52850 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY before and after the public meeting, but the www.regulations.gov index. no later than November 2, 2015. See However, some documents listed in the 10 CFR Part 430 section VII, Public Participation, for index may not be publicly available, [Docket Number EERE–2008–BT–STD– details. such as those containing information 0005] ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be that is exempt from public disclosure, A link to the docket Web page can be RIN 1904–AB57 held at the U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000 found at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ buildings/appliance_standards/ Energy Conservation Program: Energy Independence Avenue SW., product.aspx?productid=84. This Web Conservation Standards for Battery Washington, DC 20585. page contains a link to the docket for Chargers Any comments submitted must identify the SNOPR on Energy this notice on the www.regulations.gov AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Conservation Standards for Battery site. The www.regulations.gov Web page Renewable Energy, Department of Chargers, and provide docket number contains simple instructions on how to Energy. EE–2008–BT–STD–0005 and/or access all documents, including public ACTION: Supplemental notice of regulatory information number (RIN) comments, in the docket. See section proposed rulemaking. 1904–AB57. Comments may be VII, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for further submitted using any of the following information on how to submit SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and methods: comments through Conservation Act of 1975, as amended 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. (‘‘EPCA’’ or in context, ‘‘the Act’’), www.regulations.gov. Follow the EPCA requires the Attorney General prescribes energy conservation instructions for submitting comments. to provide DOE a written determination standards for various consumer 2. Email: BatteryChargersSTD0005@ of whether the proposed standard is products and certain commercial and ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number likely to lessen competition. The U.S. industrial equipment, including battery and/or RIN in the subject line of the Department of Justice Antitrust Division chargers. EPCA also requires the U.S. message. Submit electronic comments invites input from market participants Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’ or, in in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, and other interested persons with views context, ‘‘the Department’’) to determine or ASCII file format, and avoid the use on the likely competitive impact of the whether Federal energy conservation of special characters or any form of proposed standard. Interested persons standards for a particular type of encryption. may contact the Division at product or equipment would be 3. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, [email protected] before technologically feasible and U.S. Department of Energy, Building October 1, 2015. Please indicate in the economically justified, and save a Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, ‘‘Subject’’ line of your email the title significant amount of energy. On March 1000 Independence Avenue SW., and Docket Number of this rulemaking 27, 2012, DOE published a notice of Washington, DC 20585–0121. If notice. proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) to possible, please submit all items on a FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. establish energy conservation standards compact disc (CD), in which case it is Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of for battery chargers. DOE received not necessary to include printed copies. Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and comments suggesting changes to DOE’s 4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Renewable Energy, Building proposed approach. To this end, this Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 supplemental notice of proposed Building Technologies Office, 950 Independence Avenue SW., rulemaking (‘‘SNOPR’’) updates and L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, Washington, DC 20585–0121. revises DOE’s prior analysis by Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: Telephone: (202) 586–9870. Email: considering, among other things, the (202) 586–2945. If possible, please battery_chargers_and_external_power_ impacts attributable to standards issued submit all items on a CD, in which case [email protected]. by the California Energy Commission it is not necessary to include printed Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of (CEC), along with accompanying data copies. Energy, Office of the General Counsel, included in the CEC’s compliance Written comments regarding the GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue database. This notice also announces a burden-hour estimates or other aspects SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121. public meeting to receive comment on of the collection-of-information Telephone: (202) 586–8145. Email: these proposed standards and associated requirements contained in this proposed [email protected]. analyses and results. rule may be submitted to Office of For further information on how to DATES: Comments regarding the likely Energy Efficiency and Renewable submit a comment, review other public competitive impact of the proposed Energy through the methods listed comments and the docket, or participate standard should be sent to the above and by email to Chad_S_ in the public meeting, contact Ms. Department of Justice contact listed in [email protected]. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by the ADDRESSES section before October 1, No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be email: [email protected] 2015. accepted. For detailed instructions on SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE will hold a public meeting on submitting comments and additional Table of Contents September 15, 2015 from 9 a.m. to 4 information on the rulemaking process, p.m., in Washington, DC. The meeting see section VII of this document (Public I. Summary will also be broadcast as a webinar. See Participation). A. Efficiency Distributions section VII, Public Participation, for Docket: The docket, which includes 1. 2012 NOPR Efficiency Distributions webinar registration information, Federal Register notices, public meeting 2. SNOPR Efficiency Distributions B. Benefits and Costs to Consumers participant instructions, and attendee lists and transcripts, C. Impact on Manufacturers information about the capabilities comments, and other supporting D. National Benefits and Costs available to webinar participants. documents/materials, is available for E. Conclusion DOE will accept comments, data, and review at www.regulations.gov. All II. Introduction information regarding this SNOPR documents in the docket are listed in A. Authority
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52851
B. Background L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other or in context, ‘‘the Act’’), Public Law 1. Current Standards Emissions Impacts 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6291–6309, as 2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 1. Social Cost of Carbon codified), established the Energy 2. Social Cost of Other Air Pollutants Battery Chargers Conservation Program for Consumer III. General Discussion M. Utility Impact Analysis 2 A. Test Procedure N. Employment Impact Analysis Products Other Than Automobiles. B. Product Classes and Scope of Coverage O. Marking Requirements These products include battery chargers, C. Technological Feasibility P. Reporting Requirements the subject of this document. 1. General V. Analytical Results Pursuant to EPCA, any new or 2. Maximum Technologically Feasible A. Trial Standards Levels Levels B. Economic Justification and Energy amended energy conservation standard D. Energy Savings Savings must be designed to achieve the 1. Determination of Savings 1. Economic Impacts on Individual maximum improvement in energy 2. Significance of Savings Consumers efficiency that is technologically E. Economic Justification 2. Economic Impact on Manufacturers feasible and economically justified. (42 1. Specific Criteria 3. National Impact Analysis U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the 2. Rebuttable Presumption 4. Impact on Utility and Performance of the Products new or amended standard must result in IV. Methodology and Discussion significant conservation of energy. (42 A. Market and Technology Assessment 5. Impact on Any Lessening of Competition 1. Products Included in this Rulemaking 6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) EPCA also 2. Market Assessment 7. Other Factors provides that not later than 6 years after 3. Product Classes 8. Summary of National Economic Impacts issuance of any final rule establishing or 4. Technology Assessment C. Conclusions amending a standard, DOE must publish B. Screening Analysis 1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs either a notice of determination that C. Engineering Analysis Considered for Battery Chargers 2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the standards for the product do not need to 1. Representative Units be amended, or a notice of proposed 2. Battery Charger Efficiency Metrics Proposed Standards 3. Calculation of Unit Energy Consumption 3. Stakeholder Comments on Standards rulemaking including new proposed 4. Battery Charger Candidate Standard Proposed in NOPR energy conservation standards. (42 Levels VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) 5. Test and Teardowns A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 DOE had previously proposed to 6. Manufacturer Interviews establish new energy conservation 7. Design Options B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 8. Cost Model Act standards for battery chargers in March 9. Battery Charger Engineering Results 1. Description on Estimated Number of 2012. See 77 FR 18478 (March 27, 10. Scaling of Battery Charger Candidate Small Entities Regulated 2012). Since the publication of that Standard Levels 2. Description and Estimate of Compliance proposal, the State of California D. Markups Analysis Requirements finalized new energy conservation E. Energy Use Analysis 3. Duplication, Overlap and Conflict with Other Rules and Regulations standards for battery chargers sold F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period within that State. See 45Z Cal. Reg. Analyses 4. Significant Alternatives to the Proposed 1. Product Cost Rule 1663, 1664 (Nov. 9, 2012) (summarizing 2. Installation Cost C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction proposed regulations and their final 3. Annual Energy Consumption Act effective dates). Those new standards 4. Energy Prices D. Review Under the National were not factored into DOE’s analysis 5. Repair and Maintenance Costs Environmental Policy Act of 1969 supporting its initial battery charger E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 6. Product Lifetime proposal. To assess whether DOE’s 7. Discount Rates F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates proposal would satisfy the requirements 8. Sectors Analyzed under 42 U.S.C. 6295, DOE revisited its 9. Base Case Market Efficiency Distribution Reform Act of 1995 10. Compliance Date H. Review Under the Treasury and General analysis in light of these new California 11. Payback Period Inputs Government Appropriations Act, 1999 standards. As a result, DOE is proposing G. Shipments Analysis I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 new energy conservation standards for 1. Shipment Growth Rate J. Review Under the Treasury and General battery chargers. The revised proposal 2. Product Class Lifetime Government Appropriations Act, 2001 would provide a set of maximum annual 3. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L. Review Under the Information Quality energy consumption levels expressed as and Standards Cases a function of battery energy. These H. National Impacts Analysis Bulletin for Peer Review 1. Product Price Trends VII. Public Participation proposed standards are shown in Table 2. Unit Energy Consumption and Savings A. Attendance at the Public Meeting I–1. B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 3. Unit Costs These new standards, if adopted, 4. Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit General Statements For Distribution C. Conduct of the Public Meeting would apply to all products listed in 5. Energy Prices Table I–1 and manufactured in, or 6. National Energy Savings D. Submission of Comments 7. Discount Rates E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment imported into, the United States starting I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary on the date corresponding to two years J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis I. Summary after the publication of the final rule for 1. Manufacturer Production Costs this rulemaking. 2. Product and Capital Conversion Costs Title III, Part B 1 of the Energy Policy 3. Comments from Interested Parties and Conservation Act of 1975 (‘‘EPCA’’ 2 All references to EPCA in this document refer Related to Battery Chargers to the statute as amended through the American 4. Manufacturer Interviews 1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act K. Emissions Analysis U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. (AEMTCA), Pub. L. 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52852 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE I–1—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS
Proposed standard as a function of battery energy Product class Product class description (kWh/yr)
1 ...... Low-Energy, Inductive Connection ...... 3.04 2 ...... Low-Energy, Low-Voltage <4V ...... 0.1440 * Ebatt + 2.95 3 ...... Low-Energy, Medium-Voltage 4–10 V ...... For Ebatt <10Wh, 1.42 kWh/y Ebatt ≥10 Wh, 0.0255 * Ebatt + 1.16 4 ...... Low-Energy, High-Voltage >10V ...... 0.11 * Ebatt + 3.18 5 ...... Medium-Energy, Low-Voltage <20 V ...... For Ebatt < 19 Wh, 1.32 kWh/yr For Ebatt ≥ 19 Wh, 0.0257 * Ebatt + .815 6 ...... Medium-Energy, High-Voltage ≥20 V ...... For Ebatt < 18 Wh 3.88 kWh/yr For Ebatt ≥ 18 Wh 0.0778 * Ebatt + 2.4 7 ...... High-Energy ...... 0.0502 * Ebatt + 4.53
A. Efficiency Distributions specific efficiency distributions to be The market change was assumed to be To evaluate the potential impacts of developed for most product classes. For a ‘‘roll-up’’, such that the market standards, DOE develops a base case some product classes, there were responds to standards by improving efficiency forecast, which represents insufficient test data, and the efficiency those products that do not meet the DOE’s estimate of the future state of the distributions were based on standards to the standard level, but no market with respect to efficiency if manufacturer interviews. DOE further higher, while the products that were energy conservation standards for the assumed that the influence of two already as or more efficient than the units covered under this rulemaking are battery charger programs active at the standard remain unaffected. No further not adopted. DOE estimated the time (ENERGY STAR and EU Ecodesign changes in the base-case efficiency efficiency distributions for the base year requirements) would shift some of the distributions were assumed to occur 2013 in the original battery charger historical market share away from after the first year of the analysis. NOPR (published March 27, 2012), and baseline efficiency to more efficient The following table summarizes the updated the distributions based on new CSLs. In January 2012, the CEC market conditions for the base year 2018 standards on battery chargers were efficiency distribution assumptions for in today’s SNOPR. announced with an effective date of each product class in the 2012 NOPR February 1, 2013. To account for this analysis. For reference, the table also 1. 2012 NOPR Efficiency Distributions announcement, DOE assumed that the includes the Unit Energy Consumption In the battery charger NOPR that was fraction of battery chargers sold in (UEC) of the representative unit defining published March 27, 2012, DOE California (assumed to equal California’s each CSL from the NOPR engineering determined the base case efficiency share of US GDP, or 13%) would shift analysis (see section IV.C.1 and IV.C.2), distribution using test data from 224 away from baseline efficiency to CSLs and estimated shipments in 2018 from models, which enabled application- that approximated CEC standard levels. the NOPR shipments analysis.
TABLE I–2—BASE CASE 2012 NOPR ESTIMATED EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS IN 2013 a
Product Estimated shipments class CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 in 2018
1 ...... Efficiency Distribution ...... 78% 11% 11% 0% N/A 16,150,369 UEC ...... 8.73 6.1 3.04 1.29 N/A 2 ...... Efficiency Distribution ...... 18% 22% 57% 3% 0% 266,339,577 UEC ...... 8.66 6.47 2.86 1.03 0.81 3 ...... Efficiency Distribution ...... 17% 62% 21% 0% N/A 24,664,587 UEC ...... 11.9 4.68 0.79 0.75 N/A 4 ...... Efficiency Distribution ...... 9% 39% 52% 0% N/A 65,163,723 UEC ...... 37.73 9.91 4.57 3.01 N/A 5 ...... Efficiency Distribution ...... 28% 52% 7% 13% N/A 5,204,768 UEC ...... 84.6 56.09 29.26 15.35 N/A 6 ...... Efficiency Distribution ...... 36% 29% 22% 13% N/A 667,039 UEC ...... 120.6 81.7 38.3 16.79 N/A 7 ...... Efficiency Distribution ...... 44% 57% 0% N/A N/A 225,271 UEC ...... 255.05 191.74 131.44 N/A N/A 8 ...... Efficiency Distribution ...... 50% 40% 10% 0% N/A 69,745,891 UEC ...... 0.9 0.66 0.24 0.19 N/A 9 ...... Efficiency Distribution ...... 25% 50% 25% N/A N/A 10,249,869 UEC ...... 0.79 0.26 0.13 N/A N/A 10 ...... Efficiency Distribution ...... 87% 0% 0% 13% N/A 8,556,487 UEC ...... 19.27 6.13 4 1.5 N/A a This information was taken from DOE’s NOPR that was issued on March 27, 2012.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52853
2. SNOPR Efficiency Distributions Therefore, DOE re-developed its percentage of such units is small. For For the SNOPR analysis considered in efficiency distribution analysis, and this analysis, DOE conservatively today’s action, DOE assumed that the based it on the CEC database of certified assumed 5% of units sold nationally do CEC standards, effective since February small battery chargers (downloaded in not meet CEC standards. To account for 1, 2013, had moved the market not just November 2014 and containing 12652 this, each application’s efficiency in California, but nationally as well. To unique models). Each model was distribution was multiplied by 95%, reach this conclusion, DOE solicited assigned an estimated product class and and then 5% was added to the CSL stakeholder comments through a application based off its battery below the CEC approximate CSL. These Request for Information published on characteristics. Application-specific became the base case efficiency March 26, 2013, conducted additional efficiency distributions were then distributions shown in the table below. manufacturer interviews, and performed developed using the reported energy No further changes in the base-case its own examination of the efficiency of performance for each model in that efficiency distributions were assumed to application. If an application had less products sold nationally. In response to occur after the first year of the analysis. than 20 identified models, it was the RFI, many commenters indicated It is important to note that the CSLs that there was evidence that the market assigned the efficiency distribution of the overall product class. Due to slight were redefined in the SNOPR analysis, had accepted the CEC standards and and do not perfectly match those in the that technology improvements were variations between CEC and DOE NOPR analysis. This was done based on made to meet the CEC standards. DOE metrics, products were conservatively additional testing conducted for some found products available for sale in assigned to the higher CSL (in order to physical locations outside of California not overstate savings) when their UECs product classes and to have a CSL that and available for sale online that met were within 5% of the next highest CSL is a closer approximation to the CEC CEC standards, and had the compliance line compared to the standard levels. For reference, the table accompanying CEC efficiency mark on distance between the compliance lines below also lists the tested UECs defining them. Finally, additional manufacturer of the higher and lower CSLs. each CSL from the SNOPR engineering interviews supported the view that the The SNOPR analysis acknowledges, analysis and the estimated shipments in majority of products sold in California however, that units not complying with 2018 from the SNOPR shipments (and thus meeting CEC standards) were CEC standards can still be sold outside analysis. sold nationally as well. of California, but assumed the
TABLE I–3—BASE CASE SNOPR ESTIMATED EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS IN 2018
Product Estimated shipments class CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4 in 2018
1 ...... Efficiency Distribution ...... 7% 56% 33% 4% N/A 15,772,035 UEC ...... 8.73 6.1 3.04 1.29 N/A 2 ...... Efficiency Distribution ...... 9% 42% 9% 15% 25% 400,052,285 UEC ...... 5.33 3.09 1.69 1.58 1.11 3 ...... Efficiency Distribution ...... 6% 35% 2% 58% N/A 27,088,679 UEC ...... 3.65 1.42 0.74 0.7 N/A 4 ...... Efficiency Distribution ...... 6% 8% 12% 74% N/A 80,146,173 UEC ...... 12.23 5.38 3.63 3.05 N/A 5 ...... Efficiency Distribution ...... 0% 5% 95% 0% N/A 4,717,743 UEC ...... 88.1 58.3 21.39 9.45 N/A 6 ...... Efficiency Distribution ...... 0% 5% 95% 0% N/A 668,489 UEC ...... 120.71 81.82 33.53 16.8 N/A 7 ...... Efficiency Distribution ...... 80% 20% 0% N/A N/A 238,861 UEC ...... 255.05 191.74 131.44 N/A N/A
8 ...... Efficiency Distribution ...... UEC ...... 9 ...... Efficiency Distribution ...... No longer in scope UEC ...... 10 ...... Efficiency Distribution ...... UEC ......
