaged these ratios and then 
scaled the low-volume cost estimate for the FET. Using this method, DOE 
was able to obtain a more accurate high-volume cost estimate than would 
have been possible through direct substitution of category-average 
costs.
    In the final example of an ``unidentified integrated circuit,'' DOE 
did not have direct cost information from iSuppli or component 
catalogs. In this case, DOE substituted the category-average costs 
directly from the high-volume iSuppli bill of materials. Although this 
method had the potential to decrease the accuracy of the EPS cost 
estimates, it was used only for a limited set of components and only 
for the 40-watt multiple-voltage EPS. Chapter 4 of the TSD contains 
detailed information on all of these costing methods.
b. Efficiency Scaling by Output Power
    The practically achievable efficiency of an EPS depends on its 
nameplate output power, with lower-power EPSs tending to exhibit lower 
active-mode efficiencies than their higher-power counterparts. (Changes 
in output power do not affect the no-load power consumption.) However, 
some of the EPSs that DOE analyzed for the non-Class A engineering 
analysis differ in output power from the representative units for their 
product class. This led DOE to develop a model for estimating the 
change in active mode efficiency when the output power of an EPS shifts 
to that of the representative unit.
    DOE used market information to develop its model. By examining the 
distribution of Class A EPS efficiencies in the market, DOE was able to 
observe that achievable efficiency increases with power and that there 
is a wider range of efficiency at lower output powers. Any shift of a 
manufacturer's unit to the representative unit output power should take 
into account both effects, preserving a unit's relative standing in 
terms of efficiency among other units in the market.
    A unit's relative standing could be calculated by comparing its 
efficiency to the level specified in the ENERGY STAR EPS Guidelines 
Version 1.1 (2005), as well as the best-in-market level, defined as the 
curve-fit of the highest-efficiency units in the ENERGY STAR qualifying 
products database for Class A EPSs. Because of the fundamental 
similarities in the design of Class A and non-Class A EPSs, DOE 
extended these same relationships and datasets to model the impacts on 
non-Class A EPS efficiency.
    The model DOE used in the non-Class A engineering analysis reflects 
the above market dynamics by keeping constant the ratios among a unit's 
efficiency, the ENERGY STAR level, and the best-in-market level as the 
unit's output power is shifted to the level of the representative unit. 
Because the ratios are kept constant while the ENERGY STAR and best-in-
market levels change with output power, the unit efficiency must also 
change. This updated unit efficiency is further adjusted to account for 
any differences in output voltage between the EPS and the 
representative unit, as explained in the following sections. (See 
chapter 5 of the TSD for further details on the mechanics of the 
model.)
c. Efficiency Scaling by Output Voltage
    Together with the nameplate output power, the nameplate output 
voltage constrains a power supply's achievable efficiency. Given two 
EPSs with an identical design but different output voltages, the lower-
voltage unit will be less efficient, primarily due to two factors:
     Resistive losses: Outputting the same power at a lower 
voltage requires higher output current, increasing the resistive 
losses, which are proportional to the square of the current.
     Rectifier losses: The voltage drop across the output 
rectifier increases with higher current, so that at a lower voltage 
more power (the amount of current multiplied by the voltage drop across 
the rectifier) will be dissipated, decreasing the efficiency of the 
power supply.
    In addition to these losses, the EPS also experiences fixed losses 
that do not depend on the output voltage. These losses are associated 
with, for example,

[[Page 56950]]

the quiescent current of the controller IC for switched-mode designs or 
the core magnetization losses for line-frequency designs and are equal 
to the no-load power consumption of the power supply. Figure II.4 
summarizes the loss mechanisms described above.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.004

    When scaling the efficiency of a power supply with voltage, DOE 
first calculated the typical losses according to the model presented in 
Figure II.4. Because the characteristics of each component in the loss 
model were fixed, the losses calculated using the model depended only 
on the output current and voltage, not the design specifics of the EPS. 
In short, the model returned the same losses for any two EPSs with the 
same output characteristics, regardless of their designs.
    However, because each EPS has its own specific design, the actual 
losses of the power supply differ from those calculated according to 
this generic model. This difference between the modeled and actual 
losses does not depend on the output power or voltage, but is 
correlated with the active mode efficiency and no-load power of the 
EPS. Thus, the actual losses of an EPS can be said to be the sum of two 
components: (1) Generic losses, dependent on output power and voltage 
and modeled as described above; and (2) additional losses, dependent on 
the design of the EPS. Because the additional losses reflect the EPS 
design and the purpose of scaling was to estimate the losses of a 
particular design at the representative-unit output power and voltage, 
the additional losses were held constant between the original EPS and 
the representative unit to which it was being scaled.
    Having obtained the generic losses for the original EPS using the 
model and its technology-dependent additional losses, DOE calculated 
the generic losses for the representative unit. DOE added the generic 
losses to the technology-dependent additional losses, resulting in an 
estimate of the total losses of the EPS design at the output power and 
voltage of the representative unit. The efficiency of the 
representative unit was finally calculated as the ratio of output power 
to the sum of the output power and the estimated losses.
d. Efficiency-Related Materials Cost Scaling by Nameplate Output Power 
and Sales Volume
    To compare costs and efficiencies in order to develop cost-
efficiency curves, DOE had to account for variations in nameplate 
output power and sales volume across the EPSs it analyzed. To do this, 
DOE developed a scaling model to determine what the ERMC of a tested 
EPS would be if it were produced in the same sales volume and had the 
same nameplate output power as the representative unit in its product 
class. DOE began the model development by assessing two datasets. The 
first dataset consisted of confidential production cost data for EPSs 
with nameplate output powers from 5 to 65 watts at a sales volume of 
5,000 units, provided to Navigant Consulting. From this information, 
DOE observed a linear statistical relationship between EPS output power 
and EPS production cost in the dataset. The second dataset was public 
manufacturer data submitted to the California Energy Commission (CEC) 
in support of CEC's 2006 appliance standards rulemaking (available at 
http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/archive/2006rulemaking2/documents/comments/NRDC.PDF; last accessed March 2, 2009). This dataset contained 
EPS production cost vs. sales volume for 2-watt and 5-watt EPSs. The 
relationship between production cost and sales volume appeared to be 
nonlinear.
    Based on observed relationships in the datasets, DOE determined 
that the ERMC of an EPS is roughly a linear function of output power 
and a nonlinear function of sales volume. DOE used these observations 
to develop a statistical model that relates output powers, ERMCs, and 
sales volumes of tested EPSs with the output power and sales volume of 
a representative unit in a product class. The model estimates the 
scaled ERMC of the tested unit using the test unit ERMC, sales volume, 
and output power, as well as the representative unit sales volume and 
output power as inputs. See chapter 4 of the TSD for further 
information.
6. Relationships Between Cost and Efficiency
    Based on the data sources discussed in section II.C.2, DOE 
developed cost-efficiency curves for each representative unit by 
estimating the cost to reach each CSL. The primary data source for 
these curves comes from DOE measuring the efficiencies of 20 units and 
iSuppli tearing down and estimating costs for 13 of those units (Table 
II.18).
a. The Cost-Efficiency Relationships for Multiple-Voltage EPSs
    DOE developed cost-efficiency data for the 40-watt multiple-voltage 
representative unit primarily based on manufacturer data. To verify and 
scale manufacturer interview data, DOE also tore down two multiple-
voltage EPSs for multiple-function devices. These EPSs were at the same 
output power (40 watts) and sales volume (1,000,000 units per year) as 
the representative unit. Their output voltages (16 volts and 32 volts) 
were also the same as the output voltages of the representative unit, 
which made scaling unnecessary. Table II.23 shows the characteristics 
of the torn-down EPSs.

[[Page 56951]]



                              Table II.23--Characteristics of Torn-Down Multiple-Voltage EPSs for Multiple-Function Devices
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Average    Maximum  no-
                   ID                              Topology              Maximum       Output      active-mode   load power       ERMC      Sales volume
                                                                      output power    voltages     efficiency    consumption                  units/year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          ..........................             W             V             %             W         2008$    units/year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
217.....................................  Switch Mode...............            40        16, 32            86          0.27          2.99     1,000,000
218.....................................  Switch Mode...............            40        16, 32            84          0.26          2.77     1,000,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In interviews, manufacturers provided data for 12 cost-efficiency 
points. One manufacturer described specific changes that would be 
necessary to improve active-mode efficiency from 80 to 90 percent and 
no-load power consumption from 0.5 watts to 0.2 watts. These components 
included different transistors and IC controllers, Schottky output 
diodes, different common-mode chokes, and transformers with lower 
losses. Their usage increased the cost of the EPSs up to 38 percent 
over the 80-percent efficient EPS.
    The manufacturers stated costs relative to a baseline value of 
1.00X for the 80-percent efficient EPS up to 90 percent efficiency at 
relative costs of 1.38X. DOE used the ERMCs from the test and teardown 
results for the two EPSs in Table II.23 to determine the absolute cost 
of the manufacturer data. Specifically, DOE averaged the results for 
the EPSs to determine an average efficiency (85 percent) and ERMC 
($2.88). In the manufacturer data, an 85-percent efficient EPS had a 
relative cost of 1.10X, which DOE set equal to $2.88. DOE was then able 
to calculate ERMCs for all 12 cost-efficiency points obtained in 
manufacturer interviews.
    One manufacturer provided matched pairs of efficiency and no-load 
power consumption, which DOE used as the basis of the four CSLs. See 
section II.C.4 for further information. The corresponding ERMCs for 
these active-mode efficiencies are shown in Table II.24. These costs 
range from $2.66 at 81-percent efficiency to $3.67 at 91-percent 
efficiency. Figure II.5 shows the cost-efficiency curve for a multiple-
voltage EPS for multiple-function devices along with the two torn-down 
EPSs.

