[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 22 (Thursday, February 2, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7284-7346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-01282]



[[Page 7283]]

Vol. 88

Thursday,

No. 22

February 2, 2023

Part V





Department of Energy





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





10 CFR Part 430





Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for External 
Power Supplies; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2023 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 7284]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 430

[EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006]
RIN 1904-AD87


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
External Power Supplies

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public 
meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''), 
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products 
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including external 
power supplies (``EPSs''). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of 
Energy (``DOE'') to periodically determine whether more-stringent, 
standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified, 
and would result in significant energy savings. In this notice of 
proposed rulemaking (``NOPR''), DOE proposes amended energy 
conservation standards for EPSs, and also announces a public meeting to 
receive comment on these proposed standards and associated analyses and 
results.

DATES: 
    Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Wednesday, 
March 1, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section VII, ``Public 
Participation,'' for webinar registration information, participant 
instructions, and information about the capabilities available to 
webinar participants.
    Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding 
this NOPR no later than April 3, 2023. Comments regarding the likely 
competitive impact of the proposed standard should be sent to the 
Department of Justice contact listed in the ADDRESSES section on or 
before March 6, 2023.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov, under docket 
number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, 
identified by docket number EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006, by any of the 
following methods:
    Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number EERE-
2020-BT-STD-0006 in the subject line of the message.
    Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc 
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, 
U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant 
Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. 
If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not 
necessary to include printed copies.
    No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this 
process, see section VII of this document.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, 
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the 
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all 
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as 
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006. The docket web page contains instructions on how 
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See 
section VII of this document for information on how to submit comments 
through www.regulations.gov.
    EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written 
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen 
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites 
input from market participants and other interested persons with views 
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested 
persons may contact the Division at [email protected] on or 
before the date specified in the DATES section. Please indicate in the 
``Subject'' line of your email the title and Docket Number of this 
proposed rule.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 586-9870. Email: [email protected].
    Mr. Nolan Brickwood, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4498. Email: 
[email protected].
    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other 
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, 
contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 
287-1445 or by email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the 
following industry standard in part 430:
    International Efficiency Marking Protocol for External Power 
Supplies, Version 4.0, January, 2023.
    The above referenced document has been added to the docket for this 
rulemaking and can be downloaded from Docket EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006 on 
Regulations.gov.
    For a further discussion of this standard, see section VI.M of this 
document.

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
    A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers
    B. Impact on Manufacturers
    C. National Benefits and Costs
    D. Conclusion
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. Current Standards
    2. History of Standards Rulemaking for External Power Supplies
    3. Deviation From Appendix A
III. General Discussion
    A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage
    B. Materials Incorporated by Reference
    C. Test Procedure
    D. Technological Feasibility
    1. General
    2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    E. Energy Savings
    1. Determination of Savings
    2. Significance of Savings
    F. Economic Justification
    1. Specific Criteria
    a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To Increase in Price (LCC 
and PBP)
    c. Energy Savings
    d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    f. Need for National Energy Conservation
    g. Other Factors
    2. Rebuttable Presumption
    IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

[[Page 7285]]

    A. General Comments and Responses
    B. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Scope of Coverage and Product Classes
    2. Existing Efficiency Programs
    3. Technology Options
    C. Screening Analysis
    1. Screened-Out Technologies
    2. Remaining Technologies
    D. Engineering Analysis
    1. Efficiency Analysis
    a. Baseline Efficiency
    b. Higher Efficiency Levels
    2. Cost Analysis
    3. Cost-Efficiency Results
    E. Markups Analysis
    F. Energy Use Analysis
    G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Product Cost
    2. Installation Cost
    3. Annual Energy Consumption
    4. Energy Prices
    5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
    6. Product Lifetime
    7. Discount Rates
    8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
    9. Payback Period Analysis
    H. Shipments Analysis
    I. National Impact Analysis
    1. Product Efficiency Trends
    2. National Energy Savings
    3. Net Present Value Analysis
    J. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    K. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    1. Overview
    2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
    a. Manufacturer Production Costs
    b. Shipments Projections
    c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
    d. Markup Scenarios
    3. Discussion of MIA Comments
    L. Emissions Analysis
    1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
    M. Monetizing Emissions Impacts
    1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    a. Social Cost of Carbon
    b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
    2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
    N. Utility Impact Analysis
    O. Employment Impact Analysis
    P. Marking Requirements
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
    A. Trial Standard Levels
    B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings
    1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
    a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
    b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
    2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
    b. Direct Impacts on Employment
    c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
    e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    3. National Impact Analysis
    a. Significance of Energy Savings
    b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
    c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
    4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
    5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    7. Other Factors
    8. Summary of Economic Impacts
    C. Conclusion
    1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for EPS Standards
    2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
    D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
    2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
    3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including 
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
    5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and 
Regulations
    6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    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, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Information Quality
    M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
VII. Public Participation
    A. Attendance at the Public Meeting
    B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution
    C. Conduct of the Public Meeting
    D. Submission of Comments
    E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

    Title III, Part B \1\ of EPCA,\2\ established the Energy 
Conservation Program for Consumer Products Other Than Automobiles. (42 
U.S.C. 6291-6309) These products include external power supplies 
(``EPSs''), the subject of this rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part B was redesignated Part A.
    \2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard 
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new 
or amended standard must result in a significant conservation of 
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA also provides that not later 
than 6 years after issuance of any final rule establishing or amending 
a standard, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that 
standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of 
proposed rulemaking including new proposed energy conservation 
standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 
6295(m))
    In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed 
in this document, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards 
for EPSs. The proposed standards, which are expressed in percentage and 
Watts (``W''), are shown in Table I.1. These proposed standards, if 
adopted, would apply to all EPSs listed in Table I.1 manufactured in, 
or imported into, the United States starting on the date 2 years after 
the publication of the final rule for this rulemaking.

                  Table I.1--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for External Power Supplies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Minimum average efficiency in active mode       Maximum power  in
     Nameplate output power  (Pout)                     (expressed as a decimal)               no-load mode  [W]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Single-Voltage External AC-DC Power Supply, Basic-Voltage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout <= 1 W.............................  >=0.5 x Pout + 0.169...............................            <=0.075
1 W < Pout <= 49 W......................  >=0.071 x ln(Pout)-0.00115 x Pout + 0.67...........            <=0.075
49 W < Pout <= 250 W....................  >=0.890............................................            <=0.150

[[Page 7286]]

 
Pout > 250 W............................  >=0.890............................................            <=0.150
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Single-Voltage External AC-DC Power Supply, Low-Voltage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout <= 1 W.............................  >=0.517 x Pout + 0.091.............................            <=0.075
1 W < Pout <= 49 W......................  >=0.0834 x ln(Pout)-0.0011x Pout + 0.609...........            <=0.075
49 W < Pout <= 250 W....................  >=0.880............................................            <=0.150
Pout > 250 W............................  >=0.880............................................            <=0.150
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Single-Voltage External AC-AC Power Supply, Basic-Voltage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout <= 1 W.............................  >=0.5 x Pout + 0.169...............................            <=0.075
1 W < Pout <= 49 W......................  >=0.0582 x ln(Pout)-0.00104 x Pout + 0.727.........            <=0.075
49 W < Pout <= 250 W....................  >=0.902............................................            <=0.075
Pout > 250 W............................  >=0.902............................................            <=0.200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Single-Voltage External AC-AC Power Supply, Low-Voltage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout <= 1 W.............................  >=0.517 x Pout + 0.091.............................            <=0.072
1 W < Pout <= 49 W......................  >=0.0834 x ln(Pout)-0.0011 x Pout + 0.609..........            <=0.072
49 W < Pout <= 250 W....................  >=0.880............................................            <=0.185
Pout > 250 W............................  >=0.880............................................            <=0.500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Multiple-Voltage External Power Supply
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout <= 1 W.............................  >=0.497 x Pout + 0.067.............................            <=0.075
1 W < Pout <= 49 W......................  >=0.0782 x ln(Pout)-0.0013 x Pout + 0.643..........            <=0.075
49 W < Pout <= 250 W....................  >=0.885............................................            <=0.125
Pout > 250 W............................  >=0.885............................................            <=0.125
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Benefits and Costs to Consumers

    Table I.2 presents DOE's evaluation of the economic impacts of the 
proposed standards on consumers of EPSs, as measured by the average 
life-cycle cost (``LCC'') savings and the simple payback period 
(``PBP'').\3\ The average LCC savings are positive or nearly zero for 
all product classes and the PBP is similar to or less than the average 
lifetime of EPSs, which is estimated to range from 4.2 to 6.2 years 
(see section IV.G of this document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The average LCC savings refer to consumers that are affected 
by a standard and are measured relative to the efficiency 
distribution in the no-new-standards case, which depicts the market 
in the compliance year in the absence of new or amended standards. 
The simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific efficiency 
levels, is measured relative to the baseline product (see section 
IV.G of this document).

      Table I.2--Impacts of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards on Consumers of External Power Supplies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               Average  LCC
                               Product class                                  savings [2021     Simple  payback
                                                                                 dollars]        period [years]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AC-DC, Basic-Voltage......................................................             $-0.03                5.0
AC-DC, Low-Voltage........................................................               0.01                3.2
AC-AC, Basic-Voltage......................................................               0.52                4.1
Multiple-Voltage..........................................................               0.24                7.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on 
consumers is described in section IV.G of this document.

B. Impact on Manufacturers

    The industry net present value (``INPV'') is the sum of the 
discounted cash flows to the industry from the base year through the 
end of the analysis period (2022-2056). Using a real discount rate of 
7.1 percent, DOE estimates that the INPV for manufacturers of EPSs in 
the case without amended standards is $847.5 million in 2021 dollars. 
Under the proposed standards, the change in INPV is estimated to range 
from a decrease of 1.4 percent to a decrease of 0.9 percent, which 
corresponds to decreases of approximately $11.6 million and $7.9 
million. In order to bring products into compliance with amended 
standards, it is estimated that the industry would incur total 
conversion costs of $17.4 million.
    DOE's analysis of the impacts of the proposed standards on 
manufacturers is described in section IV.K of this document. The 
analytic results of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') are 
presented in section V.B.2 of this document.

[[Page 7287]]

C. National Benefits and Costs \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ All monetary values in this document are expressed in 2021 
dollars.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's analyses indicate that the proposed energy conservation 
standards for EPSs would save a significant amount of energy. Relative 
to the case without amended standards, the lifetime energy savings for 
EPSs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the anticipated 
year of compliance with the amended standards (2027-2056) amount to 
0.11 quadrillion British thermal units (``Btu''), or quads.\5\ This 
represents a savings of 2.9 percent relative to the energy use of these 
products in the case without amended standards (referred to as the 
``no-new-standards case'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The quantity refers to full-fuel-cycle (``FFC'') energy 
savings. FFC energy savings includes the energy consumed in 
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, 
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and, thus, presents a more complete 
picture of the impacts of energy efficiency standards. For more 
information on the FFC metric, see section IV.I of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The cumulative net present value (``NPV'') of total consumer 
benefits of the proposed standards for EPSs ranges from $0.17 billion 
(at a 7-percent discount rate) to $0.45 billion (at a 3-percent 
discount rate). This NPV expresses the estimated total value of future 
operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs for 
EPSs purchased in 2027-2056.
    In addition, the proposed standards for EPSs are projected to yield 
significant environmental benefits. DOE estimates that the proposed 
standards would result in cumulative emission reductions (over the same 
period as for energy savings) of 3.9 million metric tons (``Mt'') \6\ 
of carbon dioxide (``CO2''), 26.3 thousand tons of methane 
(``CH4''), 0.04 thousand tons of nitrous oxide 
(``N2O''), 6.0 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides 
(``NOX''), 1.7 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide 
(``SO2''), and 0.01 tons of mercury (``Hg'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for 
emissions other than CO2 are presented in short tons.
    \7\ DOE calculated emissions reductions relative to the no-new-
standards case, which reflects key assumptions in the Annual Energy 
Outlook 2022 (``AEO2022''). AEO2022 represents current federal and 
state legislation and final implementation of regulations as of the 
time of its preparation. See section IV.L of this document for 
further discussion of AEO2022 assumptions that effect air pollutant 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimates climate benefits from a reduction in greenhouse gases 
(``GHG'') using four different estimates of the social cost of 
CO2 (``SC-CO2''), the social cost of methane 
(``SC-CH4''), and the social cost of nitrous oxide (``SC-
N2O''). Together these represent the social cost of GHG 
(``SC-GHG'').\8\ DOE used interim SC-GHG values developed by an 
Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases 
(IWG),\9\ as discussed in section IV.M of this document. For 
presentational purposes, the climate benefits associated with the 
average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are $0.20 billion. DOE does 
not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the 
importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all 
four SC-GHG estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 
22-30087) granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay 
pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction 
issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a 
result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is 
no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's 
appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other 
things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that 
case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying 
upon'' the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse 
gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the 
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize 
the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of 
further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach 
prior to the injunction and present monetized benefits where 
appropriate and permissible under law.
    \9\ See Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse 
Gases, Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, 
and Nitrous Oxide. Interim Estimates Under Executive Order 13990, 
Washington, DC, February 2021 (``February 2021 SC-GHG TSD''). /
www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also estimates health benefits from SO2 and 
NOX emissions reductions.\10\ DOE estimates the present 
value of the health benefits would be $0.16 billion using a 7-percent 
discount rate, and $0.36 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.\11\ 
DOE is currently monetizing only PM2.5 precursor health 
benefits for SO2 and NOX and ozone precursor 
health benefits for NOX, but will continue to assess the 
ability to monetize other effects, such as health benefits from 
reductions in direct PM2.5 emissions. If any such additional 
health benefits were monetized, they would only further increase the 
total benefits of the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ DOE estimated the monetized value of SO2 and 
NOX emissions reductions associated with electricity 
savings using benefit per ton estimates from the scientific 
literature. See section IV.M of this document for further 
discussion.
    \11\ DOE estimates the economic value of these emissions 
reductions resulting from the considered TSLs for the purpose of 
complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table I.3 summarizes the economic benefits and costs expected to 
result from the proposed standards for EPSs. In the table, total 
benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using 
the average GHG social costs with 3-percent discount rate, but the 
Department emphasizes the importance and value of considering the 
benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG cases. The estimated total 
net benefits using each of the four cases are presented in section IV.M 
of this document.

  Table I.3--Summary of Economic Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy
           Conservation Standards for External Power Supplies
                                 [TSL 4]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Billion  2020
                                                              dollars
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            3% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.........................            0.82
Climate Benefits *......................................            0.20
Health Benefits **......................................            0.36
                                                         ---------------
    Total Benefits [dagger].............................            1.38
Consumer Incremental Product Costs......................            0.37
                                                         ---------------
Net Benefits............................................            1.01
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 7288]]

 
                            7% discount rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.........................            0.40
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)...................            0.20
Health Benefits **......................................            0.16
                                                         ---------------
    Total Benefits [dagger].............................            0.76
Consumer Incremental Product Costs......................            0.23
                                                         ---------------
Net Benefits............................................            0.53
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with EPSs
  shipped in 2027-2056. These results include benefits to consumers
  which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the
  SC-GHG (see section IV.M of this proposed rule). For presentational
  purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the
  average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown, but the
  Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. On
  March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087)
  granted the federal government's emergency motion for stay pending
  appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in
  Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of
  the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in
  effect, pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that
  injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the
  preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from
  ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the
  interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were
  issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
  Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of
  reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further
  intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the
  injunction and present monetized benefits where appropriate and
  permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX
  and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5
  precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health
  benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to monetize other
  effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.5
  emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of
  3 and 7 percent. See section IV.M of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health
  benefits. For presentation purposes, total and net benefits for both
  the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-
  GHG with 3-percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a
  single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the importance
  and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG
  estimates. See Table V.24 for net benefits using all four SC-GHG
  estimates.

    The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be 
expressed in terms of annualized values. The monetary values for the 
total annualized net benefits are (1) the reduced consumer operating 
costs, minus (2) the increase in product purchase prices and 
installation costs, plus (3) the value of the benefits of GHG and 
NOX and SO2 emission reductions, all 
annualized.\12\ The national operating savings are domestic private 
U.S. consumer monetary savings that occur as a result of purchasing the 
covered products and are measured for the lifetime of EPSs shipped in 
2027-2056. The benefits associated with reduced emissions achieved as a 
result of the proposed standards are also calculated based on the 
lifetime of EPSs shipped in 2027-2056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2021, the year 
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. 
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with 
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur 
(e.g., 2030), and then discounted the present value from each year 
to 2022. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed 
annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance 
year, that yields the same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Estimates of annualized benefits and costs of the proposed 
standards are shown in Table I.4. The results under the primary 
estimate are as follows.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and 
health benefits from reduced NOX and SO2 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the standards 
proposed in this rule is $24.3 million per year in increased equipment 
costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $42.7 million in reduced 
equipment operating costs, $11.5 million in climate benefits, and $16.7 
million in health benefits. The net benefit would amount to $46.6 per 
year.
    Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the 
estimated cost of the proposed standards is $21.4 per year in increased 
equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $47.3 in 
reduced operating costs, $11.5 million in climate benefits, and $20.4 
million in health benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount 
to $57.8 million per year.

 Table I.4--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for External Power Supplies
                                                     [TSL 4]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Million 2021 dollars/year
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Low-net-        High-net-
                                                                      Primary        benefits        benefits
                                                                     estimate        estimate        estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.................................            47.3            46.1            48.8

[[Page 7289]]

 
Climate Benefits *..............................................            11.5            11.5            11.5
Health Benefits **..............................................            20.4            20.4            20.4
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Benefits [dagger].....................................            79.2            78.0            80.7
Consumer Incremental Product Costs..............................            21.4            23.4            19.3
Net Benefits....................................................            57.8            54.6            61.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.................................            42.7            41.8            43.9
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)...........................            11.5            11.5            11.5
Health Benefits **..............................................            16.7            16.7            16.7
    Total Benefits [dagger].....................................            70.9            70.0            72.1
Consumer Incremental Product Costs..............................            24.3            26.1            22.4
Net Benefits....................................................            46.6            43.9            49.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with EPSs shipped in 2027-2056. These results
  include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.M of this
  proposed rule). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-
  GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point
  estimate. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the federal
  government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued
  in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the
  preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that
  injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in
  that case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the interim estimates of the
  social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
  Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the
  absence of further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the injunction and
  present monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
  (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
  continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
  PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.M
  of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total
  and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
  percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes
  the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates. See Table
  V.24 for net benefits using all four SC-GHG estimates.

    DOE's analysis of the national impacts of the proposed standards is 
described in sections IV.I, IV.L and IV.M of this document.

D. Conclusion

    DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed standards represent 
the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically 
feasible and economically justified, and that they would result in the 
significant conservation of energy. Regarding technological 
feasibility, products achieving these standard levels are already 
commercially available for all product classes covered by this 
proposal. Considering economic justification, DOE's analysis shows that 
the benefits of the proposed standard greatly exceed the burdens of the 
proposed standards. Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer 
benefits and costs and NOx and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 
3-percent discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost 
of the proposed standards for EPSs is $24.3 million per year in 
increased EPS costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $42.7 
million in reduced EPS operating costs, $11.5 million in climate 
benefits and $16.7 million in health benefits. The net benefit amounts 
to $46.6 million per year.
    The significance of energy savings is evaluated by DOE on a case-
by-case basis considering the specific circumstances surrounding a 
specific rulemaking. The standards are projected to result in estimated 
national energy savings of 0.11 quads. Based on the amount of FFC 
savings, the corresponding reduction in GHG emissions, and the need to 
confront the global climate crisis DOE has initially determined the 
energy savings that would result from the proposed standard levels are 
``significant'' within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). A more 
detailed discussion of the basis for these tentative conclusions is 
contained in the remainder of this document and the accompanying TSD.
    DOE also considered more-stringent energy efficiency levels as 
potential standards, and is still considering them in this rulemaking. 
However, DOE has tentatively concluded that the potential burdens of 
the more-stringent energy efficiency levels would outweigh the 
projected benefits.
    Based on consideration of the public comments DOE receives in 
response to this document and related information collected and 
analyzed during the course of this rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt 
energy efficiency levels presented in this document that are either 
higher or lower than the proposed standards, or some combination of 
level(s) that incorporate the proposed standards in part.

II. Introduction

    The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority 
underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant 
historical background related to the establishment of standards for 
EPSs.

[[Page 7290]]

A. Authority

    EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number 
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part 
B of EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 
Products Other Than Automobiles. These products include EPSs, the 
subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)) EPCA prescribed the 
initial energy conservation standards for these products (42 U.S.C. 
6295(u)(3)), and directed DOE to conduct several future rulemakings to 
determine whether to amend these initial standards. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(u)(1)(E)(i)(I) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(D)) EPCA further provides 
that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule 
establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notice 
of determination that standards for the product do not need to be 
amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards 
(proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m))
    The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal 
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement 
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include 
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), 
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 
U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from 
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
    Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products 
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations 
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 
U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal 
preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with 
the procedures and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (See 42 
U.S.C. 6297(d))
    Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to 
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, 
or estimated annual operating cost of each covered product. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(r)) Manufacturers of covered products 
must use the prescribed DOE test procedure as the basis for certifying 
to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy 
conservation standards adopted under EPCA and when making 
representations to the public regarding the energy use or efficiency of 
those products. (42 U.S.C. 6293(c) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) Similarly, 
DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products 
comply with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The 
DOE test procedures for EPSs appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (``CFR'') part 430, subpart B, appendix Z (``Appendix Z'').
    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or 
amended standards for covered products, including EPSs. Any new or 
amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the 
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy 
determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt a standard that 
DOE determines would not result in the significant conservation of 
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a standard: (1) for certain 
products, including EPSs, if no test procedure has been established for 
the product, or (2) if DOE determines by rule that the standard is not 
technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(3)(A)-(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is 
economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the 
standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make 
this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, 
and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following 
seven statutory factors:
    (1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and 
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
    (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any 
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the 
covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
    (3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) 
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered 
products likely to result from the standard;
    (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
standard;
    (6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
    (7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'') considers 
relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))

    Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard 
is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional 
cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy 
conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of 
the energy savings during the first year that the consumer will receive 
as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test 
procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii))
    EPCA also contains what is known as an ``anti-backsliding'' 
provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended 
standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or 
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended 
or new standard if the Secretary finds that interested persons have 
established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is 
likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any 
covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics 
(including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that 
are substantially the same as those generally available in the United 
States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
    Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an 
energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more 
subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type 
or class of product that has the same function or intended use, if DOE 
determines that products within such group: (A) consume a different 
kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such 
type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related 
feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have 
and such feature justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a performance-related feature 
justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE must 
consider the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors 
DOE deems appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing such a standard must 
include an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level 
was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
    Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy 
Independence and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''), Pub. L. 110-140, 
any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards 
promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and 
off mode energy use. (42

[[Page 7291]]

U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a 
covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the criteria 
for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate 
standby mode and off mode energy use into a single standard, or, if 
that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for such energy use for 
that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) DOE's current test procedures for 
EPSs address standby mode energy use. In this rulemaking, DOE intends 
to incorporate such energy use into any amended energy conservation 
standards that it may adopt.

B. Background

1. Current Standards
    In a final rule published on February 10, 2014 (``February 2014 
Final Rule''), DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards 
for EPSs manufactured on and after February 10, 2016. 79 FR 7846. These 
standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(w) and 
are repeated in Table II.1.

                  Table II.1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for External Power Supplies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Minimum average efficiency in active mode        Maximum power in
      Nameplate output power (Pout)                     (expressed as a decimal)                no-load mode [W]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Single-Voltage External AC-DC Power Supply, Basic-Voltage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout <= 1 W.............................  >= 0.5 x Pout + 0.16...............................           <= 0.100
1 W < Pout <= 49 W......................  >= 0.071 x ln(Pout)-0.0014 x Pout + 0.67...........           <= 0.100
49 W < Pout <= 250 W....................  >= 0.880...........................................           <= 0.210
Pout > 250 W............................  >= 0.875...........................................           <= 0.500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Single-Voltage External AC-DC Power Supply, Basic-Voltage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout <= 1 W.............................  >= 0.517 x Pout + 0.087............................           <= 0.100
1 W < Pout <= 49 W......................  >= 0.0834 x ln(Pout)-0.0014 x Pout + 0.609.........           <= 0.100
49 W < Pout <= 250 W....................  >= 0.870...........................................           <= 0.210
Pout > 250 W............................  >= 0.875...........................................           <= 0.500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Single-Voltage External AC-AC Power Supply, Basic-Voltage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout <= 1 W.............................  >= 0.5 x Pout + 0.16...............................           <= 0.210
1 W < Pout <= 49 W......................  >= 0.071 x ln(Pout)-0.0014 x Pout + 0.67...........           <= 0.210
49 W < Pout <= 250 W....................  >= 0.880...........................................           <= 0.210
Pout > 250 W............................  >= 0.875...........................................           <= 0.500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Single-Voltage External AC-AC Power Supply, Low-Voltage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout <= 1 W.............................  >= 0.517 x Pout + 0.087............................           <= 0.210
1 W < Pout <= 49 W......................  >= 0.0834 x ln(Pout)-0.0014 x Pout + 0.609.........           <= 0.210
49 W < Pout <= 250 W....................  >= 0.870...........................................           <= 0.210
Pout > 250 W............................  >= 0.875...........................................           <= 0.500
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Multiple-Voltage External Power Supply
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout <= 1 W.............................  >= 0.497 x Pout + 0.067............................           <= 0.300
1 W < Pout <= 49 W......................  >= 0.075 x ln(Pout) + 0.561........................           <= 0.300
Pout > 49 W.............................  >= 0.860...........................................           <= 0.300
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for External Power Supplies
    On December 19, 2007, Congress enacted EISA 2007, which, among 
other things, amended sections 321, 323, and 325 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 
6291, 6293, and 6295). As part of these amendments, EISA 2007 
supplemented the EPS definition, which the statute defines as an 
external power supply circuit ``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)) In particular, Section 301 
of EISA 2007 created a subset of EPSs called ``Class A External Power 
Supplies,'' which consist of, among other elements, those EPSs that can 
convert to only 1 AC or DC output voltage at a time and have a 
nameplate output power of no more than 250 watts (W). The Class A 
definition excludes any device requiring Federal Food and Drug 
Administration (FDA) listing and approval as a medical device in 
accordance with section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
(21 U.S.C. 360(c)) along with devices that power the charger of a 
detachable battery pack or that charge the battery of a product that is 
fully or primarily motor operated. (42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)) Section 301 
of EISA 2007 also established energy conservation standards for Class A 
EPSs (hereinafter referred to as ``Level IV standards'') that became 
effective on July 1, 2008, and directed DOE to conduct an energy 
conservation standards rulemaking to review those standards.
    In the February 2014 Final Rule, DOE completed a rulemaking cycle 
by adopting amended performance standards for EPSs manufactured on or 
after February 10, 2016. 79 FR 7846. The final rule amended the Level 
IV standards prescribed by Congress and separated EPSs into two groups 
regardless of whether they met the Class A criteria--direct operation 
EPSs and indirect operation EPSs.\13\ 79 FR 7846, 7865-7866. The 
February 2014 Final Rule set new standards that applied only to direct 
operation EPSs (hereafter referred to as ``Level VI standards''), which 
increased the stringency of the average active-mode and no-load power 
consumption metrics over the Level IV standards. 79 FR 7846, 7849. 
Under the February 2014 Final Rule, Class A EPSs that could directly 
power a consumer product (excluding battery chargers)

[[Page 7292]]

became subject to the Level VI standards, whereas Class A EPSs that 
require the use of a battery to power a consumer product remained 
subject to the Level IV standards. (Id.) Likewise, non-Class A EPSs 
that could directly power a consumer product (excluding battery 
chargers) became subject to efficiency standards for the first time 
(Level VI standards)--non-Class A indirect operation EPSs continued to 
remain free from any efficiency requirements. 79 FR 7846, 7849, 7865.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ An indirect operation EPS is an EPS that cannot power a 
consumer product (other than a battery charger) without the 
assistance of a battery. Conversely, if the battery's charge status 
does not impact the end-use product's ability to operate as 
intended, and the end-use product can function using only power from 
the EPS, DOE considers that device a direct operation EPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the current analysis, on May 20, 2020, DOE prepared a 
Request for Information (``May 2020 RFI''), which solicited information 
from the public to help DOE determine whether amended standards for 
EPSs would result in a significant amount of additional energy savings 
and whether those standards would be technologically feasible and 
economically justified. 85 FR 30636.
    Comments received following the publication of the May 2020 RFI 
helped DOE identify and resolve issues related to the subsequent 
preliminary analysis.\14\ DOE published a notice of public meeting and 
availability of the preliminary technical support document (``TSD'') on 
February 25, 2022 (``February 2022 Preliminary Analysis''). 87 FR 
10719.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Comments are available at www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0001/comment and www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0008/comment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE subsequently held a public meeting on March 24, 2022, to 
discuss and receive comments on the preliminary TSD. The preliminary 
TSD that presented the methodology and results of the preliminary 
analysis is available at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0012. DOE received comments in response to the February 2022 
Preliminary Analysis from the interested parties listed in Table II.2.

                         Table II.2--February 2022 Preliminary Analysis Written Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Comment
                                                                            number
                Commenter(s)                         Abbreviation           in the          Commenter type
                                                                            docket
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers  Joint Trade Associations...         23  Trade Associations.
 (``AHAM''), Consumer Technology
 Association (``CTA''), National Electrical
 Manufacturers Association (``NEMA''),
 Outdoor Power Equipment Institute
 (``OPEI''), Plumbing Manufacturers
 Institute (PMI), and Power Tool Institute
 (``PTI'').
Appliance Standards Awareness Project        Joint Efficiency Advocates.         24  Efficiency Organizations.
 (``ASAP''), National Consumer Law Center
 (``NCLC''), Natural Resources Defense
 Council (``NRDC''), and New York State
 Energy Research and Development Authority
 (``NYSERDA'').
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego  CA IOUs....................         25  Utility Association.
 Gas and Electric, and Southern California
 Edison.
Information Technology Industry Council....  ITI........................         20  Trade Association.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.......  NEEA.......................         21  Efficiency Organization.
National Electrical Manufacturers            NEMA.......................         22  Trade Association.
 Association.
Power Sources Manufacturers Association....  PSMA.......................         19  Trade Association.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or 
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for 
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop 
energy conservation standards for EPSs. (Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-
STD-0006, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The 
references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket 
ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Deviation From Appendix A
    In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, 
appendix A (``appendix A''), DOE notes that it is deviating from the 
provision in appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR stages for an energy 
conservation standards rulemaking. Section 6(d)(2) of appendix A 
specifies that the length of the public comment period for a NOPR will 
vary depending upon the circumstances of the particular rulemaking, but 
will not be less than 75 calendar days. For this NOPR, DOE has opted to 
instead provide a 60-day comment period. DOE requested comment in the 
May 2020 RFI on the technical and economic analyses and provided 
stakeholders with a 47-day comment period. 85 FR 30636. Additionally, 
DOE reopened the comment period for the May 2020 RFI for an additional 
32 days. 85 FR 44484. Furthermore, DOE requested comment on the 
February 2022 Preliminary Analysis for a period of 60 days. 87 FR 
10719. DOE has relied on many of the same analytical assumptions and 
approaches as used in the preliminary assessment and has determined 
that a 60-day comment period in conjunction with the prior comment 
periods provides sufficient time for interested parties to review the 
proposed rule and develop comments.
    Section 6(a)(2) of appendix A states that if the Department 
determines it is appropriate to proceed with a rulemaking, the 
preliminary stages of a rulemaking to issue or amend an energy 
conservation standard that DOE will undertake will be a framework 
document and preliminary analysis, or an advance notice of proposed 
rulemaking. DOE is opting to deviate from this step by publishing a 
NOPR following the preliminary analysis without a framework document. A 
framework document is intended to introduce and summarize the various 
analyses DOE conducts during the rulemaking process and requests 
initial feedback from interested parties. As discussed, prior to the 
preliminary analysis and this NOPR, DOE published the May 2020 RFI, in 
which DOE identified and sought comment on the technical and economic 
analyses to be conducted in determining whether amended energy 
conservation standards would be justified. Comments received following 
publication of the May 2020 RFI assisted DOE in identifying and 
resolving issues related to the preliminary analyses. As a result, 
publication of a framework document would be largely redundant with the 
published RFI and preliminary analysis. As such, DOE is deviating from 
the procedures provided in appendix A and is not publishing a framework 
document prior to the publication of this NOPR. The Department has 
determined that it

[[Page 7293]]

is appropriate to proceed with this proposal due to the information 
obtained through the May 2020 RFI and the preliminary analysis.

III. General Discussion

    DOE developed this proposal after considering oral and written 
comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent 
a variety of interests. The following discussion addresses issues 
raised by these commenters.

A. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage

    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 
divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy 
used, by capacity, or by other performance-related features that 
justify differing standards. In making a determination whether a 
performance-related feature justifies a different standard, DOE must 
consider the utility of the feature to the consumer and other factors 
DOE determines are appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
    EPSs are currently classified as direct operation and indirect 
operation EPSs. Direct operation EPSs are further divided into the 
following five single-voltage sub-product classes: AC-DC, Basic-
Voltage; AC-DC, Low-Voltage (except those with nameplate output voltage 
less than 3 volts and nameplate output current greater than or equal to 
1,000 milliamps that charge the battery of a product that is fully or 
primarily motor operated); AC-DC, Low-Voltage (with nameplate output 
voltage less than 3 volts and nameplate output current greater than or 
equal to 1,000 milliamps and charges the battery of a product that is 
fully or primarily motor operated); AC-AC, Basic-Voltage; AC-AC, Low-
Voltage; and Multiple-Voltage.
    The February 2014 Final Rule maintained the Level IV standards 
established by Congress for all Class A\16\ EPSs, including indirect 
operation EPSs, and adopted more stringent Level VI standards 
applicable to all direct operation non-Class A EPSs. 79 FR 7846, 7849. 
A summary of the standards currently applicable to these different 
types of EPSs are shown in Table III.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ A Class A EPS means a device that (i) Is designed to 
convert line voltage AC input into lower voltage AC or DC output; 
(ii) Is able to convert to only one AC or DC output voltage at a 
time; (iii) Is sold with, or intended to be used with, a separate 
end-use product that constitutes the primary load; (iv) Is contained 
in a separate physical enclosure from the end-use product; (v) Is 
connected to the end-use product via a removable or hard-wired male/
female electrical connection, cable, cord, or other wiring; and (vi) 
Has nameplate output power that is less than or equal to 250 watts; 
But, does not include any device that--(i) Requires Federal Food and 
Drug Administration listing and approval as a medical device in 
accordance with section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 
Act (21 U.S.C. 360(c)); or (ii) Powers the charger of a detachable 
battery pack or charges the battery of a product that is fully or 
primarily motor operated. 42 U.S.C. 6291(36)(C)

 Table III.1--Application of Energy Conservation Standards for External
                             Power Supplies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Class A EPS         Non-class A EPS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct Operation EPS........  Level VI............  Level VI.
Indirect Operation EPS......  Level IV............  No-standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In this NOPR, DOE proposes more stringent Level VII standards that 
would be applicable to all EPSs, including direct and indirect 
operation Class A and non-Class A EPSs. This approach makes the 
distinction between these various types of EPSs redundant with respect 
to the applicability of energy conservation standards. See section 
IV.B.1 of this document for additional discussion on this point.

B. Materials Incorporated by Reference

    The current Level VI standards mandate the labeling of compliant 
EPSs in accordance with the International Efficiency Marking Protocol 
for External Power Supplies (``IEMP''), Version 3. See 10 CFR 430.3(s). 
DOE proposes to incorporate by reference version 4.0 of IEMP, which 
will outline the marking requirements for the proposed amendments to 
the energy conservation standards.
    DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate by reference 
version 4.0 of IEMP for this proposed rulemaking.

C. Test Procedure

    EPCA sets forth generally applicable criteria and procedures for 
DOE's adoption and amendment of test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6293) 
Manufacturers of covered products must use these test procedures to 
certify to DOE that their product complies with energy conservation 
standards and to quantify the efficiency of their product. DOE 
published a test procedure final rule for EPSs on August 19, 2022 
(``August 2022 TP Final Rule''), which amended appendix Z by clarifying 
the scope of the test procedure more explicitly, providing more 
specific instructions for testing single-voltage EPSs with multiple-
output busses and EPSs shipped without an output cord, providing 
instructions allowing for functionality unrelated to the external power 
supply circuit to be disconnected during testing so long as the 
disconnection does not impact the functionality of the EPS itself, and 
specifying test requirements for adaptive EPSs. 87 FR 51200. Except 
where specifically noted, changes from the August 2022 TP Final Rule 
were incorporated into the methodology used to test EPSs for this NOPR 
analysis.

D. Technological Feasibility

1. General
    In each energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE conducts a 
screening analysis based on information gathered on all current 
technology options and prototype designs that could improve the 
efficiency of the products or equipment that are the subject of the 
rulemaking. As the first step in such an analysis, DOE develops a list 
of technology options for consideration in consultation with 
manufacturers, design engineers, and other interested parties. DOE then 
determines which of those means for improving efficiency are 
technologically feasible. DOE considers technologies incorporated in 
commercially-available products or in working prototypes to be 
technologically feasible. Sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 7(b)(1) of appendix A 
to 10 CFR part 430 subpart C (``Appendix A'').
    After DOE has determined that particular technology options are 
technologically feasible, it further evaluates each technology option 
in light of the following additional screening criteria: (1) 
practicability to manufacture, install, and service; (2) adverse 
impacts on product utility or availability; (3) adverse impacts on 
health or safety, and (4) unique-pathway proprietary technologies. 
Sections 6(b)(3)(ii)-(v) and 7(b)(2)-(5) of appendix A. Section IV.C of 
this document discusses the results of the

[[Page 7294]]

screening analysis for EPSs, particularly the designs DOE considered, 
those it screened out, and those that are the basis for the standards 
considered in this rulemaking. For further details on the screening 
analysis for this rulemaking, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    When DOE proposes to adopt an amended standard for a type or class 
of covered product, it must determine the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use that is technologically 
feasible for such product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(1)) Accordingly, in the 
engineering analysis, DOE determined the maximum technologically 
feasible (``max-tech'') improvements in energy efficiency for EPSs, 
using the design parameters for the most efficient products available 
on the market or in working prototypes. The max-tech levels that DOE 
determined for this rulemaking are described in section IV.D.1.b of 
this proposed rule and in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

E. Energy Savings

1. Determination of Savings
    For each trial standard level (``TSL''), DOE projected energy 
savings from application of the TSL to EPSs purchased in the 30-year 
period that begins in the year of compliance with the proposed 
standards ([2027-2056]).\17\ The savings are measured over the entire 
lifetime of EPSs purchased in the previous 30-year period. DOE 
quantified the energy savings attributable to each TSL as the 
difference in energy consumption between each standards case and the 
no-new-standards case. The no-new-standards case represents a 
projection of energy consumption that reflects how the market for a 
product would likely evolve in the absence of amended energy 
conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Each TSL is composed of specific efficiency levels for each 
product class. The TSLs considered for this NOPR are described in 
section V.A of this document. DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis 
that considers impacts for products shipped in a 30-year period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE used its national impact analysis (``NIA'') spreadsheet model 
to estimate national energy savings (``NES'') from potential amended or 
new standards for EPSs. The NIA spreadsheet model (described in section 
IV.I of this document) calculates energy savings in terms of site 
energy, which is the energy directly consumed by products at the 
locations where they are used. For electricity, DOE reports national 
energy savings in terms of primary energy savings, which is the savings 
in the energy that is used to generate and transmit the site 
electricity. DOE also calculates NES in terms of FFC energy savings. 
The FFC metric includes the energy consumed in extracting, processing, 
and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum 
fuels), and thus presents a more complete picture of the impacts of 
energy conservation standards.\18\ DOE's approach is based on the 
calculation of an FFC multiplier for each of the energy types used by 
covered products or equipment. For more information on FFC energy 
savings, see section IV.I of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ The FFC metric is discussed in DOE's statement of policy 
and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as 
amended at 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Significance of Savings
    To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE 
must determine that such action would result in significant energy 
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended 
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of 
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\19\ For 
example, some covered products and equipment have most of their energy 
consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The impacts of 
these products on the energy infrastructure can be more pronounced than 
products with relatively constant demand. In evaluating the 
significance of energy savings, DOE considers differences in primary 
energy and FFC effects for different covered products and equipment 
when determining whether energy savings are significant. Primary energy 
and FFC effects include the energy consumed in electricity production 
(depending on load shape), in distribution and transmission, and in 
extracting, processing, and transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, 
natural gas, petroleum fuels), and thus present a more complete picture 
of the impacts of energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ The numeric threshold for determining the significance of 
energy savings established in a final rule published on February 14, 
2020 (85 FR 8626, 8670), was subsequently eliminated in a final rule 
published on December 13, 2021 (86 FR 70892).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of energy savings on a 
case-by-case basis, taking into account the significance of cumulative 
FFC national energy savings, the cumulative FFC emissions reductions, 
and the need to confront the global climate crisis, among other 
factors. DOE has initially determined the energy savings from the 
proposed standard levels are ``significant'' within the meaning of 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).

F. Economic Justification

1. Specific Criteria
    EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in determining whether 
a potential energy conservation standard is economically justified. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII)) The following sections discuss each 
of those seven factors in this proposed rulemaking.
a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and Consumers
    EPCA requires DOE to consider the economic impact of the standard 
on manufacturers and consumers of the product that would be subject to 
the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I). In determining the 
impacts of a potential amended standard on manufacturers, DOE conducts 
an MIA, as discussed in section IV.K of this document. First, DOE uses 
an annual cash-flow approach to determine the quantitative impacts. 
This step includes both a short-term assessment--based on the cost and 
capital requirements during the period between when a regulation is 
issued and when entities must comply with the regulation--and a long-
term assessment over a 30-year period. The industry-wide impacts 
analyzed include (1) INPV, which values the industry on the basis of 
expected future cash flows, (2) cash flows by year, (3) changes in 
revenue and income, and (4) other measures of impact, as appropriate. 
Second, DOE analyzes and reports the impacts on different types of 
manufacturers, including impacts on small manufacturers. Third, DOE 
considers the impact of standards on domestic manufacturer employment 
and manufacturing capacity, as well as the potential for standards to 
result in plant closures and loss of capital investment. Finally, DOE 
takes into account cumulative impacts of various DOE regulations and 
other regulatory requirements on manufacturers.
    For individual consumers, measures of economic impact include the 
changes in LCC and PBP associated with new or amended standards. These 
measures are discussed further in the section IV. For consumers in the 
aggregate, DOE also calculates the national net present value of the 
consumer costs and benefits expected to result from particular 
standards. DOE also evaluates the impacts of potential standards on 
identifiable subgroups of consumers

[[Page 7295]]

that may be affected disproportionately by a standard.
b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared to Increase in Price (LCC and 
PBP)
    EPCA requires DOE to consider the savings in operating costs 
throughout the estimated average life of the covered product in the 
type (or class) compared to any increase in the price of, or in the 
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses of, the covered product 
that are likely to result from a standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts this comparison in its LCC and PBP 
analysis.
    The LCC is the sum of the purchase price of a product (including 
its installation) and the operating expense (including energy, 
maintenance, and repair expenditures) discounted over the lifetime of 
the product. The LCC analysis requires a variety of inputs, such as 
product prices, product energy consumption, energy prices, maintenance 
and repair costs, product lifetime, and discount rates appropriate for 
consumers. To account for uncertainty and variability in specific 
inputs, such as product lifetime and discount rate, DOE uses a 
distribution of values, with probabilities attached to each value.
    The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes 
consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including 
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating 
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost 
due to a more-stringent standard by the change in annual operating cost 
for the year that standards are assumed to take effect.
    For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes that consumers will 
purchase the covered products in the first year of compliance with new 
or amended standards. The LCC savings for the considered efficiency 
levels are calculated relative to the case that reflects projected 
market trends in the absence of new or amended standards. DOE's LCC and 
PBP analysis is discussed in further detail in section IV.G of this 
document.
c. Energy Savings
    Although significant conservation of energy is a separate statutory 
requirement for adopting an energy conservation standard, EPCA requires 
DOE, in determining the economic justification of a standard, to 
consider the total projected energy savings that are likely to result 
directly from the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) As 
discussed in section III.E of this document, DOE uses the NIA 
spreadsheet models to project national energy savings.
d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Products
    EPCA requires that DOE evaluate whether potential standards would 
lessen the utility or performance of the considered products. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) DOE considers this evaluation in 
establishing product classes and considering design options and the 
impact of potential standard levels. Based on data available to DOE, 
the standards proposed in this document would not reduce the utility or 
performance of the products under consideration in this proposed 
rulemaking.
e. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    EPCA directs DOE to consider the impact of any lessening of 
competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is 
likely to result from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General to determine 
the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result 
from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the 
Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, 
together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE will transmit a copy of this proposed 
rule to the Attorney General with a request that the Department of 
Justice (``DOJ'') provide its determination on this issue. DOE will 
publish and respond to the Attorney General's determination in the 
final rule. DOE invites comment from the public regarding the 
competitive impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule. 
In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ 
regarding these potential impacts. See the ADDRESSES section for 
information to send comments to DOJ.
f. Need for National Energy Conservation
    DOE is required to consider the need for national energy and water 
conservation in determining whether a new or amended standard is 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The energy 
savings from the proposed standards are likely to improve the security 
and reliability of the nation's energy system. Reductions in the demand 
for electricity also may result in reduced costs for maintaining the 
reliability of the nation's electricity system. DOE conducts a utility 
impact analysis to estimate how standards may affect the nation's 
needed power generation capacity, as discussed in section IV.N of this 
document.
    DOE maintains that environmental and public health benefits 
associated with the more efficient use of energy are important to take 
into account when considering the need for national energy 
conservation. The proposed standards are likely to result in 
environmental benefits in the form of reduced emissions of air 
pollutants and GHGs associated with energy production and use. DOE 
conducts an emissions analysis to estimate how potential standards may 
affect these emissions, as discussed in section IV.L of this document; 
the estimated emissions impacts are reported in section IV.L of this 
document. DOE also estimates the economic value of emissions reductions 
resulting from the considered TSLs, as discussed in section V.B of this 
document.
g. Other Factors
    In determining whether an energy conservation standard is 
economically justified, DOE may consider any other factors that the 
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) To 
the extent DOE identifies any relevant information regarding economic 
justification that does not fit into the other categories described 
previously, DOE could consider such information under ``other 
factors.'' In this proposed rulemaking, DOE has not identified or 
considered any other factors for determining whether the proposed 
standard is economically justified.
2. Rebuttable Presumption
    As set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a 
rebuttable presumption that an energy conservation standard is 
economically justified if the additional cost to the consumer of a 
product that meets the standard is less than three times the value of 
the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, as 
calculated under the applicable DOE test procedure. DOE's LCC and PBP 
analyses generate values used to calculate the effects that proposed 
energy conservation standards would have on the payback period for 
consumers. These analyses include, but are not limited to, the 3-year 
payback period contemplated under the rebuttable-presumption test. In 
addition, DOE conducts an economic analysis that considers the full 
range of impacts to consumers, manufacturers, the nation, and the 
environment, as required under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results 
of this

[[Page 7296]]

analysis serve as the basis for DOE's evaluation of the economic 
justification for a potential standard level (thereby supporting or 
rebutting the results of any preliminary determination of economic 
justification). The rebuttable presumption payback calculation is 
discussed in section V.B of this document.

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related Comments

    This section addresses the analyses DOE has performed for this 
rulemaking with regard to EPSs. Separate subsections address each 
component of DOE's analyses.
    DOE used several analytical tools to estimate the impact of the 
standards proposed in this document. The first tool is a spreadsheet 
that calculates the LCC savings and PBP of potential amended or new 
energy conservation standards. The national impacts analysis uses a 
second spreadsheet set that provides shipments projections and 
calculates national energy savings and net present value of total 
consumer costs and savings expected to result from potential energy 
conservation standards. DOE uses the third spreadsheet tool, the 
Government Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), to assess manufacturer 
impacts of potential standards. These three spreadsheet tools are 
available on the DOE website for this rulemaking: www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006. Additionally, DOE used output from the 
latest version of the Energy Information Administration's (``EIA's'') 
Annual Energy Outlook (``AEO''), a widely known energy projection for 
the United States, for the emissions and utility impact analyses.

A. General Comments and Responses

    In response to the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis, the Joint 
Trade Associations and ITI commented that DOE's preliminary analysis 
clearly demonstrated that amended energy conservation standards for 
EPSs were not economically justified and instead made a strong case for 
no new standards. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 23 at pp. 1-3; ITI, 
No. 20 at p. 2) The Joint Trade Associations noted that for all of the 
product classes DOE analyzed, the payback periods significantly 
exceeded the average useful life of the products and that consumers 
would therefore not recoup the additional cost of the more efficient 
products over its lifetime, and that this alone could justify not 
amending standards for EPSs. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 23 at pp. 
2-3)
    DOE notes that the costs and benefits of amended standards 
presented in the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis were incomplete and 
the notice primarily served to provide stakeholders with a preview of 
the methodology undertaken in evaluating whether amended standards are 
justified. The preliminary analysis stage of the rulemaking also allows 
stakeholders an opportunity to help refine the analysis prior to NOPR. 
The results presented in the preliminary analysis should therefore not 
be relied upon in determining whether amended standards are 
economically justified.
    In addition, PSMA urged DOE to publish a roadmap of energy 
conservation standards over the next 3-5 years, to assist the industry 
in adapting to any higher tiers of energy conservation standards. 
(PSMA, No. 19 at p. 3) DOE notes that it is required by EPCA to conduct 
two cycles of rulemakings to determine whether to amend existing 
standards for EPSs. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(D)) DOE completed the first 
of the two rulemaking cycles in 2014 by adopting amended performance 
standards in the February 2014 Final Rule for EPSs manufactured on or 
after February 10, 2016. 79 FR 7846. DOE is publishing this NOPR to 
satisfy its obligation to conduct a second rulemaking cycle under EPCA.
    EISA 2007 directed DOE to publish an updated final rule for EPSs by 
July 1, 2021, and further stipulated that any amended standards would 
apply to products manufactured on or after July 1, 2023, two years 
later. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(D)(ii)) In DOE's view, Congress created 
this two-year interval to ensure that manufacturers would have 
sufficient time to meet any new and amended standards that DOE may set 
for EPSs. Consistent with this two-year lead time provided by EISA 
2007, DOE will provide manufacturers with a lead-time of the same two-
year duration as prescribed by statute to comply with any amended 
standards after the publication of a final rule in the Federal 
Register. This aligns with DOE's approach in the February 2014 Final 
Rule. 79 FR 7846, 7859. The Joint Trade Associations stated that DOE's 
process decreases the value of early stakeholder engagement. They 
stated that it would have been more effective and efficient for DOE to 
use the completed, amended test procedure rather than the currently 
applicable test procedure to conduct the preliminary analysis. They 
further commented that DOE provided a shortened 60-day comment period 
on the preliminary analysis, which significantly overlapped with other 
comment periods relevant to many of the same stakeholders. (Joint Trade 
Associations, No. 23 at pp. 4-)
    As stated above, the preliminary analysis is primarily intended to 
provide stakeholders with an opportunity to comment on the various 
methodologies DOE intends to use in the NOPR. DOE again notes that the 
preliminary analysis results should not be relied upon to assess 
whether amended standards for EPSs are justified. DOE weighed the 
arguments for and against delaying the preliminary analysis until after 
the test procedure final rule had been published and concluded that the 
contemplated differences between the two test procedures, as it applies 
to the development of amended standards, were minor. DOE further 
determined that the benefits of using the revised test procedure did 
not outweigh the benefits of publishing the preliminary analysis on 
time. Moreover, as the EPS test procedure had not been finalized at the 
time the preliminary analysis was published, any analysis based on 
proposed changes to the test procedure would itself have been subject 
to change; DOE therefore chose to proceed using its then-current 
finalized test procedure. Additionally, unless otherwise noted, test 
results used in support of this NOPR were obtained using the test 
procedure as finalized in the August 2022 TP Final Rule.
    With regards to a shortened comment period, DOE believes the length 
of time provided to have been sufficient because of extensive 
stakeholder engagement in prior rulemaking cycles as well as the 
lengthy 79-day comment period provided for stakeholders to comment on 
the May 2020 RFI.
    ITI commented that given the long payback periods and limited 
energy savings, DOE must consider the opportunity costs of amended 
standards. ITI stated that work to increase the efficiency of EPSs with 
little energy savings would divert original equipment manufacturer 
(``OEM'') resources away from other significant technological 
developments that could have a bigger impact on society. (ITI, No. 20 
at p. 9) DOE considers multiple factors in its analysis when 
considering amended energy conservation standards, as explained in 
sections III.D and III.E of this document, including the significance 
of national energy savings and manufacturer impacts.

B. Market and Technology Assessment

    DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment 
that provides an overall picture of the market for the products 
concerned,

[[Page 7297]]

including the purpose of the products, the industry structure, 
manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the 
products. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative 
assessments, based primarily on publicly-available information. The 
subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment for this 
rulemaking include (1) a determination of the scope of the rulemaking 
and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry structure, (3) 
existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information, (5) market and 
industry trends; and (6) technologies or design options that could 
improve the energy efficiency of EPSs. The key findings of DOE's market 
assessment are summarized in the following sections. See chapter 3 of 
the NOPR TSD for further discussion of the market and technology 
assessment.
1. Scope of Coverage and Product Classes
    In the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE did not identify any 
potential changes to the existing scope of coverage for EPSs. 87 FR 
10719, 10723. In the August 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE clarified that the 
EPS test procedure did not apply to commercial and industrial power 
supplies and devices that provide power conversion as an auxiliary 
function. DOE additionally provided a definition of commercial and 
industrial power supplies, and noted that commercial and industrial 
power supplies are not covered unless distributed in commerce for use 
with a consumer product. 87 FR 51200, 51206-51207.
    NEMA commented in response to the February 2022 Preliminary 
Analysis that hard-wired AC-outlets traditionally found in residential 
environments can now be purchased with built-in Universal Serial Bus 
(``USB'') ports that provide USB services as a secondary function. NEMA 
stated that such outlets correctly have been omitted from previous DOE 
analyses for EPSs and recommended that DOE exempt duplex receptacles 
until such time as a thorough analysis and LCC benefit examination is 
completed, because the installation of duplex receptacles requires 
certified professionals and results in a non-negligible cost to the 
consumer. (NEMA, No. 22 at pp. 1-2) An EPS is defined to be 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. 10 CFR 430.2. In the August 2022 TP Final Rule, DOE specified 
that devices for which the primary load of the converted voltage within 
the device is not delivered to a separate end-use product are not 
subject to the test procedure. 87 FR 51200, 51207-51208. For the EPS 
test procedure to be applicable to a power supply, the intended primary 
load of the converted voltage must be to a separate end-use product. 
Id. DOE believes this to be the case for the hard-wired AC receptacles 
with USB ports described by NEMA. In these products, the USB ports 
provide converted power with the intention of delivering that converted 
power to a separate end-use product. DOE tentatively determines that it 
would not be appropriate to include the installation costs of these 
products in its LCC estimates because there are no higher installation 
costs above the baseline. Because a consumer is willing to accept the 
installation cost at the baseline, this cost doesn't factor into the 
determination of LCC savings.
    The CA IOUs urged DOE to consider including certain AC-input 
``combination'' products that incorporate convenient charging ports 
within the scope of this regulation, as the CA IOUs had described in 
response to the EPS November 2021 test procedure supplementary notice 
of proposed rulemaking.\20\ (CA IOUs, No. 25 at pp. 6-7)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ DOE responded to CA IOUs comment on the November 2021 TP 
SNOPR seeking clarification for combination products that internally 
convert power to supply another product via a ``convenience charging 
port'' (for example, lamps and furniture with USB ports). 87 FR 
51200, 51208.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE addressed the CA IOUs comment in the August 2022 TP Final Rule. 
87 FR 51200, 51208. As in that final rule, DOE here maintains that 
devices for which the primary load of the converted voltage within the 
device is not a separate end-use product are not subject to the test 
procedure. As such, only those combination products that meet this 
criterion would be in scope. As an example, a bedside table lamp with 
an LED bulb and a USB port may be in scope of EPS regulations if the 
power provided to a separate end-use load by the USB port constitutes 
the main load of the converted power inside the lamp. Such a product 
however would not be in scope if the LED bulb, which is internal to the 
product, is the primary load.
    In the preliminary analysis, DOE tentatively determined that 
evaluation of separate standards for indirect operation and direct 
operation product classes would not be warranted. The Joint Efficiency 
Advocates, the CA IOUs, and NEEA supported DOE's decision to evaluate 
direct and indirect power supplies together, as these commenters 
believe the distinction is unnecessary, confusing, and leaves 
achievable energy savings untapped. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 24 
at pp. 1-2; CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 6; NEEA, No. 21 at pp. 5-6) CA IOUs 
noted the distinction was not warranted based on technological 
differences and should be eliminated. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 6)
    The Joint Trade Associations commented that DOE should retain the 
current distinction in product classes, citing that there were good 
reasons for splitting them apart--the main reason being avoiding 
double-regulation--and nothing has changed to render this conclusion 
obsolete. (Joint Trade Associations, No. 23 at pp. 3-4) They conceded 
that indirect operation EPSs make up only .5 percent of certified EPSs, 
and that 71% of those indirect operation EPSs meet the Level IV and VI 
standards, but disagreed that this warranted terminating the 
differentiation. The Joint Trade Associations noted that indirect 
operation EPSs would be forced to meet both EPS and battery charger 
standards if subject to the EPS standards, and therefore DOE should 
retain the current distinction. (Id.)
    Since the publication of the February 2014 Final Rule, DOE has 
received many questions regarding EPSs that provide direct operation 
with one end-use product but may also be used to provide indirect 
operation with a different consumer product containing batteries and or 
a battery charging system. In an August 25, 2015 final rule (``August 
2015 TP Final Rule'') amending the EPS test procedures, DOE clarified 
that if an EPS can operate any consumer product directly, that product 
would be treated as a direct operation EPS. 80 FR 51424, 51434. Of 
particular importance are EPSs with common output plugs that can be 
used with products made by different manufacturers. An example of this 
scenario are EPSs with standard USB connectors. These devices are often 
sold with end-use products containing batteries, such as a smartphone. 
Because these same EPSs are also capable of directly operating other 
end-use products that do not contain batteries (e.g., small LED lamps, 
external speakers, etc.), they are not treated as indirect operation 
EPSs under DOE's regulations. As such, only a small percentage of EPSs 
are considered to be true indirect operation EPSs. DOE noted in section 
2.3.1.2 of the preliminary TSD that indirect operation EPSs make up a 
small percentage of certified EPSs in the Compliance Certification 
Database (``CCD''). According to the CCD, indirect operation EPSs 
comprise 0.5 percent of all certified EPSs, and of

[[Page 7298]]

those units, 71 percent meet DOE Level VI standards. Therefore, 
different standards would not be justified for indirect EPSs. 
Furthermore, since the February 2014 Final Rule, questions received by 
DOE enquiring how to effectively classify products into these 
categories demonstrates that the indirect/direct operation 
classification complicates the readability of regulations. This 
observation, coupled with limited prevalence of true indirect operation 
EPSs in the marketplace (i.e., they do not become direct operation EPSs 
when used in another application) and their ability to meet Level VI 
standards with ease, suggests that continuing to treat these EPSs 
separately is unwarranted. As such, in this NOPR, DOE proposes to 
remove the distinction in the standards between direct and indirect 
operation EPSs, and to require indirect operation EPSs to meet the same 
standards as for their direct operation counterparts.
    As noted in section II.B.2, the February 2014 Final Rule required 
direct operation EPSs, including Class A and non-Class A direct 
operation EPS, to be subject to the Level VI standards and maintained 
the Level IV standards established by EISA for indirect operation Class 
A EPSs. DOE retained the use of the term Class A to ensure that DOE's 
regulations reflected that indirect operation EPSs meeting the 
definition of a Class A EPS remained subject to the Level IV standards 
established by EISA. However, at this time, DOE notes that continued 
use of the terms Class A and non-Class A would not be necessary and may 
be confusing to maintain in the regulations if all EPSs became subject 
to standards that are more stringent than Level IV. In addition to 
removing the distinction between indirect and direction operation EPS, 
DOE therefore also proposes to remove use of the terms Class A and non-
Class A in the amended standards for EPSs.
    ITI recommended DOE create new product classes for adaptive EPSs, 
stating that it is harder to achieve a given efficiency level in an 
adaptive design than in a fixed voltage design, and that DOE should 
track different adaptive technologies within adaptive EPS classes to 
avoid stifling innovation. (ITI, No. 20 at pp. 2-3) In addition, ITI 
expressed that for USB-C adaptive EPSs rated above 65W, there is 
typically a regulatory requirement to provide power factor correction 
circuitry, which it commented can significantly decrease average 
efficiency for low-voltage outputs (3.3 volts (``V'') or 5V). ITI urged 
DOE to make a distinction between single output EPSs and adaptive EPSs, 
with adaptive EPSs having a less stringent efficiency limit for 3.3V 
and 5V outputs. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 7)
    According to the CCD, over 85 percent of adaptive EPS models rated 
above 65W meet or exceed the first candidate standard level (``CSL'') 
above the baseline, CSL1, that DOE analyzed in the preliminary 
analysis, and over 60 percent of such models meet or exceed CSL2 
analyzed in the preliminary analysis. This indicates that any added 
redesign burden or efficiency penalty from factoring in power factor 
correction is already accounted for with current adaptive EPS designs. 
Accordingly, DOE does not propose a new product class or separate 
standards for adaptive EPSs.
    The CA IOUs commented that the four size bins (less than or equal 
to 1 W; greater than one to 49 W; greater than 49 to 250 W; and greater 
than 250 W) may limit DOE's ability to capture cost-effective savings. 
Therefore, the CA IOUs recommended using more granular wattage bins to 
capture cost-effective savings; more specifically, DOE should consider 
delineating the current wattage bin for the largest EPS products. (CA 
IOUs, No. 25 at pp. 3-4)
    The equations representing the different efficiency levels analyzed 
in this rulemaking are presented in three groups simply for ease of 
readability and accuracy. In the preliminary TSD as well as this NOPR 
TSD, DOE describes in detail the derivation of these equations, noting 
that the process considers far more granular output wattage ``bins'' 
than the 0 to 1W, 1W to 49W, and greater than 49W bins described by the 
CA IOUs. While the multiple regression analysis can be used to generate 
any number of equations spanning the entire output power range, DOE 
settled on three groups because doing so allowed the equations to be 
expressed in the same ``a*ln(P) + b*P + c'' format found in DOE's 
current standards at 10 CFR 430.32(w). Therefore, the number of bins 
used to present the proposed active mode efficiency equations did not 
limit DOE's ability to capture cost-effective savings.
    ITI stated that it was unclear how DOE determined market share and 
noted that EPSs are sold both bundled and unbundled, but that DOE does 
not explain how this is accounted for in its analysis. In addition, ITI 
encouraged DOE to start collecting data on cable length and gauge to 
assist the analyses, as well as require reporting in the CCD the type 
of adaptive technologies used in adaptive EPSs. (ITI, No. 20 at pp. 1-
2)
    DOE estimates market share by using model counts for products 
registered in the CCD as a proxy. For example, DOE observed that many 
models were clustered around 24W in the AC-DC Basic-Voltage product 
class, which DOE estimated was indicative of 24W EPSs having a 
significant market share of the AC-DC Basic-Voltage product class. DOE 
clarifies that its analysis is agnostic regarding bundling and 
unbundling, as the cost of the EPS carries through to the consumer 
regardless. With regards to collecting data on adaptive EPS topologies, 
DOE notes that it typically requires reporting of only those product 
characteristics that would be necessary to determine the applicable 
energy conservation standards. Given that the information about the 
topologies employed is not required for either of these determinations, 
DOE is not proposing to require such a reporting requirement in this 
NOPR.
2. Existing Efficiency Programs
    When evaluating the potential for amended energy conservation 
standards, DOE considers other relevant efficiency programs. Most 
notably for EPSs, DOE has established one of its CSLs based on the 
proposed, but never implemented, European Union Code of Conduct Version 
5 Tier 2 standards (``EU CoC''). A more detailed description of this 
program can be found in chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD.
    ITI commented that DOE should consider international harmonization 
and consider that testing with a 115V input (U.S. requirement) will 
yield different results than testing with a 230V input (EU/United 
Kingdom ``UK'' requirement). Because EPSs are designed for the global 
market, ITI stated most models would have less margin if tested at 230V 
input. Furthermore, ITI requested that DOE obtain more details on EU/UK 
green initiatives with regards to adaptive EPSs and how efficiency 
would be impacted. (ITI, No. 20 at pp. 7-8)
    Switched-mode power supplies (``SMPSs'') designed to operate on 
115V AC input will typically demonstrate marginally lower active mode 
efficiency when compared to those designed to operate on 230VAC. 
Nonetheless, DOE's analysis indicates that nearly 75 percent of all 
EPSs currently certified to DOE can meet CSL1, the EU CoC Tier 2 
equivalent in DOE's analysis. It should also be noted that CSL1 was 
evaluated as part of TSL 3 using the full cost-benefit analysis, 
ensuring that, if adopted, amended standards at that level would be 
technologically feasible and economically justified in the United 
States.