To support the assumption that 95% the highest shipments. DOE also looked in each application examined met CEC of the national market meets CEC at products in a variety of product standard levels (these results are lower standard levels, DOE examined the top- classes. The applications examined bounds since battery charger model selling products for various BC cover over 50% of all battery charger numbers were not always available). applications at several national online shipments. If the battery charger model These results are therefore consistent and brick & mortar retailers (with an number was found in the CEC’s with DOE’s assumption that 95% of the online portal). These represent products database of certified products, or if the national market for battery chargers sold not just in California, but available product was available for sale or pick- meets the CEC standards. The table nationally. DOE focused its search on up in a physical store in California, then below summarizes the results of DOE’s the top-selling 20 products (separately the product was assumed to meet CEC market examination. for each retailer) in applications with standard levels. Over 90% of products
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52854 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE I–4—SUMMARY OF DOE MARKET EXAMINATION OF CEC UNITS BY APPLICATION
Percentage of Percentage of total BC models examined Application Product class shipments in Retailers examined * in cec database or application sold in California (%) (%)
Smartphones ...... 2 21 Amazon, Best Buy, Sears ...... 100 Media Tablets ...... 2 8 Amazon, Best Buy, Sears ...... 93 MP3 Players ...... 2 8 Amazon, Best Buy, Sears ...... 93 Notebook Computers ...... 4 8 Amazon, Best Buy, Sears ...... 93 Digital Cameras ...... 2 6 Amazon, Best Buy, Sears ...... 97 Power Tools (includes DIY and profes- 2, 3, 4 2 Amazon, Home Depot, Sears ...... 90 sional). Toy Ride-On Vehicles ...... 3, 5 1 Walmart, Toys R Us ...... 93
B. Benefits and Costs to Consumers life-cycle cost (‘‘LCC’’) savings and the and 9.7 years, depending on product simple payback period (‘‘PBP’’).3 The class (see section IV.F.5). For Table I–5 presents DOE’s evaluation average LCC savings are positive for all comparative purposes, Table I–5 also of the economic impacts of the proposed product classes, and the PBP is less than presents the results from the NOPR for standards on consumers of battery the average lifetime of battery chargers, battery chargers. See 77 FR 18478 chargers, as measured by the average which is estimated to be between 3.5 (March 27, 2012).
TABLE I–5—IMPACTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS ON CONSUMERS OF BATTERY CHARGERS
Average LCC savings Simple payback period (years) Average Product class NOPR SNOPR lifetime (2010$) (2013$) NOPR SNOPR (years)
PC1—Low E, Inductive ...... 1.52 0.71 1.7 1.5 5.0 PC2—Low E, Low Voltage ...... 0.16 0.07 0.5 0.6 4.0 PC3—Low E, Medium Voltage ...... 0.35 0.08 3.9 0.8 4.9 PC4—Low E, High Voltage ...... 0.43 0.11 3.0 1.4 3.7 PC5—Medium E, Low Voltage ...... 33.79 0.84 0.0 2.7 4.0 PC6—Medium E, High Voltage ...... 40.78 1.89 0.0 1.1 9.7 PC7—High E ...... 38.26 51.06 0.0 0.0 3.5 PC 8—DC–DC, <9V Input ...... 3.04 ...... 0.0 ...... Note: As described in section IV.A.3 of this notice, the standards proposed in this SNOPR no longer consider product classes 8 and 10. Prod- ucts that were found in product class 8 of the NOPR analysis were redistributed among other product classes for the SNOPR, and product class 10 was removed from consideration. Therefore, for comparison between the NOPR and SNOPR analyses, the results for product class 8 are in- cluded in the table above, while results for product class 10 are excluded.
DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the does not expect any plant closings or products in the base case (i.e. without proposed standards on consumers is significant loss of employment. standards). described in section IV.F of this notice. DOE’s analysis of the impacts of the The cumulative net present value C. Impact on Manufacturers proposed standards on manufacturers is (NPV) of total consumer costs and The industry net present value (INPV) described in section IV.J of this notice. savings of the proposed standards ranges from $0.6 billion (at a 7-percent is the sum of the discounted cash flows D. National Benefits and Costs 4 to the industry from the base year discount rate) to $1.2 billion (at a 3- through the end of the analysis period DOE’s analyses indicate that the percent discount rate). This NPV (2015 to 2047). Using a real discount proposed energy conservation standards expresses the estimated total value of rate of 9.1 percent, DOE estimates that would save a significant amount of future operating-cost savings minus the estimated increased product costs for the INPV for manufacturers of battery energy. Relative to the base case without battery chargers purchased in 2018– chargers in the base case is $79,904 amended standards, the lifetime energy 2047. million in 2013$. Under the proposed savings for battery chargers purchased standards, DOE expects that in the 30-year period that begins in the In addition, the proposed standards manufacturers may lose up to 0.7 anticipated year of compliance with the for battery chargers would have percent of the INPV, which is new standards (2018–2047) amount to significant environmental benefits. DOE approximately -$529 million. 0.170 quadrillion Btu (quads).5 This estimates that the proposed standards Additionally, based on DOE’s represents a savings of 11.2 percent would result in cumulative greenhouse interviews with the domestic relative to the energy use of these gas (GHG) emission reductions of manufacturers of battery chargers, DOE approximately 10.45 million metric tons
3 The average LCC savings are measured relative efficiency levels, is measured relative to the 5 A quad is equal to 10 15 British thermal units to the base-case efficiency distribution, which baseline model (see section IV.F.11). (Btu). depicts the market in the compliance year in the 4 All monetary values in this section are 6 A metric ton is equivalent to 1.1 short tons. absence of standards (see section IV.F.9). The expressed in 2013 dollars and, where appropriate, Results for emissions other than CO2 are presented simple PBP, which is designed to compare specific are discounted to 2015.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52855
6 (Mt) of carbon dioxide (CO2), 8.92 metric ton of CO2 (otherwise known as a value of $0.362 billion using the thousand tons of sulfur dioxide (SO2), the Social Cost of Carbon, or ‘‘SCC’’) central SCC case represented by $40.5/ 15.41 thousand tons of nitrogen oxides developed by a Federal interagency t in 2015. DOE also estimates the 7 (NOX), 44.8 thousand tons of methane, process. The derivation of the SCC present monetary value of the NOX 0.137 thousand tons of nitrous oxide values is discussed in section IV.M. emissions reduction is $13.65 million at 3 (N2), and 0.027 tons of mercury (Hg). Using discount rates appropriate for a 7-percent discount rate, and $24.43 The cumulative reduction in CO2 each set of SCC values (see Table I–6), million at a 3-percent discount rate.8 emissions through 2030 amounts to 4.3 DOE estimates that the net present Table I–6 summarizes the national Mt, which is equivalent to the emissions monetary value of the CO2 emissions economic benefits and costs expected to resulting from the annual electricity use reductions (not including CO2 of approximately half a million homes. equivalent emissions of other gases with result from the proposed standards for The value of the CO2 reductions is global warming potential) is between battery chargers. calculated using a range of values per $0.084 billion and $1.114 billion, with
TABLE I–6—SUMMARY OF NATIONAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS (TSL 2) *
Present value Discount rate Category (billion 2013$) (%)
Benefits
Consumer Operating Cost Savings ...... 0.7 7 1.4 3 CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($12.0/t case) ** ...... 0.1 5 CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($40.5/t case) ** ...... 0.4 3 CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($62.4/t case) ** ...... 0.6 2.5 CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($119/t case) ** ...... 1.1 3 NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,684/ton) ** ...... 0.01 7 0.02 3 Total Benefits † ...... 1.1 7 1.8 3
Costs
Consumer Incremental Installed Costs ...... 0.1 7 0.2 3
Total Net Benefits
Including Emissions Reduction Monetized Value† ...... *1 .0 7 1.6 3 * This table presents the costs and benefits associated with battery chargers shipped in 2018¥2047. These results include benefits to con- sumers which accrue after 2047 from the products purchased in 2018¥2047. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs in- curred by manufacturers due to the standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. ** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case rep- resents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series incorporate an escalation factor. The value for NOx is the average of high and low values found in the literature. † Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to average SCC with 3-percent discount rate ($40.5/ t case).
TABLE I–7—SUMMARY OF NATIONAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS PROPOSED IN THE NOPR FOR BATTERY CHARGERS
Present value Discount rate Category (billion 2010$) (%)
Benefits
Consumer Operating Cost Savings ...... 3.815 7 7.007 3 CO2 Reduction Monetized Value ($4.9/t case) * ...... 0.208 5 CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $22.3/t case) * ...... 1.025 3 CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $36.5/t case) * ...... 1.720 2.5 CO2 Reduction Monetized Value (at $67.6/t case) * ...... 3.127 3
in short tons. 3 DOE calculated emissions 7 Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon 8 DOE is currently investigating valuation of reductions relative to the base case, which reflects for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive avoided SO2 and Hg emissions. key assumptions in the Annual Energy Outlook Order 12866. Interagency Working Group on Social 2014 (AEO2014) Reference case, which generally Cost of Carbon, United States Government. May represents current legislation and environmental 2013; revised November 2013. (Available at: http:// regulations for which implementing regulations www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/ were available as of October 31, 2013. inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for- regulator-impact-analysis.pdf.)
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52856 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE I–7—SUMMARY OF NATIONAL ECONOMIC BENEFITS AND COSTS OF ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS PROPOSED IN THE NOPR FOR BATTERY CHARGERS—Continued
Present value Discount rate Category (billion 2010$) (%)
NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at $2,537/ton) * ...... 0.036 7 0.065 3 Total Benefits ** ...... 4.876 7 8.097 3
Costs
Consumer Incremental Installed Costs ‡ ...... ¥1.435 7 ¥2.402 3
Net Benefits/Costs
Including Emissions Reduction Monetized Value ** ...... 6.311 7 10.498 3 Note: As described in section IV.A.3 of this notice, the standards proposed in this SNOPR no longer consider product classes 8 and 10. Prod- ucts that were found in product class 8 of the NOPR analysis were redistributed among other product classes for the SNOPR, and product class 10 was removed from consideration. Therefore, for comparison between the NOPR and SNOPR analyses, the results for product class 8 are in- cluded in the table above, while results for product class 10 are excluded. * These values represent global values (in 2010$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.9, $22.3 and $36.5 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The value of $67.6 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The value for NOX (in 2010$) is the av- erage of the low and high values used in DOE’s NOPR analysis. ** Total Benefits and Net Benefits/Costs for both the 3% and 7% cases utilize the central estimate of social cost of CO2 emissions calculated at a 3% discount rate, which is equal to $22.3/ton in 2010 (in 2010$). ‡ Consumer Incremental Installed Costs represent the total present value (in 2010$) of costs borne by consumers due to increased manufac- turing costs from efficiency improvements. The incremental product costs for battery chargers are negative because of an assumed shift in tech- nology from linear power supplies to switch mode power for the larger battery chargers in product classes 5, 6, and 7. For more details, see chapter 5 of the NOPR Technical Support Document.