                          Table II.24--Cost-Efficiency Points for a 40-Watt Multiple-Voltage EPS for a Multiple-Function Device
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Efficiency-
                                       Reference point for      Minimum     Maximum no-     related
               Level                          level           active-mode   load power     materials                         Basis
                                                              efficiency    consumption      cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ......................             %             W         2008$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0..................................  Less Than EISA 2007...            81           0.5          2.66  Manufacturer interview data.
1..................................  Current Market........            86          0.45          2.98  Manufacturer interview data.
2..................................  High Level............            90          0.31          3.54  Manufacturer interview data.
3..................................  Higher Level..........            91           0.2          3.67  Manufacturer interview data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                                       [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.005
                                                                                                       

[[Page 56952]]

    In addition to the 40-watt multiple-voltage EPS, DOE also estimated 
costs for a 203-watt multiple-voltage EPS for a video game console. DOE 
based the cost-efficiency points on test data for four EPSs, teardown 
data for two EPSs, and two data points from manufacturer interviews. 
The torn-down EPSs had the same output voltages (5 volts and 12 volts) 
and output power (203 watts) as the representative unit. However, both 
EPSs had a different sales volume than the representative unit 
(4,000,000 units per year). Thus, DOE scaled the ERMC of these EPSs 
based on the scaling model in section II.C.5.d. The characteristics of 
the torn-down EPSs before and after scaling are shown in Table II.25 
and Table II.26, respectively. Scaled characteristics are highlighted 
in gray.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.006

    For CSL 0 and CSL 1, DOE used the efficiencies and scaled ERMCs of 
EPSs 213 and 203, respectively. DOE selected an 
active-mode efficiency of 86 percent for CSL 2 but required a lower no-
load power consumption of 0.3 watts. The reduction in no-load power 
consumption can be achieved by reducing iron losses in the transformer, 
changing the switching frequency, and optimizing other elements of the 
circuitry at a cost increase of $0.13 over the CSL 1 EPS.
    DOE chose an active-mode efficiency of 89 percent for CSL 3. This 
efficiency could be achieved using MOSFETs with reduced 
RDS--ON and replacing a particular Schottky diode with a 
synchronous circuit at a cost of $3.11 over the CSL 2 EPS. See section 
II.C.4 for further information on how DOE chose the CSLs.
    Table II.27 shows the cost-efficiency points for the 203-watt 
multiple-voltage EPS for a video game console based on the cost of 
making the improvements described previously. Figure II.6 shows the 
corresponding cost-efficiency curve along with the two torn-down units. 
There is a vertical portion of the cost-efficiency curve between CSL 1 
and CSL 2. This corresponds to the decrease in no-load power 
consumption from 0.4 watts to 0.3 watts while the conversion efficiency 
remains constant at 86 percent between the two CSLs. The two dashed 
vertical lines mark the efficiencies of the torn-down EPSs.

                            Table II.27--Cost-Efficiency Points for a 203-Watt Multiple-Voltage EPS for a Video Game Console
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Efficiency-
                                       Reference point for      Minimum     Maximum no-     related
               Level                          level           active-mode   load power     materials                         Basis
                                                              efficiency    consumption      cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ......................             %             W         2008$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0..................................  Generic Replacement...            82         12.33          6.06  Test and teardown data.
1..................................  Manufacturer Provided.            86           0.4          8.93  Test and teardown data.
2..................................  EU Qualified Level....            86           0.3          9.05  Manufacturer interview data.
3..................................  Higher Level..........            89           0.3         12.16  Manufacturer interview data.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 56953]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.007

b. The Cost-Efficiency Relationship for High-Power EPSs
    DOE developed cost-efficiency points for the 345-watt high-power 
EPS representative unit based on testing data for four units, teardown 
cost data for two units, and manufacturer interviews. Table II.28 shows 
the ERMCs for the torn-down units. Because they were at the same output 
power (345 watts) and the same sales volume (1,000 units per year) as 
the representative unit, DOE did not need to scale the ERMCs based on 
output power or sales volume. DOE also did not need to scale the 
efficiencies of the torn-down units because their output voltages and 
powers were the same as those of the representative unit.

                                                Table II.28--Characteristics of Torn-Down High-Power EPSs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                     Average     Maximum no-
                   ID                              Topology              Maximum       Output      active-mode   load power       ERMC      Sales volume
                                                                      output power     voltage     efficiency    consumption
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          ..........................             W             V             %             W         2008$    units/year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
401.....................................  Line Frequency............           345            14            62         15.43        115.32         1,000
402.....................................  Switch Mode...............           345            14            81          6.01         33.64         1,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE developed the ERMC for CSL 0 based on the ERMC of the torn-down 
line-frequency high-power EPS shown as EPS 401 in Table II.28. 
The data show that this line-frequency EPS is expensive mainly due to 
the materials costs for its transformer. The ERMC at CSL 1 was 
developed based on the torn-down switched-mode EPS shown as EPS 
402. Because high-power line-frequency transformers need more 
material than high-power high-frequency transformers, the ERMC of the 
switched-mode EPS used to develop CSL 1 is significantly lower than the 
ERMC of the line-frequency EPS at CSL 0 ($115.32 vs. $33.64).
    To develop the ERMC at CSL 2 for high-power EPSs, DOE used the ERMC 
of the torn-down EPS 402 and manufacturer interview data. One 
manufacturer representative stated that the efficiency and no-load 
power consumption of a high-power switched-mode EPS could be improved 
by 3 percent by changing the IC that controls the switching, with a 
cost increase of approximately $3.00. Thus, DOE created an ERMC of 
$36.64 for the EPS at CSL 2.
    DOE developed the ERMC at CSL 3 for high-power EPSs by using the 
EPS modeled at CSL 2 along with manufacturer interview data and EPS 
test data. A manufacturer representative stated that additional 
increases in average active-mode efficiency beyond CSL 2 would cause a 
10- to 20-percent increase in ERMC per efficiency point due to the 
usage of Schottky diodes for rectification. DOE observed that the 
average active-mode efficiency of 85 percent can be achieved by 
products already on the market by testing the efficiency of an 
available EPS. This EPS was a percentage point higher than the EPS used 
for CSL 2, and DOE created its ERMC accordingly.
    The cost-efficiency points for the 345-watt high-power EPS ranged 
from $115.32 for a 62-percent efficient line-frequency EPS to $42.32 
for an 85-percent efficient switched-mode EPS. In the case of high-
power EPSs assessed by DOE, the more efficient switched-mode EPSs are 
substantially less expensive than the least efficient line-frequency

[[Page 56954]]

EPS at CSL 0. However, cost increases with efficiency among the 
switched-mode EPSs DOE assessed. The cost-efficiency data is shown in 
Table II.29 and Figure II.7. The vertical lines in the figure represent 
the efficiencies of the two torn-down EPSs.

                                    Table II.29--Cost-Efficiency Points for a 345-Watt High-Power EPS for a Ham Radio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                          Efficiency-
                                       Reference point for      Minimum     Maximum no-     related
               Level                          level           active-mode   load power     materials                         Basis
                                                              efficiency    consumption      cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     ......................             %             W         2008%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0..................................  Line Frequency........            62         15.43        115.32  Test and teardown data.
1..................................  Switched-Mode--Low                81          6.01         33.64  Test and teardown data.
                                      Level.
2..................................  Switched-Mode--Mid                84          1.50         36.64  Manufacturer interview data.
                                      Level.
3..................................  Switched-Mode--High               85          0.50         42.32  Manufacturer interview data.
                                      Level.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                                       [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.008
                                                                                                       
c. The Cost-Efficiency Relationship for Medical Device EPSs
    DOE developed the cost-efficiency points for the 18-watt medical 
device EPS representative unit based on test and teardown data for two 
medical EPSs and four Class A EPSs, along with five data points from 
manufacturer interviews. DOE included Class A EPSs in this analysis 
because the efficiency-related materials costs for medical device EPSs 
appear to be the same as Class A EPSs. This situation became evident 
during manufacturer interviews.
    DOE tore down EPSs at a range of sales volumes and nameplate output 
powers, all close to 18 watts. The representative unit in the medical 
device EPS product class had a nameplate output power of 18 watts and a 
sales volume of 10,000 units per year, so DOE needed to scale the ERMCs 
of the torn-down units based on the model described in section 
II.C.5.d. DOE also needed to scale the active-mode efficiencies of the 
units based on the model described in section II.C.5.b. Table II.30 
shows characteristics of the EPSs before scaling, and Table II.31 shows 
the same EPSs with the scaled characteristics highlighted in gray. EPSs 
301 and 302 are used in medical devices; the other 
EPSs are Class A EPSs.