[[Page 7299]]

3. Technology Options
    In the preliminary market analysis and technology assessment, DOE 
identified 11 technology options that would be expected to improve the 
efficiency of EPSs, as measured by the DOE test procedure:

 Table IV.1--Preliminary Analysis Technology Options for External Power
                                Supplies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Transformers.
Switched-Mode Power Supplies.
Low-Power Integrated Circuits.
Diodes with Low Forward Voltage and Synchronous Rectification.
X-Capacitor Discharge Control.
Improved Shunt Regulators in Flyback SMPSs that use Optocouplers.
Low-Loss Transistors.
Resonant Switching.
Resonant (``Lossless'') Snubbers.
Active and Bridgeless Power Factor Correction (``PFC'').
Use of Emerging Semiconductor Technologies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE did not receive any comments regarding the inclusion or 
exclusion of any technology options presented in the preliminary 
analysis, and evaluated the same set of technology options for this 
NOPR.

C. Screening Analysis

    DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which 
technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy 
conservation standards rulemaking:
    (1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not 
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not 
be considered further.
    (2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is 
determined that mass production and reliable installation and servicing 
of a technology in commercial products could not be achieved on the 
scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the 
projected compliance date of the standard, then that technology will 
not be considered further.
    (3) Impacts on product utility or product availability. If it is 
determined that a technology would have a significant adverse impact on 
the utility of the product for significant subgroups of consumers or 
would result in the unavailability of any covered product type with 
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, 
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products 
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be 
considered further.
    (4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a 
technology would have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, 
it will not be considered further.
    (5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a design option 
utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to 
achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be 
considered further due to the potential for monopolistic concerns.
    Sections 6(b)(3) and 7(b) of appendix A.
    If DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of 
technologies, fails to meet one or more of the listed five criteria, it 
will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering 
analysis.
1. Screened-Out Technologies
    DOE did not screen out any of the technology options identified for 
EPSs based on the five criteria listed in section IV.B.3 of this 
document.
2. Remaining Technologies
    Through a review of each technology, DOE tentatively concludes that 
all of the other identified technologies listed in section IV.B.3 of 
this document met all five screening criteria to be examined further as 
design options in DOE's NOPR analysis. In summary, DOE did not screen 
out the following technology options:

     Table IV.2--NOPR Technology Options for External Power Supplies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Improved Transformers.
Switched-Mode Power Supplies.
Low-Power Integrated Circuits.
Diodes with Low Forward Voltage and Synchronous Rectification.
X-Capacitor Discharge Control.
Improved Shunt Regulators in Flyback SMPSs that use Optocouplers.
Low-Loss Transistors.
Resonant Switching.
Resonant (``Lossless'') Snubbers.
Active and Bridgeless Power Factor Correction (``PFC'').
Use of Emerging Semiconductor Technologies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has initially determined that these technology options are 
technologically feasible because they are being used or have previously 
been used in commercially-available products or working prototypes. DOE 
also finds that all of the remaining technology options meet the other 
screening criteria (i.e., practicable to manufacture, install, and 
service and do not result in adverse impacts on consumer utility, 
product availability, health, or safety, unique-pathway proprietary 
technologies). For additional details, see chapter 4 of the NOPR TSD.

D. Engineering Analysis

    The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the 
relationship between the efficiency and the cost of

[[Page 7300]]

EPSs. There are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis; 
the selection of efficiency levels to analyze (i.e., the ``efficiency 
analysis'') and the determination of product cost at each efficiency 
level (i.e., the ``cost analysis''). In determining the performance of 
higher-efficiency products, DOE considers technologies and design 
option combinations not eliminated by the screening analysis. For each 
product class, DOE estimates the baseline cost, as well as the 
incremental cost for the product at efficiency levels above the 
baseline. The output of the engineering analysis is a set of cost-
efficiency ``curves'' that are used in downstream analyses (i.e., the 
LCC and PBP analyses and the NIA).
1. Efficiency Analysis
    DOE typically uses one of two approaches to develop energy 
efficiency levels for the engineering analysis: (1) relying on observed 
efficiency levels in the market (i.e., the efficiency-level approach), 
or (2) determining the incremental efficiency improvements associated 
with incorporating specific design options to a baseline model (i.e., 
the design-option approach). Using the efficiency-level approach, the 
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined based on 
the market distribution of existing products (in other words, based on 
the range of efficiencies and efficiency level ``clusters'' that 
already exist on the market). Using the design option approach, the 
efficiency levels established for the analysis are determined through 
detailed engineering calculations and/or computer simulations of the 
efficiency improvements from implementing specific design options that 
have been identified in the technology assessment. DOE may also rely on 
a combination of these two approaches. For example, the efficiency-
level approach (based on actual products on the market) may be extended 
using the design option approach to ``gap fill'' levels (to bridge 
large gaps between other identified efficiency levels) and/or to 
extrapolate to the max-tech level (particularly in cases where the max-
tech level exceeds the maximum efficiency level currently available on 
the market).
    DOE currently measures active-mode efficiency by averaging the 
efficiencies at the 100, 75, 50, and 25-percent loading conditions. 
Section 5(a)(1)(vi) and Section 5(b)(1)(vi) of appendix Z. In their 
comments responding to the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis, PSMA, 
NEEA, Joint Efficiency Advocates, and the CA IOUs urged DOE to 
incorporate a 10-percent loading condition in the EPS test procedure 
and energy conservation standards, stating that such a loading 
condition would be more representative of real-world use. (PSMA, No. 19 
at p. 2-3; CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 7; NEEA, No. 21 at pp. 4-5; Joint 
Efficiency Advocates, No. 24 at p. 3) NEEA noted that 10% is a unique 
loading condition and that the higher mode efficiencies may not 
guarantee that the lower loading points between 0% and 25% in actual 
use would also be efficient, and therefore the 10% loading condition 
was justified. (NEEA, No. 21 at p. 5) NEEA and the CA IOUs also noted 
that the EU Code of Conduct used an efficiency measurement and 
efficiency target at the 10% loading level, and that efficiency gains 
at the 10% level were possible. ((NEEA, No. 21 at p. 5; (CA IOUs, No. 
25 at p. 7) The CA IOUs claimed that a separate 10-percent loading 
condition standard would be most effective in producing energy savings 
and would add no additional burden to manufacturers who sell EPSs in 
the EU. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 7) NEEA and Joint Efficiency Advocates 
encouraged DOE to incorporate the 10-percent loading condition in the 
active-mode efficiency metric. (NEEA, No. 21 at pp. 4-5; Joint 
Efficiency Advocates, No. 24 at p. 3) While PSMA encouraged a separate 
10-percent loading condition standard to assist in harmonizing with EU 
Ecodesign requirements, PSMA recommended incorporation of the 10-
percent loading condition into the active-mode efficiency metric if a 
separate standard is not possible. (PSMA, No. 19 at pp. 2-3)
    In the August 2015 TP Final Rule, DOE concluded that a voluntary or 
optional reporting of a 10-percent loading condition would result in 
very few certifications at that loading condition. 80 FR 51424, 51433. 
EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this 
section be reasonably designed to produce test results that measure 
energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of a 
covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of 
use, and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) As 
such, DOE must weigh the representativeness of test results with the 
associated test burden in evaluating any amendments to its test 
procedures. Regarding representativeness, the commenters have not 
provided specific data, nor is DOE aware of any specific data, 
demonstrating how a 10-percent loading condition improve 
representativeness of test results for EPSs. In addition, DOE's test 
procedure does not differentiate between specific end-use applications; 
as such, load profiles specific to certain applications (e.g., charging 
a smartphone versus powering an LED lamp) may not be representative of 
overall average use of EPSs across all end-use applications. If DOE 
were to consider a 10-percent load condition, DOE is not aware of any 
data to suggest what corresponding weighting factor should be used to 
combine this loading condition with the other defined loading 
conditions comprising the overall efficiency metric. Consequently, DOE 
is tentatively proposing not to modify the specified loading conditions 
to include a measurement at 10-percent load.
a. Baseline Efficiency
    For each product/equipment class, DOE generally selects a baseline 
model as a reference point for each class, and measures changes 
resulting from potential energy conservation standards against the 
baseline. The baseline model in each product/equipment class represents 
the characteristics of a product/equipment typical of that class (e.g., 
capacity, physical size). Generally, a baseline model is one that just 
meets current energy conservation standards, or, if no standards are in 
place, the baseline is typically the most common or least efficient 
unit on the market.
    In its preliminary analysis, DOE evaluated the current energy 
conservation standards as baseline efficiency level for all product 
classes.\21\ DOE did not receive any comments regarding the baseline 
levels in response to the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis, and DOE 
evaluated the same baseline levels for this NOPR's analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ See Chapter 5 of the 2022 Preliminary Analysis Technical 
Support Document for External Power Supplies. (Available at: 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0012) (last 
accessed Sept. 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Higher Efficiency Levels
    DOE defined several higher efficiency levels at which to evaluate 
manufacturer production costs (``MPCs'') for this NOPR. The first 
level, Efficiency Level 1 (``EL1''), corresponds to the proposed EU CoC 
Tier 2 standards. Higher efficiency levels were defined using an 
analysis of active-mode efficiencies and no-load power draws reported 
in the CCD. For the AC-DC Basic- and Low-Voltage product classes, EL2 
and EL3 were defined on the basis of pass rates of 50 percent and 10-20 
percent (termed ``best in market''), respectively. As part of DOE's 
analysis, the maximum available efficiency level is the highest 
efficiency unit currently available on

[[Page 7301]]

the market. DOE defined the ``max-tech'' efficiency level, EL4, as the 
efficiency and no-load power draw which result in a 5 percent pass rate 
of all AC-DC Basic-Voltage EPS models on the market. For the AC-AC 
product classes, DOE did not derive separate ELs based on pass rates. 
DOE maintained the same active mode efficiency equations as their AC-DC 
counterparts, with a slightly higher no-load allowance to account for 
the higher typical no-load consumption seen in AC-AC power supplies.
    DOE notes that there are no EU COC Tier 2 equivalent standards for 
multiple-voltage EPSs. Therefore, DOE defined EL1 for this product 
class on the basis of a 70 percent pass rate. This pass rate aligns 
with the EL1 pass rate of 72% for AC-DC basic voltage products. EL2, 
EL3 and EL4 were subsequently defined based on a 40 percent, 10 
percent, and 1 percent pass rate.
    In summary, DOE analyzed the following efficiency levels for this 
proposal:

  Table IV.3--Efficiency Levels for AC-DC, Basic-Voltage External Power
                                Supplies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Minimum average
Nameplate output power  (Pout)   efficiency in active  Maximum power  in
                                mode  (expressed as a   no-load mode [W]
                                       decimal)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         EL0: Current Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout <=1 W....................  >=0.5 x Pout + 0.16..            <=0.100
1 W < Pout <=49 W.............  >=0.071 x ln(Pout)-              <=0.100
                                 0.0014 x Pout + 0.67.
49 W < Pout <=250 W...........  >=0.880..............            <=0.210
Pout > 250 W..................  >=0.875..............            <=0.500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      EL1: EU CoC Tier 2 Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout <=1 W....................  >=0.5 x Pout + 0.169.            <=0.075
1 W < Pout <=49 W.............  >=0.071 x ln(Pout)-              <=0.075
                                 0.00115 x Pout +
                                 0.67.
49 W < Pout <=250 W...........  >=0.890..............            <=0.150
Pout > 250 W..................  >=0.890..............            <=0.150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           EL2: Top 50 Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout <=1 W....................  >=0.5 x Pout + 0.169.            <=0.065
1 W < Pout <=49 W.............  >=0.0617 x ln(Pout)-             <=0.065
                                 0.00105 x Pout +
                                 0.704.
49 W < Pout <=250 W...........  >=0.895..............            <=0.130
Pout > 250 W..................  >=0.900..............            <=0.130
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           EL3: Best In Market
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout <=1 W....................  >=0.5 x Pout + 0.169.            <=0.050
1 W < Pout <=49 W.............  >=0.0582 x ln(Pout)-             <=0.050
                                 0.00104 x Pout +
                                 0.727.
49 W < Pout <=250 W...........  >=0.902..............            <=0.110
Pout > 250 W..................  >=0.907..............            <=0.110
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              EL4: Max-Tech
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout <=1 W....................  >=0.52 x Pout + 0.170            <=0.039
1 W < Pout <=49 W.............  >=0.0654 x ln(Pout)-             <=0.039
                                 0.00149 x Pout +
                                 0.732.
49 W < Pout <=250 W...........  >=0.916..............            <=0.089
Pout > 250 W..................  >=0.916..............            <=0.120
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table IV.4--Efficiency Levels for AC-DC, Low-Voltage External Power
                                Supplies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Minimum average
 Nameplate output power (Pout)   efficiency in active   Maximum power in
                                 mode (expressed as a   no-Load mode [W]
                                       decimal)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         EL0: Current Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout <= 1 W...................  >=0.517 x Pout +                 <=0.100
                                 0.087.
1 W < Pout <= 49 W............  >=0.0834 x ln(Pout)-             <=0.100
                                 0.0014 x Pout +
                                 0.609.
49 W < Pout >= 250 W..........  >=0.870..............            <=0.210
Pout < 250 W..................  >=0.875..............            <=0.500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      EL1: EU CoC Tier 2 Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout <= 1 W...................  >=0.517 x Pout +                 <=0.075
                                 0.091.
1 W < Pout <= 49 W............  >=0.0834 x ln(Pout)-             <=0.075
                                 0.0011 x Pout +
                                 0.609.
49 W < Pout <= 250 W..........  >=0.880..............            <=0.150
Pout > 250 W..................  >=0.880..............            >=0.150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           EL2: Top 50 Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout <= 1 W...................  >=0.517 x Pout +                 <=0.065
                                 0.091.
1 W < Pout <= 49 W............  >=0.0741 x ln(Pout)-             <=0.065
                                 0.00105 x Pout +
                                 0.643.
49 W < Pout < 250 W...........  >=0.885..............            <=0.130

[[Page 7302]]

 
Pout < 250 W..................  >=0.900..............            <=0.150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           EL3: Best In Market
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout <= 1 W...................  >=0.517 x Pout +                 <=0.050
                                 0.091.
1 W < Pout <= 49 W............  >=0.0706 x ln(Pout)-             <=0.050
                                 0.00104 x Pout +
                                 0.666.
49 W < Pout < 250 W...........  >=0.892..............            <=0.110
Pout < 250 W..................  >=0.907..............            <=0.130
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              EL4: Max-Tech
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout <= 1 W...................  >=0.537 x Pout +                 <=0.039
                                 0.097.
1 W < Pout <= 49 W............  >=0.0778 x ln(Pout)-             <=0.039
                                 0.00149 x Pout +
                                 0.671.
49 W < Pout <= 250 W..........  >=0.906..............            <=0.089
Pout < 250 W..................  >=0.916..............            <=0.120
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table IV.5--Efficiency Levels for AC-AC, Basic-Voltage External Power
                                Supplies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Minimum average
 Nameplate output power (Pout)   efficiency in active   Maximum power in
                                 mode (expressed as a   no-load mode [W]
                                       decimal)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         EL0: Current Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout <= 1 W...................  >=0.5 x Pout + 0.16..            <=0.210
1 W < Pout <= 49 W............  >=0.071 x ln(Pout)-              <=0.210
                                 0.0014 x Pout +
                                 0.670.
49 W < Pout <= 250 W..........  >=0.880..............            <=0.210
Pout < 250 W..................  >=0.875..............            <=0.500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      EL1: EU CoC Tier 2 Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout <= 1 W...................  >=0.5 x Pout + 0.169.            <=0.185
1 W < Pout <= 49 W............  >=0.071 x ln(Pout)-              <=0.185
                                 0.00115 x Pout +
                                 0.670.
49 W < Pout <= 250 W..........  >=0.890..............            <=0.185
Pout < 250 W..................  >=0.890..............            <=0.500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   EL2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout <= 1 W...................  >=0.5 x Pout + 0.169.            <=0.150
1 W < Pout <= 49 W............  >=0.0617 x ln(Pout)-             <=0.150
                                 0.00105 x Pout +
                                 0.704.
49 W < Pout <= 250 W..........  >=0.895..............            <=0.150
Pout < 250 W..................  >=0.895..............            <=0.300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           EL3: Best In Market
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout <= 1 W...................  >=0.5 x Pout + 0.169.            <=0.075
1 W < Pout <= 49 W............  >=0.0582 x ln(Pout)-             <=0.075
                                 0.00104 x Pout +
                                 0.727.
49 W < Pout <= 250 W..........  >=0.902..............            <=0.075
Pout <= 250 W.................  >=0.902..............            <=0.200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              EL4: Max-Tech
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout <= 1 W...................  >=0.520 x Pout +                <= 0.039
                                 0.170.
1 W < Pout <= 49 W............  >=0.0654 x ln(Pout)-            <= 0.039
                                 0.00149 x Pout +
                                 0.732.
49 W < Pout <= 250 W..........  >=0.916..............            <=0.089
Pout <= 250 W.................  >=0.916..............            <=0.100
------------------------------------------------------------------------


   Table IV.6--Efficiency Levels for AC-AC, Low-Voltage External Power
                                Supplies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Minimum average
 Nameplate output power (Pout)   efficiency in active   Maximum power in
                                 mode (expressed as a   no-load mode [W]
                                       decimal)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         EL0: Current Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout >= 1 W...................  >=0.517 x Pout +                 >=0.210
                                 0.087.
1 W < Pout >= 49 W............  >=0.0834 x ln(Pout)-             >=0.210
                                 0.0014 x Pout +
                                 0.609.
49 W < Pout >= 250 W..........  >=0.870..............            >=0.210
Pout > 250 W..................  >=0.875..............            >=0.500
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 7303]]

 
                      EL1: EU CoC Tier 2 Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout >= 1 W...................  >=0.517 x Pout +                 >=0.072
                                 0.091.
1 W < Pout >= 49 W............  >=0.0834 x ln(Pout)-             >=0.072
                                 0.0011 x Pout +
                                 0.609.
49 W < Pout >= 250 W..........  >=0.880..............            >=0.185
Pout > 250 W..................  >=0.880..............            >=0.500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   EL2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout >= 1 W...................  >=0.517 x Pout +                 >=0.060
                                 0.091.
1 W < Pout >= 49 W............  >=0.0741 x ln(Pout)-             >=0.060
                                 0.00105 x Pout +
                                 0.643.
49 W < Pout >= 250 W..........  >=0.885..............            >=0.150
Pout > 250 W..................  >=0.900..............            >=0.300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           EL3: Best In Market
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout >= 1 W...................  >=0.517 x Pout +                 >=0.050
                                 0.091.
1 W < Pout >= 49 W............  >=0.0706 x ln(Pout)-             >=0.050
                                 0.00104 x Pout +
                                 0.666.
49 W < Pout >= 250 W..........  >=0.892..............            >=0.075
Pout > 250 W..................  >=0.907..............            >=0.200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              EL4: Max-Tech
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout >= 1 W...................  >=0.537 x Pout +                 >=0.039
                                 0.097.
1 W < Pout >= 49 W............  >=0.0778 x ln(Pout)-             >=0.039
                                 0.00149 x Pout +
                                 0.671.
49 W < Pout >= 250 W..........  >=0.906..............            >=0.089
Pout > 250 W..................  >=0.916..............            >=0.100
------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table IV.7--Efficiency Levels for Multiple-Voltage External Power
                                Supplies
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Minimum average
 Nameplate output power (Pout)   efficiency in active   Maximum power in
                                 mode (expressed as a   no-load mode [W]
                                       decimal)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         EL0: Current Standards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout >= 1 W...................  >=0.497 x Pout +                 >=0.300
                                 0.067.
1 W < Pout >= 49 W............  >=0.075 x ln(Pout) +             >=0.300
                                 0.561.
Pout > 49 W...................  >=0.860..............            >=0.300
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           EL1: Top 65 Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout >= 1 W...................  >=0.497 x Pout +                 >=0.100
                                 0.067.
1 W < Pout >= 49 W............  >=0.0703 x ln(Pout)-             >=0.100
                                 0.000406 x Pout +
                                 0.628.
Pout > 49 W...................  >=0.880..............            >=0.150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           EL2: Top 40 Percent
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout >= 1 W...................  >=0.497 x Pout +                 >=0.075
                                 0.067.
1 W < Pout >= 49 W............  >=0.0782 x ln(Pout)-             >=0.075
                                 0.0013 x Pout +
                                 0.643.
Pout > 49 W...................  >=0.885..............            >=0.125
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           EL3: Best In Market
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout >= 1 W...................  >=0.497 x Pout +                 >=0.050
                                 0.067.
1 W < Pout >= 49 W............  >=0.0861 x ln(Pout)-             >=0.050
                                 0.00169 x Pout +
                                 0.642.
Pout > 49 W...................  >=0.895..............            >=0.075
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              EL4: Max-Tech
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout >= 1 W...................  >=0.497 x Pout +                 >=0.030
                                 0.067.
1 W < Pout >= 49 W............  >=0.0758 x ln(Pout)-             >=0.030
                                 0.00132 x Pout +
                                 0.674.
Pout > 49 W...................  >=0.905..............            >=0.050
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Cost Analysis
    The cost analysis portion of the engineering analysis is conducted 
using one or a combination of cost approaches. The selection of cost 
approach depends on a suite of factors, including the availability and 
reliability of public information, characteristics of the regulated 
product, the availability and timeliness of purchasing the

[[Page 7304]]

product on the market. The cost approaches are summarized as follows:
     Physical teardowns: Under this approach, DOE physically 
dismantles a commercially available product, component-by-component, to 
develop a detailed bill of materials for the product.
     Catalog teardowns: In lieu of physically deconstructing a 
product, DOE identifies each component using parts diagrams (available 
from manufacturer websites or appliance repair websites, for example) 
to develop the bill of materials for the product.
     Price surveys: If neither a physical nor catalog teardown 
is feasible (for example, for tightly integrated products such as 
fluorescent lamps, which are infeasible to disassemble and for which 
parts diagrams are unavailable) or cost-prohibitive and otherwise 
impractical (e.g., large commercial boilers), DOE conducts price 
surveys using publicly available pricing data published on major online 
retailer websites and/or by soliciting prices from distributors and 
other commercial channels.
    In this NOPR, DOE conducted the analysis using all three methods of 
analysis (physical teardowns, catalog teardowns, and price surveys) to 
determine manufacturing costs relating to the efficiency of a power 
supply. Representative units for teardown were selected from the CCD 
based on reported active mode efficiency and no-load power. Several 
units were selected as representative units for each EL. In addition to 
units from the CCD, DOE purchased evaluation boards from semiconductor 
manufacturers to evaluate generic designs likely to be used in a wide 
variety of power supplies on the market. DOE received additional cost 
data from manufacturer interviews and from stakeholder feedback, which 
were incorporated in the cost modeling.
    Prior to testing and teardown of CCD units and evaluation boards, 
test units were prepared to reduce application-specific variables 
present in some units that might skew test results. Preparation 
included removal of circuitry not related to EPS functionality and 
installation of new, standardized cables. Prepared units were tested in 
accordance with DOE test procedures.
    After testing, DOE performed physical teardowns of CCD units and 
catalog teardowns of evaluation boards. DOE developed estimates of MPCs 
for each unit in the teardown sample to develop a set of MPCs at each 
efficiency level. DOE selected most of its units from the AC-DC Basic-
Voltage product class, as a significant number of models and shipments 
of EPSs belong to this class. Additional units belonging to the AC-DC 
Low-Voltage and Multiple-Voltage product classes were also torn down. 
Further, price survey data was collected in manufacturer interviews and 
from stakeholder feedback for units at each efficiency level. Data was 
combined to generate cost/efficiency relationships at each evaluated 
power level, to which exponential curve fits were applied. Finally, 
incremental MPCs were calculated at each efficiency level using the fit 
equations. A further discussion of the cost analysis can be found at 
chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
    DOE received several comments about the cost analysis performed 
during the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis.
    ITI expressed concern about the broad amount of extrapolation used 
during the preliminary analysis, and encouraged DOE to study more 
representative models in each product class. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 2) 
Additionally, ITI encouraged DOE to use less extrapolation and more 
representative units when estimating MPCs. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 3) NEEA 
encouraged DOE to conduct detailed teardowns of the AC-DC low-voltage 
product class, citing the prevalence of such EPSs in the market and the 
potential for differing technology options among them. (NEEA, No. 21 at 
pp. 3-4)
    The Joint Efficiency Advocates and the CA IOUs urged DOE to conduct 
additional product testing and teardowns on representative units for 
AC-DC Basic-Voltage and Low-Voltage product classes. The Joint 
Efficiency Advocates acknowledged DOE's method of extrapolating and 
interpolating from known AC-DC basic-voltage units but stated concerns 
about the accuracy of the methods. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 24 
at p. 2) Furthermore, the Joint Efficiency Advocates and the CA IOUs 
stated that DOE should test and teardown more AC-DC low-voltage EPSs 
because these are estimated to have greater shipments than AC-DC basic-
voltage EPSs. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, No. 24 at p. 2; CA IOUs, No. 
25 at pp. 4-5) The CA IOUs urged DOE to expand the current analysis 
scope to analyze potential savings of updated standards levels more 
thoroughly. In addition to products with high shipments, the CA IOUs 
commented that ``high-energy-impact products'' should be further 
examined, such as those with Power over Ethernet (``PoE'') technology. 
(CA IOUs, No. 25 at pp. 4-5)
    DOE agreed that an increased number of teardowns from the February 
2022 Preliminary Analysis would improve its analysis. As such, DOE 
performed additional teardowns for this NOPR, including teardowns 
across other product classes (AC-DC Low-Voltage and Multiple-Voltage), 
to validate both the representative unit MPC values as well as those 
obtained using extrapolation methods. With regards to the CA IOUs' 
suggestion to evaluate ``high-energy-impact products,'' DOE's analysis 
adequately captures all major applications of EPSs, especially high-
energy-impact-products, and pairs each application with a usage profile 
to calculate total energy consumption with and without amended 
standards.
    The Joint Efficiency Advocates, NEEA, and PSMA urged DOE to update 
its cost assumptions about the CSLs presented in the preliminary 
analysis, especially CSL4 (max-tech). PSMA also stated that certain 
technologies can deliver efficiencies higher than those listed for 
CSL4, and the incremental costs DOE cited in its Preliminary Analysis 
were greatly overstated compared to what PSMA observes in the 
marketplace, and in some cases were over twice the marketplace 
incremental costs. (PSMA, No. 19 at p. 2) PSMA noted there was minimal 
cost overhead due to the high volume manufacturing and claimed that 
with more representative pricing, raising standards to at the very 
least CSL1 should be justifiable, but that CSL2 or higher would be 
preferable looking to where power supply efficiencies will be in the 
future. (Id.) According to PSMA, current semiconductors already meet 
both CSL2 and CSL3, and therefore currently available technologies 
could meet those standards. (Id.) Similarly, both NEEA and the Joint 
Efficiency Advocates claimed they obtained manufacturer-reported max-
tech incremental cost data that differed significantly from DOE's 
estimates in the preliminary analysis and that DOE overestimated the 
incremental costs. The Joint Efficiency Advocates and NEEA further 
encouraged DOE to perform manufacturer interviews and additional tear-
downs to improve estimated cost values. (Joint Efficiency Advocates, 
No. 24 at p. 2; NEEA, No. 21 at pp. 1-4)
    After presenting its initial methodology and preliminary 
engineering analysis in the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE 
conducted manufacturer interviews to obtain feedback and updated the 
engineering analysis as presented in this NOPR. The information 
received during these interviews as well as additional data from 
further teardowns has resulted in updated incremental costs, which can 
be found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.
    More detail about the selection process and extrapolation methods 
can be found in chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.

[[Page 7305]]

    To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit 
margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer 
markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (MSP) is 
the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce. 
DOE, throughout its analysis, is using the average manufacturer markup 
presented in the February 2014 Final Rule TSD.\22\ This markup was 
determined based on information collected during the manufacturer 
interviews preceding that rulemaking. More detail on the manufacturer 
markup is given in section IV.E of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ See Chapter 12 of the 2014 Final Rule Technical Support 
Document for External Power Supplies. (Available at: www.https://
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0217) (last 
accessed Sept. 28, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests comment on its cost analysis approach performed for 
this NOPR.
3. Cost-Efficiency Results
    The results of the engineering analysis are presented as cost-
efficiency data for each of the efficiency levels for each of the 
product classes that were analyzed at popular power output levels, as 
well as those extrapolated from a product class with similar 
capabilities and features. Tables and plots with MPC results, as well 
as extrapolation methods used both within and across each product 
class, are presented below as well as in greater detail in chapter 5 of 
the NOPR TSD. The results of the engineering analysis are reported as 
cost-efficiency data (or ``curves'') in the form of daily energy 
consumption (DEC) (in kWh) versus MSP (in dollars). DOE developed six 
curves representing the two equipment classes and three different size 
machines in each equipment class. The methodology for developing the 
curves started with determining the energy consumption for baseline 
equipment and MPCs for this equipment. Above the baseline, DOE 
implemented design options using the ratio of cost to savings, and 
implemented only one design option at each level. Design options were 
implemented until all available technologies were employed (i.e., at a 
max-tech level). See TSD Chapter 5 for additional detail on the 
engineering analysis and TSD Appendix 5B for complete cost-efficiency 
results.
    DOE requests comment on the incremental MPCs from the NOPR 
engineering analysis.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 7306]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02FE23.001


[[Page 7307]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02FE23.002


[[Page 7308]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02FE23.003

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02FE23.004


[[Page 7309]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP02FE23.005

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

E. Markups Analysis

    The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (e.g., retailer 
markups, distributor markups, contractor markups) in the distribution 
chain and sales taxes to convert the MSP estimates derived in the 
engineering analysis to consumer prices, which are then used in the LCC 
and PBP analysis and in the manufacturer impact analysis. At each step 
in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of the product 
to cover business costs and profit margin.
    For EPSs, the main parties in the distribution chain are EPS 
Manufacturers, End-Use Product Original Equipment Manufacturers, 
Consumer Product Retailers, and Consumers.
    DOE developed baseline and incremental markups for each actor in 
the distribution chain. Baseline markups are applied to the price of 
products with baseline efficiency, while incremental markups are 
applied to the difference in price between baseline and higher-
efficiency models (the incremental cost increase). The incremental 
markup is typically less than the baseline markup and is designed to 
maintain similar per-unit operating profit before and after new or 
amended standards.\23\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Because the projected price of standards-compliant products 
is typically higher than the price of baseline products, using the 
same markup for the incremental cost and the baseline cost would 
result in higher per-unit operating profit. While such an outcome is 
possible, DOE maintains that in markets that are reasonably 
competitive it is unlikely that standards would lead to a 
sustainable increase in profitability in the long run.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE used the same 
baseline and incremental markups that were used in the February 2014 
Final Rule.\24\ DOE did not receive any comments regarding the markups 
or distribution channels in the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis. 
Therefore, DOE used the same markups in this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ See Chapter 6 of the 2014 Final Rule Technical Support 
Document for External Power Supplies. (Available at: 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0217) (last 
accessed Sept. 12, 2022). See also Chapter 6 of the 2022 Preliminary 
Analysis Technical Support Document for External Power Supplies. 
(Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0012) (last accessed Sept. 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Chapter 6 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE's development of 
markups for EPSs.
    DOE requests comment on the estimated increased manufacturer 
markups and incremental MSPs that result from the analyzed energy 
conservation standards from the NOPR engineering analysis.

F. Energy Use Analysis

    The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual 
energy consumption of EPSs at different efficiencies in representative 
U.S. single-family homes, multi-family residences, and commercial 
buildings, and to assess the energy savings potential of increased EPS 
efficiency. The energy use analysis estimates the range of energy use 
of EPSs in the field (i.e., as they are actually used by consumers). 
The energy use analysis provides the basis for other analyses DOE 
performs, particularly assessments of the energy savings and the 
savings in consumer operating costs that could result from adoption of 
amended or new standards.
    In the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE used usage profiles 
that were developed in the February 2014 Final Rule, along with 
efficiency data at different load conditions to calculate the UECs for 
EPSs for a variety of applications.\25\ Usage profiles are

[[Page 7310]]

estimates of the average time a device spends in each mode of 
operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See Appendix 7A of the 2014 Final Rule Technical Support 
Document for External Power Supplies. (Available at: 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0217) (last 
accessed Sept. 12, 2022). See also Appendix 7A of the 2022 
Preliminary Analysis Technical Support Document for External Power 
Supplies. (Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0012) (last accessed Sept. 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received a comment from ITI that the 2014 usage profiles are 
outdated and that they may not represent current EPS customer usage 
profiles and energy use, stating that devices used less energy than 
they used to and that they often spent different times in different 
modes than in the past. ITI did not provide any data regarding EPS 
usage and indicated that DOE should conduct a study to understand the 
current usage profiles of EPSs. (ITI, No. 20 at p. 3)
    DOE was unable to find any updated usage information or data for 
most EPSs. However, in response to the comment from ITI, for certain 
applications, DOE revised its usage profiles compared to the 2014 
estimates. These applications are likely to have more usage (and spend 
time in different modes) than assumed in the 2014 Final Rule analysis. 
The specific UECs depend on the output power and efficiency level. Some 
applications are analyzed across multiple output power ratings. For 
other applications, DOE maintained the same approach for developing 
UECs as in the preliminary analysis.
    Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD provides details on DOE's energy use for 
EPSs.