For comparative purposes, Table I–7 operating cost savings from using less battery chargers shipped in 2018–2047. summarizes the national economic energy, minus increases in product Because CO2 emissions have a very long benefits and costs for the standards purchase prices and installation costs, residence time in the atmosphere,10 the proposed in the March 27, 2012, NOPR which is another way of representing SCC values after 2050 reflect future for battery chargers shipped in 2013– consumer NPV), and (2) the annualized climate-related impacts resulting from 2042. For the comparison between the monetary value of the benefits of the emission of CO2 that continue NOPR and SNOPR analyses, products emission reductions, including CO2 beyond 2100. that were found in product class 8 of the emission reductions.9 Estimates of annualized benefits and NOPR analysis were redistributed Although combining the values of costs of the proposed standards are among other product classes for the operating savings and CO2 emission shown in Table I–8. The results under SNOPR, and product class 10 was reductions provides a useful the primary estimate are as follows. removed from consideration in the perspective, two issues should be Using a 7-percent discount rate for SNOPR. As the CEC standards were considered. First, the national operating benefits and costs other than CO2 effective since February 1, 2013, DOE cost savings are domestic U.S. consumer reduction, for which DOE used a 3- did not specifically consider the NPV of monetary savings that occur as a result percent discount rate along with the costs and benefits of achieving the CEC of market transactions, whereas the SCC series corresponding to a value of efficiency levels in the 2012 NOPR for value of CO2 reductions is based on a $40.5/ton in 2015, the cost of the the California market. For the SNOPR, global value. Second, the assessments of standards in this rule is $9 million per DOE assumed that the CEC standards operating cost savings and CO2 savings year in increased equipment costs, had moved the market not just in are performed with different methods while the estimated annual benefits are California, but for the remainder of the that use different time frames for $68 million per year in reduced country. DOE therefore only considered analysis. The national operating cost equipment operating costs, $20 million the NPV of costs and benefits of going savings is measured for the lifetime of in CO2 reductions, and $1.26 million in beyond the where the market efficiency reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 9 To convert the time-series of costs and benefits net benefit amounts to $80 million per levels had moved in response to the into annualized values, DOE calculated a present year. Using a 3-percent discount rate for CEC standards, across the entire U.S. value in 2015, the year used for discounting the all benefits and costs and the SCC series See 77 FR 18478 (March 27, 2012). NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated corresponding to a value of $40.5/ton in The benefits and costs of the today’s with each year’s shipments in the year in which the 2015, the estimated cost of the proposed proposed standards, for products sold in shipments occur (e.g., 2020 or 2030), and then standards is $10 million per year in 2018–2047, can also be expressed in discounted the present value from each year to 2015. The calculation uses discount rates of 3 and increased equipment costs, while the terms of annualized values. The 7 percent for all costs and benefits except for the 10 annualized monetary values are the sum value of CO2 reductions, for which DOE used case- The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is estimated of of (1) the annualized national economic specific discount rates, as shown in Table I.3. Using the order of 30–95 years. Jacobson, MZ (2005). value of the benefits from consumer the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed ‘‘Correction to ‘Control of fossil-fuel particulate annual payment over a 30-year period, starting in black carbon and organic matter, possibly the most operation of products that meet the new the compliance year, which yields the same present effective method of slowing global warming,’’’ J. standards (consisting primarily of value. Geophys. Res. 110. pp. D14105.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52857
estimated annual benefits are $75 SNOPR analyses, products that were California market. For the SNOPR, DOE million per year in reduced operating found in product class 8 of the NOPR assumed that the CEC standards had costs, $20 million in CO2 reductions, analysis were redistributed among other moved the market not just in California, and $1.32 million in reduced NOX product classes for the SNOPR, and but for the remainder of the country. emissions. In this case, the net benefit product class 10 was removed from DOE therefore only considered the amounts to $86 million per year. consideration in the SNOPR. As the CEC annualized costs and benefits of going For comparative purposes, Table I–9 standards were effective since February beyond where the market efficiency presents the annualized results from the 1, 2013, DOE did not specifically levels had moved in response to the March 27, 2012, NOPR for battery consider the annualized costs and CEC standards, across the entire U.S. chargers shipped in 2013–2042. For the benefits of achieving the CEC efficiency See 77 FR 18478 (March 27, 2012). comparison between the NOPR and levels in the 2012 NOPR for the
TABLE I–8—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS (TSL 2)
(Million 2013$/year) Discount rate (%) Low net benefits High net benefits Primary estimate * estimate * estimate *
Benefits
Consumer Operating Cost Savings ... 7 ...... 68 ...... 68 ...... 69 3 ...... 75 ...... 74 ...... 76 CO2 Reduction Monetized Value 5 ...... 6 ...... 6 ...... 6 ($12.0/t case) *. CO2 Reduction Monetized Value 3 ...... 20 ...... 20 ...... 20 ($40.5/t case) *. CO2 Reduction Monetized Value 2.5 ...... 28 ...... 28 ...... 28 ($62.4/t case) *. CO2 Reduction Monetized Value 3 ...... 60 ...... 60 ...... 60 ($119/t case) *. NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at 7 ...... 1.26 ...... 1.26 ...... 1.26 $2,684/ton) **. 3 ...... 1.32 ...... 1.32 ...... 1.32 Total Benefits † ...... 7 plus CO2 range ...... 76 to 130 ...... 75 to 130 ...... 76 to 131 7 ...... 89 ...... 89 ...... 90 3 plus CO2 range ...... 82 to 136 ...... 82 to 136 ...... 83 to 138 3 ...... 96 ...... 95 ...... 97
Costs
Consumer Incremental Product 7 ...... 9 ...... 9 ...... 6 Costs. 3 ...... 10 ...... 10 ...... 6
Net Benefits
Total † ...... 7 plus CO2 range ...... 66 to 120 ...... 66 to 120 ...... 70 to 124 7 ...... 80 ...... 79 ...... 84 3 plus CO2 range ...... 73 to 127 ...... 72 to 126 ...... 77 to 132 3 ...... 86 ...... 86 ...... 91 * This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with battery chargers shipped in 2018¥2047. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2047 from the products purchased in 2018¥2047. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The Primary, Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the Annual Energy Outlook for 2014 (‘‘AEO2014’’) Reference case, Low Eco- nomic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. Additionally, the High Benefits Estimates include a price trend on the incre- mental product costs. ** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case rep- resents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series incorporate an escalation factor. The value for NOx is the average of high and low values found in the literature. † Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to the average SCC with a 3-percent discount rate ($40.5/t case). In the rows labeled ‘‘7% plus CO2 range’’ and ‘‘3% plus CO2 range,’’ the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values.
TABLE I–9—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS PROPOSED IN THE NOPR FOR BATTERY CHARGERS
Monetized (Million 2010$/year) Discount rate Low net benefits High net benefits Primary estimate * estimate * estimate *
Benefits
Consumer Operating Cost Savings ... 7% ...... 352.0 ...... 335.4 ...... 368.6 3% ...... 379.2 ...... 359.8 ...... 399.2
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52858 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE I–9—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS PROPOSED IN THE NOPR FOR BATTERY CHARGERS—Continued
Monetized (Million 2010$/year) Discount rate Low net benefits High net benefits Primary estimate * estimate * estimate *
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value 5% ...... 14.9 ...... 14.9 ...... 14.9 ($4.9/t case) **. CO2 Reduction Monetized Value 3% ...... 55.5 ...... 55.5 ...... 55.5 ($22.3/t case) **. CO2 Reduction Monetized Value 2.5% ...... 86.3 ...... 86.3 ...... 86.3 ($36.5/t case) **. CO2 Reduction Monetized Value 3% ...... 169.3 ...... 169.3 ...... 169.3 ($67.6/t case) **. NOX Reduction Monetized Value 7% ...... 3.3 ...... 3.3 ...... 3.3 ($2,537/ton) **. 3% ...... 3.5 ...... 3.5 ...... 3.5 Total Benefits †† ...... 7% plus CO2 range ...... 370.2 to 524.6 ...... 353.6 to 508.0 ...... 386.9 to 541.2 7% ...... 410.8 ...... 394.2 ...... 427.4 3% ...... 438.2 ...... 418.8 ...... 458.2 3% plus CO2 range ...... 397.7 to 552.1 ...... 378.2 to 532.6 ...... 417.7 to 572.0
Costs
Consumer Incremental Product 7% ...... (132.4) ...... (132.4) ...... (132.4) Costs †. 3% ...... (130.0) ...... (130.0) ...... (130.0)
Net Benefits
Total †† ...... 7% plus CO2 range ...... 502.7 to 657.0 ...... 486.1 to 640.4 ...... 519.3 to 673.6 7% ...... 543.2 ...... 526.6 ...... 559.8 3% ...... 568.2 ...... 548.8 ...... 588.2 3% plus CO2 range ...... 527.7 to 682.0 ...... 508.2 to 662.6 ...... 547.7 to 702.0 Note: As described in section IV.A.3 of this notice, the standards proposed in this SNOPR no longer consider product classes 8 and 10. Prod- ucts that were found in product class 8 of the NOPR analysis were redistributed among other product classes for the SNOPR, and product class 10 was removed from consideration. Therefore, for comparison between the NOPR and SNOPR analyses, the results for product class 8 are in- cluded in the table above, while results for product class 10 are excluded. * The results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2042 from the products purchased from 2013 through 2042. Costs incurred by manufacturers, some of which may be incurred prior to 2013 in preparation for the rule, are indirectly included as part of incremental equipment costs. The Primary, Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices from the AEO2010 Reference case, Low Esti- mate, and High Estimate, respectively. ** The CO2 values represent global monetized values (in 2010$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The val- ues of $4.9, $22.3, and $36.5 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively. The value of $67.6 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3-percent discount rate. The value for NOX (in 2010$) is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s NOPR analysis. † The incremental product costs for battery chargers are negative because of an assumed shift in technology from linear power supplies to switch mode power for the larger battery chargers in product classes 5, 6, and 7. For more details, see chapter 5 of the NOPR Technical Sup- port Document. †† Total Benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3-percent discount rate, which is $22.3/ton in 2010 (in 2010$). In the rows labeled as ‘‘7% plus CO2 range’’ and ‘‘3% plus CO2 range,’’ the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values.
DOE’s analysis of the national impacts benefits of the proposed standards to the rulemaking effort, DOE may adopt of the proposed standards is described Nation (energy savings, positive NPV of energy efficiency levels presented in in sections IV.H, IV.K and IV.L of this consumer benefits, consumer LCC this notice that are either higher or SNOPR. savings, and emission reductions) lower than the proposed standards, or would outweigh the burdens (loss of some combination of level(s) that E. Conclusion INPV for manufacturers and LCC incorporate the proposed standards in DOE has tentatively concluded that increases for some consumers). part. the proposed standards represent the DOE also considered more-stringent II. Introduction maximum improvement in energy energy efficiency levels as trial standard efficiency that is technologically levels, and is still considering them in The following section briefly feasible and economically justified, and this rulemaking. However, DOE has discusses the statutory authority would result in the significant tentatively concluded that the potential underlying this proposed rule, as well conservation of energy. DOE further burdens of the more-stringent energy as some of the relevant historical notes that products achieving these efficiency levels would outweigh the background related to the establishment standard levels are already projected benefits. Based on of standards for battery chargers. commercially available for all product consideration of the public comments Generally, battery chargers are power classes covered by this proposal. Based DOE receives in response to this notice conversion devices that transform input on the analyses described above, DOE and related information collected and voltage to a suitable voltage for the has tentatively concluded that the analyzed during the course of this battery they are powering. A portion of
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52859
the energy that flows into a battery DOE must follow specific statutory preponderance of the evidence that the charger flows out to a battery and, thus, criteria for prescribing new and standard is likely to result in the cannot be considered to be consumed by amended standards for covered unavailability in the United States of the battery charger. products. Any new or amended any covered product type (or class) of standard for a covered product must be performance characteristics (including A. Authority designed to achieve the maximum reliability), features, sizes, capacities, Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy improvement in energy efficiency that is and volumes that are substantially the and Conservation Act of 1975, as technologically feasible and same as those generally available in the amended (‘‘EPCA’’ or in context ‘‘the economically justified. (42 U.S.C. United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)) Act’’), Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) and (3)(B)) Furthermore, Further, EPCA, as codified, 6291–6309, as codified), established the DOE may not adopt any standard that establishes a rebuttable presumption Energy Conservation Program for would not result in the significant that a standard is economically justified Consumer Products Other Than conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. if the Secretary finds that the additional Automobiles,11 a program covering most 6295(o)(3)) Moreover, DOE may not cost to the consumer of purchasing a major household appliances prescribe a standard: (1) for certain product complying with an energy (collectively referred to as ‘‘covered products, including battery chargers, if conservation standard level will be less products’’). no test procedure has been established than three times the value of the energy Section 309 of the Energy for the product, or (2) if DOE determines savings during the first year that the Independence and Security Act (‘‘EISA by rule that the new or amended consumer will receive as a result of the 2007’’) amended EPCA by directing standard is not technologically feasible standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. See 42 U.S.C. DOE to prescribe, by rule, definitions or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii). and test procedures for the power use of 6295(o)(3)(A)–(B)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1) battery chargers (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)), specifies requirements when and to issue a final rule that prescribes justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its promulgating an energy conservation energy conservation standards for standard for a covered product that has battery chargers or classes of battery burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after two or more subcategories. DOE must chargers or to determine that no energy specify a different standard level for a conservation standard is technologically receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the type or class of products that has the feasible and economically justified. (42 same function or intended use, if DOE U.S.C. 6295(u)(1)(E)) greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors: determines that products within such Pursuant to EPCA, DOE’s energy 1. The economic impact of the group: (A) Consume a different kind of conservation program for covered standard on manufacturers and energy from that consumed by other products consists essentially of four consumers of the products subject to the covered products within such type (or parts: (1) Testing; (2) labeling; (3) the standard; class); or (B) have a capacity or other establishment of Federal energy 2. The savings in operating costs performance-related feature which other conservation standards; and (4) throughout the estimated average life of products within such type (or class) do certification and enforcement the covered products in the type (or not have and such feature justifies a procedures. The Federal Trade class) compared to any increase in the higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. Commission (FTC) is primarily price, initial charges, or maintenance 6295(q)(1)) In determining whether a responsible for labeling, and DOE expenses for the covered products that performance-related feature justifies a implements the remainder of the are likely to result from the standard; different standard for a group of program. Subject to certain criteria and 3. The total projected amount of products, DOE must consider such conditions, DOE is required to develop energy, or as applicable, water, savings factors as the utility to the consumer of test procedures to measure the energy likely to result directly from the such a feature and other factors DOE efficiency, energy use, or estimated standard; deems appropriate. Id. Any rule annual operating cost of each covered 4. Any lessening of the utility or the prescribing such a standard must product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(A) and performance of the covered products include an explanation of the basis on (r)) Manufacturers of covered products likely to result from the standard; which such higher or lower level was must use the prescribed DOE test 5. The impact of any lessening of established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2)) procedure as the basis for certifying to competition, as determined in writing Federal energy conservation DOE that their products comply with by the Attorney General, that is likely to requirements generally supersede State the applicable energy conservation result from the standard; laws or regulations concerning energy standards adopted under EPCA and 6. The need for national energy and conservation testing, labeling, and when making representations to the water conservation; and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)–(c)) DOE public regarding the energy use or 7. Other factors the Secretary of may, however, grant waivers of Federal efficiency of those products. (42 U.S.C. Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. preemption for particular State laws or 6293(c) and 6295(s)) Similarly, DOE (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)–(VII)) regulations, in accordance with the must use these test procedures to EPCA, as codified, also contains what procedures and other provisions set determine whether the products comply is known as an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ forth under 42 U.S.C. 6297(d). with standards adopted pursuant to provision, which prevents the Secretary Finally, pursuant to the amendments EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)) The DOE test from prescribing any amended standard contained in EISA 2007, any final rule procedures for battery chargers appear that either increases the maximum for new or amended energy at title 10 of the Code of Federal allowable energy use or decreases the conservation standards promulgated Regulations (CFR) part 430, subpart B, minimum required energy efficiency of after July 1, 2010 is required to address appendix X. a covered product. (42 U.S.C. standby mode and off mode energy use. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg) (3)) Specifically, 11 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the prescribe a new or amended standard if when DOE adopts a standard for a U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. interested persons have established by a covered product after that date, it must,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52860 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