[[Page 56955]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.009

    DOE used the scaled ERMC of the linear-regulated EPS 130 
as the ERMC for CSL 0. This is the only linear-regulated EPS that DOE 
tore down for this product class. DOE observed the market of available 
EPSs and noted the wide range of efficiencies and lack of correlations 
with ERMC over the efficiency range. In light of this observation, DOE 
chose to average the scaled ERMCs of the switched-mode EPSs to create 
the ERMCs for units at CSL 1 and CSL 2. The average active-mode 
efficiencies of the units at CSL 1 and CSL 2 are 76 percent and 80 
percent, respectively. These efficiencies correspond to the 
international efficiency protocol levels Mark IV and Mark V (see 
section II.C.4) DOE believes that ERMC does not increase between Mark 
II and Mark V, but selected the efficiency range between Mark IV and 
Mark V to best reflect available EPS market data.
    To develop the ERMC for CSL 3, DOE interviewed a manufacturer that 
described the components needed to create an EPS with an efficiency of 
85 percent and a no-load power consumption of 0.15 watts. These design 
options included a quasi-resonant PWM controller, a primary FET and 
secondary synchronous rectifier circuit with low voltage drops, a 
planar transformer, and wiring with a higher gauge. The manufacturer 
estimated that these components would increase the ERMC of the EPS at 
CSL 2 by approximately $2.36, although DOE currently has no testing or 
teardown data to verify this point.
    Table II.32 lists the cost-efficiency points for the 18-watt 
medical device EPS, ranging from $2.95 for a 66-percent-efficient EPS 
to $5.70 for an 85-percent-efficient EPS. See section II.C.4 for 
further information on how the active-mode efficiency and no-load power 
requirements for medical device EPSs were developed. Figure II.8 shows 
the cost-efficiency curve for the 18-watt medical device EPS along with 
data points for the medical device and Class A EPSs that DOE tore down.

              Table II.32--Cost-Efficiency Points for an 18-Watt Medical Device EPS for a Nebulizer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Minimum      Maximum  no-     Efficiency-
       Level         Reference point for     active-mode     load power        related             Basis
                            level           efficiency %    consumption W  materials cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    .....................               %           W               2008$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.................  Less Than the IV Mark            66.0           0.557            2.95  Scaled ERMC of EPS
                                                                                            130.

[[Page 56956]]

 
1.................  Meets the IV Mark....            76.0           0.5              3.62  Average ERMC of
                                                                                            switched-mode EPSs.
2.................  Meets the V Mark.....            80.3           0.3              3.62  Average ERMC of
                                                                                            switched-mode EPSs.
3.................  Higher Level.........            85.0           0.15             5.70  Manufacturer
                                                                                            interview data.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                            [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.010
                                                                                            
d. The Cost-Efficiency Relationships for EPSs for BCs
    DOE developed the cost-efficiency points for the 1.8-watt and 4.8-
watt EPS for BC representative units based on efficiency test data and 
cost estimates for 12 Class A EPSs. EPSs for BCs appear to be able to 
achieve the same range of efficiencies as Class A EPSs at the same 
costs. The majority of the torn-down EPSs were produced in nameplate 
output powers, output voltages, and sales volumes that differed from 
those of the representative unit (1.8 watts, 6 volts, and 1,000,000 
units per year, respectively). Thus, DOE scaled the ERMCs and active-
mode efficiencies of the torn-down EPSs using the models described in 
section II.C.3. The original and scaled characteristics of the torn-
down EPSs and additional 5-watt EPSs are shown in Table II.33 and Table 
II.34, respectively, with the scaled characteristics highlighted in 
gray.

[[Page 56957]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.011

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.012

    DOE used the scaled ERMC of the line-frequency EPS 17 as 
the ERMC for the CSL 0. For CSLs 1 through 3, DOE chose to use the 
average of the scaled ERMCs of all switched-mode units shown in Table 
II.34. This is because DOE observed no clear correlation between the 
average active-mode efficiencies of the switched-mode EPSs and their 
ERMCs. See section II.C.4 for more information on how the active-mode 
efficiency and no-load power

[[Page 56958]]

consumption requirements were chosen for these CSLs.
    Table II.35 lists the cost-efficiency points for the 1.8-watt EPS 
for a BC for a vacuum, ranging from $0.83 for a 24-percent-efficient 
EPS to $0.95 for a 66-percent-efficient EPS.
    Figure II.9 shows the cost-efficiency curve for the EPS along with 
data for the Class A EPSs that DOE analyzed.

                   Table II.35--Cost-Efficiency Points for a 1.8-Watt EPS for BC for a Vacuum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Minimum active-   Maximum no-     Efficiency-
       Level         Reference point for        mode         load power        related             Basis
                            level           efficiency %    consumption W  materials cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    .....................               %               W           2008$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.................  Less than the II Mark              24            1.85           $0.83  Scaled ERMC of EPS
                                                                                            17.
1.................  Meets the II Mark....              45            0.75           $0.95  Average of switched-
                                                                                            mode test data.
2.................  Meets the IV Mark....              55            0.50           $0.95  Average of switched-
                                                                                            mode test data.
3.................  Meets the V Mark.....              66            0.30           $0.95  Average of switched-
                                                                                            mode test data.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                                                            [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.013
                                                                                            
    For the 4.8-watt EPS used in a BC designed for use in a DIY power 
tool, DOE developed cost-efficiency points by using the same data it 
used for the 1.8-watt EPS for the BC analysis. The majority of the 
torn-down EPSs were produced in nameplate output powers, output 
voltages, and sales volumes different from those of the representative 
unit (4.8 watts, 24 volts, and 1 million units per year, respectively). 
Thus, DOE scaled the ERMCs and active-mode efficiencies of the torn-
down EPSs using the models described in section II.C.3. Table II.33 
shows the original characteristics of the torn-down EPSs. Table II.36 
shows the scaled characteristics of the torn-down EPSs with the scaled 
characteristics highlighted in gray.

[[Page 56959]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.014

    As it did for the 1.8-watt EPS, DOE used the scaled ERMC of the 
line-frequency EPS 17 as the ERMC at CSL 0. For CSLs 1 through 
3, DOE chose to use the average of the scaled ERMCs of all switched-
mode units shown in Table II.36 because no clear correlation could be 
observed between the efficiencies of the switched-mode units and their 
ERMCs. See section II.C.4 for information on how DOE chose the active-
mode efficiency and no-load power consumption requirements for these 
CSLs.
    Table II.37 lists the cost-efficiency points for the 4.8-watt EPS 
used in a DIY power tool BC, which range from $1.04 for a 38-percent-
efficient EPS to $1.19 for a 72-percent-efficient EPS. Figure II.10 
shows the cost-efficiency curve for the EPS along with data for the 
Class A EPSs that DOE analyzed.

               Table II.37--Cost-Efficiency Points for a 4.8-Watt EPS for BC for a DIY Power Tool
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Minimum active-   Maximum no-     Efficiency-
       Level         Reference point for        mode         load power        related             Basis
                            level           efficiency %    consumption W  materials cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    .....................               %               W           2008$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.................  Less than the II Mark              38            1.85            1.04  Scaled EPS 17 ERMC.
1.................  Meets the II Mark....              56            0.75            1.19  Average of switched-
                                                                                            mode test data.
2.................  Meets the IV Mark....              64            0.50            1.19  Average of switched-
                                                                                            mode test data.
3.................  Meets the V Mark.....              72            0.30            1.19  Average of switched-
                                                                                            mode test data.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 56960]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.015

D. Energy Use and End-Use Load Characterization

1. Introduction
    The purpose of the energy-use and end-use load characterization is 
to identify how consumers use products and equipment, and thereby 
determine the change in EPS energy consumption related to different 
energy efficiency improvements. For EPSs, DOE's analysis focused on the 
consumer products they power and on how end-users operate these 
consumer products.
    The energy-use and end-use load characterization describes the unit 
energy consumption (UEC), which is an input to the LCC and national 
impact analyses. UEC represents the typical annual energy consumption 
of an EPS in the field. UEC for EPSs is calculated by combining (1) 
usage profiles, which describe the time a device spends in each mode in 
one year; (2) load, which measures the power provided by the EPS to the 
consumer product in each mode; and (3) efficiency, which measures the 
power an EPS must draw from mains to power a given load. Because of the 
nature of EPSs, the usage profile of the device will be related to the 
usage profile of the associated application. DOE assumes that usage 
profiles will not change over the analysis period.
    For most electric appliances, energy consumption is the energy an 
application draws from mains while performing its intended function(s). 
EPSs, however, are power conversion devices, and their intended 
function is to deliver a portion of the energy drawn from mains to 
another application. As a result, EPS energy consumption is more 
appropriately characterized as that portion of the energy that the EPS 
draws from mains that is not delivered to the load. That is, the energy 
consumption of an EPS is the difference between the energy drawn by the 
EPS from mains (EIN) and the energy supplied by the EPS to 
the attached load (EOUT).
    The following sections present the inputs, methodology, and outputs 
of the annual unit energy consumption calculations. Section II.D.2 
explains how DOE calculated EPS energy consumption by examining 
separately each energy-consuming mode of the device. Section II.D.3 
contains the usage profiles and load points DOE used for each type of 
EPS based on its applications. Section II.D.4 presents the annual 
energy consumption values DOE calculated for each representative unit 
at each CSL.
    DOE seeks comments on the usage profiles and unit energy 
consumption calculations used in the determination analysis. DOE also 
seeks alternative sources, databases, or methodologies for developing 
its energy use estimates. See chapter 4 of the TSD for additional 
information on specific calculations.
2. Modes and Application States
    When evaluating usage and energy consumption for a device, it is 
usually sufficient to observe only the energy-consuming modes of that 
device. Because the function of the EPS is to power consumer product 
applications, however, evaluating the usage and energy consumption of 
the EPS also requires evaluating the usage and energy consumption of 
the application itself.
    To avoid confusion when describing usage and energy consumption 
from the perspective of the application, DOE uses the term 
``application state.'' When describing usage and energy consumption 
from the perspective of the EPS, DOE uses the term ``EPS mode.''
    By definition, all energy-consuming application states are part of 
active mode from the perspective of the EPS. That is, since any energy-
consuming application state requires the application to be connected to 
the EPS, any energy-consuming application state

[[Page 56961]]

is part of EPS active mode. These states vary by the type of 
application. In the discussion of usage profile and load 
characterization, DOE will provide an explanation of the application 
states it considered when calculating usage and energy consumption.
    An EPS can be in active mode, no-load mode, off mode, or unplugged. 
Table II.38 gives a summary of these modes.

