[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 93 (Friday, May 14, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 27170-27182]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-11592]



[[Page 27170]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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: Final Rule.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) has 
determined, based on the best information currently available, that 
energy conservation standards for non-Class A external power supplies 
are technologically feasible and economically justified, and would 
result in significant energy savings. This determination initiates the 
process of establishing, by notice and comment rulemaking, energy 
conservation standards for these products.

DATES: This rule is effective June 14, 2010.

ADDRESSES: This rulemaking can be identified by docket number EERE-
2009-BT-DET-0005 and/or Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 1904-
AB80.
    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 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 Determination
    A. Background and Legal Authority
    B. Scope
    1. DC-DC Power Supplies
    2. Basic Approaches to Regulating Wall Adapters for BCs
    3. Specific Criteria for Identifying the Presence of Charge 
Control
    4. Size of the EPS for BC Market
II. Methodology
    A. Purpose and Content
    B. Test Procedures
    C. Market Assessment
    D. Technology Assessment
    E. Engineering Analysis
    F. Energy Use and End-Use Load Characterization
    G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
    H. National Impact Analysis
III. Analysis Results
    A. Engineering Analysis
    B. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
    C. National Impact Analysis
    D. Discussion
    1. Significance of Energy Savings
    2. Impact on Consumers
IV. Conclusion
    A. Determination
    B. Future Proceedings
V. 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
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Summary of the Determination

    EPCA requires DOE to issue a final rule determining whether to 
issue energy efficiency standards for non-Class A external power 
supplies (EPSs). Consistent with this requirement, DOE has analyzed 
multiple candidate standard levels for non-Class A EPSs. These analyses 
indicate that it is technologically feasible to manufacture EPSs at 
some of these levels in large part because EPSs that meet these levels 
are already commercially available. DOE further determined that 
standards for all non-Class A EPSs that DOE analyzed 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.
    DOE's analyses also indicate that energy conservation standards 
would also likely be cost-effective from a national perspective. The 
national net present value (NPV) of energy conservation standards for 
non-Class A EPSs could be as much as $512 million in 2008$, assuming an 
annual discount rate of 3 percent. As a result, these analyses indicate 
that both individual consumers and the Nation as a whole would likely 
benefit economically from the imposition of energy conservation 
standards for non-Class A EPSs. Accordingly, DOE has positively 
determined that such standards are technologically feasible and 
economically justified, and would result in significant energy savings.
    DOE notes that its forecast of projected savings and national NPV 
considers only the direct financial costs and benefits to consumers of 
standards, specifically, the increased equipment costs of EPSs 
purchased from 2013 to 2032 and the associated energy cost savings over 
the lifetimes of those products. 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. Such impacts will 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 today's 
final rule is contained in the notice of proposed determination, 
published in the Federal Register on November 3, 2009, (74 FR 56928) 
and the accompanying technical support document (TSD), available from 
the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Web site at

[[Page 27171]]

www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external.html.
    The nature of this document results from the specific statutory 
requirements that DOE issue this notice as a rule. In accordance with 
this requirement, DOE issued its November 2009 notice prior to today's 
final rule notice. In addition, DOE combined as appropriate the 
analysis required by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 
(EISA 2007), Public Law 110-140 (Dec. 19, 2007), with the analysis that 
DOE had already performed as a result of requirements added previously 
by the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005), Public Law 109-58 (Aug. 
8, 2005). EPACT 2005 required DOE to issue a determination analysis to 
address battery chargers and external power supplies; EISA 2007 
subsequently amended this provision by focusing the analysis solely on 
external power supplies.

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.'' 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 underway 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 allotted 
time to complete the determination.
    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, to include 
any amended standards as part of that final rule. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(u)(3)(D)(i)) 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. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(D)(ii))
    Because Congress has already set standards for Class A EPSs and 
separately required DOE through a separate statutory provision to 
perform two rounds of rulemakings to consider amending efficiency 
standards for Class A EPSs, see 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3), the determination 
analysis under 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I) excluded these products 
from this analysis. Accordingly, the present determination concerns 
only EPSs falling outside of the Class A definition, i.e., ``non-Class 
A EPSs.''
    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)). The BC 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. DOE is 
now developing its preliminary analysis of standards for BCs and Class 
A EPSs. With today's positive determination that standards are 
warranted for non-Class A EPSs, standards for these products also will 
be considered within the ongoing standards rulemaking.
    The Department began the analysis for this determination by 
conducting testing and teardowns on commercially available non-Class A 
EPSs and by collecting information from manufacturers of non-Class A 
EPSs and original equipment manufacturers that use non-Class A EPSs. 
The Department shared its preliminary findings regarding efficiency 
improvements in its November 2009 notice of proposed determination 
(NOPD). 74 FR 56928. This notice was accompanied by a technical support 
document (TSD), which was published on the EERE Web site. Subsequently, 
the Department received written comments on the notice and TSD from the 
Power Tool Institute, Inc. (PTI); the Association of Home Appliance 
Manufacturers (AHAM); Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E); a joint 
comment from the California Energy Commission (CEC), PG&E, San Diego 
Gas and Electric Company, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, 
American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Natural Resources 
Defense Council, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships, and 
Northwest Power and Conservation Council (hereafter referred to as the 
CEC comment); and the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA). (PTI, No. 
5; AHAM, No. 6; PG&E, No. 7; CEC et al., No. 8; and CEA, No. 9).
    For more information about DOE rulemakings concerning BCs and EPSs, 
see the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy's Web site at 
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/battery_external.html.