if justified by the criteria for adoption of of battery chargers or to determine that chargers and non-Class A EPSs, DOE standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. no energy conservation standard is announced a public meeting and the 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and technologically feasible and availability on its Web site of a off mode energy use into a single economically justified. (42 U.S.C. preliminary technical support document standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt 6295(u)(1)(E)) (preliminary TSD). 75 FR 56021. The a separate standard for such energy use Finally, section 310 of EISA 2007 preliminary TSD is available at: http:// for that product. (42 U.S.C. established definitions for active, www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail; 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE’s current test standby, and off modes, and directed D=EERE-2008-BT-STD-0005-0031. The procedures and proposed standards for DOE to amend its test procedures for preliminary TSD discussed the battery chargers address standby mode battery chargers to include a means to comments DOE received at the and off mode energy use. measure the energy consumed in framework stage of this rulemaking and standby mode and off mode. (42 U.S.C. described the actions DOE took in B. Background 6295(gg)(2)(B)(i)) Consequently, DOE response to those comments. That 1. Current Standards published a final rule incorporating document also described in detail the Currently, there are no Federal energy standby- and off-mode measurements analytical framework DOE used, and the conservation standards that apply to into the DOE test procedure. 74 FR content and results of DOE’s battery chargers. 13318, 13334–13336 (March 27, 2009) preliminary analyses. Id. at 56023– Additionally, DOE amended the test 56024. DOE convened the public 2. History of Standards Rulemaking for procedure for battery chargers to meeting to discuss and receive Battery Chargers include an active mode measurement. comments on: (1) The product classes Section 135 of the Energy Policy Act 76 FR 31750 (June 1, 2011). DOE analyzed, (2) the analytical of 2005, Public Law 109–58 (Aug. 8, DOE initiated its current rulemaking framework, models, and tools that DOE 2005), amended sections 321 and 325 of effort for these products by issuing the was using to evaluate potential EPCA by defining the term ‘‘battery Energy Conservation Standards standards, (3) the results of the charger.’’ That provision also directed Rulemaking Framework Document for preliminary analyses performed by DOE to prescribe definitions and test Battery Chargers and External Power DOE, (4) potential standard levels that procedures related to the energy Supplies (the Framework Document). DOE might consider, and (5) other consumption of battery chargers and to See http://www.regulations.gov/# issues participants believed were issue a final rule that determines !documentDetail;D=EERE-2008-BT-STD- relevant to the rulemaking. Id. at 56021, whether to set energy conservation 0005-0005. The Framework Document 56024. DOE also invited written standards for battery chargers or classes explained the issues, analyses, and comments on these matters. The public of battery chargers. (42 U.S.C. process DOE anticipated using to meeting took place on October 13, 2010. 6295(u)(1)(A) and (E)) develop energy conservation standards Many interested parties participated, On December 8, 2006, DOE complied for those products. DOE also published twelve of whom submitted written with the first of these requirements by a notice announcing the availability of comments during the comment period; publishing a final rule that prescribed the Framework Document, announcing two additional parties filed comments test procedures for a variety of products. a public meeting to discuss the following the close of the formal 71 FR 71340, 71365–71375. That rule, proposed analytical framework, and comment period. which was codified in multiple sections inviting written comments concerning After considering all of these of the Code of Federal Regulations the development of standards for battery comments, DOE published its notice of (CFR), included a definition and test chargers and external power supplies proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’). 77 FR procedure for battery chargers. The test (EPSs). 74 FR 26816 (June 4, 2009). DOE 18478 (March 27, 2012). DOE also procedure for these products is found in held the Framework Document public released the NOPR TSD, which 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix meeting on July 16, 2009. incorporated the analyses DOE Y (‘‘Uniform Test Method for Measuring Manufacturers, trade associations, conducted and accompanying technical the Energy Consumption of Battery environmental advocates, regulators, documentation. The TSD included the Chargers’’). and other interested parties attended the LCC spreadsheet, the national impact On December 19, 2007, Congress meeting and submitted comments. analysis (NIA) spreadsheet, and the enacted the Energy Independence and On September 15, 2010, having manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) Security Act of 2007 (‘‘EISA 2007’’). considered comments from interested spreadsheet—all of which are available Public Law 110–140 (Dec. 19, 2007). parties, gathered additional information, at: http://www.regulations.gov/# Section 309 of EISA 2007 amended and performed preliminary analyses for !documentDetail;D=EERE-2008-BT-STD- section 325(u)(1)(E) of EPCA by the purpose of developing potential 0005-0070. In the March 2012 NOPR, directing DOE to issue a final rule that amended energy conservation standards DOE proposed new energy conservation prescribes energy conservation for Class A EPSs and new energy standards for battery chargers as standards for battery chargers or classes conservation standards for battery follows:
TABLE II–1—NOPR PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS
Product class Product class description Proposed standard as a function of battery energy (kWh/yr)
1 ...... Low-Energy, Inductive ...... 3.04 2 ...... Low-Energy, Low-Voltage ...... 0.2095 * (Ebatt) + 5.87 3 ...... Low-Energy, Medium-Voltage ...... For Ebatt < 9.74 Wh, 4.68; For Ebatt ≥ 9.74 Wh, = 0.0933 * (Ebatt) + 3.77 4 ...... Low-Energy, High-Voltage ...... For Ebatt < 9.71 Wh, 9.03; For Ebatt ≥ 9.71 Wh, = 0.2411 * (Ebatt) + 6.69 5 ...... Medium-Energy, Low-Voltage ...... For Ebatt < 355.18 Wh, 20.06; For Ebatt ≥ 355.18 Wh, = 0.0219 * (Ebatt) + 12.28 6 ...... Medium-Energy, High-Voltage ...... For Ebatt < 239.48 Wh, 30.37; For Ebatt ≥ 239.48 Wh, = 0.0495 * (Ebatt) + 18.51 7 ...... High-Energy ...... 0.0502 * (Ebatt) + 4.53 8 ...... Low-Voltage DC Input ...... 0.1140 * (Ebatt) + 0.42; For Ebatt < 1.17 Wh, 0.55 kWh/yr
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52861
TABLE II–1—NOPR PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS—Continued
Product class Product class description Proposed standard as a function of battery energy (kWh/yr)
9 ...... High-Voltage DC Input ...... No Standard. 10a ...... AC Output, VFD (Voltage and Fre- For Ebatt < 37.2 Wh, 2.54; For Ebatt ≥ 37.2 Wh, 0.0733 * (Ebatt)—0.18 quency Dependent). 10b ...... AC Output, VI (Voltage Independent) ... For Ebatt < 37.2 Wh, 6.18; For Ebatt ≥ 37.2 Wh, 0.0733 * (Ebatt) + 3.45
In the March 2012 NOPR, DOE issues and potential solutions to address presented and addressed throughout identified 24 specific issues on which it them. DOE also held a public meeting this notice. All commenters, along with sought the comments and views of in Washington, DC, on May 2, 2012, to their corresponding abbreviations and interested parties. Id. at 18642–18644. receive public comments on its organization type, are listed in Table II– In addition, DOE also specifically proposal. DOE also received many 2 below. requested comments and data that written comments responding to the would allow DOE to clarify certain March 2012 NOPR, which are further
TABLE II–2—LIST OF NOPR COMMENTERS
Organization Abbreviation Organization type Comment
Actuant Electric ...... Actuant Electric ...... Manufacturer ...... 146 ARRIS Group, Inc ...... ARRIS Broadband ...... Manufacturer ...... 90 Appliance Standards Awareness Project ASAP ...... Energy Efficiency Advocates ...... 162 ASAP, ASE, ACEEE, CFA, NEEP, and ASAP, et al...... Energy Efficiency Advocates ...... 136 NEEA. Association of Home Appliance Manu- AHAM ...... Industry Trade Association ...... 124 facturers. Brother International Corporation ...... Brother International ...... Manufacturer ...... 111 California Building Industry Association CBIA ...... Industry Trade Association ...... 126 California Energy Commission ...... California Energy Commission ...... State Entity ...... 117 California Investor-Owned Utilities ...... CA IOUs ...... Utilities ...... 138 City of Cambridge, MA ...... City of Cambridge, MA ...... Local Government ...... 155 Cobra Electronics Corporation ...... Cobra Electronics ...... Manufacturer ...... 130 Consumer Electronics Association ...... CEA ...... Industry Trade Association ...... 106 Delta-Q Technologies Corp ...... Delta-Q Technologies ...... Manufacturer ...... 113 Duracell ...... Duracell ...... Manufacturer ...... 109 Earthjustice ...... Earthjustice ...... Energy Efficiency Advocates ...... 118 ECOVA ...... ECOVA ...... Private Entity ...... 97 Energizer ...... Energizer ...... Manufacturer ...... 123 Flextronics Power ...... Flextronics ...... Manufacturer ...... 145 GE Healthcare ...... GE Healthcare ...... Manufacturer ...... 142 Information Technology Industry Council ITI ...... Industry Trade Association ...... 131 Korean Agency for Technology and Republic of Korea ...... Foreign Government ...... 148 Standards. Lester Electrical ...... Lester ...... Manufacturer ...... 87, 139 Microsoft Corporation ...... Microsoft ...... Manufacturer ...... 110 Motorola Mobility, Inc ...... Motorola Mobility ...... Manufacturer ...... 121 National Electrical Manufacturers Asso- NEMA ...... Industry Trade Association ...... 134 ciation. Natural Resources Defense Council ...... NRDC ...... Energy Efficiency Advocate ...... 114 Nebraska Energy Office ...... Nebraska Energy Office ...... State Government ...... 98 Nintendo of America Inc ...... Nintendo of America ...... Manufacturer ...... 135 Nokia Inc ...... Nokia ...... Manufacturer ...... 132 Northeast Energy Efficiency Partner- NEEP ...... Energy Efficiency Advocate ...... 144, 160 ships. Panasonic Corporation of North Amer- Panasonic ...... Manufacturer ...... 120 ica. PG&E ...... PG&E ...... Utility ...... 16 PG&E and SDG&E ...... PG&E and SDG&E ...... Utilities ...... 163 Philips Electronics ...... Philips ...... Manufacturer ...... 128 Power Sources Manufacturers Associa- PSMA ...... Industry Trade Association ...... 147 tion. Power Tool Institute, Inc...... PTI ...... Industry Trade Association ...... 133 Power Tool Institute, Inc., Association of PTI, AHAM, CEA ...... Industry Trade Association ...... 161 Home Appliance Manufacturers, Con- sumer Electronics Association. NOPR Public Meeting Transcript, var- Pub. Mtg. Tr ...... Public Meeting ...... 104 ious parties. Representatives of Various State Legis- States ...... State Government ...... 159 latures. Salcomp Plc ...... Salcomp Plc ...... Manufacturer ...... 73 Schneider Electric ...... Schneider Electric ...... Manufacturer ...... 119 Schumacher Electric ...... Schumacher Electric ...... Manufacturer ...... 143
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52862 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II–2—LIST OF NOPR COMMENTERS—Continued
Organization Abbreviation Organization type Comment
Southern California Edison ...... SCE ...... Utility ...... 164 Telecommunications Industry Associa- TIA ...... Industry Trade Association ...... 127 tion. Wahl Clipper Corporation ...... Wahl Clipper ...... Manufacturer ...... 153
Of particular interest to commenters took effect on February 1, 2013,12 than the CEC standards. To better was the potential interplay between created an overlap between the classes understand the impact of these DOE’s proposal and a competing of battery chargers covered by the CEC standards on the battery charger market proposal to establish battery charger rule and those classes of battery in the U.S., DOE published a request for energy conservation standards chargers DOE proposed to regulate in information (RFI) on March 26, 2013 published by the California Energy the March 2012 NOPR. Additionally, that sought stakeholder comment on a Commission (‘‘the CEC’’) on January 12, the standards proposed by DOE differed variety of issues related to the CEC 2012. (The CEC is California’s primary when compared to the ones issued by standards. 78 FR 18253. energy policy and planning agency.) the CEC, with some being more The CEC standards, which eventually stringent and others being less stringent
TABLE II–3—LIST OF RFI COMMENTERS
Organization Abbreviation Organization type Comment
AHAM, CEA, PTI, TIA Joint Comments AHAM, et al ...... Industry Trade Association ...... 203 Alliance for Wireless Power ...... ASAP ...... Energy Efficiency Advocates ...... 196 ASAP, NRDC, ACEEE, CFA, NCLC, ASAP, NRDC, ACEEE, CFA, NCLC, Energy Efficiency Advocates ...... 206 NEEA, NPCC Joint Comments. NEEA, NPCC. Association of Home Appliance Manu- AHAM ...... Industry Trade Association ...... 202 facturers. Brother International Corporation ...... Brother International ...... Manufacturer ...... 204 California Energy Commission ...... California Energy Commission ...... State Entity ...... 199 California IOUs ...... CA IOUs ...... Utilities ...... 197 Consumer Electronics Association ...... CEA ...... Industry Trade Association ...... 208 Dual-Lite, a division of Hubbell Lighting Dual-Lite ...... Manufacturer ...... 189 Energizer Holdings ...... Energizer ...... Manufacturer ...... 213 Garmin International ...... Garmin ...... Manufacturer ...... 194 Information Technology Industry Council ITI ...... Industry Trade Association ...... 201 Ingersoll Rand (Club Car) ...... Ingersoll Rand ...... Manufacturer ...... 195 Jerome Industries, a subsidiary of Jerome ...... Manufacturer ...... 191 Astrodyne. Mercury Marine ...... Mercury ...... Manufacturer ...... 212 National Marine Manufacturers Associa- NMMA ...... Industry Trade Association ...... 190 tion. NEEA and NPCC ...... NEEA and NPCC ...... Industry Trade Association ...... 200 P&G (Duracell) ...... Duracell ...... Manufacturer ...... 193 Panasonic ...... Panasonic ...... Manufacturer ...... 210 Philips ...... Philips ...... Manufacturer ...... 198 Power Tool Institute ...... PTI ...... Industry Trade Association ...... 207 Schneider Electric ...... Schneider Electric ...... Manufacturer ...... 211 Schumacher Electric ...... Schumacher Electric ...... Manufacturer ...... 192 Telecommunications Industry Associa- TIA ...... Industry Trade Association ...... 205 tion.
Many of these RFI comments while some of their units are CEC- additional data on new battery chargers reiterated the points that commenters compliant, they continue to sell non- identified in the CEC database as being made in response to the NOPR. compliant units in other parts of the compliant with the CEC standards. Additionally, many commenters listed U.S. for various reasons associated with These data supplemented DOE’s earlier in the table above indicated that there cost. (See Schumacher Electric, No. 192 analysis from the March 2012 NOPR. was evidence that the market had at p. 2) DOE has addressed these DOE’s analysis and testing of units accepted the CEC standards and that comments by updating and revising its within the CEC database showed that technology improvements were made to analysis in today’s SNOPR by many battery chargers are CEC- meet the CEC standards at costs aligned considering, among other things, the compliant. The teardown and economic with DOE’s estimates in the March 2012 impacts attributable to the standards analysis incorporating these units has NOPR. (See AHAM et al., No. 203 at p. issued by CEC. Specifically, based on also shown that technically equivalent 5) Some manufacturers argued that the responses to the RFI, DOE collected levels to the CEC standards are now
12 http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/battery_ chargers.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52863
technologically feasible and the comments received from significant changes were made while economically justified for the U.S. as a stakeholders in response to DOE’s RFI, updating the proposed standards whole. Therefore, this proposal outlines are explained in the analysis sections presented in the SNOPR. While much of standards that are technically below and summarized in Table II–4. the analysis has been updated, the equivalent, or where justified, more In addition to updating the proposed significant changes since the NOPR are stringent than the CEC standards. The standards to account for the impact of presented in Table II–4. revisions to the analysis, which address the CEC standards, several other
TABLE II–4—SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
Item NOPR Changes for SNOPR
Proposed Standard Levels
Proposed Standard for PC1 ...... = 3.04 ...... No Change. Proposed Standard for PC2 ...... = 0.2095(Ebatt) + 5.87 ...... 0.1440(Ebatt) + 2.95. Proposed Standard for PC3 ...... For Ebatt < 9.74 Wh, = 4.68 For Ebatt ≥ 9.74 For Ebatt < 10Wh, = 1.42; Ebatt ≥ 10 Wh, Wh, = 0.0933(Ebatt) + 3.77. 0.0255(Ebatt) + 1.16. Proposed Standard for PC4 ...... For Ebatt < 9.71 Wh, = 9.03 For Ebatt ≥ 9.71 0.11(Ebatt) + 3.18. Wh, = 0.2411(Ebatt) + 6.69. Proposed Standard for PC5 ...... For Ebatt < 355.18 Wh, = 20.06 For Ebatt ≥ For Ebatt < 19 Wh, 1.32 kWh/yr; For Ebatt ≥ 19 355.18 Wh, = 0.0219(Ebatt) + 12.28. Wh, 0.0257(Ebatt) + .815. Proposed Standard for PC6 ...... For Ebatt < 239.48 Wh, = 30.37 For Ebatt ≥ For Ebatt < 18 Wh, 3.88 kWh/yr; For Ebatt ≥ 18 239.48 Wh, = 0.0495(Ebatt) + 18.51. Wh, 0.0778(Ebatt) + 2.4. Proposed Standard for PC7 ...... = 0.0502(Ebatt) + 4.53 ...... No Change. Proposed Standard for PC8 ...... = 0.1140(Ebatt)+ 0.42 For Ebatt < 1.17 Wh, = Removed, covered under PC2 proposed 0.55 kWh/yr. standards. Proposed Standard for PC9 ...... No Standard ...... No Change. Proposed Standard for PC10a ...... For Ebatt < 37.2 Wh, = 2.54 For Ebatt ≥ 37.2 Deferred to Future Rulemaking. Wh, = 0.0733(Ebatt)—0.18. Proposed Standard for PC10b ...... For Ebatt < 37.2 Wh, = 6.18 For Ebatt ≥ 37.2 Deferred to Future Rulemaking. Wh, = 0.0733(Ebatt) + 3.45.