                                        Table II.38--Summary of EPS Modes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            EPS on/off switch
             EPS mode               Status of EPS connection  Status of EPS connection   selection (if switch is
                                            to mains               to  application              present)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active...........................  Connected................  Connected...............  On.
No Load..........................  Connected................  Disconnected............  On.
Off..............................  Connected................  Disconnected............  Off.
Unplugged........................  Disconnected.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Active Mode: EPCA defines active mode as the condition in which an 
energy-using product (I) is connected to a main power source; (II) has 
been activated; and (III) provides one or more main functions (42 
U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)(i)). EPCA defines active mode for EPSs in 
particular as the mode of operation when an external power supply is 
connected to the main electricity supply and the output is connected to 
a load (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(B)). Thus, in calculating usage profiles and 
energy consumption, DOE considers active mode to include any condition 
where the EPS is connected to both mains and the application.
    Unless otherwise indicated, DOE assumed that while in active mode, 
an application places a load of 80 percent of nameplate output power on 
the EPS when it is operating, and a load of 20 percent when it is idle. 
DOE further assumed that an application places a load of 5 percent of 
nameplate output power on the EPS when the application is off. The 
following section further discusses each application.
    No-Load Mode: EPCA defines no-load mode for EPSs as the mode of 
operation when an external power supply is connected to the main 
electricity supply and the output is not connected to a load (42 U.S.C. 
6291(36)(D)). DOE determined that for EPSs, no-load mode is equivalent 
to standby, as explained in the ``Final Rule on Test Procedures for 
Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies (Standby Mode and Off 
Mode),'' published in the Federal Register on March 27, 2009. (74 FR 
13318)
    Off Mode: Off mode is a mode applicable only to an EPS with an on/
off switch in which the EPS is connected to mains, is disconnected from 
the load, and the on/off switch is set to ``off.'' This definition was 
promulgated in the final rule. Of the EPSs examined for the 
determination analysis, only the two high power representative units 
included on/off switches. In both cases, turning off the switch fully 
severed the circuit, creating a situation electrically equivalent to 
the EPS being unplugged from mains. To estimate energy consumption, DOE 
treated the time when the EPS switch is set to off as equivalent to 
unplugged time. DOE seeks information on the prevalence and usage of 
on/off switches on all EPSs.
    Unplugged Mode: Unplugged mode is when the EPS is disconnected from 
mains power. No energy is consumed in this state.
3. Usage Profiles
    For many applications, usage depends strongly on the individual 
user. To account for the variety of users and their associated usage 
profiles, DOE developed multiple usage profiles where appropriate. DOE 
then calculated a weighted-average usage profile based on an estimated 
distribution of user types. For each user type, DOE provided a 
qualitative description of usage to explain the quantitative usage 
profile. The following subsections describe the application states, 
user types, and usage profiles for each representative unit.
a. Multiple-Voltage EPS (40-Watt Multifunction Device)
    DOE identified the following application states for multifunction 
devices:
     Printing, photocopying, faxing (sending and receiving), 
and scanning: The multifunction device is on and performing one of its 
primary functions.
     Idle: The multifunction device is on but not performing 
any printing, photocopying, faxing, or scanning tasks.
     Off: The multifunction device is off, whether by automatic 
shutdown or by a user-controlled on/off switch.
    For multifunction devices, DOE developed one usage profile, which 
describes usage in an in-home office setting (Table II.39). This 
profile was derived from a DOE report, ``U.S. Residential Information 
Technology Energy Consumption in 2005 and 2010,'' prepared by TIAX LLC 
in 2006. (TIAX LLC, ``U.S. Residential Information Technology Energy 
Consumption in 2005 and 2010.'' Prepared for U.S. Department of Energy, 
March 2006.) This usage profile is explained further in section 4.3.1 
of the TSD. DOE also derived its estimates of EPS output power from 
this report, except for the printing, photocopying, faxing, and 
scanning application state, which DOE assumed to be 80 percent of 
nameplate output power. DOE invites comments on its usage profile and 
output power estimates for EPSs for multifunction devices.

                       Table II.39--Usage and Output Power of EPS for Multifunction Device
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                           Annual
                   EPS mode                                Application state            usage hours/  EPS output
                                                                                            year       power  W
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active........................................  Printing, Photocopying, Faxing,                  52       * 32
                                                 Scanning.
                                                Idle..................................        1,606          9.1
                                                Off...................................        7,102          6.2
No Load.......................................  Disconnected from EPS.................            0          0
Unplugged.....................................  Disconnected from EPS.................            0          0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DOE estimated EPS output power for printing, photocopying, faxing, and scanning to be 80 percent of nameplate
  output power.


[[Page 56962]]

b. Multiple-Voltage EPS (203-Watt Xbox 360)
    DOE identified the following application states for the Xbox 360:
     Video game playing: The console is on and the user is 
actively playing a video game.
     Video game idle: The console is on and a video game disc 
is inserted, but the user is not interacting with the game, i.e., the 
game is paused, abandoned, or at the menu screen.
     DVD playing: The console is on, a DVD is inserted, and the 
console is actively playing a movie.
     DVD idle: The console is on, a DVD is inserted, and a 
movie is paused or at the menu screen.
     No disc: The console is on, but no disc is inserted.
     Off: The console is switched off.
    DOE defined two usage profiles for the Xbox 360, one for a light 
user and one for a heavy user. The usage profiles were based on in-home 
usage audits of video game consoles conducted by The Nielsen Company in 
2006. (The Nielsen Company, ``The State of the Console,'' Q4 2006.) DOE 
assumed 80 percent of users are light users and 20 percent are heavy 
users. DVD usage came from a TIAX report, ``Energy Consumption by 
Consumer Electronics in U.S. Residences.'' (TIAX, ``Energy Consumption 
by Consumer Electronics in U.S. Residences,'' Final Report to the 
Consumer Electronics Association, January 2007.) DOE estimated that DVD 
usage did not vary among user types, and that one-third of video game 
consoles would be used as a DVD player. DOE estimates of EPS output 
power for the various application states were derived from estimates of 
EPS input power in a 2008 report from the Natural Resources Defense 
Council. (NRDC, ``Lowering the Cost of Play: Improving the Energy 
Efficiency of Video Game Consoles,'' November 2008.) DOE invites 
comments on its usage profile and output power estimates for EPSs for 
the Xbox 360, summarized in Table II.40. Section 4.3.1 of the TSD 
contains additional detail.

                             Table II.40--Usage and Output Power of EPS for Xbox 360
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Weighted-
                                                                                          average
                   EPS mode                                Application state               annual     EPS output
                                                                                           usage      power *  W
                                                                                         hours/year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active........................................  Playing Video Game....................          820       102.62
                                                Idle Video Game.......................          560       101.50
                                                Playing DVD...........................           90        95.02
                                                Idle DVD..............................          150        95.02
                                                Idle--No Disc.........................          150        86.38
                                                Off...................................        6,990         2.35
No Load.......................................  Disconnected from EPS.................            0            0
Unplugged.                                                                                        0            0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Output power levels for all application states were derived from input power measurements reported in NRDC's
  ``Lowering the Cost of Play: Improving the Energy Efficiency of Video Game Consoles,'' November 2008, using
  DOE's measurements of the efficiency and no-load power consumption of the EPS that ships with the Xbox 360.

c. High-Power EPS (345-Watt Amateur Radio Equipment)
    DOE identified the following application states for amateur radio 
equipment.
     Transmitting: The radio equipment is turned on and 
actively transmitting.
     Receiving: The radio equipment is turned on and actively 
receiving.
     Idle: The radio equipment is turned on but neither 
transmitting nor receiving.
    DOE defined three usage profiles for amateur radio equipment based 
on conversations with the Amateur Radio Relay League. The light usage 
profile is intended to approximate infrequent use of a radio system. 
Light users only use their equipment for limited periods on a weekly 
basis or for an extended period on a monthly basis. The medium usage 
profile is intended to approximate regular evening or weekend use. The 
heavy usage profile is intended to reflect the usage of a repeater 
system, which is a radio setup configured to relay transmissions 
automatically, or a similar continuous use system. Such systems are 
typically never switched off. The light, medium, and heavy usage 
profiles were assumed to represent 50 percent, 25 percent, and 25 
percent of users, respectively. Section 4.3.2 of the TSD discusses 
these three usage profiles.
    DOE assumed EPS power consumption to be 80 percent of nameplate in 
the transmitting application state and 20 percent of nameplate in the 
receiving and idle application states. DOE also assumed that while in 
use, a radio system will be transmitting, receiving, and idle for 10 
percent, 10 percent, and 80 percent of the time, respectively. DOE 
seeks comments on its assumptions about the usage of high-power EPSs, 
summarized in Table II.41.