G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

    DOE conducted LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic impacts 
on individual consumers of potential energy conservation standards for 
EPSs. The effect of new or amended energy conservation standards on 
individual consumers usually involves a reduction in operating cost and 
an increase in purchase cost. DOE used the following two metrics to 
measure consumer impacts:
     The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or 
product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed 
cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, sales 
tax, and installation costs) plus operating costs (expenses for energy 
use, maintenance, and repair). To compute the operating costs, DOE 
discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them 
over the lifetime of the product.
     The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it 
takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including 
installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating 
costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost 
at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for 
the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.
    For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the change in LCC 
relative to the LCC in the no-new-standards case, which reflects the 
estimated efficiency distribution of EPSs in the absence of new or 
amended energy conservation standards. In contrast, the PBP for a given 
efficiency level is measured relative to the baseline product.
    For each considered efficiency level in each product class, DOE 
calculated the LCC and PBP for a nationally representative set of 
housing units and commercial buildings. DOE developed household samples 
from the 2015 Residential Energy Consumption Survey \26\ (RECS 2015) 
and the 2018 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey \27\ (CBECS 
2018). For each sample household, DOE determined the energy consumption 
for the EPSs and the appropriate energy price. By developing a 
representative sample of households, the analysis captured the 
variability in energy consumption and energy prices associated with the 
use of EPSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/ (last 
accessed Sept. 12, 2022). EIA is currently working on RECS 2020, and 
the entire RECS 2020 microdata are expected to be fully released in 
early 2023. Until that time, RECS 2015 remains the most recent full 
data release. For future analyses, DOE plans to consider using the 
complete RECS 2020 microdata when available.
    \27\ www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/ (last accessed Sept. 
12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost 
of the product--which includes MPCs, manufacturer markups, retailer and 
distributor markups, and sales taxes--and installation costs. Inputs to 
the calculation of operating expenses include annual energy 
consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and 
maintenance costs, product lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE created 
distributions of values for product lifetime, discount rates, and sales 
taxes, with probabilities attached to each value, to account for their 
uncertainty and variability.
    The computer model DOE uses to calculate the LCC and PBP relies on 
a Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate uncertainty and variability 
into the analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations randomly sample input 
values from the probability distributions and EPCs user samples. For 
this rulemaking, the Monte Carlo approach is implemented in MS Excel. 
The model calculated the LCC and PBP for products at each efficiency 
level for 10,000 housing units and commercial buildings per simulation 
run. The analytical results include a distribution of 10,000 data 
points showing the range of LCC savings for a given efficiency level 
relative to the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. In 
performing an iteration of the Monte Carlo simulation for a given 
consumer, product efficiency is chosen based on its probability. If the 
chosen product efficiency is greater than or equal to the efficiency of 
the standard level under consideration, the LCC and PBP calculation 
reveals that a consumer is not impacted by the standard level. By 
accounting for consumers who already purchase more-efficient products, 
DOE avoids overstating the potential benefits from increasing product 
efficiency.
    DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for all consumers of EPSs as if each 
were to purchase a new product in the expected year of required 
compliance with new or amended standards. New and amended standards 
would apply to EPSs manufactured 2 years after the date on which any 
new or amended standard is published. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10)(B)) At 
this time, DOE estimates publication of a final rule in the latter half 
of 2024 Therefore, for purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2027 \28\ as 
the first year of compliance with any amended standards for EPSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ Compliance begins two years from the publication of the 
final rule (i.e., latter half of 2026). However, for the purposes of 
simplifying it analysis, DOE used the beginning of 2027 as the first 
year of compliance with any amended standards for EPSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table IV.13 summarizes the approach and data DOE used to derive 
inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations. The subsections that follow 
provide further discussion. Details of the spreadsheet model, and of 
all the inputs to the LCC and PBP analyses, are contained in chapter 8 
of the NOPR TSD and its appendices.

[[Page 7311]]



 Table IV.13--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the LCC and PBP Analysis
                                    *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Inputs                           Source/method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product Cost.................  Derived by multiplying MPCs by EPS
                                manufacturer and appliance manufacturer
                                markups and sales tax, as appropriate.
                                Used historical PPI data for
                                semiconductors to derive a price scaling
                                index to project product costs.
Installation Costs...........  No installation costs.
Annual Energy Use............  The total annual energy use calculated
                                using product efficiency and operating
                                hours.
                               Variability: Based on the 2015 RECS and
                                2018 CBECS.
Energy Prices................  Electricity: EIA data--2021.
                               Variability: Census Division.
Energy Price Trends..........  Based on AEO2022 price projections.
Repair and Maintenance Costs.  No repair or maintenance costs were
                                considered.
Product Lifetime.............  Average: 3 to 10 years.
Discount Rates...............  Approach involves identifying all
                                possible debt or asset classes that
                                might be used to purchase the considered
                                appliances, or might be affected
                                indirectly. Primary data source was the
                                Federal Reserve Board's Survey of
                                Consumer Finances.
Compliance Date..............  2027.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided
  in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.

1. Product Cost
    To calculate consumer product costs, DOE multiplied the MPCs 
developed in the engineering analysis by the markups described 
previously (along with sales taxes). DOE used different markups for 
baseline products and higher-efficiency products because DOE applies an 
incremental markup to the increase in MSP associated with higher-
efficiency products.
    In the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE did not use any 
price trend.\29\ In response, NEEA and the CA IOUs commented that DOE 
should incorporate price learning into its analysis and suggested that 
DOE use the Producer Price Index (PPI) for the semiconductor industry 
to develop the price trend. (NEEA, No. 21 at p. 4, CA IOUs, No. 25 at 
p. 2) In this NOPR, DOE has incorporated a price trend based on the PPI 
for semiconductors,\30\ with an estimated annual deflated price decline 
of approximately 6 percent per year from 1967 through 2021. DOE applied 
this price trend to the proportion of EPS costs attributable to 
semiconductors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ See Chapters 8 and 10 of the 2022 Preliminary Analysis 
Technical Support Document for External Power Supplies. (Available 
at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0012) (last 
accessed Sept. 12, 2022).
    \30\ Producer Price Index: Semiconductors and Related 
Manufacturing. Series ID: PCU334413334413. (Available at: 
beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/PCU334413334413) (last 
accessed Sept. 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Installation Cost
    NEMA commented that hard-wired AC-outlets traditionally found in 
residential environments can now be purchased with built-in Universal 
Serial Bus (``USB'') ports that provide USB services as a secondary 
function. NEMA further stated that the installation of such a product 
requires certified professionals and results in a non-negligible cost 
to the consumer. (NEMA, No. 22 at p. 2)
    With respect to installation costs, DOE notes that the installation 
costs would be the same regardless of efficiency level for hard-wired 
AC receptacles. As a result, the incremental installation costs would 
be $0 for higher efficiency products and would not impact the LCC 
analysis. Therefore, DOE did not consider installation costs in this 
analysis.
3. Annual Energy Consumption
    For each sampled household or commercial business, DOE determined 
the energy consumption for an EPS at different efficiency levels using 
the approach described previously in section IV.F of this document.
4. Energy Prices
    Because marginal electricity price more accurately captures the 
incremental savings associated with a change in energy use from higher 
efficiency, marginal electricity price provides a better representation 
of incremental change in consumer costs than average electricity 
prices. Therefore, DOE applied average electricity prices for the 
energy use of the product purchased in the no-new-standards case, and 
marginal electricity prices for the incremental change in energy use 
associated with the other efficiency levels considered.
    For the NOPR, DOE derived average monthly residential and 
commercial marginal electricity prices for the various regions using 
2021 data from EIA.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information 
Administration, Form EIA-861M (formerly EIA-826) Database Monthly 
Electric Utility Sales and Revenue Data (1990-2020). (Available at: 
www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia861m/) (last accessed Sept. 12, 
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for details.
    To estimate energy prices in future years, DOE multiplied the 2021 
energy prices by the projection of annual average price changes for 
each of the nine census divisions from the Reference case in AEO2022, 
which has an end year of 2050.\32\ To estimate price trends after 2050, 
DOE used the average annual rate of change in prices from 2023 through 
2050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2018 with Projections to 2050. 
Washington, DC. (Available at www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/) (last 
accessed Sept. 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs
    In the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE noted that it 
expects consumers would discard and replace an EPS which fails before 
the product with which it is designed to operate, rather than seek to 
repair that EPS.\33\ DOE did not receive comment on this approach, and 
therefore DOE did not consider maintenance and repair costs in this 
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ See Chapter 8, section 8.3.3 of the 2022 Preliminary 
Analysis Technical Support Document for External Power Supplies. 
(Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0012) (last accessed Sept. 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Product Lifetime
    In the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE based the EPS 
lifetime on the lifetime of the application for which it is 
associated.\34\ In response, the CA IOUs suggested that this approach 
is reasonable for most EPSs, but that some manufacturers commonly sell 
products (like phones) with only a USB cord and

[[Page 7312]]

not an EPS. Therefore, an EPS with a USB connection may have a lifetime 
longer than that of the initial application and DOE's assumption may no 
longer be valid. (CA IOUs, No. 25 at p. 6) The Joint Efficiency 
Advocates also commented that DOE should re-evaluate the approach to 
lifetimes as many AC-DC low voltage EPS are sold as stand-alone 
products that are independent from the end-use product, and that 
sellers of end-use products increasingly no longer bundle low-voltage 
EPSs so that users may reuse their existing EPSs. The Joint Efficiency 
Advocates believe that these stand-alone EPSs will have much longer 
lifetimes than their end use applications, and therefore DOE should 
extend the lifetime estimates for these products. (Joint Efficiency 
Advocates, No. 24 at p. 3). However, the CA IOUs and the Joint 
Efficiency Advocates did not provide any lifetime data for this 
specific type of EPS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ See Chapter 8, section 8.3.4 of the 2022 Preliminary 
Analysis Technical Support Document for External Power Supplies. 
(Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0012) (last accessed Sept. 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE was unable to find any updated lifetime information or data for 
EPSs. However, in response to these comments, DOE increased the 
lifetime for thirteen applications. DOE agrees that some applications 
(e.g., phones) are likely to have an EPS lifetime longer than that of 
the application. DOE also increased the lifetime estimates for a few 
other applications to be more representative of current usage. The 
increase in lifetime ranges from one to three years, except for 
security cameras which now match the lifetime of home security systems 
used in the 2022 Preliminary Analysis for battery chargers.\35\ For the 
rest of the applications, DOE maintained the lifetime approach that it 
used in the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ See Chapter 8, section 8.3.4 of the 2022 Preliminary 
Analysis Technical Support Document for Battery Chargers. (Available 
at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0013-0009) (last 
accessed Sept. 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Discount Rates
    In the calculation of LCC, DOE applies discount rates appropriate 
to households and commercial buildings to estimate the present value of 
future operating cost savings. DOE estimated a distribution of discount 
rates for EPSs based on the opportunity cost of consumer funds.
    For residential households, DOE applies weighted average discount 
rates calculated from consumer debt and asset data, rather than 
marginal or implicit discount rates.\36\ The LCC analysis estimates net 
present value over the lifetime of the product, so the appropriate 
discount rate will reflect the general opportunity cost of household 
funds, taking this time scale into account. Given the long time horizon 
modeled in the LCC analysis, the application of a marginal interest 
rate associated with an initial source of funds is inaccurate. 
Regardless of the method of purchase, consumers are expected to 
continue to rebalance their debt and asset holdings over the LCC 
analysis period, based on the restrictions consumers face in their debt 
payment requirements and the relative size of the interest rates 
available on debts and assets. DOE estimates the aggregate impact of 
this rebalancing using the historical distribution of debts and assets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ The implicit discount rate is inferred from a consumer 
purchase decision between two otherwise identical goods with 
different first cost and operating cost. It is the interest rate 
that equates the increment of first cost to the difference in net 
present value of lifetime operating cost, incorporating the 
influence of several factors: transaction costs; risk premiums and 
response to uncertainty; time preferences; interest rates at which a 
consumer is able to borrow or lend. The implicit discount rate is 
not appropriate for the LCC analysis because it reflects a range of 
factors that influence consumer purchase decisions, rather than the 
opportunity cost of the funds that are used in purchases.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To establish residential discount rates for the LCC analysis, DOE 
identified all relevant household debt or asset classes in order to 
approximate a consumer's opportunity cost of funds related to appliance 
energy cost savings. It estimated the average percentage shares of the 
various types of debt and equity by household income group using data 
from the Federal Reserve Board's Survey of Consumer Finances \37\ 
(``SCF'') for 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, and 2019. 
Using the SCF and other sources, DOE developed a distribution of rates 
for each type of debt and asset by income group to represent the rates 
that may apply in the year in which amended standards would take 
effect. DOE assigned each sample household a specific discount rate 
drawn from one of the distributions. The average rate across all types 
of household debt and equity and income groups, weighted by the shares 
of each type, is 4.26% percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Survey of 
Consumer Finances. 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2013, 2016, 
and 2019. (Available at: www.federalreserve.gov/econres/scfindex.htm) (last accessed Sept. 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For commercial buildings, DOE derived the discount rates for the 
LCC analysis by estimating the cost of capital for companies or public 
entities that purchase EPSs. For private firms, the weighted average 
cost of capital (``WACC'') is commonly used to estimate the present 
value of cash flows to be derived from a typical company project or 
investment. Most companies use both debt and equity capital to fund 
investments, so their cost of capital is the weighted average of the 
cost to the firm of equity and debt financing, as estimated from 
financial data for publicly traded firms across all commercial sectors. 
The average commercial cost of capital is 6.77%.
    See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for further details on the 
development of consumer discount rates.
8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the No-New-Standards Case
    To accurately estimate the share of consumers that would be 
affected by a potential energy conservation standard at a particular 
efficiency level, DOE's LCC analysis considered the projected 
distribution (market shares) of product efficiencies under the no-new-
standards case (i.e., the case without amended or new energy 
conservation standards).
    In the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE used the CCD \38\ to 
estimate the energy efficiency distribution of EPSs for 2027.\39\ The 
estimated market shares for the no-new-standards case for EPSs are 
shown in Table IV.14. See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD for further 
information on the derivation of the efficiency distributions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ https://www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms.
    \39\ See Chapter 8, section 8.4 of the 2022 Preliminary Analysis 
Technical Support Document for External Power Supplies. (Available 
at: www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0012) (last 
accessed Sept. 12, 2022).

                      Table IV.14--Estimated Market Shares of EPSs in No-New-Standards Case
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Efficiency levels
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Power level              Current DOE                                   Best in market
                                     stds. (%)     EU CoC T2 (%)    Top 50% (%)         (%)        Max-tech (%)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PC 1: Dir SV AC-DC Basic (2.5w).               0              52              26              22               0

[[Page 7313]]

 
PC 1: Dir SV AC-DC Basic (12w)..              18              35              41               6               0
PC 1: Dir SV AC-DC Basic (24w)..              22              40              34               4               0
PC 1: Dir SV AC-DC Basic (60w)..              50              21              17              13               0
PC 1: Dir SV AC-DC Basic (120w).              26              32              26              16               0
PC 2: Dir SV AC-DC Low (5w).....               6              65              19               8               2
PC 2: Dir SV AC-DC Low (10w)....              17              29              28              26               0
PC 2: Dir SV AC-DC Low (12w)....              27              28              26              17               3
PC 2: Dir SV AC-DC Low (24w)....              44               7              45               4               0
PC 3: Dir SV AC-AC Basic (3.6w).              67               0              33               0               0
PC 3: Dir SV AC-AC Basic (24w)..               0              50              50               0               0
PC 3: Dir SV AC-AC Basic (40w)..             100               0               0               0               0
PC 5: Dir MV (18w)..............               2              14              51              24               8
PC 5: Dir MV (30w)..............              56               8              25              11               0
PC 5: Dir MV (90w)..............               0              50              25               0              25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9. Payback Period Analysis
    The payback period is the amount of time it takes the consumer to 
recover the additional installed cost of more-efficient products, 
compared to baseline products, through energy cost savings. Payback 
periods are expressed in years. Payback periods that exceed the life of 
the product mean that the increased total installed cost is not 
recovered in reduced operating expenses.
    The inputs to the PBP calculation for each efficiency level are the 
change in total installed cost of the product and the change in the 
first-year annual operating expenditures relative to the baseline. The 
PBP calculation uses the same inputs as the LCC analysis, except that 
discount rates are not needed.
    As noted previously, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that 
a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the 
additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with 
an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the 
value of the first year's energy savings resulting from the standard, 
as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) For each considered efficiency level, DOE 
determined the value of the first year's energy savings by calculating 
the energy savings in accordance with the applicable DOE test 
procedure, and multiplying those savings by the average energy price 
projection for the year in which compliance with the amended standards 
would be required.
H. Shipments Analysis
    DOE uses projections of annual product shipments to calculate the 
national impacts of potential amended or new energy conservation 
standards on energy use, NPV, and future manufacturer cash flows.\40\ 
The shipments model takes an accounting approach, tracking market 
shares of each product class and the vintage of units in the stock. 
Stock accounting uses product shipments as inputs to estimate the age 
distribution of in-service product stocks for all years. The age 
distribution of in-service product stocks is a key input to 
calculations of both the NES and NPV, because operating costs for any 
year depend on the age distribution of the stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as a proxy for 
national sales, as aggregate data on sales are lacking. In general, 
one would expect a close correspondence between shipments and sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis, DOE developed shipments 
estimates based on actual shipments from 2019 and a population growth 
rate based on U.S. Census population projections through 2050.\41\ DOE 
did not receive any comments on the shipments analysis and therefore 
used this same approach in the NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ See Chapter 9 of the 2022 Preliminary Analysis Technical 
Support Document for External Power Supplies. (Available at: 
www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0012) (last 
accessed Sept. 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    See Chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD for more detail on the shipments 
analysis.
    DOE requests comment on its methodology for estimating shipments. 
DOE also requests comment on its approach to estimate the market share 
for EPSs of all product classes. DOE requests comment on the observed 
and expected changes in quantity and use of external power supplies, by 
type of power supply, and changes in shipments of products that use 
external power supplies, including consumer electronics, power tools, 
and medical devices, among others.

I. National Impact Analysis

    The NIA assesses the NES and the NPV from a national perspective of 
total consumer costs and savings that would be expected to result from 
new or amended standards at specific efficiency levels.\42\ 
(``Consumer'' in this context refers to consumers of the product being 
regulated.) DOE calculates the NES and NPV for the potential standard 
levels considered based on projections of annual product shipments, 
along with the annual energy consumption and total installed cost data 
from the energy use and LCC analyses. For the present analysis, DOE 
projected the energy savings, operating cost savings, product costs, 
and NPV of consumer benefits over the lifetime of EPSs sold from 2027 
through 2056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states and U.S. 
territories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE evaluates the impacts of new or amended standards by comparing 
a case without such standards with standards-case projections. The no-
new-standards case characterizes energy use and consumer costs for each 
product class in the absence of new or amended energy conservation 
standards. For this projection, DOE considers historical trends in 
efficiency and various forces that are likely to affect the mix of 
efficiencies over time. DOE compares the no-new-standards case with 
projections characterizing the market for each product class if DOE 
adopted new or amended standards at specific energy efficiency levels 
(i.e., the TSLs or standards cases) for that class. For the standards 
cases, DOE considers how a given standard would likely affect the 
market shares of products with efficiencies greater than the standard.

[[Page 7314]]

    DOE uses a spreadsheet model to calculate the energy savings and 
the national consumer costs and savings from each TSL. Interested 
parties can review DOE's analyses by changing various input quantities 
within the spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet model uses typical values 
(as opposed to probability distributions) as inputs.
    Table IV.15 summarizes the inputs and methods DOE used for the NIA 
analysis for the NOPR. Discussion of these inputs and methods follows 
the table. See chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD for further details.

   Table IV.15--Summary of Inputs and Methods for the National Impact
                                Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Inputs                               Method
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shipments.........................  Annual shipments from shipments
                                     model.
Compliance Date of Standard.......  2027.
Efficiency Trends.................  No-new-standards case: Varies by
                                     application.
Annual Energy Consumption per Unit  Annual weighted-average values are a
                                     function of energy use at each TSL.
Total Installed Cost per Unit.....  Annual weighted-average values are a
                                     function of cost at each TSL.
                                     Incorporates projection of future
                                     product prices based on historical
                                     data.
Annual Energy Cost per Unit.......  Annual weighted-average values as a
                                     function of the annual energy
                                     consumption per unit and energy
                                     prices.
Repair and Maintenance Cost per     Annual values do not change with
 Unit.                               efficiency level.
Energy Price Trends...............  AEO2022 projections (to 2050) and
                                     extrapolation thereafter based on
                                     the growth rate from 2023-2050.
Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC      A time-series conversion factor
 Conversion.                         based on AEO2022.
Discount Rate.....................  3 percent and 7 percent.
Present Year......................  2021.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Product Efficiency Trends
    A key component of the NIA is the trend in energy efficiency 
projected for the no-new-standards case and each of the standards 
cases. Section IV.G.8 of this document describes how DOE developed an 
energy efficiency distribution for the no-new-standards case (which 
yields a shipment-weighted average efficiency) for each of the 
considered product classes for the year of anticipated compliance with 
an amended or new standard. To project the trend in efficiency absent 
amended standards for EPSs over the entire shipments projection period, 
DOE assumed a constant efficiency trend. The approach is further 
described in chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD.
    For the standards cases, DOE used a ``roll-up'' scenario to 
establish the shipment-weighted efficiency for the year that standards 
are assumed to become effective (2027). In this scenario, the market 
shares of products in the no-new-standards case that do not meet the 
standard under consideration would ``roll up'' to meet the new standard 
level, and the market share of products above the standard would remain 
unchanged.
    To develop standards case efficiency trends after 2027, DOE used a 
constant efficiency trend, keeping the distribution equal to the 
compliance year.
2. National Energy Savings
    The national energy savings analysis involves a comparison of 
national energy consumption of the considered products between each 
potential standards case (``TSL'') and the case with no new or amended 
energy conservation standards. DOE calculated the national energy 
consumption by multiplying the number of units (stock) of each product 
(by vintage or age) by the unit energy consumption (also by vintage). 
DOE calculated annual NES based on the difference in national energy 
consumption for the no-new standards case and for each higher 
efficiency standard case. DOE estimated energy consumption and savings 
based on site energy and converted the electricity consumption and 
savings to primary energy (i.e., the energy consumed by power plants to 
generate site electricity) using annual conversion factors derived from 
AEO2022. Cumulative energy savings are the sum of the NES for each year 
over the timeframe of the analysis.
    Use of higher-efficiency products is occasionally associated with a 
direct rebound effect, which refers to an increase in utilization of 
the product due to the increase in efficiency. DOE did not consider a 
rebound effect in this analysis, because the price differences by EL 
and energy use are so small that any rebound effect would be close to 
zero.
    In 2011, in response to the recommendations of a committee on 
``Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement Approaches to Energy 
Efficiency Standards'' appointed by the National Academy of Sciences, 
DOE announced its intention to use FFC measures of energy use and 
greenhouse gas and other emissions in the national impact analyses and 
emissions analyses included in future energy conservation standards 
rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 2011). After evaluating the 
approaches discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, DOE published a 
statement of amended policy in which DOE explained its determination 
that EIA's National Energy Modeling System (``NEMS'') is the most 
appropriate tool for its FFC analysis and its intention to use NEMS for 
that purpose. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 2012). NEMS is a public domain, 
multi-sector, partial equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector \43\ 
that EIA uses to prepare its Annual Energy Outlook. The FFC factors 
incorporate losses in production and delivery in the case of natural 
gas (including fugitive emissions) and additional energy used to 
produce and deliver the various fuels used by power plants. The 
approach used for deriving FFC measures of energy use and emissions is 
described in appendix 10B of the NOPR TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ For more information on NEMS, refer to The National Energy 
Modeling System: An Overview. (Available at: www.eia.gov/analysis/pdfpages/0581(2009)index.php) (last accessed Sept. 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Net Present Value Analysis
    The inputs for determining the NPV of the total costs and benefits 
experienced by consumers are (1) total annual installed cost, (2) total 
annual operating costs (energy costs and repair and maintenance costs), 
and (3) a discount factor to calculate the present value of costs and 
savings. DOE calculates net savings each year as the difference between 
the no-new-standards case and each standards case in terms of total 
savings in operating costs versus total increases in installed

[[Page 7315]]

costs. DOE calculates operating cost savings over the lifetime of each 
product shipped during the projection period.
    As discussed in section IV.G.1 of this document, DOE developed EPS 
price trends based on historical PPI data for the semiconductor 
industry. DOE applied the same trends to project prices for each 
product class at each considered efficiency level. By 2056, which is 
the end date of the projection period, the average EPS price is 
projected to drop 90 percent relative to 2021. DOE's projection of 
product prices is described in appendix 10C of the NOPR TSD.
    The operating cost savings are energy cost savings, which are 
calculated using the estimated energy savings in each year and the 
projected price of the appropriate form of energy. To estimate energy 
prices in future years, DOE multiplied the average regional energy 
prices by the projection of annual national-average residential and 
commercial energy price changes in the Reference case from AEO2022, 
which has an end year of 2050. To estimate price trends after 2050, DOE 
used the average annual rate of change in prices from 2023 through 
2050.
    In calculating the NPV, DOE multiplies the net savings in future 
years by a discount factor to determine their present value. For this 
NOPR, DOE estimated the NPV of consumer benefits using both a 3-percent 
and a 7-percent real discount rate. DOE uses these discount rates in 
accordance with guidance provided by the Office of Management and 
Budget (``OMB'') to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory 
analysis.\44\ The discount rates for the determination of NPV are in 
contrast to the discount rates used in the LCC analysis, which are 
designed to reflect a consumer's perspective. The 7-percent real value 
is an estimate of the average before-tax rate of return to private 
capital in the U.S. economy. The 3-percent real value represents the 
``social rate of time preference,'' which is the rate at which society 
discounts future consumption flows to their present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ United States Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-
4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. Section E. (Available 
at: www.whitehouse.gov/omb/memoranda/m03-21.html) (last accessed 
Sept. 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

J. Consumer Subgroup Analysis

    In analyzing the potential impact of new or amended energy 
conservation standards on consumers, DOE evaluates the impact on 
identifiable subgroups of consumers that may be disproportionately 
affected by a new or amended national standard. The purpose of a 
subgroup analysis is to determine the extent of any such 
disproportional impacts. DOE evaluates impacts on particular subgroups 
of consumers by analyzing the LCC impacts and PBP for those particular 
consumers from alternative standard levels. For this NOPR, DOE analyzed 
the impacts of the considered standard levels on one subgroup: low-
income households. The analysis used subsets of the RECS 2015 and CBECS 
2018 sample composed of households that meet the criteria for the two 
subgroups. DOE used the LCC and PBP spreadsheet model to estimate the 
impacts of the considered efficiency levels on these subgroups. Chapter 
11 in the NOPR TSD describes the consumer subgroup analysis.

K. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

1. Overview
    DOE performed an MIA to estimate the financial impacts of amended 
energy conservation standards on manufacturers of EPSs and to estimate 
the potential impacts of such standards on employment and manufacturing 
capacity. The MIA has both quantitative and qualitative aspects and 
includes analyses of projected industry cash flows, the INPV, 
investments in research and development (``R&D'') and manufacturing 
capital, and domestic manufacturing employment. Additionally, the MIA 
seeks to determine how amended energy conservation standards might 
affect manufacturing employment, capacity, and competition, as well as 
how standards contribute to overall regulatory burden. Finally, the MIA 
serves to identify any disproportionate impacts on manufacturer 
subgroups, including small business manufacturers.
    The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government 
Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), an industry cash flow model with 
inputs specific to this rulemaking. The key GRIM inputs include data on 
the industry cost structure, unit production costs, product shipments, 
manufacturer markups, and investments in R&D and manufacturing capital 
required to produce compliant products. The key GRIM outputs are the 
INPV, which is the sum of industry annual cash flows over the analysis 
period, discounted using the industry-weighted average cost of capital, 
and the impact to domestic manufacturing employment. The model uses 
standard accounting principles to estimate the impacts of more-
stringent energy conservation standards on a given industry by 
comparing changes in INPV and domestic manufacturing employment between 
a no-new-standards case and the various standards cases (``TSLs''). To 
capture the uncertainty relating to manufacturer pricing strategies 
following amended standards, the GRIM estimates a range of possible 
impacts under different markup scenarios.
    The qualitative part of the MIA addresses manufacturer 
characteristics and market trends. Specifically, the MIA considers such 
factors as a potential standard's impact on manufacturing capacity, 
competition within the industry, the cumulative impact of other DOE and 
non-DOE regulations, as well as impacts on manufacturer subgroups. The 
complete MIA is outlined in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
    DOE conducted the MIA for this rulemaking in three phases. In Phase 
1 of the MIA, DOE prepared a profile of the EPS manufacturing industry 
based on the market and technology assessment, manufacturer interviews, 
and publicly-available information. This included a top-down analysis 
of EPS manufacturers that DOE used to derive preliminary financial 
inputs for the GRIM (e.g., revenues; materials, labor, overhead, and 
depreciation expenses; selling, general, and administrative expenses 
(``SG&A''); and R&D expenses). DOE also used public sources of 
information to further calibrate its initial characterization of the 
EPS manufacturing industry, including company filings of form 10-K from 
the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (``SEC''),\45\ corporate 
annual reports, the U.S. Census Bureau's Economic Census,\46\ and 
reports from D&B Hoovers.\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ See www.sec.gov/edgar.shtml.
    \46\ See www.census.gov/programs-surveys/asm/data.html.
    \47\ See https://app.dnbhoovers.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Phase 2 of the MIA, DOE prepared a framework industry cash-flow 
analysis to quantify the potential impacts of amended energy 
conservation standards. The GRIM uses several factors to determine a 
series of annual cash flows starting with the announcement of the 
standard and extending over a 30-year period following the compliance 
date of the standard. These factors include annual expected revenues, 
costs of sales, SG&A and R&D expenses, taxes, and capital expenditures. 
In general, energy conservation standards can affect manufacturer cash 
flow in three distinct ways: (1) creating a need for increased 
investment, (2) raising production costs per unit, and (3) altering 
revenue due to higher per-unit prices and changes in sales volumes.