Changes in Analysis
Engineering Analysis—Representative Units .... Combination of test data and manufacturer in- Used new or updated units in PC 2, PC 3, PC puts. 4, and PC 5, while keeping the same rep- resentative units for PC 1, PC 6, and PC 7 and same Max Tech units for all PCs. Usage Profiles...... Weighted average of application specific PC 2, PC 3, PC 4, PC 5, and PC 6 usage usage. profiles updated based on new shipment data (See Section IV.F.3). Efficiency Distributions ...... From Market Assessment ...... Obtained from the CEC’s database of Small Battery Chargers.
Lastly, DOE announced that it will propose several revisions to the battery products covered under this proposed investigate the potential benefits and charger test procedure. A link to the test rule and product classes can be found burdens of Federal efficiency standards procedure NOPR is available at: http:// in Section IV. for Computers and Battery Backup www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ C. Technological Feasibility Systems in a Framework Document 13 appliance_standards/ published on July 11, 2014. DOE will be product.aspx?productid=84. DOE The following sections address the including uninterruptible power advises stakeholders to review the manner in which DOE assessed the supplies (UPSs) that meet the definition proposed changes to the test procedure technological feasibility of the new and of a consumer product within the scope and provide comments to DOE as part amended standards. Energy of coverage of that rulemaking effort. of that separate rulemaking. conservation standards promulgated by Therefore, DOE will no longer consider DOE must be technologically feasible. B. Product Classes and Scope of these products within the scope of the Coverage 1. General battery chargers rulemaking. When evaluating and establishing In each standards rulemaking, DOE III. General Discussion energy conservation standards, DOE conducts a screening analysis based on A. Test Procedure divides covered products into product information gathered on all current In analyzing the products covered classes by the type of energy used or by technology options and prototype under this rulemaking, DOE applied the capacity or other performance-related designs that could improve the battery charger test procedure in features that justifies a different efficiency of the products or equipment Appendix Y to 10 CFR part 430 subpart standard. In making a determination that are the subject of the rulemaking. B. Concurrently with the publication of whether a performance-related feature As the first step in such an analysis, this SNOPR, DOE is also publishing a justifies a different standard, DOE must DOE develops a list of technology Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to consider such factors as the utility of the options for consideration in feature to the consumer and other consultation with manufacturers, design 13 http://www.regulations.gov/ factors DOE determines are appropriate. engineers, and other interested parties. #!documentDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0025-0001 (42 U.S.C. 6295(q))Further discussion of DOE then determines which of those
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52864 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
means for improving efficiency are and those that are the basis for the trial and presenting the results for public technologically feasible. DOE generally standard levels (TSLs) analyzed in this comment. considers technologies incorporated in rulemaking. For further details on the In preparing this proposed rule, commercially available products or in screening analysis for this rulemaking, which includes max-tech levels for the working prototypes to be see chapter 4 of the SNOPR technical seven product classes initially technologically feasible. See, e.g. 10 support document (TSD). addressed in DOE’s preliminary Additionally, DOE notes that it has CFR 430, subpart C, appendix A, section analysis, DOE developed a means to received no comments from interested 4(a)(4)(i) (providing that ‘‘technologies create max-tech levels for those classes parties regarding patented technologies incorporated in commercially available that were previously not assigned max- products or in working prototypes will and proprietary designs that would inhibit manufacturers from achieving tech levels. For the product classes that be considered technologically DOE was previously unable to generate feasible.’’). the energy conservation standards contained in this proposal. At this time, max-tech efficiency levels, DOE used After DOE has determined that DOE believes that the proposed multiple approaches to develop levels particular technology options are standard for the products covered as for these classes. During the NOPR technologically feasible, it further part of this rulemaking will not mandate phase, DOE solicited manufacturers for evaluates each technology option in the use of any such technologies. information and extrapolated light of the following additional performance parameters from its best-in- screening criteria: (1) Practicability to 2. Maximum Technologically Feasible market efficiency levels. Extrapolating manufacture, install, or service; (2) Levels from the best-in-market performance adverse impacts on product utility or When proposing an amended efficiency levels required an availability; and (3) adverse impacts on standard for a type or class of covered examination of the devices. From this health or safety. See10 CFR part 430, product, DOE must ‘‘determine the examination, DOE determined which subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4). maximum improvement in energy design options could be applied and Additionally, it is DOE policy not to efficiency or maximum reduction in what effects they would likely have on include in its analysis any proprietary energy use that is technologically the various battery charger performance technology that is a unique pathway to feasible’’ for such product. (42 U.S.C. parameters. (See Chapter 5, Section 5.4 achieving a certain efficiency level. 6295(p)(1)). DOE determined the of the accompanying SNOPR TSD) Section IV.B of this notice discusses the maximum technologically feasible Table III–1 below shows the reduction results of the screening analysis for (‘‘max-tech’’) efficiency levels by in energy consumption when increasing battery chargers, particularly the designs interviewing manufacturers, vetting efficiency from the baseline to the max- DOE considered, those it screened out, their data with subject matter experts, tech efficiency level.
TABLE III–1—REDUCTION IN ENERGY CONSUMPTION AT MAX-TECH FOR BATTERY CHARGERS
Reduction of Max-tech energy unit energy consumption Product class consumption relative to (kWh/yr) the baseline (percentage)
1 (Low-Energy, Inductive) ...... 1.29 85 2 (Low-Energy, Low-Voltage) ...... 1.11 79 3 (Low-Energy, Medium-Voltage) ...... 0.70 80 4 (Low-Energy, High-Voltage) ...... 3.05 75 5 (Medium-Energy, Low-Voltage) ...... 9.45 89 6 (Medium-Energy, High-Voltage) ...... 16.79 86 7 (High-Energy) ...... 131.44 48
Additional discussion of DOE’s max- subject of this rulemaking purchased in projection of energy consumption in the tech efficiency levels and comments the 30-year period that begins in the absence of new energy conservation received in response to the NOPR year of compliance with any new standards, and considers market forces analysis can be found in the discussion standards (2018–2047). The savings are and policies that may affect future of candidate standard levels (CSLs) in measured over the entire lifetime of demand for more efficient products. section IV.C.4. Specific details regarding products purchased in the 30-year DOE used its NIA spreadsheet model 14 which design options were considered period. DOE quantified the energy to estimate energy savings from for the max-tech efficiency levels (and savings attributable to each TSL as the potential new standards for battery all other CSLs) can be found in Chapter difference in energy consumption chargers. The NIA spreadsheet model 5, Section 5.4 of the accompanying between each standards case and the (described in section IV.H of this notice) SNOPR TSD, which has been developed base case. The base case represents a calculates energy savings in site energy, as a stand-alone document for this which is the energy directly consumed SNOPR and supports all of the standard 14 In the past DOE presented energy savings by products at the locations where they levels proposed in this SNOPR. results for only the 30-year period that begins in the year of compliance. In the calculation of economic are used. For electricity, DOE calculates D. Energy Savings impacts, however, DOE considered operating cost national energy savings on an annual savings measured over the entire lifetime of basis in terms of primary energy 1. Determination of Savings products purchased in the 30-year period. DOE has savings, which is the savings in the chosen to modify its presentation of national energy For each TSL, DOE projected energy savings to be consistent with the approach used for energy that is used to generate and savings from the products that are the its national economic analysis. transmit electricity to the site. To
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52865
calculate primary energy savings from regulation—and a long-term assessment covered products in the first year of site electricity savings, DOE derives over a 30-year period. The industry- compliance with amended standards. annual conversion factors from data wide impacts analyzed include: (1) The LCC savings for the considered provided in the Energy Information Industry net present value (INPV), efficiency levels are calculated relative Administration’s (EIA) most recent which values the industry on the basis to a base case that reflects projected Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). of expected future cash flows; (2) cash market trends in the absence of In addition to primary energy savings, flows by year; (3) changes in revenue amended standards. DOE’s LCC and DOE also calculates full-fuel-cycle (FFC) and income; and (4) other measures of PBP analysis is discussed in further energy savings. As discussed in DOE’s impact, as appropriate. Second, DOE detail in section IV.F. analyzes and reports the impacts on statement of policy, the FFC metric c. Energy Savings includes the energy consumed in different types of manufacturers, extracting, processing, and transporting including impacts on small Although significant conservation of primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, manufacturers. Third, DOE considers energy is a separate statutory petroleum fuels), and presents a more the impact of standards on domestic requirement for imposing an energy complete picture of the impacts of manufacturer employment and conservation standard, EPCA requires energy conservation standards. 76 FR manufacturing capacity, as well as the DOE, in determining the economic 51282 (August 18, 2011), as amended by potential for standards to result in plant justification of a standard, to consider 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). DOE’s closures and loss of capital investment. the total projected energy savings that approach is based on the calculation of Finally, DOE takes into account are expected to result directly from the an FFC multiplier for each of the energy cumulative impacts of various DOE standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) types used by covered products or regulations and other regulatory As discussed in section IV.H, DOE uses equipment. For more information, see requirements on manufacturers. the NIA spreadsheet to project national section IV.H.6. For individual consumers, measures energy savings. of economic impact include the changes 2. Significance of Savings d. Lessening of Utility or Performance of in life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback Products To adopt any new or amended period (PBP) associated with new In establishing product classes, and in standards for a covered product, DOE standards. These measures are evaluating design options and the must determine that such action would discussed further in the following impact of potential standard levels, DOE result in ‘‘significant’’ energy savings. section. For consumers in the aggregate, evaluates potential standards that would Although the term ‘‘significant’’ is not DOE also calculates the national net not lessen the utility or performance of defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of present value of the economic impacts the considered products. (42 U.S.C. Appeals for the DC Circuit, in Natural applicable to a particular rulemaking. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) Based on data Resources Defense Council v. DOE also evaluates the impacts of available to DOE, the standards Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. potential standards on identifiable proposed in this notice would not Cir. 1985), indicated that Congress subgroups of consumers that may be reduce the utility or performance of the intended ‘‘significant’’ energy savings in affected disproportionately by a products under consideration in this this context to be savings that were not standard. rulemaking. DOE received no comments ‘‘genuinely trivial.’’ The energy savings b. Savings in Operating Costs Compared that the proposed standards for battery for all of the TSLs considered in this to Increase in Price (LCC and PBP) chargers would increase their size and rulemaking (presented in section V.B.3) EPCA requires DOE to consider the reduce their convenience, increase the are nontrivial, and, therefore, DOE savings in operating costs throughout length of time to charge a product, considers them ‘‘significant’’ within the the estimated average life of the covered shorten the intervals between chargers, meaning of section 325 of EPCA. product in the type (or class) compared or cause any other significant adverse E. Economic Justification to any increase in the price of, or in the impacts on consumer utility. initial charges for, or maintenance 1. Specific Criteria expenses of, the covered product that e. Impact of Any Lessening of EPCA provides seven factors to be are likely to result from a standard. (42 Competition evaluated in determining whether a U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(II)) DOE conducts EPCA directs DOE to consider any potential energy conservation standard this comparison in its LCC and PBP lessening of competition, as determined is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. analysis. in writing by the Attorney General, that 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The following sections The LCC is the sum of the purchase is likely to result from proposed discuss how DOE has addressed each of price of a product (including its standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) those seven factors in this rulemaking. installation) and the operating expense It also directs the Attorney General to (including energy, maintenance, and determine the impact, if any, of any a. Economic Impact on Manufacturers repair expenditures) discounted over lessening of competition likely to result and Consumers the lifetime of the product. The LCC from a standard and to transmit such In determining the impacts of a analysis requires a variety of inputs, determination to the Secretary within 60 potential new standard on such as product prices, product energy days of the publication of a proposed manufacturers, DOE conducts a consumption, energy prices, rule, together with an analysis of the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA), as maintenance and repair costs, product nature and extent of the impact. (42 discussed in section IV.J. DOE first uses lifetime, and consumer discount rates. U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(ii)) DOE followed an annual cash-flow approach to To account for uncertainty and this requirement after publication of the determine the quantitative impacts. This variability in specific inputs, such as March 2012 NOPR. Although the step includes both a short-term product lifetime and discount rate, DOE Department of Justice had no comments assessment—based on the cost and uses a distribution of values, with regarding the proposal, DOE will capital requirements during the period probabilities attached to each value. For transmit a courtesy copy of the between when a regulation is issued and its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE assumes supplemental notice and accompanying when entities must comply with the that consumers will purchase the TSD to the Attorney General. DOE will
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52866 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
make public any comments or the nation, and the environment, as 1. Products Included in this Rulemaking determination provided by DOJ. required under 42 U.S.C. This section addresses the scope of 6295(o)(2)(B)(i). The results of this f. Need for National Energy coverage for this proposed rule and analysis serve as the basis for DOE’s Conservation details which products would be subject evaluation of the economic justification to the standards proposed in this notice. The energy savings from new for a potential standard level (thereby The numerous comments DOE received standards are likely to provide supporting or rebutting the results of improvements to the security and on the scope of these standards are also any preliminary determination of summarized and addressed in this reliability of the nation’s energy system. economic justification). The rebuttable (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The section. presumption payback calculation is A battery charger is a device that energy savings from the proposed discussed in section V.B.1.c of this charges batteries for consumer products, standards are likely to provide proposed rule. including battery chargers embedded in improvements to the security and other consumer products. (42 U.S.C. reliability of the nation’s energy system. IV. Methodology and Discussion 6291(32)) Functionally, a battery charger Reductions in the demand for electricity This section addresses the analyses also may result in reduced costs for is a power conversion device used to DOE performed for this rulemaking with transform input voltage to a suitable maintaining the reliability of the regard to battery chargers. Separate nation’s electricity system. DOE voltage for the battery the charger is subsections address each component of powering. Battery chargers are used in conducts a utility impact analysis to DOE’s analyses. estimate how standards may affect the conjunction with other end-use DOE used several analytical tools to nation’s needed power generation consumer products, such as cell phones estimate the impact of the standards capacity, as discussed in section IV.M. and digital cameras. However, the The proposed new standards also are proposed in this document. First, DOE battery charger definition prescribed by likely to result in environmental used a spreadsheet that calculates the Congress is not limited solely to benefits in the form of reduced LCC and PBP of potential amended or products powered from AC mains—i.e. emissions of air pollutants and new energy conservation standards. products that plug into a wall outlet. greenhouse gases associated with energy Second, the national impacts analysis Further, the statutory definition production and use. DOE conducts an uses a spreadsheet that provides encompasses battery chargers that may emissions analysis to estimate how shipments forecasts and calculates be wholly embedded in another potential standards may affect these national energy savings and net present consumer product, wholly separate