                     Table II.41--Usage and Output Power of EPS for Amateur Radio Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                         Weighted-
                                                                                          average
                   EPS mode                                Application state               annual     EPS output
                                                                                           usage      power  W *
                                                                                         hours/year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active........................................  Transmitting..........................          140          276
                                                Receiving.............................          140           69
                                                Idle..................................        2,411           69
No Load.......................................  Disconnected from EPS.................            0            0
Off or Unplugged..............................                                                6,070            0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DOE estimated output power levels at 80 percent of nameplate for transmitting and at 20 percent of nameplate
  for receiving or idle.


[[Page 56963]]

d. Medical EPS (18-Watt Nebulizers and 35-Watt Sleep Therapy Devices)
    DOE identified the following application states for EPSs for sleep 
therapy devices and nebulizers:
     On: The on/off switch is set to on and the device is in 
use.
     Off: The on/off switch is set to off and the device is not 
in use.
    DOE estimated usage for three types of nebulizer users--light, 
medium, and heavy--with an even distribution among user types. DOE 
based these user types around the number of sessions per day a user 
employs the nebulizer. From an energy consumption perspective, a 
session involves turning on the nebulizer, inhaling the aerosolized 
medication, and then turning the nebulizer off. Each session is assumed 
to take an average of 10 minutes. The number of sessions per day ranges 
from one in the light usage profile to three in the heavy usage 
profile, depending on the severity of the illness and the type of 
medication. DOE also assumed that because most users require daily 
administration of medication, nebulizer users are unlikely to unplug 
their nebulizers (and associated EPSs) from mains.
    Some nebulizers with an EPS offer a rechargeable battery pack as an 
optional accessory. These EPSs lack charge control because they can 
power the product directly without the battery. The usage profiles do 
not represent usage under battery power. Such a profile would increase 
EPS energy consumption because of the losses inherent in charging and 
maintaining a battery. Hence, the nebulizer usage profiles used in the 
determination are conservative estimates of EPS energy consumption.
    DOE estimated that 25 percent of light users would unplug the EPS 
and nebulizer from mains when not in use. DOE further assumed EPS power 
consumption to be 80 percent of nameplate in the on application state 
and 5 percent of nameplate in the off application state. The usage 
profiles DOE developed are contained in section 4.3.3 of the TSD and 
are summarized in Table II.42. DOE seeks comments on its assumptions 
about the usage of medical EPSs with nebulizers.

                            Table II.42--Usage and Output Power of EPS for Nebulizer
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Weighted-average
                 EPS mode                       Application state       annual usage hours/   EPS output power W
                                                                                year                  *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active...................................  On.........................                121.7                 14.4
                                           Off........................              8,638.3                  0.9
No Load..................................  Disconnected from EPS......                  0                    0
Unplugged................................  ...........................                  0                    0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DOE estimated output power levels at 80 percent of nameplate when the application is on and at 20 percent of
  nameplate when the application is off.

    DOE developed one usage profile for sleep therapy devices that 
assumes the user turns on the device when going to sleep and turns it 
off after waking 8 hours later. DOE also assumed that because of the 
required daily use of the device, users would likely leave their sleep 
therapy devices (and associated EPSs) plugged into mains. DOE assumed 
EPS power consumption to be 80 percent of nameplate in the on 
application state and 10 percent of nameplate in the off application 
state. Table II.43 shows this usage profile; section 4.3.3 of the TSD 
provides additional detail. DOE seeks comments on its assumptions about 
the use of medical EPSs with sleep therapy devices.

                       Table II.43--Usage and Output Power of EPS for Sleep Therapy Device
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Annual usage  hours/
                 EPS mode                       Application state               year         EPS output power  W
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active...................................  On.........................              2,920                   28
                                           Off........................              5,840                    3.5
No Load..................................  Disconnected from EPS......                  0                    0
Unplugged................................  ...........................                  0                    0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

e. EPS for Battery Charger (1.8-Watt Cordless Handheld Vacuum)
    DOE identified the following application states for battery 
chargers for cordless handheld vacuums:
     Active charging: The battery is connected to the battery 
charger and the battery is in the process of charging.
     Maintenance: The battery is fully charged and connected to 
the battery charger, and the battery charger remains connected to 
mains.
    Some cordless handheld vacuums use cradles to charge the battery. 
The cradles that DOE evaluated in its teardown analysis were found to 
contain no circuitry. The cradle acted as an extension of the EPS 
output cord. Therefore, in representing usage, DOE treated the time 
when the vacuum was detached from the cradle or EPS, and the EPS was 
plugged into mains, as no-load mode.
    DOE seeks comments on these issues and on the prevalence of 
detachable batteries used in household appliances such as cordless 
handheld vacuums. DOE also welcomes comments on differentiating between 
wall adapters and cradles and on the type of circuitry cradles 
typically contain.
    DOE developed one usage profile for cordless handheld vacuums with 
input from the Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers and the 
Power Tool Institute. This profile was used to represent the usage of 
all the rechargeable floor care appliances considered in this 
determination analysis. DOE assumed EPS power consumption to be 80 
percent of nameplate in the active charging application state and 35 
percent of nameplate in the maintenance application state. Table II.44 
shows this usage profile; see section 4.3.4 of the TSD for additional 
detail. DOE seeks

[[Page 56964]]

comments on its assumptions about the usage of EPSs with rechargeable 
floor care appliances.

                         Table II.44--Usage and Output Power of EPS for Cordless Vacuum
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Annual usage
                 EPS mode                        Application state           hours/year       EPS output power W
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active...................................  Active Charging.............                 416                 1.44
                                           Maintenance.................               8,292                 0.63
No Load..................................  Disconnected from EPS/Cradle                  52                 0
Unplugged................................  ............................                   0                 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. EPS for Battery Charger (4.8-Watt Power Tool)
    DOE identified the following application states for battery 
chargers for power tools:
     Active charging: The battery is connected to the battery 
charger and the battery is in the process of charging. For power tools, 
DOE estimated a charge rate of C/3, i.e., the battery would take 3 
hours to charge.
     Maintenance: The battery is connected to the battery 
charger and the battery has been fully charged.
     No battery: The battery is not connected to the battery 
charger.
    DOE developed two usage profiles for power tools: One for light 
usage and one for heavy usage. Each profile represents 50 percent of 
users. DOE developed the heavy usage profile with input from the Power 
Tool Institute. DOE developed the light usage profile based on a 
scaled-back user. DOE assumed EPS power consumption to be 80 percent of 
nameplate in the active charging application state, 35 percent of 
nameplate in the maintenance application state, and 1 watt in the no-
battery state. See section 4.3.5 of the TSD for a discussion of these 
usage profiles, which are summarized in Table II.45. DOE seeks comments 
on its assumptions about the usage of EPSs with rechargeable DIY power 
tools.

                            Table II.45--Usage and Output Power of EPS for Power Tool
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Weighted-average
                 EPS mode                        Application state          annual usage     EPS Output power  W
                                                                             hours/year
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Active...................................  Active Charging.............                 105                 3.84
                                           Maintenance.................               2,093                 1.68
                                           No-Battery..................                 104                 1
No Load..................................  Disconnected from EPS.......                 104                 0
Unplugged................................  ............................               6,354                 0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Unit Energy Consumption
    EPS power consumption is a function of three factors: the nameplate 
output power of the EPS, the efficiency of the EPS, and the consumption 
of the EPS when it is in no-load mode. To calculate the energy 
consumption of an EPS, DOE combined the time and power consumption 
values shown in the usage profiles above according to a methodology 
explained in section 4.4 of the TSD. Table II.46 shows the unit energy 
consumption values DOE calculated for each type of EPS at each CSL.

                                                   Table II.46--EPS Unit Energy Consumption (kWh/year)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Type of EPS
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Candidate standard level                     Multiple-       Multiple-                        EPS for
                                                            voltage EPS     voltage EPS   High-power EPS      medical         EPS for      EPS for power
                                                             for MFDs      for Xbox 360                       devices         vacuums          tools
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................................            15.8           126.0           103.3            40.2            12.0             6.9
1.......................................................            11.2            32.4            39.5            25.3             4.6             3.3
2.......................................................             7.7            31.9            28.5            19.3             3.1             2.3
3.......................................................             6.6            26.6            24.1            13.6             2.0             1.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

    This section describes the methodology that DOE used to analyze the 
economic impacts of possible energy efficiency standards on individual 
consumers. DOE performed this analysis on the same representative units 
evaluated in section II.C.3. The effects of standards on individual 
consumers include a change in operating expenses (usually decreased) 
and a change in purchase price (usually increased). DOE used two 
metrics to determine the effect of potential standards on individual 
consumers:
     Life-cycle cost is the total consumer expense over the 
lifetime of an appliance, including the up-front cost (the total price 
paid by a consumer before the appliance can be operated) and all 
operating costs (including energy expenditures). DOE discounts future 
operating costs to the time of purchase.
     Payback period represents the number of years it would 
take the customer to recover the assumed higher purchase price of more 
energy efficient equipment through decreased operating

[[Page 56965]]

expenses.\1\ Sometimes more energy efficient equipment can have a lower 
purchase price than the less energy efficient equipment that it 
substitutes. In this case, the consumer realizes an immediate financial 
benefit and thus there is no payback period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ DOE computes a ``simple PBP,'' which uses only the first 
year of operating costs. Thus, operating costs are not discounted. 
See section II.E for further information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPSs are unique appliances because they are always used in 
conjunction with other products of interest. Most EPSs are packaged 
with particular products, so consumers usually do not buy EPSs 
directly. For example, consumers obtain EPSs for video game systems 
when buying the video game systems themselves. Thus, although the LCC 
and PBP analyses use the consumer purchase prices of EPSs, in reality, 
those prices are a hidden portion of the prices that consumers pay for 
the product.
    The energy consumption and technologies of the non-Class A EPSs DOE 
analyzed is assessed in further detail in section II.B. Chapter 5 of 
the TSD contains a description of how DOE used technology options, 
energy consumption, and other input data to determine life-cycle cost 
and payback period.