B. Scope

    As explained in the NOPD, the scope of this determination covers 
all EPSs falling outside of Class A, which DOE identifies in this 
notice as non-Class A EPSs. EPCA, as amended by EPACT 2005, defines an 
EPS 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)) EISA 2007 
amended EPCA by, among other things, defining in 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C) 
a subset of external power supplies (i.e. a Class A EPS).
    The analysis underlying DOE's NOPD focused on four EPS types: (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. 74 FR 56930.
1. DC-DC Power Supplies
    CEA asked DOE to clarify whether DC-DC power supplies are outside 
the scope of the EPS definition. (CEA, No. 9 at p. 2) The statutory 
definition of an EPS is ``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)) 
Household electric current is nominally 120 volts AC. Thus, under the 
statutory definition set by Congress, wall adapters with DC input power 
are not EPSs.

[[Page 27172]]

2. Basic Approaches to Regulating Wall Adapters for BCs
    DOE has identified four possible approaches to regulating wall 
adapters for BCs. These four approaches, referred to as approaches A, 
B, C, and D, are explained in the framework document referred to in the 
notice of document availability DOE published in the Federal Register 
on June 4, 2009.\1\ 74 FR 26816. Under Approach A, a wall adapter would 
be considered an EPS only if it lacked charge control (i.e., a method 
to control the charge flowing to the battery). In addition, the EPS 
could be subject to both EPS and BC standards if it were also a part of 
a battery charging system. Under Approach B a wall adapter would not be 
considered an EPS as long as it powered a battery charger (the presence 
or absence of charge control being irrelevant). Approach C is similar 
to Approach A in that a wall adapter would be considered an EPS only if 
it lacked charge control; however, under Approach C the EPS would only 
be subject to EPS standards and not BC standards, even if it were also 
part of a battery charging system. Under Approach D a wall adapter that 
powers a battery charging system would always be considered an EPS 
regardless of the presence of charge control.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These approaches are explained 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). 
The approaches also address the related question of whether the wall 
adapter should be considered part of the BC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received comments related to EPSs for BCs in response to the 
NOPD. Many of these comments revolved around two closely related 
questions: (1) When is a wall adapter an EPS and (2) When is an EPS 
considered part of a BC? Comments on this issue were submitted by 
parties representing a variety of interests, including industry and 
energy efficiency advocates. The following two paragraphs describe the 
comments DOE received related to these questions, while the third and 
fourth paragraphs that follow provide DOE's responses to those 
comments.
    The first set of comments concerned the question of when a wall 
adapter should be categorized as an EPS. PG&E urged DOE to adopt 
Approach A as it is described in the framework document, claiming that 
this approach ensures a technically accurate, common sense approach to 
defining EPSs and battery chargers. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 6) PG&E's 
comment echoed its earlier comment and those of several others, 
including FRIWO, PTI, Ecos Consulting, and Motorola, who stated their 
support for Approach A in written comments on the framework document 
and at the associated public meeting on July 16, 2009. (FRIWO, EERE-
2008-BT-STD-0005 No. 21 at p. 1; Pub. Mtg. Tr., EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005 
No. 14 at pp. 62, 116; Motorola, EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005 No. 25 at p. 1; 
PG&E et al., EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005 No. 20 at p. 3) PTI reiterated its 
preference for Approach B and noted that if Approach B were not 
available, Approach A would be the next best option. (PTI, No. 5 at p. 
2) AHAM urged DOE to accept a slight modification of Approach B and 
agreed with PTI that of the remaining approaches, Approach A would be 
the next best option. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 4) The modification to 
Approach B that AHAM requested would also exclude from the set of EPSs 
all high power wall adapters that are used to charge batteries and all 
wall adapters that are used to charge batteries for medical devices. 
DOE indicated in its framework document that Approach B would be 
inconsistent when applied to the Class A EPS statutory definition, 
because DOE cannot limit the scope of the EPS definition by adding 
another exclusion to those already created by Congress. AHAM also asked 
DOE to address more fully its reasons for not selecting Approach B when 
applying it to non-Class A EPSs. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 3)
    The second set of comments concerned the closely related question 
of when an EPS should be considered part of a BC. AHAM and PTI 
expressed their opposition to overlapping standards, i.e., requiring an 
EPS to comply with an EPS standard and the BC of which it is part to 
comply with a BC standard. (PTI, No. 5 at p. 1; AHAM, No. 6 at p. 2) 
Approaches A and D could potentially lead to the overlap that AHAM and 
PTI oppose. PTI reiterated its contention that ``the proper way to deal 
with the efficiency of BCs is through a comprehensive standard that 
treats the charger as [a] whole, including the wall adapter (if one is 
part of the system).'' (PTI, No. 5 at p. 1) AHAM agreed, stating that 
``we do not believe it is appropriate conceptually or technically to 
separate the testing of any parts of the battery recharging circuit in 
a test procedure for battery chargers.'' (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 2) AHAM 
proposed that DOE create a separate class of BCs called ``appliance 
battery chargers'' that would encompass both wall adapter-based and 
cord-connect-based appliance battery chargers and further noted that 
testing a wall adapter first as an EPS and then as a part of a battery 
charger system ``would be an extreme burden on all manufacturers, but 
particularly on the small and medium sized enterprises and provide no 
benefit to consumers.'' (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 3)
    DOE used Approach A to define the scope of its determination 
analysis. This is the approach that DOE identified in the framework 
document as its preferred approach to determining which wall adapters 
are EPSs. DOE also explained in the framework document that it 
considers Approach B legally unacceptable for Class A EPSs because it 
would create additional exclusions of products that would otherwise 
satisfy the statutory definition of a Class A EPS. Since Congress 
already established specific exclusions to the Class A EPS definition, 
DOE has tentatively taken the position that it does not retain the 
authority to create exclusions beyond that which Congress has 
established. See the Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Framework 
Document for Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies, at 32.
    However, DOE did not rule out applying Approach B for non-Class A 
EPSs, an approach both AHAM and Wahl Clipper have requested DOE 
consider. (AHAM, EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005 No. 16 at pp. 2-3; Wahl Clipper, 
EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005 No. 23 at p. 1) When viewed in light of these and 
similar comments received earlier during the rulemaking process for 
these products, AHAM and PTI's objections to overlapping standards 
appear to focus on non-Class A EPSs, not Class A EPSs. If Approach A 
were used for Class A EPSs and Approach B were used for non-Class A 
EPSs, wall adapters that power the chargers of detachable battery packs 
or charge the batteries of products that are fully or primarily motor 
operated would not be subject to EPS standards while those wall 
adapters that power other battery charged applications (Class A EPSs) 
would be subject to EPS standards. Nevertheless, DOE is concerned that 
using Approach A for Class A EPSs and Approach B for non-Class A EPSs 
would create two distinct definitions of an EPS that would prevent one 
from readily identifying a particular wall adapter as being an EPS 
until it is known whether it powers the charger of a detachable battery 
pack or charges the battery of a product that is fully or primarily 
motor operated. DOE intends to make a decision on this issue as part of 
the standards rulemaking.
    DOE acknowledges that if it applied Approach B to non-Class A EPSs, 
the total energy savings potential from non-Class A EPS standards would 
be less than under Approach A, as EPSs for BCs would not be covered. 
However, the reduction in savings would be small, as