from emissions, as discussed in section IV.K; value resulting from potential energy another consumer product, or partially the emissions impacts are reported in conservation standards. Third, DOE inside and partially outside another section V.B.6of this notice. DOE also uses the Government Regulatory Impact consumer product. While devices that estimates the economic value of Model (GRIM) to assess manufacturer meet the statutory definition are within emissions reductions resulting from the impacts of potential standards. These the scope of this rulemaking, DOE is not considered TSLs, as discussed in three spreadsheet tools are available on proposing to set standards for all battery section IV.L. the docket: http://www.regulations.gov/ chargers. #!docketDetail;D=EERE-2008-BT-STD- With respect to the different kinds of g. Other Factors 0005. Additionally, DOE used output battery chargers that are available, DOE EPCA allows the Secretary of Energy, from the latest version of EIA’s Annual received a number of comments. DOE in determining whether a standard is Energy Outlook (AEO), a widely known received three comments related to economically justified, to consider any energy forecast for the United States, for battery chargers for backup batteries. other factors that the Secretary deems to the emissions and utility impact ARRIS Broadband described a be relevant. (42 U.S.C. analyses. broadband modem/VoIP device that contains a backup battery that provides 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) A. Market and Technology Assessment power to the telephone system, a 2. Rebuttable Presumption When beginning an energy primary function, in the event of power As set forth in 42 U.S.C. conservation standards rulemaking, loss and sought guidance on whether 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii), EPCA creates a DOE develops information that provides this product would be required to rebuttable presumption that an energy an overall picture of the market for the comply with DOE’s proposed standards. conservation standard is economically products concerned, including the (ARRIS Broadband, No. 90 at p.1) justified if the additional cost to the purpose of the products, the industry Brother urged DOE to exclude from its consumer of a product that meets the structure, and market characteristics. scope those battery chargers that are standard is less than three times the This activity includes both quantitative used to charge batteries that power only value of the first year’s energy savings and qualitative assessments, based secondary functions of the end-use resulting from the standard, as primarily on publicly available product in the event of a power loss. calculated under the applicable DOE information. The subjects addressed in Brother noted by way of example that test procedure. DOE’s LCC and PBP the market and technology assessment some multifunction devices (MFD) analyses generate values used to for this rulemaking include a contain a rechargeable battery that calculate the effect potential new energy determination of the scope of this enables the MFD to maintain its conservation standards would have on rulemaking; product classes and memory and power an internal clock in the payback period for consumers. manufacturers; quantities and types of the event of power loss. Brother added These analyses include, but are not products sold and offered for sale; retail that regulating battery chargers of this limited to, the 3-year payback period market trends; regulatory and non- type would ‘‘create significant contemplated under the rebuttable- regulatory programs; and technologies regulatory burdens and produce presumption test. In addition, DOE or design options that could improve insignificant energy savings.’’ (Brother routinely conducts an economic the energy efficiency of the product(s) International, No. 111 at p.2) Motorola analysis that considers the full range of under examination. See Chapter 3 of the Mobility urged DOE to exclude impacts to consumers, manufacturers, SNOPR TSD for further detail. continuous use products such as
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52867
answering machines, home security not be included in the scope of this (NEMA, No. 134 at p. 2) These systems, modems, and LAN/WAN rulemaking because they do not stakeholders suggested ways that DOE adapters from battery standards because consume energy from the utility grid. could clarify the definition of a battery charging represents a small (Motorola Mobility, No. 121 at p. 7) In consumer product: fraction of the total energy use of the examining the products identified by • Adopt the ENERGY STAR battery products. ARRIS Broadband and Motorola Mobility, DOE observed that charger definition. Motorola Mobility also claimed that the these devices were designed to work not • Limit the scope to products test procedure does not provide an only as in-vehicle devices, but could marketed as compliant with the FCC’s adequate way to distinguish energy from also be plugged into AC mains. Class B emissions limits. battery charging from other functions. Accordingly, in DOE’s view, these • Define consumer products as (ARRIS Broadband, No. 90 at p.1; devices are designed to use mains ‘‘pluggable Type A Equipment (as Motorola Mobility, No. 121 at pp. 5–6) power. DOE further notes that 42 U.S.C defined by IEC 60950–1), with an input After evaluating these comments and 6292(a) provides in part, that covered rating of less than or equal to 16A.’’ examining these devices further, consumer products exclude consumer EPCA defines a consumer product as particularly with respect to their test products designed solely for use in any article of a type that consumes or results, DOE has tentatively decided to recreational vehicles and other mobile is designed to consume energy and refrain from proposing standards for equipment. Thus, a product designed to which, to any significant extent, is battery chargers that are intended to be exclusively used in recreational distributed in commerce for personal charge batteries that provide backup vehicles or other mobile equipment use or consumption by individuals power, or battery chargers considered to would be excluded from being without regard to whether such article be continuous use devices at this time. considered a covered product while a of such type is in fact distributed in DOE outlined several issues with testing device that is designed to be used in commerce for personal use or these devices. Since battery chargers vehicles and on AC mains, may be consumption by an individual. See 42 that are typically embedded within considered a covered consumer product. U.S.C. 6291(1). Manufacturers are continuous use devices do not charge As discussed in section V.B.2.f in the advised to use this definition (in batteries as their primary function, it is March 2012 NOPR, a battery charger is conjunction with the battery charger often difficult, if not impossible, to use in Product Class 9 if it operates using a definition) to determine whether a given current techniques and technologies to DC input source greater than 9V, it is device shall be subject to battery charger consistently and reliably isolate the unable to operate from a universal serial standards. Consistent with these tested battery charger‘s energy use bus (USB) connector, and a definitions, any battery charger that is of during testing. As a result, the test manufacturer does not package, a type that is capable of charging procedure cannot be applied to these recommend, or sell a wall adapter for batteries for a consumer product would products to accurately measure the the device. If an in-vehicle battery be considered a covered product and energy use of a battery charger charger is also capable of operating on possibly subject to DOE’s energy embedded within the product. Because AC mains (via a USB or a wall adapter), conservation standards, without regard of these technical limitations, DOE has then it would be subject to the AC–DC to whether that battery charger was in proposed that battery chargers that standards based on its characteristics fact distributed in U.S. commerce to provide power from the battery to a when charging a battery using AC operate a consumer product. Only continuous use device solely during a mains. DOE found that new standards battery chargers that have identifiable loss of main power would not be for battery charger Product Class 9 design characteristics that would make required to be tested under DOE’s test (those with DC input of greater than 9V, them incapable of charging batteries of procedure. Because the DOE procedure including all in-vehicle battery chargers) a consumer product would be cannot adequately account for the were not cost effective for any of the considered to not meet EPCA’s energy usage of these kinds of devices, evaluated standard levels. Because definition of a battery charger. DOE and DOE has been unable at this time standards are not economically justified, would consider the ability of a battery to develop appropriate modifications DOE is not proposing standards for such charger to operate using residential that would remedy this limitation, products at this time. mains power—Standard 110–120 VAC, battery chargers that fall into these 60 Hz input—as an identifiable design categories cannot be evaluated using the a. Definition of Consumer Product characteristic when considering procedure detailed in Appendix Y. See DOE received comments from a whether a battery charger is capable of the Test Procedure NOPR at http:// number of stakeholders seeking charging the batteries of a consumer www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ clarification on the definition of a product. appliance_standards/ consumer product. Schneider Electric b. Medical Products product.aspx?productid=84. commented that the definition of Ultimately, DOE recognizes that such consumer product is ‘‘virtually In the NOPR, DOE stated that battery chargers may be used in a unbounded’’ and ‘‘provides no standards for battery chargers used to different manner from other battery definitive methods to distinguish power medical devices had the potential chargers, spending nearly all of their commercial or industrial products from to yield energy savings. GE Healthcare, time in maintenance mode. consumer products.’’ (Schneider a manufacturer of battery chargers used Additionally, DOE believes that testing Electric, No. 119 at p. 2) ITI commented in medical devices, responded to the and regulating these devices as a that a narrower definition of a consumer NOPR. It gave several reasons why DOE system, which is being addressed in product is needed to determine which should not apply standards to these DOE’s Computer and Battery Backup state regulations are preempted by products. It noted that the design, Systems rulemaking, is a more Federal standards. (ITI, No. 131 at p. 2) manufacture, maintenance, and post- appropriate venue to aaddress these NEMA commented that the FAQ on the market monitoring of medical devices devices. See 79 FR 41656 (July 17, DOE Web site is insufficient to resolve are already highly regulated by the Food 2014). its members’ questions. See https:// and Drug Administration, and requiring Motorola Mobility also commented www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ these devices to comply with energy that in-vehicle battery chargers should appliance_standards/pdfs/cce_faq.pdf. efficiency standards would only add to
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52868 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
these existing requirements. GE added The list of applications analyzed and a surveys, DOE found that a large share of that there are a large number of full explanation of the market remote control toys used disposable individual medical device models, each assessment methodology can be found batteries. Therefore, DOE altered its of which must be tested along with its in chapter 3 of the accompanying analysis and assumed that only 30% of component battery charger to ensure SNOPR TSD. remote control toys utilized a battery compliance with applicable standards; While DOE identified the majority of charger compared to 100% of ride-on redesign of the battery charger to meet battery charger applications, some may toys. For the SNOPR, DOE retained the DOE standards would require that all of not have been included in the NOPR same approach and updated its these models be retested and analysis. This is due in part because the shipment estimates for remote control reapproved, at a significant per-unit battery chargers market is dynamic and toys and ride-on toys to approximately cost, especially for those devices that constantly evolving. As a result, some 2.2 million and 3.7 million units, are produced in limited quantities. (GE applications that use a battery charger respectively. Healthcare, No. 142 at p. 2) were not initially found because they Schumacher Electric commented that Given these concerns, DOE has either made up an insignificant market DOE’s estimate of 500,000 annual auto/ reevaluated its proposal to set energy share or were introduced to the market marine/RV battery charger shipments in conservation standards for medical after the NOPR analysis was conducted. 2009 was too low, stating that they device battery chargers. While setting The battery chargers for any other alone shipped 2.6 million units in 2011. standards for these devices may yield applications not explicitly analyzed in (Schumacher Electric, No. 143 at p. 6) energy savings, DOE also wishes to the market assessment would still be DOE’s estimate of 500,000 units was avoid any action that could potentially subject to the proposed standards as based on a PG&E study (PG&E, No. 16 impact their reliability and safety. In the long as they fall into one of the battery at p.3). Schumacher’s comment did not absence of sufficient data on this issue, charger classes outlined in Section specify whether its 2.6 million and consistent with DOE’s obligation to IV.A.1. That is, DOE’s omission of any shipments were global or domestic, or consider such adverse impacts when particular battery charger application what their market share is for auto/ identifying and screening design from its analysis is not, by itself, an marine/RV battery chargers. For the options for improving the efficiency of indication that the battery charger that SNOPR, DOE retained the 2009 estimate a product, DOE has decided to refrain powers that application would not be based on PG&E study and used its from setting standards for medical subject to the battery chargers standards. shipments model to estimate shipments device battery chargers at this time. DOE relied on published market in 2011. DOE determined that a total of Similar to the limitation already research to estimate base-year 507,427 units shipped in 2011. statutorily-prescribed for Class A EPSs, shipments for all applications. In the Delta-Q Technologies commented that DOE is proposing at this time to refrain NOPR, DOE estimated that in 2009, a the lifetime of a golf cart (or ‘‘golf car’’) from setting standards for those device total of 437 million battery chargers is typically 10–12 years and explained that require Federal Food and Drug were shipped for final sale in the United that the majority of new golf carts are Administration (FDA) listing and States. For this SNOPR, DOE conducted sold to commercial customers for a 3- to approval as a life-sustaining or life- additional research and updated its 4-year lease and then sold to consumers. supporting device in accordance with shipments estimates to provide (Delta-Q Technologies, No. 113 at p. 1) section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug, shipments data for 2011. Where more DOE believes the lifetime estimates for and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360(c)). See recent data were available, DOE updated these products are similar to the 3.5 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(b)(i)(VII). See also the shipments data based on the more years and 6.5 years that DOE assumes 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, recent shipments data collected. Where for commercial and residential users, (4)(a)(4) and (5)(b)(4) (collectively more recent information could not be respectively. Therefore, DOE retained setting out DOE’s policy in evaluating found, DOE derived the 2011 shipments the same lifetime estimates as in NOPR. potential energy conservation standards value based on the 2009 estimates, and for a product). used its shipments model as described 3. Product Classes in section IV.G.1 to project the 2009 When necessary, DOE divides covered 2. Market Assessment shipments to 2011. In 2011, DOE products into classes by the type of To characterize the market for battery estimated that a total of 506 million energy used, the capacity of the product, chargers, DOE gathered information on battery chargers units were shipped. and any other performance-related the products that use them. DOE refers DOE received comments from several feature that could justify different to these products as end-use consumer stakeholders on the accuracy of its standard levels, such as features products or battery charger shipment estimates for certain affecting consumer utility. (42 U.S.C. ‘‘applications.’’ This method was applications in the NOPR. NRDC 6295(q)) DOE then conducts its analysis chosen for two reasons. First, battery commented that DOE’s estimate of 8 and considers establishing or amending chargers are nearly always bundled with million units for toy ride-on vehicles standards to provide separate standard or otherwise intended to be used with seemed too high, citing the fact that it levels for each product class. a given application; therefore, the was four times higher than the estimate DOE created 11 product classes for demand for applications drives the for remote control toy shipments. battery chargers based on various demand for battery chargers. Second, (NRDC, No. 114 at p. 7) DOE estimated electrical characteristics shared by because most battery chargers are not toy ride-on vehicle shipments by particular groups of products. As these stand-alone products, their shipments, dividing annual sales dollars ($1.8 electrical characteristics change, so does lifetimes, usage profiles, and power billion) by the average retail price of the utility and efficiency of the devices. requirements are all determined by the surveyed toy ride-on vehicles ($222.50). associated application. DOE could not find data on remote a. Battery Charger Product Classes DOE analyzed the products offered by control toys, but assumed in the NOPR As described in the NOPR analysis, online and brick-and-mortar retail that annual shipments would be roughly DOE used five electrical characteristics outlets to determine which applications equivalent to its estimate for ride-on to disaggregate battery charger product use battery chargers and which battery toys (see chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD). classes—battery voltage, battery energy, charger technologies are most prevalent. However, when conducting product input and output characteristics (e.g.,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52869
inductive charging capabilities),15 input DOE’s reasoning are outlined in Chapter voltage type (line AC or low-voltage 3 of the SNOPR TSD. DC), and AC output. Further details on
TABLE IV–1—BATTERY CHARGER PRODUCT CLASSES
Battery energy Product class No. Input/output type (Wh) Special characteristic or battery voltage
1 ...... AC In, DC Out ...... <100 Inductive Connection. 2 ...... <4 V. 3 ...... 4¥10 V. 4 ...... >10 V. 5 ...... 100–3000 <20 V. 6 ...... ≥20 V. 7 ...... >3000 — 8 ...... DC In, DC Out ...... <9 V Input. 9 ...... ≥9 V Input. 10a ...... AC In, AC Out ...... Voltage and Frequency Dependent. 10b ...... Voltage Independent.