F. National Impact Analysis

    In its determination analysis, DOE estimated the potential for 
national energy savings from energy conservation standards for non-
Class A EPSs, as well as the net present value of such standards. 
Figure II.11 depicts these analyses, referred to collectively as the 
national impact analysis. A brief description of the national impact 
analysis follows.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.016

    Unit energy savings (UES) is the difference between the unit energy 
consumption (UEC) in the standard case and the UEC in the base case. 
Thus, the UES represents the reduced energy consumption of a single 
unit due to the higher efficiency generated by a standard. Once 
calculated, the UES is then multiplied by the national inventory of 
units to calculate national energy savings. For each type of EPS, DOE 
calculated the shipment-weighted average UEC of products in that class 
sold in a given year. DOE performed these calculations for each year in 
the evaluation period in both the standards case and the base case. DOE 
then calculated UES by taking the difference between the two cases. 
Using the calculated national inventory and UES for each year of the 
analysis, DOE calculated national energy savings by multiplying the two 
inputs together.
    The national net present value of energy conservation standards is 
the difference between electricity cost savings and equipment cost 
increases. DOE calculated electricity cost savings for each year by 
multiplying energy savings by forecasted electricity prices. DOE 
assumed that all of the energy cost savings would accrue to consumers 
paying residential electricity rates. DOE calculated equipment cost 
increases for each year by taking the incremental price increase per 
unit between a base-case and a standards-case scenario and multiplying 
the difference by the national inventory. For each year, DOE took the 
difference between the savings and cost to calculate the net savings 
(if positive) or net cost (if negative). After calculating the net 
savings and costs, DOE discounted these annual values to the present 
time using discount rates of

[[Page 56966]]

3 percent and 7 percent and summed them to obtain the national net 
present value. See chapter 6 of the TSD for additional details.

III. Results

A. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

    The tables and figures below present key results of the LCC and PBP 
analyses for all six of the EPS representative units in the residential 
sector. All LCC and PBP results were generated using the AEO2009 
residential sector reference case electricity price trend, a start year 
of 2013, and a nominal EPS usage pattern. LCC and PBP inputs are 
discussed in section II.E. To assess the impact of a standard on 
consumers, it is helpful to compute the LCC savings that a consumer 
will experience when replacing an EPS at a particular CSL with an EPS 
at a different CSL. Eq. III.1 shows how DOE calculated LCC savings:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.017

where LCCSavings k[rtarr]L is the LCC savings that a 
consumer would experience when replacing an EPS at CSL k with an EPS 
at CSL L,
LCCk is the life-cycle cost of an EPS at CSL k,
LCCL is the life-cycle cost of an EPS at CSL L,
k is the CSL of the EPS being replaced, and
L is the CSL of the EPS being purchased.

    DOE assumes that at any given time, EPSs of a variety of 
efficiencies can be found on the market for a particular product. (For 
example, there are EPSs of different efficiencies for radios and video 
game systems.) Different percentages of consumers in the country own 
these different EPSs. For example, DOE believes that 17 percent of the 
market may own an EPS at CSL 0 for a particular vacuum cleaner battery 
charger, while 8 percent of the market may own an EPS at CSL 1 for that 
same product. (Because DOE expects that there is a wide variety of 
efficiencies in the marketplace, it condensed the efficiencies into the 
four CSLs for purposes of analysis.) See Figure III.1 for an example, 
where (a) shows the market distribution of efficiencies for the EPS 
before standards, and (b) shows consumers with CSL 0 EPSs replacing 
those EPSs with units at CSL 1 due to the imposition of a standard at 
CSL 1.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.018

    Accordingly, DOE calculated a weighted-average LCC savings based on 
how much a potential standard would affect the market. In calculating 
the weighted average, DOE assumed that consumers below a standard level 
would move up to the standard level and not beyond it when purchasing 
new products, while consumers already at the standard level or above it 
would continue purchasing at the same levels. Thus, the weighted-
average LCC savings represents the LCC savings of the average consumer 
affected by standards. Eq. III.2 shows how DOE calculated the weighted-
average LCC savings:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.019


[[Page 56967]]


where WeightedLCCSavingsL is the LCC savings that the 
average consumer affected by a standard set at CSL L would 
experience, LCCSavingsk[rarr]L is the LCC savings that a 
consumer would experience when replacing an EPS at CSL k with an EPS 
at CSL L, and MARKETk is the percentage of the market 
already owning EPSs at CSL k.

    The same analogy can be drawn for the weighted-average payback 
period calculations; that is, DOE calculated a weighted-average payback 
period based on how much of the market would be affected by a potential 
standard. DOE also assumed that consumers below a standard level would 
move up to the standard level and not beyond it when purchasing new 
products, while consumers already at the standard level or above it 
would continue purchasing at the same levels. Thus, the weighted-
average PBP represents the PBP of the average consumer affected by 
standards. Eq. III.3 shows the equation DOE used to calculate the 
weighted-average PBP.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.020

where WeightedPBPL is the PBP that the average consumer 
affected by a standard set at CSL L would experience, PBPk[rarr]L is 
the PBP that a consumer would experience when replacing an EPS at 
CSL k with an EPS at CSL L, and MARKETk is the percentage 
of the market already owning EPSs at CSL k.
a. Multiple-Voltage EPS (40-Watt Multiple-Function Device)
    DOE analyzed two multiple-voltage EPSs. The first was designed for 
a multiple-function device and had an output power of 40 watts. Table 
III.1 and Figure III.2 present the results for this EPS. Four sets of 
results are plotted in the figure:
     ``Weighted Average'' represents the average LCC savings 
weighted by the percentage of the market already at each CSL to 
indicate savings for an ``average'' affected consumer (Table III.1).
     ``Movement from CSL 0'' represents the LCC savings that 
consumers owning the baseline EPS would achieve by purchasing EPSs at 
CSLs 1, 2, and 3.
     ``Movement from CSL 1'' represents the LCC savings that 
consumers owning the CSL 1 EPS would achieve by purchasing EPSs at CSLs 
2 and 3.
     ``Movement from CSL 2'' represents the LCC savings that 
consumers owning the CSL 2 EPS would achieve by purchasing the EPS at 
CSL 3.

                                     Table III.1--LCC and Payback Period Results for Multiple-Voltage Forty-Watt EPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Situation before standards                                                         Standard at CSL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Percent of                                               Weighted-     Weighted-
                                           Conversion      No-load       market       Consumer      Operating                 average life-    average
             Standard at CSL               efficiency       power      already at     purchase        cost           LCC       cycle cost      payback
                                                                           CSL          price                                    savings       period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 CSL                                                 %             W             %         2008$    2008$/year         2008$         2008$          year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................            81           0.5            25          8.45          1.86         16.44  ............  ............
1.......................................            86           0.5            50          9.49          1.32         15.15          1.29           1.9
2.......................................            90           0.3            25         11.26          0.91         15.15          0.43           3.8
3.......................................            91           0.2             0         11.67          0.78         15.01          0.47           3.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 56968]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.021

    For the multiple-voltage 40-watt EPS, all consumers would 
experience positive LCC savings if a standard were set at CSL 1, CSL 2, 
or CSL 3. The weighted-average LCC savings for a standard at CSL 2 is 
approximately one-third of the weighted-average LCC savings for a 
standard at CSL 1 because 50 percent of the market is at a CSL 1 
baseline EPS and consumers replacing CSL 1 EPSs with CSL 2 EPSs would 
experience LCC savings of about $0.01.
b. Multiple-Voltage EPS (203-Watt Video Game)
    DOE also analyzed a multiple-voltage EPS with an output power of 
203 watts, designed for use with a video game console. Table III.2 and 
Figure III.3 present the results for this EPS.