[[Page 7316]]

    In Phase 3 of the MIA, DOE also evaluated subgroups of 
manufacturers that may be disproportionately impacted by amended 
standards or that may not be accurately represented by the average cost 
assumptions used to develop the industry cash flow analysis. Such 
manufacturer subgroups may include small business manufacturers, low-
volume manufacturers (``LVMs''), niche players, and/or manufacturers 
exhibiting a cost structure that largely differs from the industry 
average. DOE identified one subgroup for a separate impact analysis: 
small business manufacturers. The small business subgroup is discussed 
in section VI.B of this document, ``Review under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act'', and in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
2. Government Regulatory Impact Model and Key Inputs
    DOE uses the GRIM to quantify the changes in cash flow due to 
amended standards that result in a higher or lower industry value. The 
GRIM uses a standard, annual discounted cash-flow analysis that 
incorporates manufacturer costs, markups, shipments, and industry 
financial information as inputs. The GRIM models changes in costs, 
distribution of shipments, investments, and manufacturer margins that 
could result from an amended energy conservation standard. The GRIM 
uses the inputs to arrive at a series of annual cash flows, beginning 
in 2022 (the reference year of the analysis) and continuing to 2056. 
DOE calculated INPVs by summing the stream of annual discounted cash 
flows during this period. For manufacturers of EPSs, DOE used a real 
discount rate of 7.1 percent, which was the value used in the February 
2014 Final Rule.\48\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ 79 FR 7846, 7849.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The GRIM calculates cash flows using standard accounting principles 
and compares changes in INPV between the no-new-standards case and each 
standards case. The difference in INPV between the no-new-standards 
case and a standards case represents the financial impact of the 
amended energy conservation standard on manufacturers. As discussed 
previously, DOE developed critical GRIM inputs using a number of 
sources, including publicly available data, results of the engineering 
analysis, and information gathered from industry stakeholders. The GRIM 
results are presented in section V.B.2 of this document. Additional 
details about the GRIM, the discount rate, and other financial 
parameters can be found in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
a. Manufacturer Production Costs
    Manufacturing more efficient equipment is typically more expensive 
than manufacturing baseline equipment due to the use of more complex 
components, which are typically more costly than baseline components. 
The changes in the MPCs of covered products can affect the revenues, 
gross margins, and cash flow of the industry. An overview of the 
methodology used to generate MPCs is located in the engineering 
analysis, and a complete discussion of the MPCs can be found in chapter 
5 of the NOPR TSD.
b. Shipments Projections
    The GRIM estimates manufacturer revenues based on total unit 
shipment projections and the distribution of those shipments by 
efficiency level. Changes in sales volumes and efficiency mix over time 
can significantly affect manufacturer finances. For this analysis, the 
GRIM uses the NIA's annual shipment projections derived from the 
shipments analysis from 2022 (the base year) to 2056 (the end year of 
the analysis period). See chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD for additional 
details.
c. Product and Capital Conversion Costs
    Amended energy conservation standards could cause manufacturers to 
incur conversion costs to bring their production facilities and product 
designs into compliance. DOE evaluated the level of conversion-related 
expenditures that would be needed to comply with each considered 
efficiency level in each product class. For the MIA, DOE classified 
these conversion costs into two major groups: (1) product conversion 
costs; and (2) capital conversion costs. Product conversion costs are 
investments in research, development, testing, marketing, and other 
non-capitalized costs necessary to make product designs comply with 
amended energy conservation standards. Capital conversion costs are 
investments in property, plant, and equipment necessary to adapt or 
change existing production facilities such that new compliant product 
designs can be fabricated and assembled.
    DOE estimated that EPS manufacturers would not incur any capital 
conversion costs. DOE expects, as is indicated by the engineering 
analysis, that efficiency improvements would be accomplished through 
component changes, changes to the design of EPSs, or some combination 
therein. To DOE's understanding, this would not require any significant 
change to the capital equipment used in the production of EPSs. 
Manufacturers of EPSs typically do not produce their own components but 
rather source these components from outside manufacturers. 
Manufacturers of EPSs are not expected to incur any capital costs when 
purchasing these more expensive and efficient components. However, the 
increase in per unit component costs is reflected in the higher MPCs 
derived in the engineering analysis. See section IV.D.2 for a complete 
description of the MPCs derived for this NOPR analysis. Additionally, 
the design of EPSs is not expected to change in such a way as a result 
of any amended standards that the underlying production equipment would 
change.
    DOE does expect that manufacturers would incur product redesign 
costs due to amended standards. Manufacturers may need to redesign 
models outside of their normal product redesign cycles and would need 
to design around a higher efficiency constraint. To evaluate the level 
of product conversion costs manufacturers would likely incur to comply 
with amended energy conservation standards, DOE developed estimates of 
product conversion costs for each product class at each efficiency 
level using estimated revenues related to EPSs, the R&D factor of 
revenue used in the February 2014 Final Rule, and research related to 
the engineering analysis. The conversion cost estimates used in the 
GRIM can be found in section IV.K.2.c of this document. DOE assumes 
that all conversion-related investments would occur between the year of 
publication of the final rule and the year by which manufacturers must 
comply with amended energy conservation standards.
    For additional information on the estimated conversion costs and 
the related methodology, see chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
d. Markup Scenarios
    MSPs include direct manufacturing production costs (i.e., labor, 
materials, and overhead estimated in DOE's MPCs) and all non-production 
costs (i.e., SG&A, R&D, and interest), along with profit. To calculate 
the MSPs in the GRIM, DOE applied non-production cost markups to the 
MPCs estimated in the engineering analysis for each product class and 
efficiency level. Modifying these markups in the standards case yields 
different sets of impacts on manufacturers. For the MIA, DOE modeled 
two standards-case markup scenarios to represent uncertainty regarding 
the potential impacts on prices and profitability for manufacturers 
following the implementation of amended energy

[[Page 7317]]

conservation standards: (1) a preservation of gross margin scenario; 
and (2) a preservation of operating profit scenario. These scenarios 
lead to different margins that, when applied to the MPCs, result in 
varying revenue and cash flow impacts.
    Under the preservation of gross margin scenario, DOE applied a 
single uniform gross margin across all efficiency levels, which assumes 
that manufacturers would be able to maintain the same amount of profit 
as a percentage of revenues at all efficiency levels within a product 
class. This scenario represents the upper bound of INPV impacts modeled 
by DOE in this analysis.
    Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, DOE modeled a 
situation in which manufacturers are not able to maintain the per-unit 
operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer production 
costs but are able to maintain the total amount operating profit (as a 
dollar value). This scenario represents the lower bound of INPV impacts 
modeled by DOE in this analysis.
    A comparison of industry financial impacts under the two markup 
scenarios is presented in section V.B.2.a of this document.
3. Discussion of MIA Comments
    ITI commented in response to the February 2022 Preliminary Analysis 
that if DOE were to raise efficiency levels for EPSs across the board, 
there is likely to be a significant impact for all manufacturers of 
small-network equipment and for other equipment that use an off-the-
shelf EPS. ITI further stated that these impacts would be seen in the 
redesigns and supply chains required for complying with higher 
efficiency standards and therefore these cost impacts would likely be 
higher than in DOE's preliminary analysis. (ITI, No. 20 at pp. 3-4) ITI 
also stated that there is significant potential for many units of non-
compliant EPSs to be scrapped if standard levels were raised. (ITI, No. 
20 at p. 8) In the event that energy efficiency requirements are 
changed, ITI requested that DOE allow for an implementation time of at 
least 5 years to account for time needed for inventory draw down, EPS 
and end-product redesign considerations, and securing necessary 
components for production. (ITI, No. 20 at pp. 4-6) ITI stated that 
changing the components of an EPS to abide by more stringent efficiency 
standards could result in necessary redesigns for the growing or 
shrinking of the EPS enclosure. (ITI, No. 20 at pp. 8-9)
    Regarding ITI's first point, DOE has created estimates of the 
conversion costs necessary to comply with amended standards as well as 
estimates of the MSPs of EPSs at different efficiency levels. ITI did 
not provide data on or quantify the costs that might be expected by 
manufacturers, so DOE is unable to evaluate those costs in relation to 
its own estimates. DOE requests comment on DOE's estimated costs to see 
if they align with expectations. DOE also requests comment on inventory 
quantities of consumer electronics and other goods that use EPSs that 
do not meet the proposed standard.
    Regarding ITI's second point, DOE does not expect that 
manufacturers will need to scrap a large number of non-compliant EPSs--
a large fraction of the EPSs currently in the market meet the proposed 
standard level, as laid out in Table IV.14. Additionally, given the 
compliance window, manufacturers will have time to adjust production 
and inventories accordingly. Further, while the domestic market is the 
largest market for North American-type EPSs, markets elsewhere in North 
America remain an option if inventories of non-compliant models are not 
successfully drawn down completely.
    For the third point, requesting a compliance window of 5 years in 
the event the proposed amended standards are finalized, DOE believes 
that the statutorily mandated 2-year compliance window will be 
sufficient. A 2-year compliance window already covers much of DOE's 
estimated model lifecycle of 4 years for EPSs, and, as noted 
previously, many extant EPS models are expected to meet the proposed 
standard. For the fourth point, the product conversion cost estimates 
in this NOPR are expected to encapsulate all changes to EPS designs--
including enclosure changes.
    DOE requests comment on the estimated EPS model production cycle of 
four years. DOE requests comment on the impacts of the proposed 
standard, including the compliance date, on the inventory and potential 
redesign of products that use EPSs that would not meet the proposed 
standards.

L. Emissions Analysis

    The emissions analysis consists of two components. The first 
component estimates the effect of potential energy conservation 
standards on power sector and site (where applicable) combustion 
emissions of CO2, NOX, SO2, and Hg. 
The second component estimates the impacts of potential standards on 
emissions of two additional greenhouse gases, CH4 and 
N2O, as well as the reductions to emissions of other gases 
due to ``upstream'' activities in the fuel production chain. These 
upstream activities comprise extraction, processing, and transporting 
fuels to the site of combustion.
    The analysis of electric power sector emissions of CO2, 
NOX, SO2, and Hg uses emissions factors intended 
to represent the marginal impacts of the change in electricity 
consumption associated with amended or new standards. The methodology 
is based on results published for the AEO, including a set of side 
cases that implement a variety of efficiency-related policies. The 
methodology is described in appendix 13A in the NOPR TSD. The analysis 
presented in this notice uses projections from AEO2022. Power sector 
emissions of CH4 and N2O from fuel combustion are 
estimated using Emission Factors for Greenhouse Gas Inventories 
published by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).\49\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ Available at www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2021-04/documents/emission-factors_apr2021.pdf (last accessed Sept. 12, 
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    FFC upstream emissions, which include emissions from fuel 
combustion during extraction, processing, and transportation of fuels, 
and ``fugitive'' emissions (direct leakage to the atmosphere) of 
CH4 and CO2, are estimated based on the 
methodology described in chapter 15 of the NOPR TSD.
    The emissions intensity factors are expressed in terms of physical 
units per MWh or MMBtu of site energy savings. For power sector 
emissions, specific emissions intensity factors are calculated by 
sector and end use. Total emissions reductions are estimated using the 
energy savings calculated in the national impact analysis.

[[Page 7318]]

1. Air Quality Regulations Incorporated in DOE's Analysis
    DOE's no-new-standards case for the electric power sector reflects 
the AEO, which incorporates the projected impacts of existing air 
quality regulations on emissions. AEO2022 generally represents current 
legislation and environmental regulations, including recent government 
actions, that were in place at the time of preparation of AEO2022, 
including the emissions control programs discussed in the following 
paragraphs.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ For further information, see the Assumptions to AEO2022 
report that sets forth the major assumptions used to generate the 
projections in the Annual Energy Outlook. (Available at: 
www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/assumptions/) (last accessed Sept. 12, 
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SO2 emissions from affected electric generating units 
(``EGUs'') are subject to nationwide and regional emissions cap-and-
trade programs. Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions 
cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous States and 
the District of Columbia (D.C.). (42 U.S.C. 7651 et seq.) 
SO2 emissions from numerous States in the eastern half of 
the United States are also limited under the Cross-State Air Pollution 
Rule (``CSAPR''). 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). CSAPR requires these 
States to reduce certain emissions, including annual SO2 
emissions, and went into effect as of January 1, 2015.\51\ AEO2022 
incorporates implementation of CSAPR, including the update to the CSAPR 
ozone season program emission budgets and target dates issued in 2016. 
81 FR 74504 (Oct. 26, 2016). Compliance with CSAPR is flexible among 
EGUs and is enforced through the use of tradable emissions allowances. 
Under existing EPA regulations, any excess SO2 emissions 
allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand caused by the 
adoption of an efficiency standard could be used to permit offsetting 
increases in SO2 emissions by another regulated EGU.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ CSAPR requires states to address annual emissions of 
SO2 and NOX, precursors to the formation of 
fine particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution, in order to 
address the interstate transport of pollution with respect to the 
1997 and 2006 PM2.5 National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (``NAAQS''). CSAPR also requires certain states to address 
the ozone season (May-September) emissions of NOX, a 
precursor to the formation of ozone pollution, in order to address 
the interstate transport of ozone pollution with respect to the 1997 
ozone NAAQS. 76 FR 48208 (Aug. 8, 2011). EPA subsequently issued a 
supplemental rule that included an additional five states in the 
CSAPR ozone season program; 76 FR 80760 (Dec. 27, 2011) 
(Supplemental Rule).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    However, beginning in 2016, SO2 emissions began to fall 
as a result of the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (``MATS'') for 
power plants. 77 FR 9304 (Feb. 16, 2012). In the MATS final rule, EPA 
established a standard for hydrogen chloride as a surrogate for acid 
gas hazardous air pollutants (``HAP''), and also established a standard 
for SO2 (a non-HAP acid gas) as an alternative equivalent 
surrogate standard for acid gas HAP. The same controls are used to 
reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; thus, SO2 emissions are 
being reduced as a result of the control technologies installed on 
coal-fired power plants to comply with the MATS requirements for acid 
gas. In order to continue operating, coal power plants must have either 
flue gas desulfurization or dry sorbent injection systems installed. 
Both technologies, which are used to reduce acid gas emissions, also 
reduce SO2 emissions. Because of the emissions reductions 
under the MATS, it is unlikely that excess SO2 emissions 
allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand would be needed 
or used to permit offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by 
another regulated EGU. Therefore, energy conservation standards that 
decrease electricity generation would generally reduce SO2 
emissions. DOE estimated SO2 emissions reduction using 
emissions factors based on AEO2022.
    CSAPR also established limits on NOX emissions for 
numerous States in the eastern half of the United States. Energy 
conservation standards would have little effect on NOX 
emissions in those States covered by CSAPR emissions limits if excess 
NOX emissions allowances resulting from the lower 
electricity demand could be used to permit offsetting increases in 
NOX emissions from other EGUs. In such case, NOX 
emissions would remain near the limit even if electricity generation 
goes down. A different case could possibly result, depending on the 
configuration of the power sector in the different regions and the need 
for allowances, such that NOX emissions might not remain at 
the limit in the case of lower electricity demand. In this case, energy 
conservation standards might reduce NOX emissions in covered 
States. Despite this possibility, DOE has chosen to be conservative in 
its analysis and has maintained the assumption that standards will not 
reduce NOX emissions in States covered by CSAPR. Energy 
conservation standards would be expected to reduce NOX 
emissions in the States not covered by CSAPR. DOE used AEO2022 data to 
derive NOX emissions factors for the group of States not 
covered by CSAPR.
    The MATS limit mercury emissions from power plants, but they do not 
include emissions caps and, as such, DOE's energy conservation 
standards would be expected to slightly reduce Hg emissions. DOE 
estimated mercury emissions reduction using emissions factors based on 
AEO2022, which incorporates the MATS.

M. Monetizing Emissions Impacts

    As part of the development of this proposed rule, for the purpose 
of complying with the requirements of Executive Order 12866, DOE 
considered the estimated monetary benefits from the reduced emissions 
of CO2, CH4, N2O, NOX, and 
SO2 that are expected to result from each of the TSLs 
considered. In order to make this calculation analogous to the 
calculation of the NPV of consumer benefit, DOE considered the reduced 
emissions expected to result over the lifetime of products shipped in 
the projection period for each TSL. This section summarizes the basis 
for the values used for monetizing the emissions benefits and presents 
the values considered in this NOPR.
    On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-
30087) granted the Federal government's emergency motion for stay 
pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued 
in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of 
the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is no longer in 
effect, pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that 
injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the 
preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case from 
``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the 
interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases--which were 
issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of 
Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of 
reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further 
intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the 
injunction and present monetized benefits where appropriate and 
permissible under law. DOE requests comment on how to address the 
climate benefits and other non-monetized effects of the proposal.

[[Page 7319]]

1. Monetization of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
    DOE estimates the monetized benefits of the reductions in emissions 
of CO2, CH4, and N2O by using a 
measure of the social cost (``SC'') of each pollutant (e.g., SC-
CO2). These estimates represent the monetary value of the 
net harm to society associated with a marginal increase in emissions of 
these pollutants in a given year, or the benefit of avoiding that 
increase. These estimates are intended to include (but are not limited 
to) climate-change-related changes in net agricultural productivity, 
human health, property damages from increased flood risk, disruption of 
energy systems, risk of conflict, environmental migration, and the 
value of ecosystem services.
    DOE exercises its own judgment in presenting monetized climate 
benefits as recommended by applicable Executive orders, and DOE would 
reach the same conclusion presented in this proposed rulemaking in the 
absence of the social cost of greenhouse gases, including the February 
2021 Interim Estimates presented by the Interagency Working Group on 
the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases.
    DOE estimated the global social benefits of CO2, 
CH4, and N2O reductions (i.e., SC-GHGs) using the 
estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of 
Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive 
Order 13990, published in February 2021 by the IWG (``February 2021 SC-
GHG TSD''). The SC-GHGs is the monetary value of the net harm to 
society associated with a marginal increase in emissions in a given 
year, or the benefit of avoiding that increase. In principle, SC-GHGs 
includes the value of all climate change impacts, including (but not 
limited to) changes in net agricultural productivity, human health 
effects, property damage from increased flood risk and natural 
disasters, disruption of energy systems, risk of conflict, 
environmental migration, and the value of ecosystem services. The SC-
GHGs therefore, reflects the societal value of reducing emissions of 
the gas in question by one metric ton. The SC-GHGs is the theoretically 
appropriate value to use in conducting benefit-cost analyses of 
policies that affect CO2, N2O and CH4 
emissions.
    As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the February 
2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees that the interim SC-GHG estimates represent 
the most appropriate estimate of the SC-GHG until revised estimates 
have been developed reflecting the latest, peer-reviewed science.
    The SC-GHGs estimates presented here were developed over many 
years, using transparent process, peer-reviewed methodologies, the best 
science available at the time of that process, and with input from the 
public. Specifically, in 2009, the IWG, that included the DOE and other 
executive branch agencies and offices, was established to ensure that 
agencies were using the best available science and to promote 
consistency in the social cost of carbon (``SC-CO2'') values 
used across agencies. The IWG published SC-CO2 estimates in 
2010 that were developed from an ensemble of three widely cited 
integrated assessment models (``IAMs'') that estimate global climate 
damages using highly aggregated representations of climate processes 
and the global economy combined into a single modeling framework. The 
three IAMs were run using a common set of input assumptions in each 
model for future population, economic, and CO2 emissions 
growth, as well as equilibrium climate sensitivity--a measure of the 
globally averaged temperature response to increased atmospheric 
CO2 concentrations. These estimates were updated in 2013 
based on new versions of each IAM. In August 2016 the IWG published 
estimates of the social cost of methane (``SC-CH4'') and 
nitrous oxide (``SC-N2O'') using methodologies that are 
consistent with the methodology underlying the SC-CO2 
estimates. The modeling approach that extends the IWG SC-CO2 
methodology to non-CO2 GHGs has undergone multiple stages of 
peer review. The SC-CH4 and SC-N2O estimates were 
developed by Marten et al.\52\ and underwent a standard double-blind 
peer review process prior to journal publication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \52\ Marten, A.L., E.A. Kopits, C.W. Griffiths, S.C. Newbold, 
and A. Wolverton. Incremental CH4 and N2O 
mitigation benefits consistent with the US Government's SC-
CO2 estimates. Climate Policy. 2015. 15(2): pp. 272-298.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 2015, as part of the response to public comments received to a 
2013 solicitation for comments on the SC-CO2 estimates, the 
IWG announced a National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and 
Medicine review of the SC-CO2 estimates to offer advice on 
how to approach future updates to ensure that the estimates continue to 
reflect the best available science and methodologies. In January 2017, 
the National Academies released their final report, Valuing Climate 
Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of Carbon Dioxide, and 
recommended specific criteria for future updates to the SC-
CO2 estimates, a modeling framework to satisfy the specified 
criteria, and both near-term updates and longer-term research needs 
pertaining to various components of the estimation process (National 
Academies, 2017).\53\ Shortly thereafter, in March 2017, President 
Trump issued Executive Order 13783, which disbanded the IWG, withdrew 
the previous TSDs, and directed agencies to ensure SC-CO2 
estimates used in regulatory analyses are consistent with the guidance 
contained in OMB's Circular A-4, ``including with respect to the 
consideration of domestic versus international impacts and the 
consideration of appropriate discount rates'' (E.O. 13783, Section 
5(c)). Benefit-cost analyses following E.O. 13783 used SC-GHG estimates 
that attempted to focus on the U.S.-specific share of climate change 
damages as estimated by the models and were calculated using two 
discount rates recommended by Circular A-4, 3 percent and 7 percent. 
All other methodological decisions and model versions used in SC-GHG 
calculations remained the same as those used by the IWG in 2010 and 
2013, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 
Valuing Climate Damages: Updating Estimation of the Social Cost of 
Carbon Dioxide. 2017. The National Academies Press: Washington, DC.

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

[[Page 7320]]

    On January 20, 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order 13990, 
which re-established the IWG and directed it to ensure that the U.S. 
Government's estimates of the social cost of carbon and other 
greenhouse gases reflect the best available science and the 
recommendations of the National Academies (2017). The IWG was tasked 
with first reviewing the SC-GHG estimates currently used in Federal 
analyses and publishing interim estimates within 30 days of the E.O. 
that reflect the full impact of GHG emissions, including by taking 
global damages into account. The interim SC-GHG estimates published in 
February 2021 are used here to estimate the climate benefits for this 
proposed rulemaking. The E.O. instructs the IWG to undertake a fuller 
update of the SC-GHG estimates by January 2022 that takes into 
consideration the advice of the National Academies (2017) and other 
recent scientific literature. The February 2021 SC-GHG TSD provides a 
complete discussion of the IWG's initial review conducted under E.O. 
13990. In particular, the IWG found that the SC-GHG estimates used 
under E.O. 13783 fail to reflect the full impact of GHG emissions in 
multiple ways.
    First, the IWG found that the SC-GHG estimates used under E.O. 
13783 fail to fully capture many climate impacts that affect the 
welfare of U.S. citizens and residents, and those impacts are better 
reflected by global measures of the SC-GHG. Examples of omitted effects 
from the E.O. 13783 estimates include direct effects on U.S. citizens, 
assets, and investments located abroad, supply chains, U.S. military 
assets and interests abroad, tourism, and spillover pathways such as 
economic and political destabilization and global migration that can 
lead to adverse impacts on U.S. national security, public health, and 
humanitarian concerns. In addition, assessing the benefits of U.S. GHG 
mitigation activities requires consideration of how those actions may 
affect mitigation activities by other countries, as those international 
mitigation actions will provide a benefit to U.S. citizens and 
residents by mitigating climate impacts that affect U.S. citizens and 
residents. A wide range of scientific and economic experts have 
emphasized the issue of reciprocity as support for considering global 
damages of GHG emissions. If the United States does not consider 
impacts on other countries, it is difficult to convince other countries 
to consider the impacts of their emissions on the United States. The 
only way to achieve an efficient allocation of resources for emissions 
reduction on a global basis--and so benefit the U.S. and its citizens--
is for all countries to base their policies on global estimates of 
damages. As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the 
February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees with this assessment and, 
therefore, in this proposed rule DOE centers attention on a global 
measure of SC-GHG. This approach is the same as that taken in DOE 
regulatory analyses from 2012 through 2016. A robust estimate of 
climate damages that accrue only to U.S. citizens and residents does 
not currently exist in the literature. As explained in the February 
2021 SC-GHG TSD, existing estimates are both incomplete and an 
underestimate of total damages that accrue to the citizens and 
residents of the U.S. because they do not fully capture the regional 
interactions and spillovers discussed above, nor do they include all of 
the important physical, ecological, and economic impacts of climate 
change recognized in the climate change literature. As noted in the 
February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the IWG will continue to review developments 
in the literature, including more robust methodologies for estimating a 
U.S.-specific SC-GHG value, and explore ways to better inform the 
public of the full range of carbon impacts. As a member of the IWG, DOE 
will continue to follow developments in the literature pertaining to 
this issue.
    Second, the IWG found that the use of the social rate of return on 
capital (7 percent under current OMB Circular A-4 guidance) to discount 
the future benefits of reducing GHG emissions inappropriately 
underestimates the impacts of climate change for the purposes of 
estimating the SC-GHG. Consistent with the findings of the National 
Academies (2017) and the economic literature, the IWG continued to 
conclude that the consumption rate of interest is the theoretically 
appropriate discount rate in an intergenerational context,\54\ and 
recommended that discount rate uncertainty and relevant aspects of 
intergenerational ethical considerations be accounted for in selecting 
future discount rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon. 
Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 
Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. 2013. (Last accessed April 15, 
2022.) www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/11/26/2013-28242/technical-support-document-technical-update-of-the-social-cost-of-carbon-for-regulatory-impact; Interagency Working Group on Social 
Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United States Government. Technical 
Support Document: Technical Update on the Social Cost of Carbon for 
Regulatory Impact Analysis-Under Executive Order 12866. August 2016. 
(Available at: www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/sc_co2_tsd_august_2016.pdf) (Last accessed Sept. 12, 2022) ; 
Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases, United 
States Government. Addendum to Technical Support Document on Social 
Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact Analysis under Executive Order 
12866: Application of the Methodology to Estimate the Social Cost of 
Methane and the Social Cost of Nitrous Oxide. August 2016. 
(Available at: www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2016-12/documents/addendum_to_sc-ghg_tsd_august_2016.pdf) (Last accessed Sept. 12, 
2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, the damage estimates developed for use in the SC-GHG 
are estimated in consumption-equivalent terms, and so an application of 
OMB Circular A-4's guidance for regulatory analysis would then use the 
consumption discount rate to calculate the SC-GHG. DOE agrees with this 
assessment and will continue to follow developments in the literature 
pertaining to this issue. DOE also notes that while OMB Circular A-4, 
as published in 2003, recommends using 3 percent and 7 percent discount 
rates as ``default'' values, Circular A-4 also reminds agencies that 
``different regulations may call for different emphases in the 
analysis, depending on the nature and complexity of the regulatory 
issues and the sensitivity of the benefit and cost estimates to the key 
assumptions.'' On discounting, Circular A-4 recognizes that ``special 
ethical considerations arise when comparing benefits and costs across 
generations,'' and Circular A-4 acknowledges that analyses may 
appropriately ``discount future costs and consumption benefits . . . at 
a lower rate than for intragenerational analysis.'' In the 2015 
Response to Comments on the Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 
Analysis, OMB, DOE, and the other IWG members recognized that 
``Circular A-4 is a living document'' and ``the use of 7 percent is not 
considered appropriate for intergenerational discounting. There is wide 
support for this view in the academic literature, and it is recognized 
in Circular A-4 itself.'' Thus, DOE concludes that a 7 percent discount 
rate is not appropriate to apply to value the social cost of greenhouse 
gases in the analysis presented in this document.
    To calculate the present and annualized values of climate benefits, 
DOE uses the same discount rate as the rate used to discount the value 
of damages from future GHG emissions, for internal consistency. That 
approach to discounting follows the same approach that the February 
2021 TSD recommends ``to ensure internal consistency--i.e., future 
damages from climate change using the SC-GHG at 2.5 percent should be 
discounted to the base year of the analysis using the same 2.5 percent 
rate.'' DOE has also

[[Page 7321]]

consulted the National Academies' 2017 recommendations on how SC-GHG 
estimates can ``be combined in RIAs with other cost and benefits 
estimates that may use different discount rates.'' The National 
Academies reviewed several options, including ``presenting all discount 
rate combinations of other costs and benefits with [SC-GHG] 
estimates.''
    As a member of the IWG involved in the development of the February 
2021 SC-GHG TSD, DOE agrees with the aforementioned assessment and will 
continue to follow developments in the literature pertaining to this 
issue. While the IWG works to assess how best to incorporate the 
latest, peer reviewed science to develop an updated set of SC-GHG 
estimates, it set the interim estimates to be the most recent estimates 
developed by the IWG prior to the group being disbanded in 2017. The 
estimates rely on the same models and harmonized inputs and are 
calculated using a range of discount rates. As explained in the 
February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, the IWG has recommended that agencies revert 
to the same set of four values drawn from the SC-GHG distributions 
based on three discount rates as were developed in regulatory analyses 
between 2010 and 2016 and were subject to public comment. For each 
discount rate, the IWG combined the distributions across models and 
socioeconomic emissions scenarios (applying equal weight to each) and 
then selected a set of four values recommended for use in benefit-cost 
analyses: an average value resulting from the model runs for each of 
three discount rates (2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent), plus a 
fourth value, selected as the 95th percentile of estimates based on a 3 
percent discount rate. The fourth value was included to provide 
information on potentially higher-than-expected economic impacts from 
climate change. As explained in the February 2021 SC-GHG TSD, and DOE 
agrees, this update reflects the immediate need to have an operational 
SC-GHG for use in regulatory benefit-cost analyses and other 
applications that was developed using a transparent process, peer-
reviewed methodologies, and the science available at the time of that 
process. Those estimates were subject to public comment in the context 
of dozens of proposed rulemakings as well as in a dedicated public 
comment period in 2013.
    There are a number of limitations and uncertainties associated with 
the SC-GHG estimates. First, the current scientific and economic 
understanding of discounting approaches suggests discount rates 
appropriate for intergenerational analysis in the context of climate 
change are likely to be less than 3 percent, near 2 percent or 
lower.\55\ Second, the IAMs used to produce these interim estimates do 
not include all of the important physical, ecological, and economic 
impacts of climate change recognized in the climate change literature 
and the science underlying their ``damage functions''--i.e., the core 
parts of the IAMs that map global mean temperature changes and other 
physical impacts of climate change into economic (both market and 
nonmarket) damages--lags behind the most recent research. For example, 
limitations include the incomplete treatment of catastrophic and non-
catastrophic impacts in the integrated assessment models, their 
incomplete treatment of adaptation and technological change, the 
incomplete way in which inter-regional and intersectoral linkages are 
modeled, uncertainty in the extrapolation of damages to high 
temperatures, and inadequate representation of the relationship between 
the discount rate and uncertainty in economic growth over long time 
horizons. Likewise, the socioeconomic and emissions scenarios used as 
inputs to the models do not reflect new information from the last 
decade of scenario generation or the full range of projections. The 
modeling limitations do not all work in the same direction in terms of 
their influence on the SC-CO2 estimates. However, as 
discussed in the February 2021 TSD, the IWG has recommended that, taken 
together, the limitations suggest that the interim SC-GHG estimates 
used in this proposed rule likely underestimate the damages from GHG 
emissions. DOE concurs with this assessment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \55\ Interagency Working Group on Social Cost of Greenhouse 
Gases (IWG). 2021. Technical Support Document: Social Cost of 
Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates under Executive 
Order 13990. February. United States Government. (Available at: 
www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/blog/2021/02/26/a-return-to-science-evidence-based-estimates-of-the-benefits-of-reducing-climate-pollution) (Last accessed Sept. 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's derivations of the SC-CO2, SC-N2O, and 
SC-CH4 values used for this NOPR are discussed in the 
following sections, and the results of DOE's analyses estimating the 
benefits of the reductions in emissions of these GHGs are presented in 
section V.B.6 of this document.
a. Social Cost of Carbon
    The SC-CO2 values used for this NOPR were based on the 
values developed for the IWG's February 2021 TSD. Table IV.16 shows the 
updated sets of SC-CO2 estimates from the IWG's TSD in 5-
year increments from 2020 to 2050. The full set of annual values that 
DOE used is presented in Appendix 14A of the NOPR TSD. For purposes of 
capturing the uncertainties involved in regulatory impact analysis, DOE 
has determined it is appropriate include all four sets of SC-
CO2 values, as recommended by the IWG.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \56\ For example, the February 2021 TSD discusses how the 
understanding of discounting approaches suggests that discount rates 
appropriate for intergenerational analysis in the context of climate 
change may be lower than 3 percent.

                    Table IV.16--Annual SC-CO2 Values From 2021 Interagency Update, 2020-2050
                                        [2020 Dollars per metric ton CO2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Discount rate
                                              ------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Year                                                                           3% 95th
                                                 5% average      3% average     2.5% average       percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020.........................................              14              51              76                152
2025.........................................              17              56              83                169
2030.........................................              19              62              89                187
2035.........................................              22              67              96                206
2040.........................................              25              73             103                225
2045.........................................              28              79             110                242
2050.........................................              32              85             116                260
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 7322]]

    For 2051 to 2070, DOE used SC-CO2 estimates published by 
EPA, adjusted to 2021 dollars.\57\ These estimates are based on 
methods, assumptions, and parameters identical to the 2020-2050 
estimates published by the IWG. DOE expects additional climate benefits 
to accrue for any longer-life EPSs after 2070, but a lack of available 
SC-CO2 estimates for emissions years beyond 2070 prevents 
DOE from monetizing these potential benefits in this analysis. If 
further analysis of monetized climate benefits beyond 2070 becomes 
available prior to the publication of the final rule, DOE will include 
that analysis in the final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \57\ See EPA, Revised 2026 and Later Model Year Light-Duty 
Vehicle GHG Emissions Standards: Regulatory Impact Analysis, 
Washington, DC, December 2021. (Available at: www.epa.gov/regulations-emissions-vehicles-and-engines/final-rule-revise-existing-national-ghg-emissions) (last accessed Sept. 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions reduction estimated for 
each year by the SC-CO2 value for that year in each of the 
four cases. DOE adjusted the values to 2021 dollars using the implicit 
price deflator for gross domestic product (``GDP'') from the Bureau of 
Economic Analysis. To calculate a present value of the stream of 
monetary values, DOE discounted the values in each of the four cases 
using the specific discount rate that had been used to obtain the SC-
CO2 values in each case.
b. Social Cost of Methane and Nitrous Oxide
    The SC-CH4 and SC-N2O values used for this 
NOPR were generated using the values presented in the February 2021 
TSD. Table IV.17 shows the updated sets of SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O estimates from the latest interagency update in 5-year 
increments from 2020 to 2050. The full set of annual values used is 
presented in Appendix 14A of the NOPR TSD. To capture the uncertainties 
involved in regulatory impact analysis, DOE has determined it is 
appropriate to include all four sets of SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O values, as recommended by the IWG. DOE derived values 
after 2050 using the approach described above for the SC-
CO2.