[[Page 27173]]

EPSs for BCs account for less than 2 percent of the savings estimated 
in the present analysis. Furthermore, DOE believes that these savings 
would be captured by BC standards that would cover the devices of which 
the wall adapters were a part.
3. Specific Criteria for Identifying the Presence of Charge Control
    PG&E and AHAM commented on the criteria for determining whether 
charge control is present in a wall adapter. PG&E strongly urged DOE to 
remain consistent with the criteria identified in the framework 
document that focus on electrical equivalency and battery charger 
functions. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 3) PG&E cautioned against using a vague 
and undefined ``constant voltage'' criterion for identifying EPSs, 
citing research conducted by Ecos Consulting that examined the 
electrical characteristics of wall adapters that power the chargers of 
detachable battery packs or charge the batteries of products that are 
fully or primarily motor operated. This research found at least one 
wall adapter that was electrically equivalent to Class A EPSs that did 
not produce constant voltage output and at least one wall adapter that 
was not electrically equivalent to Class A EPSs that produced constant 
voltage output. (PG&E, No. 7 at pp. 4-5) As a result, PG&E recommended 
that DOE ``rely on physical indications of charge control circuitry or 
functionality, such as a battery-charge indicator or chemistry-type 
selector switch'' rather than ``constant voltage'' for determining 
whether charge control is present in a wall adapter. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 
7) AHAM asked that DOE state clearly the criteria that will be used to 
determine whether charge control is present in a wall adapter. (AHAM, 
No. 6 at p. 4) AHAM further urged DOE to accept the criteria for charge 
control that were discussed at the framework document public meeting on 
July 16, 2009, as doing so would lead to ``the vast majority of AHAM 
battery chargers using wall adapters being treated as complete battery 
chargers.'' (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 6)
    DOE has not yet established final criteria for determining which 
wall adapters are EPSs. In the framework document, DOE sought 
stakeholder comment on four possible criteria for identifying charge 
control in a wall adapter--short-circuit operation, voltage regulation, 
no-load voltage, and no-battery operation, but did not indicate which 
criteria it would use going forward. In the NOPD and today's notice, 
DOE used constant voltage output as a preliminary criterion for 
establishing the absence of charge control and thereby identifying 
EPSs. Comments submitted in response to the NOPD questioned whether 
constant voltage output would be an appropriate test when determining 
whether a particular product lacks charge control, and DOE is 
reconsidering this approach. The protocol for determining which wall 
adapters are EPSs will be finalized within the standards rulemaking.
4. Size of the EPS for BC Market
    DOE received several comments on the size of the market for EPSs 
for BCs. Interested parties disagreed on the size of the market due to 
a difference of opinion as to what proportion of wall adapters for the 
BCs under consideration were EPSs. AHAM agreed with DOE's estimate that 
no more than 5 percent of wall adapters for cordless rechargeable floor 
care appliances provide constant voltage, adding that if this estimate 
is used as the basis for the determination, the same criteria used to 
arrive at this estimate must be used in the standards NOPR and Final 
Rule as well. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 5) AHAM also agreed with DOE that wall 
adapters for rechargeable personal care appliances use charge control 
and, therefore, are not EPSs. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 4) PTI agreed with 
DOE's estimate that approximately 5 percent of all wall adapters for 
powers tool BCs are true EPSs, adding that if the charge control 
criteria were significantly altered in the future, the validity of the 
determination could be eroded. (PTI, No. 5 at p. 2)
    PG&E, however, commented that DOE greatly underestimated the number 
of EPSs for BCs. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 7) CEC concurred and urged DOE to 
reconsider its methodology for calculating energy savings potential 
from EPSs for BCs, citing PG&E research that suggests the potential 
savings from this group of products is 20 times higher than DOE 
suggested. (CEC et al., No. 8 at p. 1)
    Until the protocol for determining which wall adapters are EPSs is 
finalized, the number of EPSs for BCs cannot be accurately estimated. 
In light of the absence of this protocol, DOE conservatively estimated 
the size of the market for EPSs for BCs in the determination analysis. 
A larger market would only serve to increase the potential energy 
savings from standards for these products, which would serve as 
additional support for the positive determination that DOE has already 
reached using its more conservative approach.