                                      Table III.2--LCC and Payback Period Results for Multiple-Voltage 203-Watt EPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Situation before standards                                                         Standard at CSL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Percent of                                               Weighted-     Weighted-
                                           Conversion      No-load       market       Consumer      Operating                 average life-    average
             Standard at CSL               efficiency       power      already at     purchase        cost           LCC       cycle cost      payback
                                                                           CSL          price                                    savings       period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSL                                                  %             W             %         2008$    2008$/year         2008$         2008$          year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................            82          12.3             5         19.08         14.87         82.78  ............  ............
1.......................................            86           0.4            95         28.12          3.82         44.49         38.28           0.8
2.......................................            86           0.3             0         28.49          3.76         44.62          1.79           6.1
3.......................................            89           0.3             0         38.29          3.14         51.73         -5.32          14.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 56969]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.022

    All consumers would experience positive LCC savings if a standard 
were set at CSL 1. Consumers replacing CSL 0 EPSs with CSL 2 EPSs 
realize LCC savings over 20 times greater than the weighted-average LCC 
savings. DOE believes that 95 percent of the market currently consists 
of multiple-voltage 203-watt EPSs at CSL 1, such that consumers 
replacing a CSL 1 EPSs with an EPS at CSL 2 would realize LCC savings 
of -$0.13. If a standard were set at CSL 3, only consumers replacing 
CSL 0 EPSs with CSL 3 EPSs would experience positive LCC savings. 
Because 95 percent of the market would experience negative LCC savings 
(-$7.24) under a CSL 3 standard, however, the majority of consumers 
would not recover the increased efficiency-related consumer purchase 
price in reduced energy costs over the expected lifetime of the 
product.
    Note that the weighted-average PBP of a standard at CSL 2 is 
greater than the EPS lifetime of 5 years, even though the weighted-
average LCC savings are positive. This is because 95 percent of the 
market (those replacing EPSs at CSL 1 with EPSs at CSL 2) would 
experience a PBP of 6.4 years if a standard were imposed at CSL 2, 
while 5 percent of the market (those replacing EPSs at CSL 0 with EPSs 
at CSL 2) would experience a PBP of 0.8 years.
c. High-Power EPS (345-Watt Ham Radio)
    DOE analyzed a high-power EPS that is used in amateur radio 
applications and has an output power of 345 watts. Table III.3 and 
Figure III.4 presents the results for this EPS.

                                         Table III.3--LCC and Payback Period Results for High Power 345-Watt EPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Situation before standards                                                         Standard at CSL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Percent of                                               Weighted-     Weighted-
                                           Conversion      No-load       market       Consumer      Operating                 average life-    average
             Standard at CSL               efficiency       power      already at     purchase        cost           LCC       cycle cost      payback
                                                                           CSL          price                                    savings       period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 CSL                                                 %             W             %         2008$    2008$/year         2008$         2008$          year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................            62          15.4            60        208.10         16.20        331.75  ............  ............
1.......................................            81           6.0            40         60.71          6.17        107.81        223.95           N/A
2.......................................            84           1.5             0         66.12          5.09        104.93        137.24           N/A
3.......................................            85           0.5             0         76.37          4.50        110.68        131.49           N/A
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 56970]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.023

    Based on market research, DOE estimated that no consumers own high-
power EPSs at CSL 2 or CSL 3. Note also that there is no weighted-
average PBP at any CSL because consumers replacing EPSs at CSL 0 would 
immediately realize savings due to the lower efficiency-related 
consumer purchase prices of the EPSs at higher CSLs. DOE assumed that 
consumers owning EPSs at CSL 0 are 60 percent of the market.
d. Medical EPS (18-Watt Nebulizer)
    DOE analyzed a medical EPS that is used with a nebulizer and has an 
output voltage of 18 watts. Table III.4 and Figure III.5 present the 
results for this EPS.

                                           Table III.4--LCC and Payback Period Results for Medical 18-Watt EPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Situation before standards                                                         Standard at CSL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Percent of                                               Weighted-     Weighted-
                                           Conversion      No-load       market       Consumer      Operating                 average life-    average
             Standard at CSL               efficiency       power      already at     purchase        cost           LCC       cycle cost      payback
                                                                           CSL          price                                    savings       period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 CSL                                                 %             W             %         2008$    2008$/year         2008$         2008$          year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................            66           0.6            25         10.62          4.74         40.95  ............  ............
1.......................................            76           0.5            25         13.04          2.99         32.13          8.82           1.4
2.......................................            80           0.3            50         13.04          2.28         27.60          8.94           0.5
3.......................................            85           0.2             0         20.53          1.60         30.79          1.28           7.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Situation before standards                                                         Standard at CSL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Percent of                                               Weighted-     Weighted-
                                           Conversion      No-load       market       Consumer      Operating                 average life-    average
             Standard at CSL               efficiency       power      already at     purchase        cost           LCC       cycle cost      payback
                                                                           CSL          price                                    savings       period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSL.....................................             %             W             %         2008$    2008$/year         2008$         2008$          year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................            66           0.6            25         10.62          4.74         40.95  ............  ............
1.......................................            76           0.5            25         13.04          2.99         32.13          8.82           1.4
2.......................................            80           0.3            50         13.04          2.28         27.60          8.94           0.5
3.......................................            85           0.2             0         20.53          1.60         30.79          1.28           7.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 56971]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.024

    All consumers purchasing medical 18-watt EPSs would experience 
positive LCC savings if a standard were set at CSL 1 or CSL 2. The 
least weighted-average LCC savings would be experienced under a 
standard at CSL 3. This is because if a standard were set at CSL 3, 
consumers replacing CSL 2 EPSs with EPSs at CSL 3 would experience 
negative LCC savings of -$3.19, lowering the weighted average.
e. EPSs for BCs (1.8-Watt Vacuum)
    DOE analyzed two EPSs for BCs; one of them is designed for a 
rechargeable hand-vacuum and has an output power of 1.8 watts. Table 
III.5 and Figure III.6 present the results for this EPS.

                                          Table III.5--LCC and Payback Period Results for 1.8-Watt EPS for BCs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Situation before standards                                                         Standard at CSL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Percent of                                               Weighted-     Weighted-
                                           Conversion      No-load       market       Consumer      Operating                 average life-    average
             Standard at CSL               efficiency       power      already at     purchase        cost           LCC       cycle cost      payback
                                                                           CSL          price                                    savings       period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSL                                                  %             W             %         2008$    2008$/year         2008$         2008$          year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................            24           1.9            30          3.07          2.15         12.27  ............  ............
1.......................................            45           0.8            50          3.52          0.84          7.11          5.17           0.3
2.......................................            55           0.5            20          3.52          0.55          5.89          3.15           0.1
3.......................................            66           0.3             0          3.52          0.35          5.03          3.38           0.1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 56972]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.025

    Consumers would experience positive LCC savings for a 1.8-watt EPS 
for BCs if a standard were set at any CSL. Consumers replacing CSL 0 
EPSs would consistently experience the greatest LCC savings. For a 
standard at CSL 2, the weighted-average LCC savings would be 
approximately half as great as the savings experienced by consumers 
replacing CSL 0 EPSs with EPSs at CSL 2. This is because the majority 
of the market owns CSL 1 baseline EPSs, and consumers replacing CSL 1 
EPSs with CSL 2 EPSs would experience LCC savings that are several 
times lower ($1.21) than consumers replacing CSL 0 EPSs with CSL 2 EPSs 
($6.38). The situation would be similar for a standard set at CSL 3.
f. EPSs for BCs (4.8-Watt DIY Power Tool)
    The second EPS for BCs that DOE analyzed was designed for a 
rechargeable power tool and had an output power of 4.8 watts. Table 
III.6 and Figure III.7 present the results for this EPS.

                                         Table III.6--LCC and Payback Period Results for a 4.8-Watt EPS for BCs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Situation before standards                                                         Standard at CSL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Percent of                                               Weighted-     Weighted-
                                           Conversion      No-load       market       Consumer      Operating                 average life-    average
             Standard at CSL               efficiency       power      already at     purchase        cost           LCC       cycle cost      payback
                                                                           CSL          price                                    savings       period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CSL                                                  %             W             %         2008$    2008$/year         2008$         2008$          year
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0.......................................            38           1.9            25          4.32          0.81          7.81  ............  ............
1.......................................            56           0.8            50          4.94          0.39          6.61          1.19           1.5
2.......................................            64           0.5            25          4.94          0.27          6.11          0.90           0.4
3.......................................            72           0.3             0          4.94          0.19          5.75          1.03           0.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 56973]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03NO09.026

    All consumers would realize positive LCC savings if a standard were 
set at any CSL. Consumers of 4.8-watt EPS for BCs replacing CSL 0 EPSs 
would experience the greatest LCC savings. For a standard at CSL 2, the 
weighted-average LCC savings would be approximately half as great 
($0.90) as the savings that would be experienced by consumers replacing 
CSL 0 EPSs with CSL 2 EPSs ($1.70). This is because the majority of the 
market owns a baseline EPS at CSL 1, and consumers replacing CSL 1 EPSs 
with EPSs at CSL 2 would experience LCC savings that are several times 
lower ($0.51) than consumers replacing CSL 0 EPSs with CSL 2 EPSs. The 
situation would be similar for a standard set at CSL 3.

B. National Impact Analysis

    Table III.7 gives a range of values for energy savings potential 
for each type of EPS at each CSL. These ranges show the sensitivity of 
the simulation model to varying assumptions about the future. The lower 
energy savings estimates assume that the energy efficiency of non-Class 
A EPSs would improve over time due to factors other than a Federal 
standard. Conversely, the higher estimates assume energy efficiency 
would not improve over time. DOE also estimated the net present value 
of energy savings and incremental consumer costs, assuming discount 
rates of 3 percent and 7 percent. These estimates of NPV are shown in 
chapter 6 of the TSD.