                                  Table IV.17--Annual SC-CH4 and SC-N2O Values From 2021 Interagency Update, 2020-2050
                                                              [2020 Dollars per metric ton]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      SC-CH4                                     SC-N2O
                                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                           Discount rate and statistic                Discount rate and statistic
                               Year                                -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       5%        3%       2.5%      3% 95th       5%        3%       2.5%      3% 95th
                                                                     average   average   average   percentile   average   average   average   percentile
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020..............................................................       670     1,500     2,000        3,900     5,800    18,000    27,000       48,000
2025..............................................................       800     1,700     2,200        4,500     6,800    21,000    30,000       54,000
2030..............................................................       940     2,000     2,500        5,200     7,800    23,000    33,000       60,000
2035..............................................................     1,100     2,200     2,800        6,000     9,000    25,000    36,000       67,000
2040..............................................................     1,300     2,500     3,100        6,700    10,000    28,000    39,000       74,000
2045..............................................................     1,500     2,800     3,500        7,500    12,000    30,000    42,000       81,000
2050..............................................................     1,700     3,100     3,800        8,200    13,000    33,000    45,000       88,000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE multiplied the CH4 and N2O emissions 
reduction estimated for each year by the SC-CH4 and SC-
N2O estimates for that year in each of the cases. DOE 
adjusted the values to 2021 dollars using the implicit price deflator 
for gross domestic product (``GDP'') from the Bureau of Economic 
Analysis. To calculate a present value of the stream of monetary 
values, DOE discounted the values in each of the cases using the 
specific discount rate that had been used to obtain the SC-
CH4 and SC-N2O estimates in each case.
2. Monetization of Other Emissions Impacts
    For the NOPR, DOE estimated the monetized value of NOX 
and SO2 emissions reductions from electricity generation 
using the latest benefit per ton estimates for that sector from the 
EPA's Benefits Mapping and Analysis Program.\58\ DOE used EPA's values 
for PM2.5-related benefits associated with NOX 
and SO2 and for ozone-related benefits associated with 
NOX for 2025 2030, and 2040, calculated with discount rates 
of 3 percent and 7 percent. DOE used linear interpolation to define 
values for the years not given in the 2025 to 2040 period; for years 
beyond 2040 the values are held constant. DOE derived values specific 
to the sector for EPSs using a method described in appendix 14B of the 
NOPR TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ Estimating the Benefit per Ton of Reducing PM2.5 Precursors 
from 21 Sectors. (Available at: www.epa.gov/benmap/estimating-benefit-ton-reducing-pm25-precursors-21-sectors) (last accessed 
Sept. 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

N. Utility Impact Analysis

    The utility impact analysis estimates several effects on the 
electric power generation industry that would result from the adoption 
of new or amended energy conservation standards. The utility impact 
analysis estimates the changes in installed electrical capacity and 
generation that would result for each TSL. The analysis is based on 
published output from the NEMS associated with AEO2022. NEMS produces 
the AEO Reference case, as well as a number of side cases that estimate 
the economy-wide impacts of changes to energy supply and demand. For 
the current analysis, impacts are quantified by comparing the levels of 
electricity sector generation, installed capacity, fuel consumption and 
emissions in the AEO2022 Reference case and various side cases. Details 
of the methodology are provided in the appendices to chapters 13 and 15 
of the NOPR TSD.
    The output of this analysis is a set of time-dependent coefficients 
that capture the change in electricity generation, primary fuel 
consumption, installed capacity and power sector emissions due to a 
unit reduction in demand for a given end use. These coefficients are 
multiplied by the stream of electricity savings calculated in the NIA 
to provide estimates of selected utility impacts of potential new or 
amended energy conservation standards.

[[Page 7323]]

O. Employment Impact Analysis

    DOE considers employment impacts in the domestic economy as one 
factor in selecting a proposed standard. Employment impacts from new or 
amended energy conservation standards include both direct and indirect 
impacts. Direct employment impacts are any changes in the number of 
employees of manufacturers of the products subject to standards, their 
suppliers, and related service firms. The MIA addresses those impacts. 
Indirect employment impacts are changes in national employment that 
occur due to the shift in expenditures and capital investment caused by 
the purchase and operation of more-efficient appliances. Indirect 
employment impacts from standards consist of the net jobs created or 
eliminated in the national economy, other than in the manufacturing 
sector being regulated, caused by (1) reduced spending by consumers on 
energy, (2) reduced spending on new energy supply by the utility 
industry, (3) increased consumer spending on the products to which the 
new standards apply and other goods and services, and (4) the effects 
of those three factors throughout the economy.
    One method for assessing the possible effects on the demand for 
labor of such shifts in economic activity is to compare sector 
employment statistics developed by the Labor Department's Bureau of 
Labor Statistics (``BLS''). BLS regularly publishes its estimates of 
the number of jobs per million dollars of economic activity in 
different sectors of the economy, as well as the jobs created elsewhere 
in the economy by this same economic activity. Data from BLS indicate 
that expenditures in the utility sector generally create fewer jobs 
(both directly and indirectly) than expenditures in other sectors of 
the economy.\59\ There are many reasons for these differences, 
including wage differences and the fact that the utility sector is more 
capital-intensive and less labor-intensive than other sectors. Energy 
conservation standards have the effect of reducing consumer utility 
bills. Because reduced consumer expenditures for energy likely lead to 
increased expenditures in other sectors of the economy, the general 
effect of efficiency standards is to shift economic activity from a 
less labor-intensive sector (i.e., the utility sector) to more labor-
intensive sectors (e.g., the retail and service sectors). Thus, the BLS 
data suggest that net national employment may increase due to shifts in 
economic activity resulting from energy conservation standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \59\ See U.S. Department of Commerce-Bureau of Economic 
Analysis. Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II) User's 
Guide. (Available at: www.bea.gov/resources/methodologies/RIMSII-user-guide) (last accessed Sept. 12, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimated indirect national employment impacts for the standard 
levels considered in this NOPR using an input/output model of the U.S. 
economy called Impact of Sector Energy Technologies version 4 
(``ImSET'').\60\ ImSET is a special-purpose version of the ``U.S. 
Benchmark National Input-Output'' (``I-O'') model, which was designed 
to estimate the national employment and income effects of energy-saving 
technologies. The ImSET software includes a computer- based I-O model 
having structural coefficients that characterize economic flows among 
187 sectors most relevant to industrial, commercial, and residential 
building energy use.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Livingston, O.V., S.R. Bender, M.J. Scott, and R.W. 
Schultz. ImSET 4.0: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies Model 
Description and User Guide. 2015. Pacific Northwest National 
Laboratory: Richland, WA. PNNL-24563.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE notes that ImSET is not a general equilibrium forecasting 
model, and that the uncertainties involved in projecting employment 
impacts, especially changes in the later years of the analysis. Because 
ImSET does not incorporate price changes, the employment effects 
predicted by ImSET may over-estimate actual job impacts over the long 
run for this rule. Therefore, DOE used ImSET only to generate results 
for near-term timeframes (2027-2032), where these uncertainties are 
reduced. For more details on the employment impact analysis, see 
chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD.

P. Marking Requirements

    Under 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(5), Congress granted DOE with the authority 
to establish labeling or marking requirements for a number of consumer 
products, including EPSs. EISA 2007 set initial standards for Class A 
EPSs, and required that all Class A EPSs be clearly and permanently 
marked in accordance with the ``International Efficiency Marking 
Protocol for External Power Supplies'' (the ``Marking Protocol''). (42 
U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(C)). Subsequently, the February 2014 Final Rule 
amended the Marking Protocol to mandate the labeling of its finalized 
efficiency standards (the Level VI standards) with the Roman number VI. 
79 FR 7846, 7895-7897.
    DOE notes that it is proposing amended standards for EPSs across 
all product classes that exceed efficiency level ``VI'', the highest 
level currently defined in the Marking Protocol. DOE is proposing to 
define the proposed standards as ``Level VII'' and require updating 
markings per the Marking Protocol. As noted in Section III.A, these 
Level VII standards would be applicable to all EPSs, including direct 
and indirect operation Class A and non-Class A EPSs. This approach 
makes the distinction between these various types of EPSs redundant 
with respect to the applicability of energy conservation standards. 
Accordingly, DOE proposes to avoid using these terms in establishing 
Level VII standards in 10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(iv).
    DOE requests comment on its proposal for Level VII efficiency 
markings. DOE also requests feedback on its proposal to using the terms 
direct and indirect operation Class A and non-Class A EPSs in 
establishing Level VII standards in 10 CFR 430.32(w)(1)(iv).

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions

    The following section addresses the results from DOE's analyses 
with respect to the considered energy conservation standards for EPSs. 
It addresses the TSLs examined by DOE, the projected impacts of each of 
these levels if adopted as energy conservation standards for EPSs, and 
the standards levels that DOE is proposing to adopt in this NOPR. 
Additional details regarding DOE's analyses are contained in the NOPR 
TSD supporting this document.

A. Trial Standard Levels

    In general, DOE typically evaluates potential amended standards for 
products and equipment by grouping individual efficiency levels for 
each class into TSLs. Use of TSLs allows DOE to identify and consider 
manufacturer cost interactions between the product classes, to the 
extent that there are such interactions, and market cross elasticity 
from consumer purchasing decisions that may change when different 
standard levels are set.
    In the analysis conducted for this NOPR, DOE analyzed the benefits 
and burdens of six TSLs for EPSs. DOE developed TSLs that combine 
efficiency levels for each analyzed product class. DOE presents the 
results for the TSLs in this document, while the results for all 
efficiency levels that DOE analyzed are in the NOPR TSD.
    Table V.1 presents the TSLs and the corresponding efficiency levels 
that DOE has identified for potential amended energy conservation 
standards for EPSs. TSL 6 represents the maximum technologically 
feasible

[[Page 7324]]

(``max-tech'') energy efficiency for all product classes.

                                    Table V.1--Trial Standard Levels for EPSs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                Efficiency Level
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   AC-DC basic-     AC-DC low-     AC-AC basic-     AC-AC low-       Multiple-
               TSL                    voltage         voltage         voltage         voltage         voltage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................               0               1               1               1               1
2...............................               0               1               3               1               2
3...............................               1               1               1               1               1
4...............................               1               1               3               1               2
5...............................               3               1               4               1               1
6...............................               4               4               4               4               4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE constructed the TSLs for this NOPR to include ELs 
representative of ELs with similar characteristics (i.e., using similar 
technologies and/or efficiencies, and having roughly comparable 
equipment availability). The use of representative ELs provided for 
greater distinction between the TSLs. While representative ELs were 
included in the TSLs, DOE considered all efficiency levels as part of 
its analysis.\61\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \61\ Efficiency levels that were analyzed for this NOPR are 
discussed in section IV.D of this document. Results by efficiency 
level are presented in TSD chapters 8, 10, and 12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Economic Justification and Energy Savings

1. Economic Impacts on Individual Consumers
    DOE analyzed the economic impacts on EPS consumers by looking at 
the effects that potential amended standards at each TSL would have on 
the LCC and PBP. DOE also examined the impacts of potential standards 
on selected consumer subgroups. These analyses are discussed in the 
following sections.
a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
    In general, higher-efficiency products affect consumers in two 
ways: (1) purchase price increases and (2) annual operating costs 
decrease. Inputs used for calculating the LCC and PBP include total 
installed costs (i.e., product price plus installation costs), and 
operating costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy prices, energy price 
trends, repair costs, and maintenance costs). The LCC calculation also 
uses product lifetime and a discount rate. Chapter [8] of the NOPR TSD 
provides detailed information on the LCC and PBP analyses.
    Table V.2 through Table V.5 show the LCC and PBP results for the 
TSLs considered for each product class. The impacts are measured 
relative to the efficiency distribution in the no-new-standards case in 
the compliance year (see section IV.G.8 of this document). The savings 
refer only to consumers who are affected by a standard at a given TSL. 
Those who already purchase a product with efficiency at or above a 
given TSL are not affected. Consumers for whom the LCC increases at a 
given TSL experience a net cost. Results for AC-AC Low Voltage are not 
shown because there are no shipments of this product class.

                                             Table V.2--Average LCC and PBP Results for AC-DC Basic-Voltage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Average costs and savings  (2021 dollars)
                                         ------------------------------------------------   Average LCC     Percent of                        Average
                   EL                                      First year's      Lifetime        savings *    consumers with  Simple payback     lifetime
                                             Installed       operating       operating    (2021 dollars)      net cost        (years)         (years)
                                               cost           savings         savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................           $0.35           $0.06           $0.31          -$0.03              20             5.0             4.8
EL 2....................................            0.53            0.09            0.43           -0.10              49             6.5             4.8
EL 3....................................            0.95            0.14            0.68           -0.27              77             7.3             4.8
EL 4....................................            1.82            0.24            1.17           -0.64              86             8.0             4.8
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
Numbers may not add up due to rounding.


                                              Table V.3--Average LCC and PBP Results for AC-DC Low Voltage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Average costs and savings (2021 dollars)
                                         ------------------------------------------------   Average LCC     Percent of                        Average
                   EL                                      First year's      Lifetime        savings *    consumers with  Simple payback     lifetime
                                          Installed cost     operating       operating    (2021 dollars)     net cost         (years)         (years)
                                                              savings         savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................           $0.05           $0.01           $0.05           $0.01               4             3.2             4.2
EL 2....................................            0.59            0.02            0.09           -0.50              69            26.4             4.2
EL 3....................................            1.07            0.04            0.15           -0.91              89            27.3             4.2
EL 4....................................            1.51            0.05            0.21           -1.30              97            28.5             4.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
Numbers may not add up due to rounding.


[[Page 7325]]


                                             Table V.4--Average LCC and PBP Results for AC-AC Basic-Voltage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Average costs and savings (2021 dollars)
                                         ------------------------------------------------   Average LCC     Percent of                       Average l
                   EL                                      First year's      Lifetime        savings *    consumers with  Simple payback      ifetime
                                          Installed cost     operating       operating    (2021 dollars)     net cost         (years)         (years)
                                                              savings         savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................           $0.18           $0.07           $0.36           $0.18              10             2.3             6.2
EL 2....................................            0.53            0.16            0.81            0.29              17             3.7             6.2
EL 3....................................            1.02            0.30            1.53            0.52              28             4.1             6.2
EL 4....................................            1.96            0.48            2.51            0.55              43             4.7             6.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
Numbers may not add up due to rounding.


                                               Table V.5--Average LCC and PBP Results for Multiple-Voltage
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Average costs and savings (2021 dollars)
                                         ------------------------------------------------   Average LCC     Percent of                        Average
                   EL                                      First year's      Lifetime        savings *    consumers with  Simple payback     lifetime
                                          Installed cost     operating       operating    (2021 dollars)     net cost         (years)         (years)
                                                              savings         savings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................           $0.02           $0.06           $0.49           $0.46               0             0.1             6.2
EL 2....................................            0.42            0.09            0.65            0.24              39             7.0             6.2
EL 3....................................            1.23            0.14            0.85           -0.38              66             9.8             6.2
EL 4....................................            2.37            0.20            1.12           -1.25              70            12.5             6.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The savings represent the average LCC for affected consumers.
Numbers may not add up due to rounding.

b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis
    In the consumer subgroup analysis, DOE estimated the impact of the 
considered TSLs on low-income households. Table V.6 compares the 
average LCC savings and PBP at each efficiency level for the consumer 
subgroups with similar metrics for the entire consumer sample for a 
product class. In most cases, the average LCC savings and PBP for low-
income households at the considered efficiency levels are not 
substantially different from the average for all households. Chapter 11 
of the NOPR TSD presents the complete LCC and PBP results for the 
subgroups.

 Table V.6--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and
                   All Households; AC-DC Basic-Voltage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Low-income
                                            households    All households
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Average LCC Savings (2021 Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................           $0.00          -$0.03
EL 2....................................           -0.06           -0.10
EL 3....................................           -0.20           -0.27
EL 4....................................           -0.53           -0.64
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Payback Period (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................  ..............             5.0
EL 2....................................             6.1             6.5
EL 3....................................             6.8             7.3
EL 4....................................             7.6             8.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Consumers with Net Cost (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................              19              20
EL 2....................................              48              49
EL 3....................................              74              77
EL 4....................................              84              86
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table V.7--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and
                    All Households; AC-DC Low Voltage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Low-income
                                            households    All households
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Average LCC Savings (2021 Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................           $0.01           $0.01
EL 2....................................           -0.51           -0.50
EL 3....................................           -0.92           -0.91
EL 4....................................           -1.31           -1.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Payback Period (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................             3.0             3.2
EL 2....................................            26.8            26.4
EL 3....................................            27.8            27.3
EL 4....................................            29.1            28.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Consumers with Net Cost (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................               4               4
EL 2....................................              70              69
EL 3....................................              89              89
EL 4....................................              98              97
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table V.8--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and
                   All Households; AC-AC Basic-Voltage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Low-income
                                            households    All households
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Average LCC Savings (2021 Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................           $0.24           $0.18
EL 2....................................            0.41            0.29
EL 3....................................            0.74            0.52
EL 4....................................            0.95            0.55
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Payback Period (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................  ..............             2.3
EL 2....................................             3.5             3.7
EL 3....................................             3.9             4.1
EL 4....................................             4.5             4.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Consumers with Net Cost (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................              10              10

[[Page 7326]]

 
EL 2....................................              14              17
EL 3....................................              22              28
EL 4....................................              27              43
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table V.9--Comparison of LCC Savings and PBP for Consumer Subgroups and
                    All Households; Multiple-Voltage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Low-income
                                            households    All households
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Average LCC Savings (2021 Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................           $0.46           $0.46
EL 2....................................            0.21            0.24
EL 3....................................           -0.43           -0.38
EL 4....................................           -1.32           -1.25
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         Payback Period (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................  ..............             0.1
EL 2....................................             8.1             7.0
EL 3....................................            11.3             9.8
EL 4....................................            14.3            12.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Consumers with Net Cost (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EL 1....................................               0               0
EL 2....................................              39              39
EL 3....................................              67              66
EL 4....................................              71              70
------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback
    As discussed in section IV.G.9, EPCA establishes a rebuttable 
presumption that an energy conservation standard is economically 
justified if the increased purchase cost for a product that meets the 
standard is less than three times the value of the first-year energy 
savings resulting from the standard. In calculating a rebuttable 
presumption payback period for each of the considered TSLs, DOE used 
discrete values, and as required by EPCA, based the energy use 
calculation on the DOE test procedure for EPSs.
    Table V.10 presents the rebuttable-presumption payback periods for 
the considered TSLs for EPSs. While DOE examined the rebuttable-
presumption criterion, it considered whether the standard levels 
considered for the NOPR are economically justified through a more 
detailed analysis of the economic impacts of those levels, pursuant to 
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), that considers the full range of impacts to 
the consumer, manufacturer, nation, and environment. The results of 
that analysis serve as the basis for DOE to definitively evaluate the 
economic justification for a potential standard level, which may 
support or rebut the preliminary determination of economic 
justification.

                               Table V.10--Rebuttable-Presumption Payback Periods
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   AC-DC basic-     AC-DC low-     AC-AC basic-      Multiple-
                       EL                             voltage         voltage         voltage         voltage
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...............................................             5.0             3.2             2.3             0.1
2...............................................             6.5            26.4             3.7             7.0
3...............................................             7.3            27.3             4.1             9.8
4...............................................             8.0            28.5             4.7            12.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
    DOE performed an MIA to estimate the impact of amended energy 
conservation standards on manufacturers of EPSs. The following section 
describes the expected impacts on manufacturers at each considered TSL. 
Section IV.K of this document discusses the MIA methodology, and 
chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD explains the analysis in further detail.
a. Industry Cash Flow Analysis Results
    In this section, DOE provides GRIM results from the analysis, which 
examines changes in the industry that would result from a standard. The 
following tables summarize the estimated financial impacts (represented 
by changes in INPV) of potential amended energy conservation standards 
on manufacturers of EPSs as well as the conversion costs that DOE 
estimates manufacturers of EPSs would incur at each TSL.

                       Table V.11--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for External Power Supplies--Preservation of Gross Margin Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 No-new-                                Trial standard level
                                               Units            standards  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   case          1            2            3            4            5            6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV................................  2021 Dollars millions..        847.5        846.1        845.3        840.4        839.6        801.5        814.6
Change in INPV......................  2021 Dollars millions..  ...........        (1.4)        (2.2)        (7.1)        (7.9)       (46.0)       (32.9)
                                      %......................  ...........        (0.2)        (0.3)        (0.8)        (0.9)        (5.4)        (3.9)
Total Conversion Costs..............  2021 Dollars millions..  ...........          2.7          4.7         15.4         17.4        105.9        186.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses ``( )'' are negative. Some numbers might not round due to rounding.


                     Table V.12--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for External Power Supplies--Preservation of Operating Profit Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 No-new-                                Trial standard level
                                               Units            standards  -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   case          1            2            3            4            5            6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV................................  2021 Dollars millions..        847.5        845.8        844.4        837.3        835.9        775.2        700.0
Change in INPV......................  2021 Dollars millions..  ...........        (1.7)        (3.1)       (10.2)       (11.6)       (72.3)      (147.5)
                                      %......................  ...........        (0.2)        (0.4)        (1.2)        (1.4)        (8.5)       (17.4)

[[Page 7327]]

 
Total Conversion Costs..............  2021 Dollars millions..  ...........          2.7          4.7         15.4         17.4        105.9        186.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses ``( )'' are negative. Some numbers might not round due to rounding.

    At TSL 1, DOE estimates impacts on INPV will range from 
approximately -$1.7 million to -$1.4 million, which represents a change 
of approximately -0.2 percent. At TSL 1, industry free cash-flow 
decreases to $77.6 million, which represents a decrease of 
approximately 1.5 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value 
of $78.7 million in 2026, the year before the estimated compliance 
date.
    TSL 1 would set the energy conservation standard at baseline for 
the AC-DC Basic-Voltage product class and at EL 1 for all other product 
classes. DOE estimates that all AC-DC basic-voltage shipments, 
approximately 93 percent of AC-DC low-voltage shipments, approximately 
41 percent of AC-AC basic-voltage shipments, and approximately 89 
percent of multiple-voltage shipments would meet the efficiency levels 
analyzed at TSL 1 in 2027. As noted previously, shipment data is not 
available for the AC-AC Low-Voltage product class. DOE expects EPS 
manufacturers to incur approximately $2.7 million in product conversion 
costs to redesign all non-compliant models.
    At TSL 1, the shipment-weighted average MPC for EPSs slightly 
increases by 0.1 percent, relative to the no-new-standards case 
shipment-weighted average MPC in 2027. In the preservation of gross 
margin scenario, manufacturers can fully pass on this slight cost 
increase. The slight increase in shipment weighted average MPC is 
outweighed by the $2.7 million in conversion costs, causing a slightly 
negative change in INPV at TSL 1 under the preservation of gross margin 
scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, manufacturers 
earn the same per-unit operating profit as would be earned in the no-
new-standards case, but manufacturers do not earn additional profit 
from their investments or higher MPCs. In this scenario, the 0.1 
percent shipment weighted average MPC increase results in a reduction 
in the margin after the analyzed compliance year. This reduction in the 
margin and the $2.7 million in conversion costs incurred by 
manufacturers cause a slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 1 under 
the preservation of operating profit scenario.
    At TSL 2, DOE estimates impacts on INPV will range from -$3.1 
million to -$2.2 million, which represents a change of -0.4 percent to 
-0.3 percent, respectively. At TSL 2, industry free cash-flow decreases 
to $76.7 million, which represents a decrease of approximately 2.6 
percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value of $78.7 million 
in 2026, the year before the estimated compliance date.
    TSL 2 would set the energy conservation standard at baseline for 
the AC-DC Basic-Voltage product class; at EL 1 for the AC-DC Low-
Voltage and AC-AC Low-Voltage product classes; at EL 2 for the 
Multiple-Voltage product class; and at EL 3 for the AC-AC Basic-Voltage 
product class. DOE estimates that all AC-DC basic-voltage shipments, 
approximately 93 percent of AC-DC low-voltage shipments, approximately 
24 percent of AC-AC basic-voltage shipments, and approximately 23 
percent of multiple-voltage shipments would meet the efficiency levels 
analyzed at TSL 2 in 2027. DOE expects EPS manufacturers to incur 
approximately $4.7 million in product conversion costs to redesign all 
non-compliant models.
    At TSL 2, the shipment-weighted average MPC for EPSs slightly 
increases by 0.3 percent relative to the no-new-standards case 
shipment-weighted average MPC in 2027. In the preservation of gross 
margin scenario, manufacturers can fully pass on this slight cost 
increase. The slight increase in shipment weighted average MPC is 
outweighed by the $4.7 million in conversion costs, causing a slightly 
negative change in INPV at TSL 2 under the preservation of gross margin 
scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, the 0.3 
percent shipment weighted average MPC increase results in a reduction 
in the margin after the analyzed compliance year. This reduction in the 
margin and the $4.7 million in conversion costs incurred by 
manufacturers cause a slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 2 under 
the preservation of operating profit scenario.
    At TSL 3, DOE estimates impacts on INPV will range from -$10.2 
million to -$7.1 million, which represents a change of -1.2 percent to 
-0.8 percent, respectively. At TSL 3, industry free cash-flow decreases 
to $72.1 million, which represents a decrease of approximately 8.5 
percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value of $78.7 million 
in 2026, the year before the estimated compliance date.
    TSL 3 would set the energy conservation standard at EL 1 for all 
AC-DC Basic-Voltage product classes. DOE estimates that approximately 
75 percent of AC-DC basic-voltage shipments, approximately 93 percent 
of AC-DC low-voltage shipments, approximately 41 percent of AC-AC 
basic-voltage shipments, and approximately 89 percent of multiple-
voltage shipments would meet the efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 3 in 
2027. DOE expects EPS manufacturers to incur approximately $15.4 
million in product conversion costs to redesign all non-compliant 
models.
    At TSL 3, the shipment-weighted average MPC for EPSs slightly 
increases by 0.8 percent relative to the no-new-standards case 
shipment-weighted average MPC in 2027. In the preservation of gross 
margin scenario, manufacturers can fully pass on this cost increase. 
The increase in shipment weighted average MPC is outweighed by the 
$15.4 million in conversion costs, resulting in a slightly negative 
change in INPV at TSL 3 under the preservation of gross margin 
scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, the 0.8 
percent shipment weighted average MPC increase results in a reduction 
in the margin after the analyzed compliance year. This reduction in the 
margin and the $15.4 million in conversion costs incurred by 
manufacturers cause a slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 3 under 
the preservation of operating profit scenario.
    At TSL 4, DOE estimates impacts on INPV will range from -$11.6 
million to -$7.9 million, which represents a change of -1.4 percent to 
-0.9 percent, respectively. At TSL 4, industry free cash-flow decreases 
to $71.2 million, which represents a decrease of approximately 9.6 
percent, compared to

[[Page 7328]]

the no-new-standards case value of $78.7 million in 2026, the year 
before the estimated compliance date.
    TSL 4 would set the energy conservation standard at EL 1 for all 
product classes except for the Multiple-Voltage and AC-AC Basic-Voltage 
product classes, which would be set at EL 2 and EL 3 respectively. DOE 
estimates that approximately 75 percent of AC-DC basic-voltage 
shipments, approximately 93 percent of AC-DC low-voltage shipments, 
approximately 0 percent of AC-AC basic-voltage shipments, and 
approximately 49 percent of multiple-voltage shipments would meet the 
efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 4 in 2027. DOE expects EPS 
manufacturers to incur approximately $17.4 million in product 
conversion costs to redesign all non-compliant models.
    At TSL 4, the shipment-weighted average MPC for EPSs slightly 
increases by 1.0 percent relative to the no-new-standards case 
shipment-weighted average MPC in 2027. In the preservation of gross 
margin scenario, manufacturers can fully pass on this slight cost 
increase. The slight increase in shipment weighted average MPC is 
outweighed by the $17.4 million in conversion costs, causing a slightly 
negative change in INPV at TSL 4 under the preservation of gross margin 
scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, manufacturers 
earn the same per-unit operating profit as would be earned in the no-
new-standards case, but manufacturers do not earn additional profit 
from their investments or higher MPCs. In this scenario, the 1.0 
percent shipment weighted average MPC increase results in a reduction 
in the margin after the analyzed compliance year. This reduction in the 
margin and the $17.4 million in conversion costs incurred by 
manufacturers cause a slightly negative change in INPV at TSL 4 under 
the preservation of operating profit scenario.
    At TSL 5, DOE estimates impacts on INPV will range from -$72.3 
million to -$46.0 million, which represents a change of -8.5 percent to 
-5.4 percent, respectively. At TSL 5, industry free cash-flow decreases 
to $32.7 million, which represents a decrease of approximately 58.4 
percent, compared to the no-new-standards case value of $78.7 million 
in 2026, the year before the estimated compliance date.
    TSL 5 would set the energy conservation standard at EL 1 for the 
AC-DC Low-Voltage, AC-AC Low-Voltage, and Multiple-Voltage product 
classes. The AC-DC Basic-Voltage and AC-AC Basic-Voltage product 
classes would be set at EL 3 and EL 4 respectively. EL 4 constitutes 
max-tech for the AC-AC Basic-Voltage product class. DOE estimates that 
approximately 8 percent AC-DC basic-voltage shipments, approximately 93 
percent of AC-DC low-voltage shipments, approximately 0 percent of AC-
AC basic-voltage shipments, and approximately 89 percent of multiple-
voltage shipments would meet the efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 5 in 
2027. DOE expects EPS manufacturers to incur approximately $105.9 
million in product conversion costs to redesign all non-compliant 
models.
    At TSL 5, the shipment-weighted average MPC for EPSs moderately 
increases by 6.8 percent relative to the no-new-standards case 
shipment-weighted average MPC in 2027. In the preservation of gross 
margin scenario, manufacturers can fully pass on this moderate cost 
increase. The moderate increase in shipment weighted average MPC is 
outweighed by the $105.9 million in conversion costs, causing a 
moderately negative change in INPV at TSL 5 under the preservation of 
gross margin scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, the 6.8 
percent shipment weighted average MPC increase results in a moderate 
reduction in the margin after the analyzed compliance year. This 
reduction in the margin and the $105.9 million in conversion costs 
incurred by manufacturers cause a moderately negative change in INPV at 
TSL 5 under the preservation of operating profit scenario.
    At TSL 6, DOE estimates impacts on INPV will range from -$147.5 
million to -$32.9 million, which represents a change of -17.4 percent 
to -3.9 percent, respectively. At TSL 6, industry free cash-flow 
decreases to -$5.9 million, which represents a decrease of 
approximately 107.5 percent, compared to the no-new-standards case 
value of $78.7 million in 2026, the year before the estimated 
compliance date.
    TSL 6 would set the energy conservation standard at EL 4 for all 
product classes. EL 4 constitutes max-tech for all product classes. DOE 
estimates that approximately 0 percent of AC-DC basic-voltage 
shipments, approximately 2 percent of AC-DC low-voltage shipments, 
approximately 0 percent of AC-AC basic-voltage shipments, and 
approximately 19 percent of multiple-voltage shipments would meet the 
efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 6 in 2027. DOE expects EPS 
manufacturers to incur approximately $186.5 million in product 
conversion costs to redesign all non-compliant models.
    At TSL 6, the shipment-weighted average MPC for EPSs significantly 
increases by 29.6 percent relative to the no-new-standards case 
shipment-weighted average MPC in 2027. In the preservation of gross 
margin scenario, manufacturers can fully pass on this cost increase. 
The significant increase in shipment weighted average MPC is outweighed 
by the $186.5 million in conversion costs, causing a slightly negative 
change in INPV at TSL 6 under the preservation of gross margin 
scenario.
    Under the preservation of operating profit scenario, the 29.6 
percent shipment weighted average MPC increase results in a significant 
reduction in the margin after the analyzed compliance year. This 
reduction in the margin and the $186.5 million in conversion costs 
incurred by manufacturers cause a moderately negative change in INPV at 
TSL 6 under the preservation of operating profit scenario.
    DOE requests comment on the GRIM results and the estimated 
conversion costs.
b. Direct Impacts on Employment
    DOE was unable to identify any domestic EPS manufacturing 
facilities, based on the industry profile developments for this NOPR 
analysis and manufacturer interviews that were conducted for this 
product as well as other products that use EPSs. As such, DOE does not 
expect that there would be any direct impacts on domestic production 
employment as a result of any amended energy conservation standards.
    DOE requests comment on whether there is domestic EPS 
manufacturing, where and to what extent such manufacturing occurs, and 
how the proposed energy conservation standard might affect that 
possible domestic EPS manufacturing.
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity
    As noted in prior sections, DOE does not expect that energy 
conservation standards would result in substantial changes to EPS 
manufacturing equipment. Further, DOE does not expect that there would 
be capacity issues providing components to EPS manufacturers for more 
efficient EPSs.
    DOE requests comment on possible impacts on manufacturing capacity 
stemming from amended energy conservation standards, including any 
potential issues with supply chain costs, and or chips and devices used 
in the national security sector.

[[Page 7329]]

d. Impacts on Subgroups of Manufacturers
    DOE identified one subgroup of manufactures that may experience 
disproportionate or different impacts as a result of amended 
standards--small businesses. Analysis of the possible impact on this 
group is discussed in Section VI.B of this document.
e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves looking at the 
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific 
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the 
manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one 
regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the 
combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have 
serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 
or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may 
overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy 
conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect 
manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the 
same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon 
product lines or markets with lower expected future returns than 
competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of 
cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to 
appliance efficiency.