II. Methodology

A. Purpose and Content

    The Department analyzed the feasibility of achieving significant 
energy savings from energy conservation standards for non-Class A EPSs. 
The NOPD presented the results of this analysis. As part of the 
subsequent standards rulemaking, DOE will perform more robust analyses. 
These analyses will involve more precise and detailed information that 
the Department will develop and receive during the standards rulemaking 
process, and will detail the potential effects of proposed energy 
conservation standards for non-Class A EPSs.
    To address EPCA requirements that DOE determine whether energy 
conservation standards for non-Class A EPSs would be technologically 
feasible and economically justified and result in significant energy 
savings, the Department's analysis consisted of six separate analyses: 
(1) A market assessment to better understand where and how non-Class A 
EPSs are used, (2) a technology assessment to better understand the 
technology options that can increase efficiency, (3) an engineering 
analysis to estimate how different design options affect efficiency and 
cost, (4) an energy use and end-use load characterization that 
describes how much energy non-Class A EPSs consume and for how long 
they operate, (5) an LCC analysis to estimate the costs and benefits to 
users from increased efficiency of non-Class A EPSs, and (6) a national 
impact analysis to estimate the potential energy savings and the 
economic costs and benefits on a national scale that would result from 
improving the energy efficiency of non-Class A EPSs. These separate 
analyses are briefly addressed later below.

B. Test Procedures

    The test procedure for measuring the energy consumption of single-
voltage EPSs, which applies to high power EPSs, medical EPSs, and EPSs 
for BCs, 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, pursuant to EISA 
2007, to include standby and off modes.
    DOE first proposed a test procedure for measuring the energy 
consumption of multiple-voltage EPSs in a NOPR published in the Federal 
Register on August 15, 2008. 73 FR 48054. PG&E suggested that DOE use 
an internal power supply test procedure, such as

[[Page 27174]]

the PG&E test procedure for computers,\2\ to test multiple-voltage 
EPSs. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 2) DOE recently proposed another test 
procedure for multiple-voltage EPSs on April 2, 2010. 75 FR 16958. The 
proposed test procedure, like its predecessor, is based, in part, on 
test procedures for internal power supplies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ ``Proposed Test Protocol for Calculating the Energy 
Efficiency of Internal Ac-Dc Power Supplies,'' Revision 6.2, 
California Energy Commission Public Interest Energy Research 
Program, November 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Market Assessment

    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 
impact analysis. DOE published the details of its market assessment in 
the NOPD and accompanying TSD.
    PG&E and CEC both commented that the number of high power EPSs 
(those with nameplate output power greater than 250 watts) is likely to 
increase in the future as applications such as game consoles, fast 
chargers, and other home electronics demand increasing amounts of 
power. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 2; CEC et al., No. 8 at p. 1) In its 
determination analysis, DOE assumed the high power EPS market would not 
change in size. While DOE recognizes that the market for high power 
EPSs may grow in the future, a no-growth assumption is sufficient to 
form a basis for the determination since growth in high power EPSs 
would only lend further support in favor of a positive determination. 
Nevertheless, DOE will continue to monitor the market and take such 
trends into account in the standards rulemaking.
    AHAM requested more information on how the markups from efficiency-
related materials cost to end-user product prices were calculated 
(AHAM, No. 6 at p. 5) Section 1.2 of the TSD indicates that the sources 
for the markups were interviews with EPS manufacturers, gross margin 
data for OEMs and retailers/distributors, and sales tax data. For each 
representative unit, DOE provides a figure that shows how the products 
get to market and a table listing the corresponding markups. DOE will 
explain its markup calculations in greater detail in the standards 
rulemaking.
    In the NOPD, DOE stated that it was not aware of any non-motor 
operated applications with an EPS that powers the charger of a 
detachable battery pack and invited interested parties to provide 
information about any such applications. 74 FR 56933. CEA, however, 
identified what it believed were three such applications: bar code 
scanners, mobile computers, and wireless headphones. (CEA, No. 9 at p. 
2) A bar code scanner is not a consumer product as defined by EPCA. (42 
U.S.C. 6291(1)) The mobile computers that CEA is referring to may be 
consumer products, while wireless headphones very likely are consumer 
products. DOE will research these two potential EPS applications in the 
standards rulemaking.

D. Technology Assessment

    The 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. The technology 
assessment's key output is a list of technology options for 
consideration in the engineering analysis. DOE published the details of 
its technology assessment in the NOPD and accompanying TSD.
    PG&E believed that cost-effective efficiency improvements already 
broadly implemented in the Class-A EPS marketplace can be easily 
incorporated into all non-Class A EPSs, particularly high-efficiency 
switched-mode power supply topologies and circuit designs that enable 
low power consumption in no-load mode. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 1) 
Specifically, PG&E can find no technical justification for treating 
non-Class A EPSs sold with BCs differently than Class A EPSs sold with 
non-BC products. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 4) In the NOPD, DOE described 
technology options applicable to Class A EPSs that were also applicable 
to non-Class A EPSs. DOE continues to believe that those technology 
options are applicable to non-Class A EPSs.
    PG&E commented that U.S. Food and Drug Administration safety 
requirements are compatible with efficient EPS technology. (PG&E, No. 7 
at p. 2) As indicated in the NOPD, DOE continues to believe that 
medical EPSs have the same potential for efficiency improvements as do 
Class A EPSs.