In response to the NOPR analysis, trend in the direction of more efficient DOE determined that the legal Energizer and Philips argued that the high-frequency switch-mode requirements necessary for setting wide variety of battery charger usage technologies, some manufacturers are standards for product class 9 were not patterns in Product Class 2 warranted holding back on adopting this met, and thus, DOE is not proposing to the creation of subcategories of battery technology due to reliability concerns. regulating this product class under this chargers based on usage. (Energizer, No. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 195 at p. 2) proposed rule. 123 at p. 2; Philips, No. 128 at p. 5) However, DOE has also found that U.S. Finally, DOE also received comments Philips claimed that infrequently used manufacturers are now offering both regarding Product Classes 10a and 10b, products would not be able to save a linear and high-frequency switch-mode which are no longer within scope of this significant amount of energy from battery chargers. As a result, DOE proposed rulemaking. See section improved efficiency measures. It argued believes its efficiency distribution IV.A.1 above. However, NEMA, that infrequent use is a performance- estimate and representative units for Schneider, and ITI responded to the related feature that required DOE to set Product Class 7 are accurate, reflecting NOPR by suggesting that the definitions different standards. Neither party that a portion of the market would be of 10a and 10b be harmonized with the provided additional data in support of based on less efficient and legacy linear IEC 62040–3 standard definitions for its respective views. Despite these technology and the remainder would universal power supplies (‘‘UPSs’’). In claims, DOE has not received evidence rely on switch-mode technology in this case, Product Class 10a would be that infrequently-used battery chargers 2015. reclassified from ‘‘non-automatic have any technical differences from DOE also received several comments voltage regulator’’ (‘‘non-AVR’’) to battery chargers that are used more regarding Product Class 9 in response to ‘‘Voltage and Frequency Dependent’’ often. Because there are no technical the NOPR analysis. NRDC and CEC (VFD) and Product Class 10a would be differences between these battery argued that DOE should regulate reclassified as ‘‘Voltage Independent’’ chargers and the units used to represent Product Class 9 products using the (VI). Stakeholders stated that these this product class, there is no rationale proposed Product Class 8 standards. definitions are accepted industry wide. for establishing separate product classes (NRDC, No. 114 at p. 8; California By making such changes, manufacturers based on frequency of use. Energy Commission, No. 117 at p. 28) asserted that the scope of those battery DOE also received comments from Cobra and the Power Tool Institute (PTI) chargers defined as basic and AVR in Delta-Q Technologies, who observed supported DOE’s proposal not to the NOPR would be clarified and that there has been a shift towards high- regulate products intended only for in- concerns over scope, particularly what frequency switch-mode battery chargers vehicle use (i.e., Product Class 9). (Cobra determines consumer grade UPSs, in the golf cart segment, due to rising Electronics, No. 130 at p. 9: PTI, No. 133 would be eliminated. (NEMA, No. 134 raw materials cost of older technology at p. 6) See the March 2012 NOPR TSD, at p. 7, 8: Schneider. Pub. Mtg. Tr, No. and some cost reductions available due Chapter 5, Sec. 5.7.15, (explaining that 104 at p. 253: Schneider, No. 119 at p. to new high frequency switch-mode Product Class 9 devices are 2: ITI, No. 131 at p. 3, 7) Schneider technologies. In the absence of overwhelmingly charged by 12V DC suggested that DOE define additional standards, it asserted that this trend output of an automotive cigarette lighter product classes 10c and 10d, where would continue and in the next few receptacle). These products are Product Class 10c should be defined as years all golf cart chargers would meet decidedly different than those in Voltage Independent with Sinusoidal the proposed standards. (Delta-Q Product Class 2 and Product Class 8 output (VI–SS) and Product Class 10d Technologies, No. 113 at p. 1) DOE’s because they can only be used in should be defined as Voltage and research suggests, and public comments vehicles, which is a unique utility, and Frequency Independent (VFI). submitted by Club Car responding to the input voltage can impact battery charger (Schneider, No. 119 at p. 3) March 2013 RFI express similar performance. However, as described in DOE has recently proposed to remove concerns, that while there is a clear the March 2012 NOPR LCC analysis, battery chargers that provide power
15 Inductive charging is a utility-related charger in a wet environment. In wet environments, from mains current by transferring power to the characteristic designed to promote cleanliness and such as a bathroom where an electric toothbrush is battery through magnetic induction rather than guarantee uninterrupted operation of the battery used, these chargers ensure that the user is isolated using a galvanic (i.e., current carrying) connection.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52870 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
from a battery to a continuous use 4. Technology Assessment First, there is the measured 24-hour device solely during a loss of main energy of a given charger. This quantity power from the testing requirements for In the technology assessment, DOE is defined as the power consumption battery chargers. This would include identifies technology options that integrated with respect to time of a fully battery chargers within Product Class 10 appear to be feasible to improve product metered charge test that starts with a for which DOE had previously proposed efficiency. This assessment provides the fully depleted battery. In other words, standards in the NOPR. As discussed technical background and structure on this is the energy consumed to fully below in Section IV.A.3.b.ii., DOE is no which DOE bases its screening and charge and maintain at full charge a longer proposing standards or engineering analyses. The following depleted battery over a period that lasts definitions for these battery chargers. discussion provides an overview of the 24 hours or the length of time needed technology assessment for battery to charge the tested battery plus 5 hours, b. Elimination of Product Classes 8, chargers. Chapter 3 of the SNOPR TSD whichever is longer. Next, is 9,10a, and 10b provides additional detail and maintenance mode power, which is a Since publishing the NOPR, DOE has descriptions of the basic construction measurement of the average power conducted further market analysis, and operation of battery chargers, consumed while a battery charger is technical analysis, and testing. As a followed by a discussion of technology known to be in maintenance mode. No- result, DOE has chosen to move forward options to improve their efficiency and battery (or standby) mode power is the with proposed standards for a smaller power consumption in various modes. average power consumed while a number of products classes. a. Battery Charger Modes of Operation battery charger is in no-battery or Specifically, DOE is no longer proposing and Performance Parameters standby mode (only if applicable). 17 standards for battery chargers falling Off-mode power is the average power into Product Classes 8, 9, 10a, and 10b DOE found that there are five modes consumed while an on-off switch- in this SNOPR. As stated above and in of operation in which a battery charger equipped battery charger is in off mode the NOPR, DOE determined that no can operate at any given time—active (i.e., with the on-off switch set to the standards were warranted for Product (or charge) mode, maintenance mode, ‘‘off’’ position). Finally, unplugged Class 9 products and DOE received no no-battery (or standby) mode, off mode, mode power consists of the average additional information that would alter and unplugged mode. During active power consumed while the battery this determination. mode, a battery charger is charging a charger is not physically connected to a depleted battery, equalizing its cells, or power source. (This quantity is always i. Product Class 8 performing functions necessary for 0.) DOE has determined that there are no bringing the battery to the fully charged Additional discussion on how these products falling into Product Class 8 state. In maintenance mode, the battery parameters are derived and that do not also fall into Product Class is plugged into the charger, has reached subsequently combined with 2. DOE has also determined that the full charge, and the charger is assumptions about usage in each mode battery chargers previously analyzed in performing functions intended to keep of operation to obtain a value for the Product Class 8 do not technically differ the battery fully charged while UEC is discussed below in section from those found in Product Class 2. protecting it from overcharge. No- IV.C.2. battery mode involves a battery charger Specifically, DOE analyzed battery b. Battery Charger Technology Options chargers used with end use applications plugged into AC mains but without a such as MP3 players and mobile battery connected to the charger. Off Since most consumer battery chargers phones. DOE found that these products mode is similar to no-battery mode but contain an AC to DC power conversion can be used with AC to DC power with all manual on-off switches turned stage, similar to that found in an EPS, supplies and are functionally identical off. Finally, during unplugged mode, the DOE examined many of the same products found in Product Class 2. For battery charger is disconnected from technology options for battery chargers these reasons, DOE has combined all mains and not consuming any electrical as it did for EPSs in the EPS final rule. 16 previously analyzed products, and power. See 79 FR 7845 (Feb. 10, 2014). The related shipments in Product Class 8 For each battery charger mode of technology options used to decrease into Product Class 2. Therefore, these operation, DOE’s battery charger test EPS no-load power affect battery charger products will be subject to Product procedure has a corresponding test that energy consumption in no-battery and Class 2 proposed standards. is performed that outputs a metric for maintenance modes (and off mode, if energy consumption in that mode. The applicable), while those options used to ii. Product Classes 10a and 10b tests to obtain these metrics are increase EPS conversion efficiency will DOE is considering energy described in greater detail in DOE’s affect energy consumption in active and conservation standards for battery battery charger test procedure. When maintenance modes. backup systems (including UPSs) and performing a test in accordance with DOE considered many technology other continuous use products as part of this procedure, certain items play a key options for improving the active-mode the Computer and Backup Battery role in evaluating the efficiency charging efficiency as well as the no- Systems rulemaking. 79 FR 41656 By performance of a given battery charger— battery and maintenance modes of including UPSs in the new rulemaking 24-hour energy, maintenance mode battery chargers. The following list, and analysis, DOE will no longer be power, no-battery mode power, off- organized by charger type, provides considering standards for battery mode power, and unplugged mode technology options that DOE evaluated chargers embedded in UPSs as part of power . (10 CFR part 430 Appendix Y to Subpart B) 17 If the product contains integrated power this rule and is not proposing standards conversion and charging circuitry, but is powered for Product Classes 10a and 10b in this through a non-detachable AC power cord or plug SNOPR. 16 Active mode, maintenance mode, standby blades, then no part of the system will remain mode, and off mode are all explicitly defined by connected to mains, and standby mode DOE requests stakeholder comment DOE in Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430— measurement is not applicable. (Section 5.11.d on the elimination of Product Classes 8, Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy ‘‘Standby Mode Energy Consumption Measurement, 9, 10a, and 10b from this SNOPR. Consumption of Battery chargers. CFR part 430 Appendix Y to Subpart B).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52871
during the NOPR and again in today’s circuit, like the one present in most presents a relationship between the SNOPR. Although many of these common light dimmers, can be added to manufacturer selling price (MSP) and technology options could be used in the primary side of the battery charger increases in battery charger efficiency. both fast and slow chargers, doing so power supply circuitry to limit input The efficiency values range from that of may be impractical due to the cost and current in lower-power modes. an inefficient battery charger sold today benefits of each option for the two types An in-depth discussion of these (i.e., the baseline) to the maximum of chargers. Therefore, in the list below, technology options can be found in technologically feasible efficiency level. the options are grouped with the charger Chapter 3 of the accompanying SNOPR For each efficiency level examined, DOE type where they would be most TSD. determines the MSP; this relationship is practical. B. Screening Analysis referred to as a cost-efficiency curve. Slow charger technology options DOE structured its engineering include: DOE uses the following four screening analysis around two methodologies: (1) • Improved Cores: The efficiency of criteria to determine which design A ‘‘test and teardown’’ approach, which line-frequency transformers, which are a options are suitable for further involves testing products for efficiency component of the power conversion consideration in a standards and determining cost from a detailed circuitry of many slow chargers, can be rulemaking: bill of materials (‘‘BOM’’) derived from improved by replacing their cores with 1. Technological feasibility. DOE tear-downs and (2) the efficiency-level ones made of lower-loss steel. considers technologies incorporated in approach, where the cost of achieving • Termination: Substantially commercial products or in working increases in energy efficiency at discrete decreasing the charge current to the prototypes to be technologically levels of efficiency are estimated using battery after it has reached full charge, feasible. information gathered in manufacturer either by using a timer or sensor, can 2. Practicability to manufacture, interviews that was supplemented and significantly decrease maintenance- install, and service. If mass production verified through technology reviews and mode power consumption. and reliable installation and servicing of subject matter experts (‘‘SMEs’’). When • Elimination/Limitation of a technology in commercial products analyzing the cost of each CSL— Maintenance Current: Constant could be achieved on the scale whether based on existing or theoretical maintenance current is not required to necessary to serve the relevant market at designs—DOE differentiates the cost of keep a battery fully charged. Instead, the the time the standard comes into effect, the battery charger from the cost of the battery charger can provide current then DOE considers that technology associated end-use product. pulses to ‘‘top off’’ the battery as practicable to manufacture, install, and When developing the engineering needed. service. analysis for battery chargers, DOE • Elimination of No-Battery Current: 3. Adverse impacts on product utility selected representative units for each A mechanical AC line switch inside the or product availability. If DOE product class. For each representative battery charger ‘‘cup’’ automatically determines a technology would have a unit, DOE tested a number of different disconnects the battery charger from the significantly adverse impact on the products. After examining the test utility of the product to significant mains supply when the battery is results, DOE selected CSLs that set subgroups of consumers, or would removed from the charger. discrete levels of improved battery • Switched-Mode Power Supply: To result in the unavailability of any charger performance in terms of energy increase efficiency, line-frequency (or covered product type with performance consumption. Subsequently, for each linear) power supplies can be replaced characteristics (including reliability), CSL, DOE used either teardown data or with switched-mode EPSs, which features, sizes, capacities, and volumes information gained from manufacturer greatly reduce the biggest sources of loss that are substantially the same as interviews to generate costs products generally available in the in a line-frequency EPS: the transformer. corresponding to each CSL for each Fast charger technology options United States at the time, it will not representative unit. Finally, for each include: consider this technology further. product class, DOE developed scaling • Low-Power Integrated Circuits: The 4. Adverse impacts on health or relationships using additional test efficiency of the battery charger’s safety. If DOE determines that a results and generated UEC equations switched-mode power supply can be technology will have significant adverse based on battery energy. further improved by substituting low- impacts on health or safety, it will not consider this technology further. 1. Representative Units power integrated circuit (‘‘IC’’) See generally 10 CFR part 430, controllers. For each product class, DOE selected subpart C, appendix A, (4)(a)(4) and • Elimination/Limitation of a representative unit upon which it (5)(b). conducted its engineering analysis and Maintenance Current: See above. For battery chargers, after considering • Schottky Diodes and Synchronous developed a cost-efficiency curve. The the four criteria, DOE screened out: representative unit is meant to be an Rectification: Both line-frequency and 1. Non-inductive chargers for use in idealized battery charger typical of those switched-mode EPSs use diodes to wet environments because of potential used with high-volume applications in rectify output voltage. Schottky diodes adverse impacts on safety; and synchronous rectification can 2. Capacitive reactance because of its product class. Because results from replace standard diodes to reduce potential adverse impacts on safety; and the analysis of these representative units rectification losses, which are 3. Lowering charging current or would later be extended, or applied to increasingly significant at low voltage. increasing battery voltage because of other units in each respective product • Elimination of No-Battery Current: potential adverse impacts on product class, DOE selected high-volume and/or See above. utility to consumers. high-energy-consumption applications • Phase Control To Limit Input For additional details, please see that use batteries that are typically Power: Even when a typical battery Chapter 4 of the SNOPR TSD. found across battery chargers in the charger is not delivering its maximum given product class. The analysis of output current to the battery, its power C. Engineering Analysis these battery chargers is pertinent to all conversion circuitry continues to draw In the engineering analysis (detailed the applications in the product class significant power. A phase control in Chapter 5 of the SNOPR TSD), DOE under the assumption that all battery
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52872 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
chargers with the same battery voltage user, regardless of the actual end-use IV–2 shows the representative units for and energy provide similar utility to the product with which they work. Table each product class that DOE analyzed.