  Table V.13--Compliance Dates and Expected Conversion Expenses of Federal Energy Conservation Standards Affecting External Power Supply Manufacturers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                             Industry
                                                                         Number of                                                          conversion
     Federal energy conservation standard            Number of         manufacturers        Approx.         Industry conversion costs      costs/product
                                                  manufacturers *      affected from    standards year             (millions)               revenue ***
                                                                       this rule **                                                          (percent)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Room Air Conditioners [dagger] 87 FR 20608                       8                   3            2026  $22.8 (2020 Dollar).............             0.5
 (Apr. 7, 2022).
Microwave Ovens [dagger] 87 FR 52282 (Aug. 24,                  19                   6            2026  $46.1 (2021 Dollars)............             0.7
 2022).
Clothes Dryers [dagger] 87 FR 51734 (Aug. 23,                   15                   2            2027  $149.7 (2020 Dollar)............             1.8
 2022).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This column presents the total number of manufacturers identified in the energy conservation standard rule contributing to cumulative regulatory
  burden.
** This column presents the number of manufacturers producing EPSs that are also listed as manufacturers in the listed energy conservation standard
  contributing to cumulative regulatory burden.
*** This column presents industry conversion costs as a percentage of product revenue during the conversion period. Industry conversion costs are the
  upfront investments manufacturers must make to sell compliant products/equipment. The revenue used for this calculation is the revenue from just the
  covered product/equipment associated with each row. The conversion period is the time frame over which conversion costs are made and lasts from the
  publication year of the final rule to the compliance year of the energy conservation standard. The conversion period typically ranges from 3 to 5
  years, depending on the rulemaking.
[dagger] Indicates NOPR or SNOPR publications. Values may change on publication of a Final Rule.

    In addition to the rulemaking listed in Table V.13 DOE has ongoing 
rulemakings for other products or equipment that EPS manufacturers 
produce, including air cleaners; \62\ automatic commercial ice makers; 
\63\ commercial clothes washers; \64\ dehumidifiers; \65\ miscellaneous 
refrigeration products; \66\ refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and 
freezers; \67\ conventional cooking products; \68\ battery chargers; 
\69\ and residential clothes washers.\70\ If DOE proposes or finalizes 
any energy conservation standards for these products or equipment prior 
to finalizing energy conservation standards for EPSs, DOE will include 
the energy conservation standards for these other products or equipment 
as part of the cumulative regulatory burden for the EPS final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \62\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2021-BT-STD-0035.
    \63\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0022.
    \64\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0044.
    \65\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-STD-0043.
    \66\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0039.
    \67\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0003.
    \68\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2014-BT-STD-0005.
    \69\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0013.
    \70\ www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2017-BT-STD-0014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests information regarding the impact of cumulative 
regulatory burden on manufacturers of EPSs associated with multiple DOE 
standards or product-specific regulatory actions of other Federal 
agencies.
3. National Impact Analysis
    This section presents DOE's estimates of the national energy 
savings and the NPV of consumer benefits that would result from each of 
the TSLs considered as potential amended standards.
a. Significance of Energy Savings
    To estimate the energy savings attributable to potential amended 
standards for EPSs, DOE compared their energy consumption under the no-
new-standards case to their anticipated energy consumption under each 
TSL. The savings are measured over the entire lifetime of products 
purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the year of anticipated 
compliance with amended standards (2027-2056). presents DOE's 
projections of the national energy savings for each TSL considered for 
EPSs. The savings were calculated using the approach described in 
section IV.I of this document.

[[Page 7330]]



        Table V.14--Cumulative National Energy Savings for External Power Supplies; 30 Years of Shipments
                                                   [2027-2056]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Trial standard level
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         1            2            3            4            5            6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        quads
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary energy....................         0.01         0.04         0.08         0.11         0.49         1.09
FFC energy........................         0.02         0.04         0.09         0.11         0.51         1.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    OMB Circular A-4 \71\ requires agencies to present analytical 
results, including separate schedules of the monetized benefits and 
costs that show the type and timing of benefits and costs. Circular A-4 
also directs agencies to consider the variability of key elements 
underlying the estimates of benefits and costs. For this rulemaking, 
DOE undertook a sensitivity analysis using 9 years, rather than 30 
years, of product shipments. The choice of a 9-year period is a proxy 
for the timeline in EPCA for the review of certain energy conservation 
standards and potential revision of and compliance with such revised 
standards.\72\ The review timeframe established in EPCA is generally 
not synchronized with the product lifetime, product manufacturing 
cycles, or other factors specific to EPSs. Thus, such results are 
presented for informational purposes only and are not indicative of any 
change in DOE's analytical methodology. The NES sensitivity analysis 
results based on a 9-year analytical period are presented in Table 
V.15. The impacts are counted over the lifetime of EPSs purchased in 
2026-2035.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4: 
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. 
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (last accessed 
Sept. 12, 2022).
    \72\ Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to review its standards 
at least once every 6 years, and requires, for certain products, a 
3-year period after any new standard is promulgated before 
compliance is required, except that in no case may any new standards 
be required within 6 years of the compliance date of the previous 
standards. While adding a 6-year review to the 3-year compliance 
period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes that it may undertake reviews 
at any time within the 6 year period and that the 3-year compliance 
date may yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year analysis period may 
not be appropriate given the variability that occurs in the timing 
of standards reviews and the fact that for some products, the 
compliance period is 5 years rather than 3 years.

        Table V.15--Cumulative National Energy Savings for External Power Supplies; 9 Years of Shipments
                                                   [2027-2036]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Trial standard level
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         1            2            3            4            5            6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        quads
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary energy....................        0.004         0.01         0.02         0.03         0.14         0.31
FFC energy........................        0.004         0.01         0.02         0.03         0.14         0.32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs and Benefits
    DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of the total costs and savings for 
consumers that would result from the TSLs considered for EPSs. In 
accordance with OMB's guidelines on regulatory analysis,\73\ DOE 
calculated NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real discount 
rate. Table V.16 shows the consumer NPV results with impacts counted 
over the lifetime of products purchased in 2027-2056.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \73\ U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular A-4: 
Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 2003. (Available at: 
obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/omb/circulars_a004_a-4/) (last accessed 
Sept. 12, 2022).

Table V.16--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for External Power Supplies; 30 Years of Shipments
                                                   [2027-2056]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Trial standard level
           Discount rate           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         1            2            3            4            5            6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               billion (2021 Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent.........................         0.08         0.22         0.31         0.45         1.96       (1.14)
7 percent.........................         0.03         0.10         0.11         0.17         0.75       (1.72)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPV results based on the aforementioned 9-year analytical 
period are presented in . The impacts are counted over the lifetime of 
products purchased in 2027-2035. As mentioned previously, such results 
are presented for informational purposes only and are not indicative of 
any change in DOE's analytical methodology or decision criteria.

[[Page 7331]]



 Table V.17--Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for External Power Supplies; 9 Years of Shipments
                                                   [2027-2035]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Trial standard level
           Discount rate           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         1            2            3            4            5            6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               billion (2021 Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3 percent.........................         0.02         0.06         0.05         0.09         0.35       (2.47)
7 percent.........................         0.01         0.04         0.02         0.04         0.17       (1.99)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Indirect Impacts on Employment
    It is estimated that that amended energy conservation standards for 
EPSs would reduce energy expenditures for consumers of those products, 
with the resulting net savings being redirected to other forms of 
economic activity. These expected shifts in spending and economic 
activity could affect the demand for labor. As described in section 
IV.O of this document, DOE used an input/output model of the U.S. 
economy to estimate indirect employment impacts of the TSLs that DOE 
considered. There are uncertainties involved in projecting employment 
impacts, especially changes in the later years of the analysis. 
Therefore, DOE generated results for near-term timeframes (2027-2032), 
where these uncertainties are reduced.
    The results suggest that the proposed standards would be likely to 
have a negligible impact on the net demand for labor in the economy. 
The net change in jobs is so small that it would be imperceptible in 
national labor statistics and might be offset by other, unanticipated 
effects on employment. Chapter 16 of the NOPR TSD presents detailed 
results regarding anticipated indirect employment impacts.
4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Products
    As discussed in section IV.C of this document, DOE has tentatively 
concluded that the standards proposed in this NOPR would not lessen the 
utility or performance of the EPSs under consideration in this 
rulemaking. Manufacturers of these products currently offer units that 
meet or exceed the proposed standards without a loss of utility or 
performance.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    DOE considered any lessening of competition that would be likely to 
result from new or amended standards. As discussed in section 
III.F.1.e, the Attorney General determines the impact, if any, of any 
lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard, and 
transmits such determination in writing to the Secretary, together with 
an analysis of the nature and extent of such impact. To assist the 
Attorney General in making this determination, DOE has provided DOJ 
with copies of this NOPR and the accompanying TSD for review. DOE will 
consider DOJ's comments on the proposed rule in determining whether to 
proceed to a final rule. DOE will publish and respond to DOJ's comments 
in that document. DOE invites comment from the public regarding the 
competitive impacts that are likely to result from this proposed rule. 
In addition, stakeholders may also provide comments separately to DOJ 
regarding these potential impacts. See the ADDRESSES section for 
information to send comments to DOJ.
6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    Enhanced energy efficiency, where economically justified, improves 
the Nation's energy security, strengthens the economy, and reduces the 
environmental impacts (costs) of energy production. Reduced electricity 
demand due to energy conservation standards is also likely to reduce 
the cost of maintaining the reliability of the electricity system, 
particularly during peak-load periods. Chapter 15 in the NOPR TSD 
presents the estimated impacts on electricity generating capacity, 
relative to the no-new-standards case, for the TSLs that DOE considered 
in this rulemaking.
    Energy conservation resulting from potential energy conservation 
standards for EPSs is expected to yield environmental benefits in the 
form of reduced emissions of certain air pollutants and greenhouse 
gases. Table V.18 provides DOE's estimate of cumulative emissions 
reductions expected to result from the TSLs considered in this 
rulemaking. The emissions were calculated using the multipliers 
discussed in section IV.L. DOE reports annual emissions reductions for 
each TSL in chapter 13 of the NOPR TSD.

                    Table V.18--Cumulative Emissions Reduction for EPSs Shipped in 2027-2056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                Trial standard level
                                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         1            2            3            4            5            6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                             Power Sector Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons).........          0.5          1.4          2.7          3.6         16.1         36.0
CH4 (thousand tons)...............         0.04          0.1          0.2          0.3          1.3          2.8
N2O (thousand tons)...............         0.01         0.01         0.03         0.04          0.2          0.4
NOX (thousand tons)...............          0.2          0.7          1.4          1.8          8.2         18.5
SO2 (thousand tons)...............          0.2          0.7          1.3          1.7          7.7         17.4
Hg (tons).........................        0.001        0.004        0.008        0.011        0.048        0.108
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Upstream Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons).........         0.04          0.1          0.2          0.3          1.2          2.7
CH4 (thousand tons)...............          3.5          9.9         19.6         26.0        115.4        257.0

[[Page 7332]]

 
N2O (thousand tons)...............       0.0002        0.001        0.001        0.001         0.01         0.01
NOX (thousand tons)...............          0.6          1.6          3.1          4.2         18.5         41.2
SO2 (thousand tons)...............          0.0         0.01         0.02         0.02          0.1          0.2
Hg (tons).........................        0.000        0.000        0.000        0.000       0.0002       0.0004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Total FFC Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons).........          0.5          1.5          2.9          3.9         17.3         38.7
CH4 (thousand tons)...............          3.5         10.0         19.8         26.3        116.7        259.8
N2O (thousand tons)...............         0.01         0.02         0.03         0.04          0.2          0.4
NOX (thousand tons)...............          0.8          2.3          4.5          6.0         26.8         59.7
SO2 (thousand tons)...............          0.2          0.7          1.3          1.7          7.8         17.6
Hg (tons).........................        0.001        0.004        0.008        0.011        0.048        0.109
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the analysis for this rulemaking, DOE estimated monetary 
benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO2 
that DOE estimated for each of the considered TSLs for EPSs. Section 
IV.L of this document discusses the SC-CO2 values that DOE 
used. 9 presents the value of CO2 emissions reduction at 
each TSL for each of the SC-CO2 cases. The time-series of 
annual values is presented for the proposed TSL in chapter 14 of the 
NOPR TSD.

               Table V.19--Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction for EPSs Shipped in 2027-2056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          SC-CO2 case
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Discount rate and statistics
                     TSL                     -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    5%              3%             2.5%               3%
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Average         Average         Average       95th percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    million (2021 Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................................               5              22              34                  67
2...........................................              15              62              97                 190
3...........................................              30             124             192                 377
4...........................................              39             164             255                 500
5...........................................             176             738           1,145               2,245
6...........................................             395           1,650           2,560               5,023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As discussed in section IV.L.2, DOE estimated the climate benefits 
likely to result from the reduced emissions of methane and 
N2O that DOE estimated for each of the considered TSLs for 
EPSs. Table V.20 presents the value of the CH4 emissions 
reduction at each TSL, and Table V.21 presents the value of the 
N2O emissions reduction at each TSL. The time-series of 
annual values is presented for the proposed TSL in chapter 14 of the 
NOPR TSD.

             Table V.20--Present Value of Methane Emissions Reduction for EPSs Shipped in 2027-2056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          SC-CH4 case
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Discount rate and statistics
                     TSL                     -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    5%              3%             2.5%               3%
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Average         Average         Average       95th percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    million (2021 Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................................               2               5               6                  12
2...........................................               5              13              18                  35
3...........................................               9              26              36                  69
4...........................................              12              35              48                  92
5...........................................              54             154             213                 408
6...........................................             120             343             475                 910
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 7333]]


          Table V.21--Present Value of Nitrous Oxide Emissions Reduction for EPSs Shipped in 2027-2056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          SC-N2O Case
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Discount rate and statistics
                     TSL                     -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    5%              3%             2.5%               3%
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Average         Average         Average       95th percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    million (2021 Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...........................................             0.0             0.1             0.1                 0.2
2...........................................             0.1             0.2             0.3                 0.6
3...........................................             0.1             0.5             0.7                 1.2
4...........................................             0.2             0.6             0.9                 1.6
5...........................................             0.7             2.7             4.2                 7.2
6...........................................             1.6             6.1             9.3                16.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the 
contribution of CO2 and other GHG emissions to changes in 
the future global climate and the potential resulting damages to the 
global and U.S. economy continues to evolve rapidly. DOE, together with 
other Federal agencies, will continue to review methodologies for 
estimating the monetary value of reductions in CO2 and other 
GHG emissions. This ongoing review will consider the comments on this 
subject that are part of the public record for this and other 
rulemakings, as well as other methodological assumptions and issues. 
DOE notes that the proposed standards would be economically justified 
even without inclusion of monetized benefits of reduced GHG emissions.
    DOE also estimated the monetary value of the health benefits 
associated with NOX and SO2 emissions reductions 
anticipated to result from the considered TSLs for EPSs. The dollar-
per-ton values that DOE used are discussed in section IV.M of this 
document. Table V.22 presents the present value for NOX 
emissions reduction for each TSL calculated using 7-percent and 3-
percent discount rates, and Table V.23 presents similar results for 
SO2 emissions reductions. The results in these tables 
reflect application of EPA's low dollar-per-ton values, which DOE used 
to be conservative. The time-series of annual values is presented for 
the proposed TSL in chapter 14 of the NOPR TSD.

Table V.22--Present Value of NOX Emissions Reduction for EPSs Shipped in
                                2027-2056
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            7% Discount     3% Discount
                   TSL                         rate            rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              million (2021 Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................              15              34
2.......................................              42              97
3.......................................              86             193
4.......................................             113             256
5.......................................             510           1,146
6.......................................           1,144           2,561
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table V.23--Present Value of SO2 Emissions Reduction for EPSs Shipped in
                                2027-2056
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            7% Discount     3% Discount
                   TSL                         rate            rate
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              million (2021 Dollars)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................................               6              13
2.......................................              17              38
3.......................................              35              76
4.......................................              46             100
5.......................................             209             455
6.......................................             472           1,024
------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. Other Factors
    The Secretary of Energy, in determining whether a standard is 
economically justified, may consider any other factors that the 
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) No 
other factors were considered in this analysis.
8. Summary of Economic Impacts
    Table V.24 presents the NPV values that result from adding the 
estimates of the potential economic benefits resulting from reduced GHG 
and NOX and SO2 emissions to the NPV of consumer 
benefits calculated for each TSL considered in this rulemaking. The 
consumer benefits are domestic U.S. monetary savings that occur as a 
result of purchasing the covered products, and are measured for the 
lifetime of products shipped in 2027-2056. The benefits associated with 
reduced GHG emissions resulting from the adopted standards are global 
benefits, and are also calculated based on the lifetime of EPSs shipped 
in 2027-2056.

        Table V.24--Consumer NPV Combined With Present Value of Benefits From Climate and Health Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Category                       TSL 1      TSL 2      TSL 3      TSL 4      TSL 5      TSL 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  3% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2021 Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average SC-GHG case........................       0.13       0.37       0.61       0.86       3.79       2.97
3% Average SC-GHG case........................       0.15       0.43       0.72       1.01       4.45       4.45
2.5% Average SC-GHG case......................       0.16       0.47       0.80       1.11       4.92       5.49
3% 95th percentile SC-GHG case................       0.20       0.58       1.02       1.40       6.22       8.40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  7% discount rate for Consumer NPV and Health Benefits (billion 2021 Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5% Average SC-GHG case........................       0.06       0.17       0.27       0.38       1.70       0.42
3% Average SC-GHG case........................       0.08       0.23       0.38       0.53       2.36       1.90

[[Page 7334]]

 
2.5% Average SC-GHG case......................       0.09       0.27       0.46       0.64       2.83       2.95
3% 95th percentile SC-GHG case................       0.13       0.38       0.68       0.93       4.13       5.85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Conclusion

    When considering new or amended energy conservation standards, the 
standards that DOE adopts for any type (or class) of covered product 
must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy 
efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible 
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining 
whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must 
determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by, 
to the greatest extent practicable, considering the seven statutory 
factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or 
amended standard must also result in significant conservation of 
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
    For this NOPR, DOE considered the impacts of amended standards for 
EPSs at each TSL, beginning with the maximum technologically feasible 
level, to determine whether that level was economically justified. 
Where the max-tech level was not justified, DOE then considered the 
next most efficient level and undertook the same evaluation until it 
reached the highest efficiency level that is both technologically 
feasible and economically justified and saves a significant amount of 
energy.
    To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of 
each TSL, tables in this section present a summary of the results of 
DOE's quantitative analysis for each TSL. In addition to the 
quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other 
burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. These include 
the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be 
disproportionately affected by a national standard and impacts on 
employment.
    DOE also notes that the economics literature provides a wide-
ranging discussion of how consumers trade off upfront costs and energy 
savings in the absence of government intervention. Much of this 
literature attempts to explain why consumers appear to undervalue 
energy efficiency improvements. There is evidence that consumers 
undervalue future energy savings as a result of (1) a lack of 
information, (2) a lack of sufficient salience of the long-term or 
aggregate benefits, (3) a lack of sufficient savings to warrant 
delaying or altering purchases, (4) excessive focus on the short term, 
in the form of inconsistent weighting of future energy cost savings 
relative to available returns on other investments, (5) computational 
or other difficulties associated with the evaluation of relevant 
tradeoffs, and (6) a divergence in incentives (for example, between 
renters and owners, or builders and purchasers). Having less than 
perfect foresight and a high degree of uncertainty about the future, 
consumers may trade off these types of investments at a higher than 
expected rate between current consumption and uncertain future energy 
cost savings.
    In DOE's current regulatory analysis, potential changes in the 
benefits and costs of a regulation due to changes in consumer purchase 
decisions are included in two ways. First, if consumers forego the 
purchase of a product in the standards case, this decreases sales for 
product manufacturers, and the impact on manufacturers attributed to 
lost revenue is included in the MIA. Second, DOE accounts for energy 
savings attributable only to products actually used by consumers in the 
standards case; if a standard decreases the number of products 
purchased by consumers, this decreases the potential energy savings 
from an energy conservation standard. DOE provides estimates of 
shipments and changes in the volume of product purchases in chapter 9 
of the NOPR TSD. However, DOE's current analysis does not explicitly 
control for heterogeneity in consumer preferences, preferences across 
subcategories of products or specific features, or consumer price 
sensitivity variation according to household income.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household Electricity Demand, 
Revisited. Review of Economic Studies. 2005. 72(3): pp. 853-883. 
doi: 10.1111/0034-6527.00354.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While DOE is not prepared at present to provide a fuller 
quantifiable framework for estimating the benefits and costs of changes 
in consumer purchase decisions due to an energy conservation standard, 
DOE is committed to developing a framework that can support empirical 
quantitative tools for improved assessment of the consumer welfare 
impacts of appliance standards. DOE has posted a paper that discusses 
the issue of consumer welfare impacts of appliance energy conservation 
standards, and potential enhancements to the methodology by which these 
impacts are defined and estimated in the regulatory process.\75\ DOE 
welcomes comments on how to more fully assess the potential impact of 
energy conservation standards on consumer choice and how to quantify 
this impact in its regulatory analysis in future rulemakings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Sanstad, A.H. Notes on the Economics of Household Energy 
Consumption and Technology Choice. 2010. Lawrence Berkeley National 
Laboratory. www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_theory.pdf (last accessed Oct. 4, 2022).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for EPS Standards
    Table V.25 and Table V.26 summarize the quantitative impacts 
estimated for each TSL for EPSs. The national impacts are measured over 
the lifetime of EPSs purchased in the 30-year period that begins in the 
anticipated year of compliance with amended standards (2027-2056). The 
energy savings, emissions reductions, and value of emissions reductions 
refer to full-fuel-cycle results. The efficiency levels contained in 
each TSL are described in section V.A of this document.

[[Page 7335]]



           Table V.25--Summary of Analytical Results for External Power Supply TSLs: National Impacts
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Category                       TSL 1      TSL 2      TSL 3      TSL 4      TSL 5      TSL 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quads.........................................       0.02       0.04       0.09       0.11       0.51       1.14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons).....................        0.5        1.5        2.9        3.9       17.3       38.7
CH4 (thousand tons)...........................        3.5       10.0       19.8       26.3      116.7      259.8
N2O (thousand tons)...........................        0.0        0.0        0.0        0.0        0.2        0.4
SO2 (thousand tons)...........................        0.8        2.3        4.5        6.0       26.8       59.7
NOX (thousand tons)...........................        0.2        0.7        1.3        1.7        7.8       17.6
Hg (tons).....................................        0.0        0.0        0.0        0.0        0.0        0.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2021 Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings...............       0.11       0.31       0.62       0.82       3.73       8.40
Climate Benefits *............................       0.03       0.08       0.15       0.20       0.89       2.00
Health Benefits **............................       0.05       0.13       0.27       0.36       1.60       3.58
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Benefits [dagger]...................       0.18       0.52       1.04       1.38       6.23      13.99
Consumer Incremental Product Costs............       0.03       0.09       0.32       0.37       1.78       9.54
Consumer Net Benefits.........................       0.08       0.22       0.31       0.45       1.96     (1.14)
    Total Net Benefits........................       0.15       0.43       0.72       1.01       4.45       4.45
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2021 Dollars)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings...............       0.05       0.15       0.31       0.40       1.85       4.18
Climate Benefits *............................       0.03       0.08       0.15       0.20       0.89       2.00
Health Benefits **............................       0.02       0.06       0.12       0.16       0.72       1.62
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Benefits[dagger]....................       0.10       0.29       0.58       0.76       3.46       7.79
Consumer Incremental Product Costs............       0.02       0.06       0.19       0.23       1.10       5.89
Consumer Net Benefits.........................       0.03       0.10       0.11       0.17       0.75     (1.72)
                                               -----------------------------------------------------------------
    Total Net Benefits........................       0.08       0.23       0.38       0.53       2.36       1.90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with external power supplies shipped in 2027-2056.
  These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.M of this
  notice). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at
  a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate.
  On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the federal government's
  emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued in Louisiana
  v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary
  injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that injunction or
  a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that case
  from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the interim estimates of the social cost of
  greenhouse gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on
  February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of further
  intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the injunction and present monetized
  benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
  (for NOX and SO2) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
  continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
  PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.M
  of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total
  and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
  percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes
  the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates. See Table
  V.24 for net benefits using all four SC-GHG estimates.


                       Table V.26--Summary of Analytical Results for External Power Supply TSLs: Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Category                               TSL 1           TSL 2           TSL 3           TSL 4           TSL 5           TSL 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Manufacturer Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (million 2021 Dollars) (No-new-standards        845.8-846.1     844.4-845.3     837.3-840.4     835.9-839.6     775.2-801.5     700.0-814.6
 case INPV = 847.5).....................................
Industry NPV (% change).................................     (0.2)-(0.2)     (0.4)-(0.3)     (1.2)-(0.8)     (1.4)-(0.9)     (8.5)-(5.4)    (17.4)-(3.9)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Consumer Average LCC Savings (2021 Dollars)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AC-DC Basic-Vol.........................................           $0.00           $0.00         ($0.03)         ($0.03)         ($0.27)         ($0.64)
AC-DC Low-Vol...........................................           $0.01           $0.01           $0.01           $0.01           $0.01         ($1.30)
AC-AC Basic-Vol.........................................           $0.18           $0.52           $0.18           $0.52           $0.55           $0.55
Multiple-Voltage........................................           $0.46           $0.24           $0.46           $0.24           $0.46         ($1.25)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 7336]]

 
                                                               Consumer Simple PBP (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AC-DC Basic-Vol.........................................             0.0             0.0             5.0             5.0             7.3             8.0
AC-DC Low-Vol...........................................             3.2             3.2             3.2             3.2             3.2            28.5
AC-AC Basic-Vol.........................................             2.3             4.1             2.3             4.1             4.7             4.7
Multiple-Voltage........................................             0.1             7.0             0.1             7.0             0.1            12.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AC-DC Basic-Vol.........................................              0%              0%             20%             20%             77%             86%
AC-DC Low-Vol...........................................              4%              4%              4%              4%              4%             97%
AC-AC Basic-Vol.........................................             10%             28%             10%             28%             43%             43%
Multiple-Voltage........................................              0%             39%              0%             39%              0%             70%
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.

    DOE first considered TSL 6, which represents the max-tech 
efficiency levels for all product classes. Approximately 5 percent of 
all EPS models on the market currently meet these efficiency levels. 
Achieving max-tech level efficiencies may require several of the 
technology options identified in Table IV.1. TSL 6 would save an 
estimated 1.14 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. 
Under TSL 6, the NPV of consumer impacts would represent a cost of 
$1.72 billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and a cost of $1.14 
billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 6 are 38.7 Mt of 
CO2, 259.8 thousand tons of CH4, 0.4 thousand 
tons of N2O, 59.7 thousand tons of NOX, 17.6 
thousand tons of SO2, and 0.1 tons of Hg. The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at 
TSL 6 is $2.0 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health 
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at 
TSL 6 is $1.62 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $3.58 
billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 6 is $1.90 
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, 
the estimated total NPV at TSL 6 is $4.45 billion. The estimated total 
NPV is provided for additional information, however DOE primarily 
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a 
proposed standard level is economically justified.
    As discussed in chapters 3, 5, and 9 of the NOPR TSD, shipments for 
the AC-DC Low Voltage and AC-DC Basic Voltage product classes dominate 
the EPS market. These two classes are followed by Multiple Voltage, AC-
DC Basic Voltage, and AC-DC Low Voltage, respectively. At TSL 6, the 
average LCC impact is negative for all product classes except AC-AC 
Basic-Voltage, which has significantly fewer shipments than the AC-DC 
product classes and represents approximately 1% of the market. A 
negative LCC results when the incremental installed costs exceed the 
incremental lifetime operating savings. The average increases in 
incremental installed costs range from $1.51 to $2.37 and the average 
lifetime operating savings range from $0.21 to $2.51. The simple 
payback period ranges from 4.7 years to nearly 30 years, the latter 
being significantly longer than the lifetime of most EPSs (4.8 years). 
The fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost ranges from 43 
percent to 97 percent, indicating that a majority of consumers would 
experience a net cost at TSL 6 over the lifetime of EPSs due to the 
increases in purchase costs. Low-income households would experience a 
similar impact as the full consumer sample and thus a majority of those 
households would experience a net cost.
    At TSL 6, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$147.5 million to a decrease of $32.9 million, which corresponds to a 
decrease of 17.4 percent and a decrease of 3.9 percent, respectively. 
DOE estimates that industry must invest $186.5 million to comply with 
standards set at TSL 6--these investments would all relate to the 
research and development costs associated with generating new EPS 
designs, prototyping, and testing EPS models (conversion costs are 
elaborated on in IV.K.2.c). Based on DOE's shipments analysis conducted 
for this NOPR, DOE estimates that in the absence of new standards, less 
than 1 percent of AC-DC basic-voltage shipments, approximately 2 
percent of AC-DC low-voltage shipments, no AC-AC basic-voltage 
shipments, and approximately 19 percent of multiple-voltage shipments 
would meet the efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 6 by 2027, the 
estimated compliance year. As noted previously, shipments data are not 
available for the AC-AC low-voltage product class. Based on this 
shipments analysis, at TSL 6, which is max-tech for all product 
classes, manufacturers would be required to redesign approximately 99 
percent \76\ of all EPS shipments covered by this rulemaking. This 
would require manufacturers to redesign models corresponding to 
approximately 739 million EPS shipments in the 2-year compliance time 
frame. These redesigns would require a significant overhaul of the 
design and components associated with non-compliant EPS models. It is 
questionable if most manufacturers would have the engineering capacity 
to complete the necessary redesigns within the 2-year compliance 
period. If manufacturers require more than 2 years to redesign all 
their covered EPSs, they will likely prioritize redesigns based on 
sales volume. There is risk that some models will become either 
temporarily or permanently unavailable after the compliance date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \76\ DOE estimates five percent of the models in the CCD as 
being able to meet the max-tech levels. DOE additionally estimates 
that these models represent less than one percent of shipments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 6 for EPSs, the 
benefits of energy savings, emission reductions, and the estimated 
monetary value of the emissions reductions would be outweighed by the 
substantial negative NPV of consumer benefits, and the impacts on 
manufacturers, including the large conversion costs and the potential

[[Page 7337]]

impacts to profit margin that would result in a reduction in INPV, and 
the lack of manufacturers currently offering products meeting the 
efficiency levels required at this TSL for some product classes. 
Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 6 is not 
economically justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 5. At this TSL, the efficiency level for 
the AC-AC Basic-Voltage product class remains at max-tech. For the AC-
DC Basic-Voltage product class, the efficiency level represents ``best 
in market'' (characterized in section IV.D.1.b as the active mode 
efficiency and standby mode power consumption that only the top 10 to 
20 percent of models on the market are able to achieve). For AC-AC and 
AC-DC product classes, the efficiency levels correspond to the proposed 
EU CoC Tier 2 standards and with Multiple-Voltage at EL1. TSL 5 would 
save an estimated 0.51 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers 
significant. Under TSL 5, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $0.75 
billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $1.96 billion using a 
discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 5 are 17.3 Mt of 
CO2, 116.7 thousand tons of CH4, 0.2 thousand 
tons of N2O, 26.8 thousand tons of NOX, 7.8 
thousand tons of SO2, and 0.05 tons of Hg. The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at 
TSL 5 is $0.89 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health 
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at 
TSL 5 is $0.72 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $1.60 
billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 5 is $2.36 
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, 
the estimated total NPV at TSL 5 is $4.45 billion. The estimated total 
NPV is provided for additional information, however DOE primarily 
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a 
proposed standard level is economically justified.
    At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is negative for the AC-DC Basic-
Voltage product class, with a large majority (77 percent) of AC-DC 
basic-voltage EPS consumers experiencing a net cost due to increases in 
purchase costs coupled with low operating cost savings throughout the 
lifetime. A negative LCC results when the incremental installed costs 
exceed the incremental lifetime operating savings. The average increase 
in incremental installed costs for AC-DC basic voltage EPS consumers is 
$0.95 and the average lifetime operating savings is only $0.68. The 
simple payback period is 7.3 for the AC-DC Basic-Voltage product class, 
which is significantly longer than the average lifetime of 4.8 years. 
Additionally, individual households are likely to have several EPSs 
from a variety of separate end-uses, such that the aggregate LCC impact 
for a given household is likely to be more negative. Low-income 
households would experience a similar impact as the full consumer 
sample and thus a large majority would experience a net cost as well. 
The other product classes experience positive LCC savings at TSL 5 with 
a smaller percentage of consumers experiencing a net cost. However, 
given that the AC-DC Basic-Voltage product class represents nearly 40 
percent of shipments of the total EPS market, overall, many EPS 
consumers would experience a net cost at TSL 5.
    At TSL 5, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$72.3 million to a decrease of $46.0 million, which corresponds to a 
decrease of 8.5 percent and a decrease of 5.4 percent, respectively. 
DOE estimates that industry must invest $105.9 million to comply with 
standards set at TSL 5. DOE estimates that in the absence of new 
standards, approximately 8 percent of AC-DC basic-voltage shipments, 
approximately 93 percent of AC-DC low-voltage shipments, no AC-AC 
basic-voltage shipments, and approximately 89 percent of multiple-
voltage shipments would meet or exceed the efficiency levels analyzed 
at TSL 5 by 2027, the estimated compliance year. Based on this 
shipments analysis, at TSL 5, manufacturers would be required to 
redesign approximately 36 percent of all EPS shipments covered by this 
rulemaking. This would require manufacturers to redesign models 
corresponding to approximately 284 million EPS shipments in the 2-year 
compliance time frame. These redesigns would require a significant 
overhaul of the design and components associated with the AC-DC basic 
and AC-AC basic product classes and less substantial component level 
improvements for all other product classes.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 5 for EPSs, the 
benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission 
reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the emissions 
reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden on many consumers 
(77 percent of AC-DC basic voltage EPS consumers and 43 percent of AC-
AC basic voltage EPS consumers experience a net cost), and the impacts 
on manufacturers, including the large conversion costs and the 
potential impact to profit margin that would result in a reduction in 
INPV, and the lack of manufacturers currently offering products meeting 
the efficiency levels required at this TSL for some product classes. 
Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 5 is not 
economically justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 4. At this TSL, the efficiency levels for 
AC-AC basic-voltage EPSs represent ``best in market'' models 
(characterized in section IV.D.1.b as the active mode efficiency and 
standby mode power consumption that only the top 10 to 20 percent of 
models on the market are able to achieve). For multiple-voltage EPSs, 
approximately 50 percent of models on the market currently meet these 
efficiency levels, representing an approximate mid-point of the market. 
For the other product classes, the efficiency levels correspond to the 
proposed EU CoC Tier 2 standards. TSL 4 would save an estimated 0.11 
quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4, the 
NPV of consumer benefit would be $0.17 billion using a discount rate of 
7 percent, and $0.45 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 3.9 Mt of 
CO2, 26.3 thousand tons of CH4, 0.04 thousand 
tons of N2O, 6.0 thousand tons of NOX, 1.7 
thousand tons of SO2, and 0.01 tons of Hg. The estimated 
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions 
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at 
TSL 4 is $0.20 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health 
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at 
TSL 4 is $0.16 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $0.36 
billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs, 
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX 
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits 
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 4 is $0.53 
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, 
the estimated total NPV at TSL 4 is $1.01 billion. The estimated total 
NPV is provided for additional information, however DOE primarily 
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a 
proposed standard level is economically justified.