E. Engineering Analysis

    The purpose of the engineering analysis is to determine the 
relationship between a non-Class A EPS's efficiency and its efficiency-
related materials cost (ERMC). (The ERMC 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 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 non-Class A EPS ``representative units''. The engineering 
analysis methodology section in the NOPD details the development of the 
analysis and includes descriptions of the analysis structure, inputs, 
and outputs. Related supporting materials are also found in the TSD.
    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 Corporation (iSuppli), an industry leader in the 
field of electronics cost estimation.
    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. 
Representative units are theoretical models of popular or typical 
devices described in terms of all characteristics, such as output power 
and output voltage, except for efficiency and cost. DOE evaluates each 
representative unit at different efficiency levels to determine the 
associated costs. Although the efficiency of power converters in the 
market ranges over an almost continuous spectrum, DOE focused its 
analysis at select candidate standard levels (CSLs). In the engineering 
analysis, DOE examined the cost of production at each CSL for each 
representative unit. The resulting relationship was termed an 
``engineering curve'' or ``cost-efficiency curve.'' The outputs of this 
analysis, presented in section III. A, are the cost-efficiency points 
that define those curves.
    DOE received comments from AHAM and PTI regarding the cost-
efficiency relationship described by the results of the engineering 
analysis. PTI asserted that it is unreasonable that cost appears to be 
independent of efficiency, and AHAM questioned the validity of a cost-
efficiency curve that shows flat cost

[[Page 27175]]

with varying efficiency. (PTI, No. 5 at p. 2; AHAM, No. 6 at p. 6)
    In the NOPD, DOE developed cost-efficiency curves for the six 
representative units. Four of the six cost-efficiency curves have a 
positive slope, indicating that an increase in efficiency is associated 
with an increase in cost. (For the 345 W high-power EPS representative 
unit, there is an increase in cost from CSL 1 to CSL 3, although the 
baseline CSL is the most expensive.) Because DOE's analyses identify a 
general link between increased efficiency and increased cost, DOE 
believes that PTI and AHAM were collectively referring to the two EPS-
for-BC representative units included in the analysis. The cost-
efficiency curves for these units projected an increase in cost from 
the baseline to CSL 1 but with no increase in cost from CSL 1 to CSL 3. 
As explained in the NOPD, the cost-efficiency relationship for these 
representative units is based on purchasing 12 EPS units, testing their 
efficiency, and estimating their costs through teardowns, of which 
three were performed by iSuppli and the remainder by DOE. There was no 
clear relationship among the 12 units, other than that unit 
17, the lowest-efficiency linear EPS unit used to characterize 
the baseline cost, was cheaper than the average cost of the switched-
mode EPS units used to characterize the higher CSLs.
    Among the switched-mode EPSs, DOE attempted to hold all factors 
constant except for cost and efficiency. For instance, the nameplate 
output power ratings of the EPS test units ranged from 1.75 W to 5.2 W 
and the nameplate output voltage ratings ranged from 5 V to 5.2 V. DOE 
scaled the efficiencies of the units to the representative unit values 
for nameplate output power and nameplate output voltage. However, there 
may have been other differences between the EPSs that affected cost and 
efficiency that DOE was not able to normalize, which might affect the 
underlying relationship between cost and efficiency. The available data 
did not permit DOE to draw any conclusions regarding how these 
differences would affect the analysis. DOE believes that examining 
units already available in the market is a valid method for 
characterizing the cost-efficiency relationship, that the results for 
the units are accurate, and that the analysis is sufficient to support 
a positive determination. In the standards rulemaking, DOE will 
consider the comments from PTI and AHAM as it develops a more robust 
engineering analysis.
    AHAM commented on DOE's ERMC analysis and raised issues related to 
the scope of coverage of EPSs for BCs and the criteria used to define 
charge control. (AHAM, No. 6 at p. 5) First, AHAM noted that the ERMC 
analysis of cost is not applicable to most AHAM product wall adapters 
for BCs because the analysis does not include components used in 
charged control, making the CSLs not applicable to AHAM products. 
Second, AHAM does not believe the cost-efficiency curve for vacuum 
cleaners would be the same if applied to the 95 percent of wall 
adapters with charge control. Third, AHAM asked that DOE demonstrate 
how costs can be scaled using a base volume of 1,000,000 per year. 
Fourth, AHAM questioned whether the high-volume EPS ERMCs are 
applicable to custom designed, small quantity BCs.
    DOE agrees with AHAM's first two comments that DOE's cost-
efficiency curves do not apply to wall adapters that include charge 
control. Regarding AHAM's third comment, because DOE's analysis focused 
on EPSs that are interchangeable and do not have charge control, DOE 
evaluated their cost at high volumes that are typical of EPSs. Finally, 
as to AHAM's fourth comment, low volume EPS costs are inconsistent with 
the scope of EPSs for BCs as currently defined in this determination 
and, consequently, were not evaluated.

