Home/Federal/Federal Register/2023-01282

Proposed Rule2023-01282

Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for External Power Supplies

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

February 2, 2023

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

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.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 22 (Thursday, February 2, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[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 [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>, 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a8edf8fb9a989a98fbfcec98989ee8cdcd86ccc7cd86cfc7de">[email&#160;protected]</a>. 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. All documents in the
docket are listed in the <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006</a>. 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.
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 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d7b2b9b2a5b0aef9a4a3b6b9b3b6a5b3a497a2a4b3b8bdf9b0b8a1">[email&#160;protected]</a> 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b2f3c2c2dedbd3dcd1d7e1c6d3dcd6d3c0d6c1e3c7d7c1c6dbdddcc1f2d7d79cd6ddd79cd5ddc4">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
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:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#cc82a3a0ada2e28ebea5afa7bba3a3a88ca4bde2a8a3a9e2aba3ba">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#75340505191c141b16102601141b111407110624001006011c1a1b063510105b111a105b121a03">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

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
<a href="http://Regulations.gov">Regulations.gov</a>.
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 (``CO<INF>2</INF>''), 26.3 thousand tons of methane
(``CH<INF>4</INF>''), 0.04 thousand tons of nitrous oxide
(``N<INF>2</INF>O''), 6.0 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides
(``NO<INF>X</INF>''), 1.7 thousand tons of sulfur dioxide
(``SO<INF>2</INF>''), and 0.01 tons of mercury (``Hg'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. Results for
emissions other than CO<INF>2</INF> 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
CO<INF>2</INF> (``SC-CO<INF>2</INF>''), the social cost of methane
(``SC-CH<INF>4</INF>''), and the social cost of nitrous oxide (``SC-
N<INF>2</INF>O''). 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''). /
<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf">www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE also estimates health benefits from SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 PM<INF>2.5</INF> precursor health
benefits for SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> and ozone precursor
health benefits for NO<INF>X</INF>, but will continue to assess the
ability to monetize other effects, such as health benefits from
reductions in direct PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> and
NO<INF>X</INF> 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
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF>
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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0001/comment">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0001/comment</a> and <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0008/comment">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0008/comment</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0012">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0012</a>. 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>). 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: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006</a>. 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
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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:
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0012">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0012</a>) (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:
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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://
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0217">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0217</a>) (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:
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0217">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0217</a>) (last
accessed Sept. 12, 2022). See also Chapter 6 of the 2022 Preliminary
Analysis Technical Support Document for External Power Supplies.
(Available at: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0012">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0012</a>) (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:
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0217">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0217</a>) (last
accessed Sept. 12, 2022). See also Appendix 7A of the 2022
Preliminary Analysis Technical Support Document for External Power
Supplies. (Available at: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0012">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0012</a>) (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:
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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\ <a href="http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/">www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2015/</a> (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\ <a href="http://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/">www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/</a> (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: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0012">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0012</a>) (last
accessed Sept. 12, 2022).
\30\ Producer Price Index: Semiconductors and Related
Manufacturing. Series ID: PCU334413334413. (Available at:
<a href="http://beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/PCU334413334413">beta.bls.gov/dataViewer/view/timeseries/PCU334413334413</a>) (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:
<a href="http://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia861m/">www.eia.gov/electricity/data/eia861m/</a>) (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 <a href="http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/">www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/</a>) (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: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0012">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0012</a>) (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: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0012">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0012</a>) (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: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0013-0009">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0013-0009</a>) (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: <a href="http://www.federalreserve.gov/econres/scfindex.htm">www.federalreserve.gov/econres/scfindex.htm</a>) (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\ <a href="https://www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms">https://www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms</a>.
\39\ See Chapter 8, section 8.4 of the 2022 Preliminary Analysis
Technical Support Document for External Power Supplies. (Available
at: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0012">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0012</a>) (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:
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0012">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2020-BT-STD-0006-0012</a>) (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: <a href="http://www.eia.gov/analysis/pdfpages/0581">www.eia.gov/analysis/pdfpages/0581</a>(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

[

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on February 2, 2023.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.