[[Page 7338]]

    At TSL 4, the average LCC impact for the AC-DC Basic-Voltage 
product class, while negative, is close to zero (negative $0.03) and 
only 20 percent of AC-DC basic-voltage EPS consumers experience a net 
cost. The average increase in incremental installed costs for AC-DC 
basic voltage EPS consumers is $0.35 and the average lifetime operating 
savings is $0.31. The simple payback period is 5.0 for the AC-DC Basic-
Voltage product class, which is nearly the same as the average lifetime 
of 4.8 years. DOE also notes that the LCC impacts, as presented in 
Table V.26 above, are only estimated for the first year of compliance 
(2027) of a potential standard. However, due to the price trend on EPS 
costs (as described in section IV.G.1), the incremental purchase costs 
of more efficient EPSs will significantly decrease in years after 2027 
while operating savings will remain largely the same. Therefore, LCC 
impacts become more positive in years beyond 2027 and a lower 
percentage of consumers will experience a net cost. For this reason, 
the NPV as estimated in the NIA is positive even though the LCC is 
marginally negative for the AC-DC basic voltage EPS product class. Low-
income households would experience a similar impact as the full 
consumer sample, since the usage characteristics do not vary much 
between the two samples. The other product classes experience positive 
LCC savings at TSL 4. The average increases in incremental installed 
costs for product classes other than AC-DC basic voltage EPSs range 
from $0.05 to $1.02 and the average lifetime operating savings range 
from $0.05 to $1.53.
    At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$11.6 million to a decrease of $7.9 million, which corresponds to a 
decrease of 1.4 percent and a decrease of 0.9 percent, respectively. 
DOE estimates that industry must invest $17.4 million to comply with 
standards set at TSL 4. DOE estimates that 75 percent of 2021 AC-DC 
basic-voltage shipments, approximately 93 percent of AC-DC low-voltage 
shipments, no AC-AC basic-voltage shipments, and approximately 49 
percent of multiple-voltage shipments would meet or exceed the 
efficiency levels analyzed at TSL 4 by 2027, the estimated compliance 
year. Based on this shipments analysis, at TSL 4, manufacturers would 
be required to redesign approximately 15 percent of all EPS shipments 
covered by this rulemaking. This would require manufacturers to 
redesign models corresponding to approximately 113 million EPS 
shipments in the 2-year compliance time frame. While these redesigns 
would require a significant overhaul at the design and component level 
for the AC-AC basic voltage product class, DOE notes that the high 
compliance rates for the AC-DC and multiple voltage product classes 
demonstrate that manufacturers are already familiar with implementing 
the design options needed to achieve these levels for these products.
    After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and 
burdens, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that at a standard set 
at TSL 4 for external power supplies would be economically justified. 
At this TSL, a minority of consumers experience a net cost, and the 
average LCC savings for consumers are positive or a minimally negative 
$0.03. The average incremental product costs for all EPSs are very 
small relative to the costs of the applications using the EPSs (e.g., a 
smartphone), which are likely greater by several factors of 10. 
Furthermore, due to price trends reducing EPS costs, the average LCC 
savings will grow in years beyond 2027 and fewer consumers would 
actually experience a net cost. Low-income households are likely to 
experience very similar results and are not disproportionately 
disadvantaged at this TSL. The FFC national energy savings are 
significant and the NPV of consumer benefits is positive using both a 
3-percent and 7-percent discount rate. Notably, the benefits to 
consumers vastly outweigh the cost to manufacturers. At TSL 4, the NPV 
of consumer benefits, even measured at the more conservative discount 
rate of 7 percent is over 14 times higher than the maximum estimated 
manufacturers' loss in INPV. The standard levels at TSL 4 are 
economically justified even without weighing the estimated monetary 
value of emissions reductions. When those emissions reductions are 
included--representing $0.20 billion in climate benefits (associated 
with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate), and $0.36 
billion (using a 3-percent discount rate) or $0.16 billion (using a 7-
percent discount rate) in health benefits--the rationale becomes 
stronger still.
    As stated, DOE conducts the walk-down analysis to determine the TSL 
that represents the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is 
technologically feasible and economically justified as required under 
EPCA. The walk-down is not a comparative analysis, as a comparative 
analysis would result in the maximization of net benefits instead of 
the maximization of energy savings that are technologically feasible 
and economically justified, which would be contrary to the statute. 86 
FR 70892, 70908. Although DOE has not conducted a comparative analysis 
to select the proposed energy conservation standards, DOE notes that at 
TSLs higher than the one proposed, a significant fraction of consumers 
for some product classes experience increased purchase costs greater 
than operating savings.
    Although DOE considered proposed amended standard levels for EPSs 
by grouping the efficiency levels for each product class into TSLs, DOE 
evaluates all analyzed efficiency levels in its analysis.
    Therefore, based on the previous considerations, DOE proposes to 
adopt the energy conservation standards for EPSs at TSL 4. The proposed 
amended energy conservation standards for EPSs, which are expressed as 
average efficiency in active mode and power in no-load mode, are shown 
in Table V.27.

   Table V.27--Proposed Amended Energy Conservation Standards for EPSs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Minimum average
 Nameplate output power (Pout)   efficiency in active   Maximum power in
                                 mode (expressed as a   no-load mode [W]
                                       decimal)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Single-Voltage External AC-DC Power Supply, Basic-Voltage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout <= 1 W...................  >=0.5 x Pout + 0.169.            <=0.075
1 W < Pout <= 49 W............  >=0.071 x ln(Pout)-              <=0.075
                                 0.00115 x Pout +
                                 0.67.
49 W < Pout <= 250 W..........  >=0.890..............            <=0.150
Pout > 250 W..................  >=0.890..............            <=0.150
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 7339]]

 
         Single-Voltage External AC-DC Power Supply, Low-Voltage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout <= 1 W...................  >=0.517 x Pout +                 <=0.075
                                 0.091.
1 W < Pout <= 49 W............  >=0.0834 x ln(Pout)-             <=0.075
                                 0.0011 x Pout +
                                 0.609.
49 W < Pout <= 250 W..........  >=0.880..............            <=0.150
Pout > 250 W..................  >=0.880..............            <=0.150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Single-Voltage External AC-AC Power Supply, Basic-Voltage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout <= 1 W...................  >=0.5 x Pout + 0.169.            <=0.075
1 W < Pout <= 49 W............  >=0.0582 x ln(Pout)-             <=0.075
                                 0.00104 x Pout +
                                 0.727.
49 W < Pout <= 250 W..........  >=0.902..............            <=0.075
Pout > 250 W..................  >=0.902..............            <=0.200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Single-Voltage External AC-AC Power Supply, Low-Voltage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout <= 1 W...................  >=0.517 x Pout +                 <=0.072
                                 0.091.
1 W < Pout <= 49 W............  >=0.0834 x ln(Pout)-             <=0.072
                                 0.0011 x Pout +
                                 0.609.
49 W < Pout <= 250 W..........  >=0.880..............            <=0.185
Pout > 250 W..................  >=0.880..............            <=0.500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Multiple-Voltage External Power Supply
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pout <= 1 W...................  >=0.497 x Pout +                 <=0.075
                                 0.067.
1 W < Pout <= 49 W............  >=0.0782 x ln(Pout)-             <=0.075
                                 0.0013 x Pout +
                                 0.643.
49 W < Pout <= 250 W..........  >=0.885..............            <=0.125
Pout > 250 W..................  >=0.885..............            <=0.125
------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
    The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be 
expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is 
(1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2021 Dollars) 
of the benefits from operating products that meet the proposed 
standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using 
less energy, minus increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the 
annualized monetary value of the climate and health benefits from 
emission reductions.
    Table V.288 shows the annualized values for EPSs under TSL 4, 
expressed in 2021 Dollars. The results under the primary estimate are 
as follows.
    Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and 
NOX and SO2 reduction benefits, and a 3-percent 
discount rate case for GHG social costs, the estimated cost of the 
proposed standards for EPSs is $24.3 million per year in increased 
equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $42.7 million 
from reduced equipment operating costs, $11.5 million from GHG 
reductions, and $16.7 million from reduced NOX and 
SO2 emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to 
$46.6 million per year.
    Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the 
estimated cost of the proposed standards for EPSs is $21.4 million per 
year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits 
are $47.3 million in reduced operating costs, $11.5 million from GHG 
reductions, and $20.4 million from reduced NOX and 
SO2 emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to 
$57.8 million per year.

 Table V.28--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for External Power Supplies
                                                     [TSL 4]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             Million 2021 dollars/year
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Low-net-        High-net-
                                                                      Primary        benefits        benefits
                                                                     estimate        estimate        estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                3% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.................................            47.3            46.1            48.8
Climate Benefits *..............................................            11.5            11.5            11.5
Health Benefits **..............................................            20.4            20.4            20.4
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Benefits [dagger].....................................            79.2            78.0            80.7
Consumer Incremental Product Costs..............................            21.4            23.4            19.3
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Net Benefits................................................            57.8            54.6            61.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                7% discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings.................................            42.7            41.8            43.9
Climate Benefits * (3% discount rate)...........................            11.5            11.5            11.5

[[Page 7340]]

 
Health Benefits **..............................................            16.7            16.7            16.7
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Total Benefits [dagger].....................................            70.9            70.0            72.1
Consumer Incremental Product Costs..............................            24.3            26.1            22.4
                                                                 -----------------------------------------------
    Net Benefits................................................            46.6            43.9            49.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with EPSs shipped in 2027-2056. These results
  include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2056 from the products shipped in 2027-2056.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section IV.M of this
  proposed rule). For presentational purposes of this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-
  GHG at a 3 percent discount rate are shown, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point
  estimate. On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No. 22-30087) granted the federal
  government's emergency motion for stay pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction issued
  in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the
  preliminary injunction is no longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal government's appeal of that
  injunction or a further court order. Among other things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in
  that case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying upon'' the interim estimates of the
  social cost of greenhouse gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of
  Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the
  absence of further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach prior to the injunction and
  present monetized benefits where appropriate and permissible under law.
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOX and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing
  (for SO2 and NOX) PM2.5 precursor health benefits and (for NOX) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
  continue to assess the ability to monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct
  PM2.5 emissions. The health benefits are presented at real discount rates of 3 and 7 percent. See section IV.M
  of this document for more details.
[dagger] Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits. For presentation purposes, total
  and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-GHG with 3-
  percent discount rate, but the Department does not have a single central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes
  the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four SC-GHG estimates. See Table
  V.24 for net benefits using all four SC-GHG estimates.

D. Reporting, Certification, and Sampling Plan

    Manufacturers, including importers, must use product-specific 
certification templates to certify compliance to DOE. For EPSs, the 
certification template reflects the general certification requirements 
specified at 10 CFR 429.12 and the product-specific requirements 
specified at 10 CFR 429.37. As discussed in the previous paragraphs, 
DOE is not proposing to amend the product-specific certification 
requirements for these products.

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving 
Regulation and Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011), requires 
agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a 
regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify 
its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to 
quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on 
society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into 
account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs 
of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative 
regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits 
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, 
and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the 
extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying 
the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must 
adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the 
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing 
information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE 
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office 
of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has emphasized that such techniques 
may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might 
result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. 
For the reasons stated in the preamble, this proposed/final regulatory 
action is consistent with these principles.
    Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit 
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has 
determined that this proposed regulatory action constitutes a 
``significant regulatory action'' within the scope of section 3(f)(1) 
of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, pursuant to section 6(a)(3)(C) of E.O. 
12866, DOE has provided to OIRA an assessment, including the underlying 
analysis, of benefits and costs anticipated from the proposed 
regulatory action, together with, to the extent feasible, a 
quantification of those costs; and an assessment, including the 
underlying analysis, of costs and benefits of potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives to the planned regulation, and an 
explanation why the planned regulatory action is preferable to the 
identified potential alternatives. These assessments are summarized in 
this preamble and further detail can be found in the technical support 
document for this rulemaking.

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 (``IRFA'') 
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 E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in 
Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 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 the General

[[Page 7341]]

Counsel's website (energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). DOE has 
prepared the following IRFA for the products that are the subject of 
this proposed rulemaking.
    For manufacturers of EPSs the SBA has set a size threshold, which 
defines those entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the 
purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size 
standards to determine whether any small entities would be subject to 
the requirements of the rule. (See 13 CFR part 121.) The size standards 
are listed by North American Industry Classification System (``NAICS'') 
code and industry description and are available at www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards. Manufacturing of EPSs is 
classified under NAICS 335999, ``All Other Miscellaneous Electrical 
Equipment and Component Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 
500 employees or fewer for an entity to be considered as a small 
business for this category.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
    EPCA requires that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of 
any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish 
either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not 
need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy 
conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). 
(42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)).
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or 
amended standards for covered equipment, including EPSs. Any new or 
amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the 
maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary of Energy 
determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    DOE conducted a more focused inquiry of the companies that could be 
small businesses that manufacture or sell EPSs covered by this 
rulemaking. DOE referenced DOE's publicly available CCD to generate a 
list of businesses producing or selling covered products and referenced 
D&B Hoovers reports,\77\ as well as the online presence of identified 
businesses in order to determine whether they might meet the criteria 
of a small business. DOE screened out companies that do not offer 
products covered by this rulemaking, do not meet the definition of a 
``small business,'' or are foreign owned and operated. Additionally, 
DOE filters out businesses that do not directly produce EPSs, but that 
rather sell sourced EPSs with other products or relabel sourced EPSs to 
sell separately.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \77\ app.avention.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    From these sources, DOE identified 658 unique businesses associated 
with at least one covered EPS model, of which 165 were identified as 
businesses that meet SBA's definition of a small business under this 
rulemaking. While each of these small businesses certify models with 
DOE's CCD, DOE has not been able to identify any domestic manufacturing 
of EPSs and therefore does not expect that any of the small businesses 
manufacture EPSs, even if they may be OEM manufacturers of EPS 
applications.
    DOE requests comment on the number of small businesses identified 
that manufacture or sell EPSs covered by this proposed rulemaking.
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements Including 
Differences in Cost, if Any, for Different Groups of Small Entities
    While DOE has not been able to identify any domestic manufacturing 
of EPSs directly, DOE does expect that some small businesses may design 
EPSs--in part or in total--and therefore would incur some product 
conversion costs as a result of the proposed standard, if finalized. As 
with the broader industry, outlined in section IV.K of this document, 
DOE has estimated that these conversion costs would be proportional to 
the annual revenue attributable to EPSs that do not meet the standards. 
If, as a result of standards, a small business were to need to redesign 
all of their EPS models, DOE expects that these small businesses would 
incur product conversion costs equivalent to one additional annual R&D 
expenditure across the two-year compliance window.\78\ DOE estimated 
the industry average annual R&D expenditure to be approximately 3.8 
percent of annual revenue. Accordingly, small manufacturers may incur 
product conversion costs of up to 1.9 percent of revenue attributable 
to EPSs for each year during the two-year compliance period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \78\ These conversion costs would be in addition to the normal 
annual R&D expenditures that manufacturers incur every year 
associated with manufacturing EPSs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional information about product conversion costs and small 
business impacts is in chapter 12 of the NOPR TSD.
    DOE requests comment on the estimated product conversion costs of 
small businesses that manufacture or sell EPSs covered by this 
rulemaking.
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
    DOE is not aware of any other rules or regulations that duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with the rule being considered today.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    The discussion in the previous section analyzes impacts on small 
businesses that would result from DOE's proposed rule, represented by 
TSL 4. In reviewing alternatives to the proposed rule, DOE examined 
energy conservation standards set at lower efficiency levels. While 
selecting from TSLs 1-3, would reduce the possible impacts on small 
businesses, it would come at the expense of a significant reduction in 
energy savings. TSL 4 achieves approximately over 760 percent of the 
energy savings compared to the energy savings at TSL 1, over 260 
percent of the energy savings compared to the energy savings at TSL 2, 
and over 130% of the energy savings as compared to the energy savings 
at TSL 3. DOE additionally estimates that TSLs 1-3 would result in a 
lower net present value of consumer benefits than TSL 4 to the order of 
approximately $142 million, $79 million, and $63 million respectively.
    Based on the presented discussion, establishing standards at TSL 4 
balances the benefits of the energy savings at TSL 4 with the potential 
burdens placed on EPS manufacturers and small businesses. Accordingly, 
DOE does not propose one of the other TSLs considered in the analysis, 
or the other policy alternatives examined as part of the regulatory 
impact analysis and included in chapter 17 of the NOPR TSD.
    Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other 
means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue 
from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an 
exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a 
period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final 
rule establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) Additionally, 
manufacturers subject to DOE's energy efficiency standards may apply to 
DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals for exception relief under certain 
circumstances. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart

[[Page 7342]]

E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    Manufacturers of EPSs must certify to DOE that their products 
comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying 
compliance, manufacturers must test their products according to the DOE 
test procedures for EPSs including any amendments adopted for those 
test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification 
and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and 
commercial equipment, including EPSs. (See generally 10 CFR part 429). 
The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and 
recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''). This requirement has been approved 
by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for 
the certification is estimated to average 35 hours per response, 
including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data 
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and 
reviewing the collection of information.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    DOE is analyzing this proposed regulation in accordance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (``NEPA'') and DOE's NEPA 
implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include 
a categorical exclusion for rulemakings that establish energy 
conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment. 
10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix B5.1. DOE anticipates that this 
rulemaking qualifies for categorical exclusion B5.1 because it is a 
rulemaking that establishes energy conservation standards for consumer 
products or industrial equipment, none of the exceptions identified in 
categorical exclusion B5.1(b) apply, no extraordinary circumstances 
exist that require further environmental analysis, and it otherwise 
meets the requirements for application of a categorical exclusion. See 
10 CFR 1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA review before issuing the 
final rule.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    E.O. 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes 
certain requirements on Federal 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 this proposed rule and has 
tentatively determined that it would not have a substantial direct 
effect on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs 
and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy 
conservation for the products that are the subject of this proposed 
rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the 
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) 
Therefore, 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 E.O. 12988, ``Civil 
Justice Reform,'' 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, (3) provide a 
clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general 
standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 61 FR 
4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 3(a), 
section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 specifically requires that executive 
agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: 
(1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly 
specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) 
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting 
simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive 
effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses 
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship 
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of 
Executive Order 12988 requires executive agencies to review regulations 
in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to 
determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or 
more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined 
that, to the extent permitted by law, this proposed rule meets the 
relevant standards of E.O. 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'') 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, section 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 
1531). 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 them. On March 18, 1997, DOE 
published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental 
consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also 
available at energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
    Although this proposed rule does not contain a Federal 
intergovernmental mandate, it may require expenditures of $100 million 
or more in any one year by the private sector. Such expenditures may 
include: (1) investment in research and development and in capital 
expenditures by EPS manufacturers in the years between the final rule 
and the compliance date for the new standards and (2) incremental 
additional expenditures by consumers to purchase

[[Page 7343]]

higher-efficiency EPSs, starting at the compliance date for the 
applicable standard.
    Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a Federal agency to respond to the 
content requirements of UMRA in any other statement or analysis that 
accompanies the proposed rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c)) The content 
requirements of section 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private sector 
mandate substantially overlap the economic analysis requirements that 
apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and Executive Order 12866. The 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this NOPR and the TSD for this 
proposed rule respond to those requirements.
    Under section 205 of UMRA, the Department is obligated to identify 
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives before 
promulgating a rule for which a written statement under section 202 is 
required. (2 U.S.C. 1535(a)) DOE is required to select from those 
alternatives the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the proposed rule unless DOE publishes 
an explanation for doing otherwise, or the selection of such an 
alternative is inconsistent with law. As required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(u), 
this proposed rule would establish amended energy conservation 
standards for EPSs that are designed to achieve the maximum improvement 
in energy efficiency that DOE has determined to be both technologically 
feasible and economically justified, as required by 6295(o)(2)(A) and 
6295(o)(3)(B). A full discussion of the alternatives considered by DOE 
is presented in chapter 17 of the TSD for this proposed rule.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
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 proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or 
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking 
Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 
1988), DOE has determined that this proposed rule would not result in 
any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment 
to the U.S. Constitution.

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

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review 
most disseminations of information to the public under information 
quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general 
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 
(Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 
(Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving 
Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE 
published updated guidelines which are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has 
reviewed this NOPR 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

    E.O. 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 OIRA at OMB, 
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.
    DOE has tentatively concluded that this regulatory action, which 
amends energy conservation standards for EPSs, is not a significant 
energy action because the proposed standards are not likely to have a 
significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of 
energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator at 
OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects 
on this proposed rule.

L. Information Quality

    On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy (``OSTP''), issued its Final Information 
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (``the Bulletin''). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 
14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information 
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is 
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential 
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The 
purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of 
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy 
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific 
information,'' which the Bulletin defines 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 2664, 2667.

[[Page 7344]]

    In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of 
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses 
that are typically used and has prepared a report describing that peer 
review.\79\ Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and 
documented evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and 
independent reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/
scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the 
productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. 
Because available data, models, and technological understanding have 
changed since 2007, DOE has engaged with the National Academy of 
Sciences to review DOE's analytical methodologies to ascertain whether 
modifications are needed to improve the Department's analyses. DOE is 
in the process of evaluating the resulting report.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ The 2007 ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer 
Review Report'' is available at the following website: energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0 (last accessed Oct. 4, 2022).
    \80\ The report is available at www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-of-methods-for-setting-building-and-equipment-performance-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

    In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference Version 4.0 
of the International Efficiency Marking Protocol for External Power 
Supplies to account for the changes in labeling due to the proposed 
amended energy conservation standards. The international efficiency 
marking protocol provides a system for EPS manufacturers to designate 
the minimum efficiency performance of an EPS, so that finished product 
manufacturers and government representatives can easily determine a 
unit's efficiency. This document can be found in the docket at 
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006.

VII. Public Participation

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting

    The time, date, and location of the public meeting are listed in 
the DATES and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning of this document. If 
you plan to attend the public meeting, please notify the Appliance and 
Equipment Standards staff at (202) 287-1445 or 
[email protected].
    Please note that foreign nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are 
subject to advance security screening procedures which require advance 
notice prior to attendance at the public meeting. If a foreign national 
wishes to participate in the public meeting, please inform DOE of this 
fact as soon as possible by contacting Ms. Regina Washington at (202) 
586-1214 or by email ([email protected]) so that the 
necessary procedures can be completed.
    DOE requires visitors to have laptops and other devices, such as 
tablets, checked upon entry into the Forrestal Building. Any person 
wishing to bring these devices into the building will be required to 
obtain a property pass. Visitors should avoid bringing these devices, 
or allow an extra 45 minutes to check in. Please report to the 
visitor's desk to have devices checked before proceeding through 
security.
    Due to the REAL ID Act implemented by the Department of Homeland 
Security (``DHS''), there have been recent changes regarding ID 
requirements for individuals wishing to enter Federal buildings from 
specific States and U.S. territories. DHS maintains an updated website 
identifying the State and territory driver's licenses that currently 
are acceptable for entry into DOE facilities at www.dhs.gov/real-id-enforcement-brief. A driver's licenses from a State or territory 
identified as not compliant by DHS will not be accepted for building 
entry and one of the alternate forms of ID listed below will be 
required. Acceptable alternate forms of Photo-ID include U.S. Passport 
or Passport Card; an Enhanced Driver's License or Enhanced ID-Card 
issued by States and territories as identified on the DHS website 
(Enhanced licenses issued by these States and territories are clearly 
marked Enhanced or Enhanced Driver's License); a military ID or other 
Federal government-issued Photo-ID card.
    In addition, you can attend the public meeting via webinar. Webinar 
registration information, participant instructions, and information 
about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be 
published on DOE's website at www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/public-meetings-and-comment-deadlines. Participants are responsible for 
ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar software.

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution

    Any person who has plans to present a prepared general statement 
may request that copies of his or her statement be made available at 
the public meeting. Such persons may submit requests, along with an 
advance electronic copy of their statement in PDF (preferred), 
Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format, to 
the appropriate address shown in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning 
of this document. The request and advance copy of statements must be 
received at least one week before the public meeting and are to be 
emailed. Please include a telephone number to enable DOE staff to make 
follow-up contact, if needed.

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting

    DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the public meeting 
and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The 
meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but 
DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 
6306) A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and 
prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of 
presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of 
the public meeting. There shall not be discussion of proprietary 
information, costs or prices, market share, or other commercial matters 
regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After the public meeting, interested 
parties may submit further comments on the proceedings, as well as on 
any aspect of the rulemaking, until the end of the comment period.
    The public meeting will be conducted in an informal, conference 
style. DOE will present a general overview of the topics addressed in 
this rulemaking, allow time for prepared general statements by 
participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views 
on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed 
to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), 
before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will allow, as time 
permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general 
statements.
    At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit 
participants to clarify their statements briefly. Participants should 
be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants 
concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of 
participants concerning other matters relevant to this rulemaking. The 
official conducting the public meeting will accept additional comments 
or questions from those attending, as time permits. The presiding 
official will announce any further procedural rules or modification of 
the previous procedures that may be

[[Page 7345]]

needed for the proper conduct of the public meeting.
    A transcript of the public meeting will be included in the docket, 
which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning 
of this document and will be accessible on the DOE website. In 
addition, any person may buy a copy of the transcript from the 
transcribing reporter.

D. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the 
date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed 
rule. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other 
information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section 
at the beginning of this document.
    Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The 
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be 
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization 
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your 
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, 
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your 
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable 
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to 
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first 
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, 
and any documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which 
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as 
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted 
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received 
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information 
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential 
Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed 
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several 
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal 
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If 
you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly 
viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying 
documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter. 
Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and 
optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly 
viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail 
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if 
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. 
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any 
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or 
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the 
electronic signature of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked 
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be 
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential'' 
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make 
its own determination about the confidential status of the information 
and treat it according to its determination.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

    Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE 
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of 
interested parties concerning the following issues:
    (1) DOE requests comment on its proposal to incorporate by 
reference version 4.0 of IEMP for this rulemaking.
    (2) DOE requests comment on its cost analysis approach performed 
for this NOPR.
    (3) DOE requests comment on the incremental MPCs from the NOPR 
engineering analysis.
    (4) DOE requests comment on the estimated increased manufacturer 
markups and incremental MSPs that result from the analyzed energy 
conservation standards from the NOPR engineering analysis.
    (5) DOE requests comment on the estimated EPS model production 
cycle of four years.
    (6) DOE requests comment on the GRIM results and the estimated 
conversion costs.
    (7) DOE requests comment on whether there is domestic EPS 
manufacturing, where and to what extent such manufacturing occurs, and 
how the proposed energy conservation standard might affect that 
possible domestic EPS manufacturing.
    (8) DOE requests comment on possible impacts on manufacturing 
capacity stemming from amended energy conservation standards, including 
any potential issues with supply chain costs, and or chips and devices 
used in the national security sector.
    (9) DOE requests information regarding the impact of cumulative 
regulatory burden on manufacturers of EPSs associated with multiple DOE 
standards or product-specific regulatory actions of other Federal 
agencies.
    (10) DOE requests comment on the number of small businesses 
identified that manufacture or sell EPSs covered by this proposed 
rulemaking.
    (11) DOE requests comment on the estimated product conversion costs 
of small businesses that manufacture or

[[Page 7346]]

sell EPSs covered by this proposed rulemaking.
    Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the 
conduct of this rulemaking that may not specifically be identified in 
this document.

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of 
proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small 
businesses.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on January 13, 
2023, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting Assistant Secretary for 
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority 
from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature 
and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in 
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the 
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to 
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as 
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative 
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon 
publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on January 19, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends part 430 of 
chapter II of title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:

PART 430--ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

0
1. The authority citation for part 430 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

0
2. Amend Sec.  430.3 by adding a new paragraph (s)(4), to read as 
follows:


Sec.  430.3  Materials incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (s) * * *
    (4) International Efficiency Marking Protocol for External Power 
Supplies, Version 4.0, January 2023, IBR approved for Sec.  430.32.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  430.32 by adding a new paragraph (w)(1)(iv) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  430.32  Energy and water conservation standards and their 
compliance dates.

* * * * *
    (w) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iv) Except as provided in paragraphs (w)(5), (6), and (7) of this 
section, all external power supplies manufactured on or after [date 2 
years after publication of a final rule], shall meet the following 
Level VII standards:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Minimum average
 Nameplate output power (Pout)   efficiency in active   Maximum power in
                                 mode (expressed as a   no-load mode [W]
                                       decimal)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Single-Voltage External AC-DC Power Supply, Basic-Voltage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Pout <= 1 W...............  >=0.5 x Pout + 0.169.            <=0.075
(B) 1 W < Pout <= 49 W........  >=0.071 x ln(Pout)-              <=0.075
                                 0.00115 x Pout +
                                 0.67.
(C) 49 W < Pout <= 250 W......  >=0.890..............            <=0.150
(D) Pout > 250 W..............  >=0.890..............            <=0.150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Single-Voltage External AC-DC Power Supply, Low-Voltage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(E) Pout <= 1 W...............  >=0.517 x Pout +                 <=0.075
                                 0.091.
(F) 1 W < Pout <= 49 W........  >=0.0834 x ln(Pout)-             <=0.075
                                 0.0011x Pout + 0.609.
(G) 49 W < Pout <= 250 W......  >=0.880..............            <=0.150
(H) Pout > 250 W..............  >=0.880..............            <=0.150
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Single-Voltage External AC-AC Power Supply, Basic-Voltage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(I) Pout <= 1 W...............  >=0.5 x Pout + 0.169.            <=0.075
(J) 1 W < Pout <= 49 W........  >=0.0582 x ln(Pout)-             <=0.075
                                 0.00104 x Pout +
                                 0.727.
(K) 49 W < Pout <= 250 W......  >=0.902..............            <=0.075
Pout > 250 W..................  >=0.902..............            <=0.200
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Single-Voltage External AC-AC Power Supply, Low-Voltage
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(L) Pout <= 1 W...............  >=0.517 x Pout +                 <=0.072
                                 0.091.
(M) 1 W < Pout <= 49 W........  >=0.0834 x ln(Pout)-             <=0.072
                                 0.0011x Pout + 0.609.
(N) 49 W < Pout <= 250 W......  >=0.880..............            <=0.185
(O) Pout > 250 W..............  >=0.880..............            <=0.500
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Multiple-Voltage External Power Supply
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(P) Pout <= 1 W...............  >=0.497 x Pout +                 <=0.075
                                 0.067.
(Q) 1 W < Pout <= 49 W........  >=0.0782 x ln(Pout)-             <=0.075
                                 0.0013 x Pout +
                                 0.643.
(R) 49 W < Pout <= 250 W......  >=0.885..............            <=0.125
(S) Pout > 250 W..............  >=0.885..............            <=0.125
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2023-01282 Filed 2-1-23; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P