F. Energy Use and End-Use Load Characterization

    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 estimates unit 
energy consumption (UEC), which represents the typical annual energy 
consumption of an EPS in the field. The 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 (i.e., wall outlet) to 
power a given load. Outputs from this analysis feed into the LCC 
analysis and NIA.
    DOE published the details of its energy use and end-use load 
characterization in the NOPD and accompanying TSD. In the one comment 
DOE received on this analysis, PTI agreed with the usage profiles DOE 
adopted for EPSs for power tool BCs. (PTI, No. 5 at p. 2) These usage 
profiles can be found in section 4.3.5 of the TSD.

G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

    DOE performed a life-cycle cost and payback period analysis on each 
of the representative units to analyze the economic impacts of possible 
energy efficiency standards on individual consumers, as detailed in the 
NOPD. 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 expenses. 
Sometimes more energy-efficient equipment can have a lower purchase 
price than the less energy-efficient equipment that it replaces. In 
this case, the consumer realizes an immediate financial benefit and, 
thus, there is no payback period.
    DOE categorized inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis as follows: (1) 
Inputs for establishing the consumer purchase price of an EPS and (2) 
inputs for calculating the operating cost. In this analysis, all dollar 
amounts are in 2008 dollars.
    The primary inputs for establishing the consumer purchase price 
are:
     ERMC in 2008 dollars, which is based on the bill of 
materials cost of the efficiency-related components of the EPS; and
     Markups as scaling factors applied to the manufacturer 
production cost to create the final efficiency-related consumer 
purchase price. The primary inputs for calculating the operating cost 
are:
     Unit energy consumption in kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/
year), which is the annual site energy use of the EPS;
     Electricity prices in 2008 dollars, which are the prices 
paid by consumers for electricity;
     An electricity price trend, which is applied to the 2008 
electricity price to forecast electricity prices into the future;

[[Page 27176]]

     Start year, which is the year in which the EPS and its 
associated product are purchased (for the LCC and PBP analysis, DOE 
uses 2013 as the start year for all products);
     Lifetime, which is the age at which the EPS and its 
associated product are retired from service (lifetimes vary by 
product); and
     Discount rate, which is the rate at which DOE discounted 
future expenditures to establish their values in the start year.
    Many of the LCC analysis's inputs are developed in previous 
analyses: market assessment, engineering analysis, markups, and energy 
use and end-use load characterization. Note that future expenditures 
are discounted for the LCC calculation and not the PBP calculation, as 
DOE uses a simple PBP.
    DOE published the details of its life-cycle cost and payback period 
analysis in the NOPD and accompanying TSD. DOE did not receive comment 
on the life-cycle cost and payback period analysis.

H. 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.
    To estimate national energy savings potential, DOE first calculated 
unit energy savings (UES), which is the difference between the UEC in 
the standards 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 was 
then multiplied by the national inventory of units to calculate 
national energy savings.
    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 3 percent and 7 percent and summed them to 
obtain the national net present value.
    Additional detail on the national impact analysis can be found in 
the NOPD and accompanying TSD. DOE did not receive comment on the 
methodology employed in the national impact analysis.

III. Analysis Results

A. Engineering Analysis

    Based on the methodology previously discussed, DOE developed cost-
efficiency curves for each representative unit by estimating the cost 
to reach each CSL. The results of the engineering analysis for each 
representative unit are presented in Table III.1, Table III.2, Table 
III.3, Table III.4, Table III.5, and Table III.6. Additional detail is 
contained in the NOPD and accompanying TSD.

                            Table III.1--Cost-Efficiency Points for a 40-Watt Multiple-Voltage EPS for a Multifunction Device
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Efficiency-
                          Reference point for   Minimum active-   Maximum no-       related
         Level                   level               mode         load power    materials cost                            Basis
                                                 efficiency  %  consumption  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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                            Table III.2--Cost-Efficiency Points for a 203-Watt Multiple-Voltage EPS for a Video Game Console
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Efficiency-
                          Reference point for   Minimum active-   Maximum no-       related
         Level                   level               mode         load power    materials cost                            Basis
                                                 efficiency  %  consumption  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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                    Table III.3--Cost-Efficiency Points for a 345-Watt High-Power EPS for a Ham Radio
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Efficiency-
                          Reference point for   Minimum active-   Maximum no-       related
         Level                   level               mode         load power    materials cost                            Basis
                                                 efficiency  %  consumption  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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 27177]]


                                  Table III.4--Cost-Efficiency Points for an 18-Watt Medical Device EPS for a Nebulizer
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Efficiency-
                          Reference point for   Minimum active-   Maximum no-       related
         Level                   level               mode         load power    materials cost                            Basis
                                                 efficiency  %  consumption  W       2008$
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0......................  Less Than the IV Mark            66.0           0.557            2.95  Scaled ERMC of EPS 130.
                          *.
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As explained in section II.C.4 of the NOPD, the marks correspond to the International Efficiency Marking Protocol for External Power Supplies. (Energy
  Star. ``International Efficiency Marking Protocol for External Power Supplies.'' 2008. http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/prod_development/revisions/downloads/International_Efficiency_Marking_Protocol.pdf).