                          Table III.7--National Energy Savings Potential From Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Cumulative primary energy savings potential 2013 to 2042
                                                                            (trillion BTU*)
                     Type of EPS                     -----------------------------------------------------------
                                                             CSL 1               CSL 2               CSL 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-Voltage for Multifunction Devices.............          26.21-28.2           46.3-50.4           52.8-56.9
Multi-Voltage for Xbox 360..........................            1.8-30.8            6.0-34.7           39.9-69.5
High Power (>250 W).................................           0.25-0.32           0.30-0.38           0.33-0.41
For Medical Devices.................................             5.3-9.7           21.4-28.7           42.6-50.6
For Battery Chargers for Floor Care Appliances......           0.39-0.69           0.60-0.90           1.09-1.41
For Battery Chargers for Power Tools................           0.24-0.44           0.42-0.61           0.63-0.82
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 1 Quad = 1,000 trillion BTU.

    If a CSL is selected for each type of EPS to maximize energy 
savings, subject to the constraint that the NPV be non-negative, total 
primary energy savings across all types of non-Class A EPS could be as 
much as 141 trillion Btu or 0.14 quads over 30 years. CSL 3 yields 
maximum energy savings and has a positive NPV (both at the 3-percent 
and 7-percent discount rates) for all EPS types except multiple-voltage 
EPSs for the Xbox 360. For multiple-voltage EPSs for the Xbox 360, CSL 
2 has a positive NPV in one base case but a negative NPV in the other. 
Thus, to estimate energy savings potential across all types of non-
Class A EPS, DOE selected CSL 1 for this one type of EPS. Table III.8 
shows the contribution of each EPS type to total savings potential and 
the NPV of a standard set at the selected CSL. Notably, most of the 
energy savings comes from increasing the efficiency of

[[Page 56974]]

EPSs for medical devices and multiple-voltage EPSs for multifunction 
devices.

             Table III.8--Energy Savings Potential When CSLs Are Selected to Maximize Energy Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Energy savings    Net present value 2013 to 2042 ($
                                                             potential 2013                million)
               Type of EPS                       CSL             to 2042     -----------------------------------
                                                             (trillion BTU*)  3% discount rate  7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-Voltage for Multifunction Devices.                 3         52.8-56.9           156-174             76-85
Multi-Voltage for Xbox 360..............                 1          1.8-30.8            13-189             9-101
High Output Power (>250 W)..............                 3         0.33-0.41           2.4-2.9           1.2-1.5
For Medical Devices.....................                 3         42.6-50.6            81-130             27-50
For Battery Chargers for Cordless                        3         1.09-1.41          8.0-10.1           4.5-5.6
 Handheld Vacuums.......................
For Battery Chargers for Power Tools....                 3         0.63-0.82           4.1-5.1           2.3-2.8
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...............................  ................            99-141           264-512           120-245
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 1 Quad = 1,000 trillion BTU.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) within the 
Office of Management and Budget has determined that today's regulatory 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f)(1) 
of Executive Order 12866. Therefore, this action is not subject to OIRA 
review under the Executive Order.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis for any rule 
that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency 
certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant 
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required 
by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in 
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published 
procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the 
potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its 
procedures and policies available on the Office of General Counsel's 
Web site, http://www.gc.doe.gov.
    DOE reviewed today's proposed rule under the provisions of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on 
February 19, 2003.
    Today's proposed rule, if promulgated, would set no standards; it 
would only positively determine that future standards may be warranted 
and should be explored in an energy conservation standards rulemaking. 
Economic impacts on small entities would be considered in the context 
of such a rulemaking. On the basis of the foregoing, DOE certifies that 
the proposed rule, if promulgated, would have no significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has 
not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking. DOE 
will transmit this certification and supporting statement of factual 
basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business 
Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    This rulemaking, which proposes to determine that the development 
of energy efficiency standards for non-Class A EPS is warranted, will 
impose no new information or record keeping requirements. Accordingly, 
OMB clearance is not required under the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act

    In this notice, DOE proposes to positively determine that future 
standards may be warranted and should be explored in an energy 
conservation standards rulemaking. DOE has determined that review under 
the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.; 
NEPA) is not required at this time. NEPA review can only be initiated 
``as soon as environmental impacts can be meaningfully evaluated'' (10 
CFR 1021.213(b)). Because this proposed rule would only determine that 
future standards may be warranted, but would not itself propose to set 
any standard, DOE has determined that there are no environmental 
impacts to be evaluated at this time. Accordingly, neither an 
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is 
required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) 
imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing 
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have Federalism 
implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to examine the 
constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would 
limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess 
the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order also requires 
agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory 
policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE 
published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental 
consultation process it will follow in the development of such 
regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined today's proposed rule and 
has determined that it would not preempt State law or have a 
substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between 
the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power 
and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA 
governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to 
energy conservation for the products that are the subject of today's 
proposed rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such 
preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 
U.S.C. 6297) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of

[[Page 56975]]

new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil Justice 
Reform'' (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996) imposes on Federal agencies the 
general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate 
drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize 
litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct 
rather than a general standard and promote simplification and burden 
reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires 
that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the 
regulation (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) 
clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) 
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting 
simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive 
effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses 
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship 
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of 
Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations 
in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to 
determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or 
more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined 
that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed rule meets the 
relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
4) (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a 
rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million 
or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 
of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that 
estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the 
national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a),(b)) The UMRA also requires a 
Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input 
by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a 
proposed ``significant intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an 
agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to 
potentially affected small governments before establishing any 
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small 
governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on 
its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA (62 FR 12820) 
(also available at http://www.gc.doe.gov).
    Today's proposed rule, if promulgated, would not result in 
expenditures of $100 million or more in a given year by the external 
power supply industries affected by this rulemaking. This is because 
today's proposed rule sets no standards; it only positively determines 
that future standards may be warranted and should be explored in an 
energy conservation standards rulemaking. The proposed rule also does 
not contain a Federal intergovernmental mandate. Thus, DOE is not 
required by UMRA to prepare a written statement assessing the costs, 
benefits, and other effects of the proposed rule on the national 
economy.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act 
of 1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the 
family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not 
necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation would not 
result in any takings which might require compensation under the Fifth 
Amendment to the United States Constitution.

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act 
of 2001

    The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 
U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations 
of information to the public under guidelines established by each 
agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. The OMB's 
guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's 
guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE has 
reviewed today's notice under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has 
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those 
guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to the 
OIRA a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy 
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an 
agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a 
final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, 
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on 
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, 
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected 
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
    Today's regulatory action proposing to determine that development 
of energy efficiency standards for non-Class A EPS is warranted would 
not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or 
use of energy. The OIRA Administrator has also not designated this 
rulemaking as a significant energy action. Therefore, DOE has 
determined that this proposed rule is not a significant energy action. 
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.

L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

    On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of 
Science and Technology (OSTP), issued its Final Information Quality 
Bulletin for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664. (January 14, 2005) 
The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information shall be 
peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is disseminated by the 
Federal government, including influential scientific information 
related to agency regulatory actions. The purpose of the bulletin is to 
enhance the quality and credibility of the Government's scientific 
information. Under the Bulletin, the energy conservation standards 
rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific information.'' The 
Bulletin defines ``influential scientific information'' as ``scientific 
information the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does 
have, a clear and substantial impact on important public

[[Page 56976]]

policies or private sector decisions.'' 70 FR 2667 (January 14, 2005).
    In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in-progress 
peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process 
and analyses and has prepared a Peer Review Report pertaining to the 
energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses. The ``Energy 
Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review Report,'' dated February 
2007, has been disseminated and is available at http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/peer_review.html.

V. Public Participation

A. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
notice or any aspect of the rulemaking no later than the date provided 
at the beginning of this notice. After the close of the comment period, 
DOE will review the comments received and determine, by December 19, 
2009, whether energy conservation standards for non-Class A EPSs are 
warranted.
    Comments, data, and information submitted to DOE's e-mail address 
for this rulemaking should be provided in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, 
PDF, or text (ASCII) file format. Submissions should avoid the use of 
special characters or any form of encryption, and wherever possible 
comments should include the electronic signature of the author. 
Comments, data, and information submitted to DOE by mail or hand 
delivery/courier should include one signed original paper copy. No 
telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
    According to 10 CFR part 1004.11, any person submitting information 
that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from 
public disclosure should submit two copies: one copy of the document 
including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy 
of the document with the information believed to be confidential 
deleted. DOE will make its own determination as to the confidential 
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat 
submitted information as confidential include (1) a description of the 
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as 
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is 
generally known or available from public sources; (4) whether the 
information has previously been made available to others without 
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the 
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from 
public disclosure; (6) a date after which such information might no 
longer be considered confidential; and (7) why disclosure of the 
information would be contrary to the public interest.

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comments

    Comments are welcome on all aspects of this rulemaking. DOE is 
particularly interested in receiving comment from interested parties on 
the following issues as they relate to non-Class A EPSs:
     Applications not included in this determination analysis,
     Product lifetimes,
     Present-year shipments estimates,
     Present-year efficiency distributions,
     Market growth forecasts,
     Usage profiles,
     Technology options for increasing efficiency,
     Costs related to increasing efficiency,
     Unit energy consumption calculations and values,
     Prevalence of on/off switches,
     Prevalence of charge control in wall adapters for motor-
operated, battery-charged products,
     Circuitry designs used in cradle chargers, and
     Alternative sources, databases, and methodologies for the 
analyses and inputs used in this determination.

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on October 23, 2009.
Cathy Zoi,
Assistant Secretary,
    Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. E9-26192 Filed 11-2-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P ?>