                                       Table III.5--Cost-Efficiency Points for a 1.8-Watt EPS for BC for a Vacuum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Efficiency-
                          Reference point for   Minimum active-   Maximum no-       related
         Level                   level               mode         load power    materials cost                            Basis
                                                 efficiency  %  consumption  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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                   Table III.6--Cost-Efficiency Points for a 4.8-Watt EPS for BC for a DIY Power Tool
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Efficiency-
                          Reference point for   Minimum active-   Maximum no-       related
         Level                   level               mode         load power    materials cost                            Basis
                                                 efficiency  %  consumption  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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

    Based on the methodology previously discussed, DOE conducted LCC 
and PBP analyses for all six of the EPS representative units in the 
residential sector. The results of these analyses for each 
representative unit are presented in Table III.7, Table III.8, Table 
III.9, Table III.10, Table III.11, and Table III.12.

                                      Table III.7.--LCC and Payback Period Results for Multiple-Voltage 40-Watt EPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Situation before standards                                                         Standard at CSL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                Weighted-
                                           Conversion                  Percent of     Consumer      Operating                 average life-   Weighted-
          Standard at CSL  CSL             efficiency      No-load       market       purchase    cost  2008$/   LCC  2008$    cycle cost      average
                                                %         power  W     already at   price  2008$      year                       savings       payback
                                                                         CSL  %                                                   2008$     period  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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                      Table III.8--LCC and Payback Period Results for Multiple-Voltage 203-Watt EPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Situation before standards                                                         Standard at CSL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                Weighted-
                                           Conversion                  Percent of     Consumer      Operating                 average life-   Weighted-
          Standard at CSL  CSL             efficiency      No-load       market       purchase    cost  2008$/   LCC  2008$    cycle cost      average
                                                %         power  W     already at   price  2008$      year                       savings       payback
                                                                         CSL  %                                                   2008$     period  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

[[Page 27178]]

 
3.......................................            89           0.3             0         38.29          3.14         51.73         -5.32          14.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         Table III.9--LCC and Payback Period Results for High Power 345-Watt EPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Situation before standards                                                         Standard at CSL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                Weighted-
                                           Conversion                  Percent of     Consumer      Operating                 average life-   Weighted-
          Standard at CSL  CSL             efficiency      No-load       market       purchase    cost  2008$/   LCC  2008$    cycle cost      average
                                                %         power  W     already at   price  2008$      year                       savings       payback
                                                                         CSL  %                                                   2008$     period  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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                          Table III.10--LCC and Payback Period Results for Medical 18-Watt EPS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Situation before standards                                                         Standard at CSL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                Weighted-
                                           Conversion                  Percent of     Consumer      Operating                 average life-   Weighted-
          Standard at CSL  CSL             efficiency      No-load       market       purchase    cost  2008$/   LCC  2008$    cycle cost      average
                                                %         power  W     already at   price  2008$      year                       savings       payback
                                                                         CSL  %                                                   2008$     period  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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                          Table III.11--LCC and Payback Period Results for 1.8-Watt EPS for BCs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Situation before standards                                                         Standard at CSL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                Weighted-
                                           Conversion                  Percent of     Consumer      Operating                 average life-   Weighted-
          Standard at CSL  CSL             efficiency      No-load       market       purchase    cost  2008$/   LCC  2008$    cycle cost      average
                                                %         power  W     already at   price  2008$      year                       savings       payback
                                                                         CSL  %                                                   2008$     period  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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                         Table III.12--LCC and Payback Period Results for a 4.8-Watt EPS for BCs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                 Situation before standards                                                         Standard at CSL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                Weighted-
                                           Conversion                  Percent of     Consumer      Operating                 average life-   Weighted-
          Standard at CSL  CSL             efficiency      No-load       market       purchase    cost  2008$/   LCC  2008$    cycle cost      average
                                                %         power  W     already at   price  2008$      year                       savings       payback
                                                                         CSL  %                                                   2008$     period  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 27179]]

C. National Impact Analysis

    Based on the methodology previously discussed, DOE conducted 
national impact analyses of standards for each type of non-Class A EPS. 
DOE assessed two base cases, one in which the energy efficiency of non-
Class A EPSs was assumed to improve over time due to factors other than 
a Federal standard and another in which energy efficiency was assumed 
not to improve over time. In the first case, factors expected to drive 
efficiency improvements are changing consumer preferences and spillover 
effects from Class A EPS standards. These two base cases provide a 
lower and upper bound, respectively, on DOE's energy savings and NPV 
estimates.
    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 EPSs 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 3-percent and 7-
percent discount rates) for all EPS types except for the multiple-
voltage 203 watt EPS. For the latter, CSL 2 has a positive NPV in one 
base case but a negative NPV in the other. Thus, to estimate the energy 
savings potential across all types of non-Class A EPS, DOE selected CSL 
1 for this one type of EPS. Table III.13 shows the contribution of each 
EPS type to total savings potential and the NPV of a standard set at 
the selected CSL. Notably, increasing the efficiency of EPSs for 
medical devices and multiple-voltage EPSs for multifunction devices 
yields the greatest amount of projected energy savings.

            Table III.13--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      3% Discount     7% Discount
                                                                       BTU*)           rate            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 Handheld Vacuums...          3       1.09-1.41        8.0-10.1         4.5-5.6
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.

D. Discussion

1. Significance of Energy Savings
    EPCA requires the Department to determine whether to pursue energy 
conservation standards for non-Class A EPSs by finding the potential 
for significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I)) While 
the term ``significant'' is not defined, the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia, indicated that Congress intended this term to 
refer to savings that were not ``genuinely trivial.'' Natural Resources 
Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985) 
(addressing the meaning of the term ``significant'' within the context 
of setting energy conservation standards). Using the Department's 
analysis, the estimated energy savings is as much as 0.14 quads over a 
30-year period for non-Class A EPSs. This is equivalent to the annual 
electricity needs of 1.1 million U.S. homes. The Department believes 
that the estimated energy savings for the non-Class A EPSs are not 
``genuinely trivial,'' and are, in fact, ``significant.''
2. Impact on Consumers
    Using the methods and data described previously, the Department 
conducted an LCC analysis to estimate the net benefits to users from 
more efficient non-Class A EPSs. The Department then aggregated the 
results from the LCC analysis to the national level to estimate 
national energy savings and national economic impacts. Given the 
resultant energy savings and economic benefits, the Department 
concluded that there is also likely to be reduced emissions from 
decreased electricity generation, decreased demand for the construction 
of electricity power plants, and potentially net indirect employment 
benefits from shifting expenditures from the capital-intensive utility 
sector to consumer expenditures. While the Department did not quantify 
these potential benefits, it concluded that the benefits are likely to 
be positive based on the results of the Department's analyses of energy 
conservation standards for similar products. The Department will 
provide detailed estimates of such impacts as part of the standards 
rulemaking process that will result from this determination.

IV. Conclusion

A. Determination

    Based on its analysis of the information now available, the 
Department has determined that energy conservation standards for non-
Class A EPSs appear to be technologically feasible and economically 
justified, and are likely to result in significant energy savings. 
Consequently, the Department will initiate the development of energy 
conservation standards for non-Class A EPSs.
    All design options addressed in today's determination document are 
technologically feasible. The Department's test and teardown data, as 
well as data provided by manufacturers during interviews, show that the 
considered technologies are available to all manufacturers. The 
candidate standard levels of efficiency examined in the Department's 
analysis show that there is the potential for significant energy 
savings of as much as 0.14 quads.
    All of the scenarios evaluated would result in economic benefits to 
the Nation as shown by the positive NPV. While it is still uncertain 
whether further analyses will confirm these findings, the Department 
believes that standards for non-Class A EPSs appear economically 
justified based on a balanced consideration of the information and 
analysis available to the Department at this time.
    The Department has not produced detailed estimates of the potential 
adverse impacts of a national standard on manufacturers or on 
individual categories of users. The Department is instead relying on 
the presence of currently available high-efficiency designs as an 
indicator of the probable economic feasibility for manufacturers

[[Page 27180]]

to exclusively produce high-efficiency designs if required by 
standards. During the course of the standards rulemaking process, the 
Department will perform a detailed analysis of the possible impacts of 
standards on manufacturers, as well as a more disaggregated assessment 
of their possible impacts on user-subgroups.

B. Future Proceedings

    The Department will begin a proceeding to consider establishment of 
energy conservation standards for non-Class A EPSs. During the 
standards rulemaking, the Department will review and analyze the likely 
effects of industry-wide voluntary programs, such as ENERGY STAR. The 
Department will collect additional information about design options, 
inputs to the engineering and LCC analyses, and potential impacts on 
the manufacturers and consumers of non-Class A EPSs.
    CEC and PG&E both encouraged DOE to implement standards for all 
four types of non-Class A EPSs. (CEC et al., No. 8 at p. 1; PG&E, No. 7 
at p. 1) PG&E expressed its desire for standards for multiple-voltage 
EPSs in particular to prevent potential backsliding by manufacturers in 
producing more efficient products. (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 2) PG&E s also 
noted that if standards are not created for high-power EPSs, 
manufacturers could opt to rate products higher than 250 W so that they 
fit into this category and, thereby, circumvent standards. (PG&E, No. 7 
at p. 2) DOE will take these comments into account as it considers 
standards for all four types of non-Class A EPSs in the standards 
rulemaking.
    PG&E commented that medical EPSs represent a considerable energy-
saving opportunity, but acknowledged that due to the lengthy and 
expensive FDA approval process they may require special treatment. PG&E 
suggested two approaches that would avoid placing undue burden on 
manufacturers of medical EPSs: (1) DOE could place the effective date 
of standards for medical EPSs later than 2013 or 2014, or (2) DOE could 
grant an exemption from standards for EPSs manufactured after the 
effective date of the standard that are used with a medical device that 
received FDA approval before the effective date (or were submitted for 
approval before that date). (PG&E, No. 7 at p. 3)
    In the standards rulemaking process, DOE will examine needs 
particular to medical EPSs and methods for addressing those needs when 
evaluating the potential for setting standards for these products. The 
Department will also evaluate any proposed standards for medical EPSs 
to determine whether they are technologically feasible and economically 
justified, and are likely to result in significant energy savings in 
accordance with the requirements of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)) Depending 
on the outcome of these analyses, as well as other factors DOE is 
required to consider, the agency will determine, what, if any, 
standards would be appropriate for these products.

V. 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 rule under the provisions of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 
19, 2003.
    Today's rule sets no standards; it only positively determines 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 rule has 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 determines that the development of energy 
efficiency standards for non-Class A EPS is warranted and 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 positively determines 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 rule only determines that future standards 
may be warranted, but does 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 rule and has 
determined that it does not preempt State law or have a substantial 
direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national

[[Page 27181]]

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 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 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 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 rule does 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 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 
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 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 does 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 does 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 determines that development of energy 
efficiency standards for non-Class A EPS is warranted and does 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 
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

[[Page 27182]]

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 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.

VI. Approval of the Office of the Assistant Secretary

    The Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 
has approved publication of this final rule.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on May 7, 2010.
Cathy Zoi,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2010-11592 Filed 5-13-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P