TABLE IV–2—BATTERY CHARGER REPRESENTATIVE UNITS FOR EACH PRODUCT CLASS
Rep. unit bat- Rep. unit bat- Product class No. Input/Output type Battery energy Special characteristic or bat- tery voltage tery energy (Wh) tery voltage (V) (Wh)
1 ...... AC In, DC Out ...... <100 Inductive Connection ...... 3.6 1.5 2 ...... <4 V ...... 2.4 1 3 ...... 4–10 V ...... 7.2 10 4 ...... >10 V ...... 12 20 5 ...... 100–3000 <20 V...... 12 800 6 ...... ≥20 V ...... 24 400 7 ...... >3000 ...... 48 3,750
Additional details on the battery operation that will be the most EPCA requires that DOE regulate charger representative units can be beneficial to their consumers rather than standby and off mode into a single found in Chapter 5 of the accompanying being required to improve the metric unless it is technically infeasible SNOPR TSD. performance in each mode of operation, to do so. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3). some of which may not provide any Standby mode, as defined by 42 U.S.C. 2. Battery Charger Efficiency Metrics appreciable benefit. For example, a 6295(gg)(3), occurs when the energy- In the NOPR and this SNOPR, DOE battery charger used with a mobile consuming product is connected to the used a single metric (i.e., UEC) to phone is likely to spend more time per mains and offers a user-oriented or illustrate the improved performance of day in no-battery mode than a battery protective function such as facilitating battery chargers. DOE designed the charger used for a house phone, which the activation or deactivation of other calculation of UEC to represent an is likely to spend a significant portion functions (including active mode) by annualized amount of the non-useful of every day in maintenance mode. remote switch (including remote energy consumed by a battery charger in Consequently, it would be more control), internal sensor, or timer. See all modes of operation. Non-useful beneficial to consumers if mobile phone 42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(1)(A)(iii). Because energy is the total amount of energy battery charger manufacturers improved maintenance mode, as used in this consumed by a battery charger that is no-battery mode and home phone SNOPR, meets the statutory definition not transferred and stored in a battery as battery charger manufacturers improved of standby mode, DOE must incorporate a result of charging (i.e., losses). In order maintenance mode. Therefore, DOE is maintenance mode into a single metric. to calculate UEC, DOE must have the using the UEC as the single metric for performance data, which comes directly 3. Calculation of Unit Energy battery chargers. Consumption from its battery charger test procedure DOE’s proposed use of a single metric (see section III.A). DOE must also make generated several comments. CEC, Arris, UEC is based on a calculation assumptions about the amount of time and the Republic of Korea stated that designed to give the total annual spent in each mode of operation. The they believe DOE should alter the single amount of energy lost by a battery collective assumption about the amount metric compliance approach in favor of charger from the time spent in each of time spent in each mode of operation the approaches followed by the CEC or mode of operation. For the preliminary is referred to as a usage profile and is ENERGY STAR. (California Energy analysis, the various performance addressed in section IV.E and further Commission, No. 117 at p. 17, 24; parameters were combined with the detail in Chapter 7 of the accompanying ARRIS Broadband 1, No. 90 at p. 2; usage profile parameters and used to SNOPR TSD. DOE recognizes that a Republic of Korea, No. 148 at p. 2) calculate UEC with the following wide range of consumers may use the Conversely, PTI supported the use of a equation: same product in different ways, which UEC = 365(n(E24¥Pm(24¥tc)¥Ebatt) + single metric based upon the usage ¥ may cause some uncertainty about usage factors associated with each product (Pm(ta&m (tcn))) + (Psbtsb) + (Pofftoff)) profiles. Notwithstanding that class. (PTI, No. 133 at p. 4) DOE’s Where possibility, DOE used the weighted compliance equation and metrics give E = 24-hour energy average of usage profiles based on a 24 manufacturers the flexibility to re- Ebatt = Measured battery energy distribution of user types and believes design their products in any way that Pm = Maintenance mode power that its assumptions are appropriate they choose. In this way, manufacturers Psb = Standby mode power gauges of product use to represent each can pursue improvements in any modes Poff = Off mode power product class. These assumptions also tc = Time to completely charge a fully of operation, which would benefit their discharged battery rely on a variety of sources including users in the manner that matters most to information from manufacturers and n = Number of charges per day them. Furthermore, DOE cannot issue a ta&m = Time per day spent in active and utilities. Details on DOE’s usage profile standard with the two separate metrics maintenance mode assumptions can be found in section found in the CEC rule. That rule uses tsb = Time per day spent in standby mode 19 IV.E of this notice and Chapter 7 of the two separate metrics, both of which toff = Time per day spent in off mode accompanying SNOPR TSD. incorporate maintenance mode as Finally, DOE believes that by defined in the battery charger test charger is connected to the main electricity supply aggregating the performance parameters and the battery is fully charged, but is still procedure 18 and used in this SNOPR. of battery chargers into one metric and connected to the charger.’’ 19 applying a usage profile, it will allow Those values shown in italics are parameters 18 CFR part 430 Appendix Y to Subpart B, Section assumed in the usage profile and change for each manufacturers more flexibility to 2.8 ‘‘Battery maintenance mode or maintenance product class. Further discussion of them and their improve performance in the modes of mode is the mode of operation when the battery derivation is found in section IV.E. The other values
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:25 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52873
When separated and examined in The use of ta&m generated several test procedure in scenarios where a segments, it becomes evident how this comments from the CEC, who stated technician could determine that a equation gives a value for energy that the general use of assumptions for battery charger had entered consumed in each mode of operation this metric would introduce errors into maintenance mode, 75 FR 16970. per day and ultimately, energy the calculation. (California Energy However, during its testing of battery consumption per year. These segments Commission, No. 117 at p. 17, 18, 20, chargers, DOE observed complications are discussed individually below. 26) Though the energy usage tables arising when attempting to determine disaggregate active and maintenance the charge time for some devices, Active (or Charge) Mode Energy per Day mode time assumptions (t and t ) for which, in turn, could affect the accuracy ¥ ¥ ¥ a m n(E24 Pm(24 tc) Ebatt) = EActive Mode/ each application, these values should of the UEC calculation. DOE ultimately day not be used alone for determining decided that the duration of the charge In the first portion of the above compliance. DOE believes that it is test must not be shortened and be a equation, DOE combines the assumed inappropriate to use the individual minimum of 24 hours. See 10 CFR part number of charges per day, 24-hour assumptions for ta and tm for all the 430, subpart B, Appendix Y (‘‘Uniform energy, maintenance mode power, products within a single product class Test Method for Measuring the Energy charge time, and measured battery because of the variability in charge time. Consumption of Battery Chargers’’). The energy to calculate the active mode Variation in charge time has a direct test that DOE adopted has a longer energy losses per day. To calculate this effect on any product and how much duration if it is known (e.g., because of value, 24-hour energy (E24) is reduced time it spends in both active and an indicator light on the battery charger) by the measured battery energy (i.e., the maintenance mode. These variations are or it can be determined from useful energy inherently included in a accounted for in the test procedure, by manufacturer information that fully 24-hour energy measurement) and the virtue of the charge and maintenance charging the associated battery will take product of the value of the maintenance mode test and the output, E24. longer than 19 hours.20 mode power multiplied by the quantity Therefore, DOE did not disaggregate This revision to the test procedure is of 24 minus charge time. This latter active and maintenance mode in its important because it underscores the value (24 minus charge time) compliance calculation of UEC; instead, potential issues with trying to determine corresponds to the amount of time spent the outputs of the test procedure would exactly when a battery charger has in maintenance mode, which, when dictate that balance for each product. entered maintenance mode, which multiplied by maintenance mode Therefore, DOE has determined that the creates difficulty in determining charge power, yields the amount of usage profile assumptions outlined in time. To address this situation, DOE maintenance mode energy consumed by Section E below are critical in modified its initial UEC equation. The the tested product. Thus, maintenance determined real world energy use of new equation, which was presented to mode energy and the value of the energy battery chargers. manufacturers during interviews, is transferred to the battery during Standby (or No-Battery) Mode Energy mathematically equivalent to the charging are both subtracted from 24- per Day equation presented in the preliminary hour energy, leaving a quantity analysis. When the terms in the theoretically equivalent to the amount (Psbtsb) = EStandby Mode/day preliminary analysis UEC equation are of energy required to fully charge a In the third part of DOE’s UEC multiplied, those terms containing a depleted battery. This number is then equation, the measured value of standby factor of charge time cancel each other multiplied by the assumed number of mode power is multiplied by the out and drop out of the equation. What charges per day (n) resulting in a value estimated time in standby mode per is left can be factored and rewritten as for the active mode energy per day. day, which results in a value of energy done below. This means that even Details on DOE’s usage profile consumed per day in standby mode. though the new equation looks different assumptions can be found in section Off-Mode Energy per Day from the equation presented for the IV.E of this notice and SNOPR TSD _ preliminary analysis, the value that is Chapter 7. (Pofftoff) = ENo Battery Mode/day obtained is the same and represents the In the final part of DOE’s UEC same value of unit energy consumption. Maintenance Mode Energy per Day equation, the measured value of off- New Base UEC Equation (Pm(ta&m¥(tcn))) = EMaintenance Mode/day mode power is multiplied by the In the second segment of DOE’s estimated time in off-mode per day, UEC = 365(n(E24¥Ebatt) + equation, shown above, maintenance which results in a value of energy (Pm(ta&m¥(24n))) + (Psbtsb) + mode power, time spent in active and consumed per day in off-mode. (Pofftoff)) To obtain UEC, the values found maintenance mode per day (ta&m), In addition to initially considering a through the above calculations are charge time, and the assumed number of shortened battery charger active mode added together. The resulting sum is charges per day are combined to obtain test procedure, DOE considered capping equivalent to an estimate of the average maintenance mode energy per day. the measurement of 24-hour energy at amount of energy consumed by a battery Time spent in active and maintenance the 24-hour mark of the test. However, charger per day. That value is then mode is subtracted from the product of following this approach could result in multiplied by 365, the number of days the charge time multiplied by the inaccuracies because that measurement in a year, and the end result is a value number of charges per day. The would exclude the full amount of resulting quantity is an estimate of time of energy consumed per year. spent in maintenance mode per day, Modifications to Equation for Unit 20 The charge mode test must include at least a which, when multiplied by the Energy Consumption five-hour period where the unit being tested is measured value of maintenance mode known to be in maintenance mode. Thus, if a power, yields the energy consumed per On April 2, 2010, DOE published a device takes longer than 19 hours to charge, or is proposal to revise its test procedures for expected to take longer than 19 hours to charge, the day in maintenance mode. entire duration of the charge mode test will exceed battery chargers and EPSs. (75 FR 24 hours in total time after the five-hour period of should be determined according to section 5 of 16958) In that notice, DOE proposed to maintenance mode time is added. 76 FR 31750, Appendix Y to Subpart B of Part 430. use a shorter version of the active mode 31766–67, and 31780.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52874 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
energy used to charge a battery if the of the charge and maintenance mode In other words, the second portion of charge time is longer than 24 hours in test. In the equation below, tcd, the equation, which is an approximation duration. To account for this possibility, represents the duration of the charge of maintenance mode energy, is reduced DOE altered this initial approach in its and maintenance mode test and is a by 5 hours. This alteration was needed test procedure final rule by requiring the value that the test procedure requires to address instances when the charge measurement of energy for the entire technicians to determine. DOE also and maintenance mode test exceeds 24 duration of the charge and maintenance modified the equation from the NOPR hours, because the duration of the test mode test, which includes a minimum by inserting a provision to subtract 5 minus 5 hours is an approximation of of 5 hours in maintenance mode. See 10 hours of maintenance mode energy from charge time. This information, tcd, can CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix Y, the 24-hour energy measurement. This then be used to approximate the portion Sec. 5.2. change was made because the charge of time that a device is assumed to The modifications to the UEC and maintenance mode test includes a spend in active and maintenance mode per day (t ) and is solely dedicated to calculation do not alter the value minimum of 5 hours of maintenance a&m maintenance mode.21 The primary obtained when the charge and mode time. Consequently, in the second maintenance mode test is completed equation (i) that manufacturers will use portion of the equation below, DOE to determine their product’s unit energy within 24 hours. However, if the test would reduce the amount of time consumption and whether their device exceeds 24 hours, the energy lost during subtracted from the assumed time in complies with DOE’s standards is charging is scaled back to a 24-hour, or active and maintenance mode time per below. per day, cycle by multiplying that day. energy by the ratio of 24 to the duration Primary Equation (i)
Secondary Calculation of UEC by the number of charges per day (n) is the assumption for the amount of time greater than the time assumed in active spent in charge mode and maintenance For some battery chargers, the mode per day, that difference creates an equation described above is not and maintenance mode (ta&m), an inconsistency between the appropriate and an alternative alternative equation must be used. A measurements for the test product and calculation is necessary. Specifically, in different equation must be used because DOE’s assumptions. This problem can those cases where the charge test if the number of charges per day be corrected by using an alternative duration (as determined according to multiplied by the time it takes to charge equation, which is shown below. section 5.2 of Appendix Y to Subpart B (charge test duration minus 5 hours—or of Part 430) minus 5 hours is multiplied the charge time per day) is longer than Secondary Equation (ii)
This alternative equation (ii) resolves not account for the energy consumed by The usage profile for this product class this inconsistency by prorating the the maintenance mode of a product simply reflects that the consumer energy used for charging the battery. (California Energy Commission, No. 117 benefits more greatly from improved The final UEC equations generated at p. 21). The CEC also concluded that charge efficiency rather than improved several comments from the CEC. It the usage assumptions contain flaws, maintenance mode. The CEC concluded asserted that the UEC equation fails to thereby introducing errors into the UEC that manufacturers are incentivized to incentivize manufacturers to improve calculation (California Energy increase their maintenance mode power maintenance mode power in their Commission, No. 117 at p. 18). The CEC to reduce their UEC, but the CEC’s products (California Energy requested that DOE combine the conclusion neglects the fact that if Commission, No. 117 at p. 17). alternative UEC equation with the main maintenance mode power is increased, Specifically, in its view, UEC equation UEC equation, resulting in a single so would the 24-hour energy (i) would reward manufacturers of equation for calculating UEC. (California consumption. The value of 24-hour battery chargers with higher Energy Commission, No. 117 at p. 27). energy will increase by an amount maintenance mode power, since While the CEC accurately noted there equivalent to the maintenance mode maintenance mode power is subtracted is a negative term related to power increase, multiplied by the from the estimated annual energy maintenance mode power in the UEC difference between 24 and the time to consumption (California Energy equation when combined with the charge the battery. Furthermore, if two Commission, No. 117 at p. 22). Product Class 2 usage profile, the units have all of the same performance Additionally, it stated that UEC primary and secondary UEC equations parameters except for maintenance equation (ii) is also flawed, as it does are not flawed and are both necessary. mode power consumption (i.e., 24-hour
21 For a test exceeding 24 hours, the duration of 5). That value, multiplied by the assumed number from DOE’s other assumption for ta&m. That the test less 5 hours is equal to the time it took the of charges per day, gives an estimate of charge (or difference is an approximation for maintenance battery being tested to become fully charged (tcd ¥ active) time per day, which can then be subtracted mode time per day.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP01SE15.000 EP01SE15.001 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52875
energy, standby mode power, and off respects, but differed significantly in comment from stakeholders on this mode power), it follows that the device UEC (i.e. efficiency). approach. with the higher maintenance mode In general, for each representative Table IV–3 below shows which CSL power consumption is more efficient unit, DOE chose the baseline (CSL 0) aligns most closely with the California during charging. As mentioned, the unit to be the one with the highest standards for each product class. usage profile for Product Class 2 calculated unit energy consumption, suggests that, on average, users of these and the best-in-market (CSL 2) to be the TABLE IV–3—CSLS APPROXIMATE TO products will benefit more from an one with the lowest. Where possible, the CALIFORNIA STANDARDS efficient charge rather than an efficient energy consumption of an intermediate maintenance mode and, therefore, the model was selected as the basis for CSL CSL unit with the higher maintenance mode approximate 1 to provide additional resolution to the Product class to CEC power will have a lower UEC. More analysis. standard details on DOE’s analysis for this Unlike the previous three CSLs, CSL conclusion can be found in Chapter 5 of 1 (Low-Energy, Inductive) ..... CSL 0 the accompanying SNOPR TSD. 3 was not based on an evaluation of the 2 (Low-Energy, Low-Voltage) CSL 1 efficiency of individual battery charger 3 (Low-Energy, Medium-Volt- CSL 1 4. Battery Charger Candidate Standard units in the market, since battery age). Levels chargers with maximum technologically 4 (Low-Energy, High-Voltage) CSL 1 After selecting its representative units feasible efficiency levels are not 5 (Medium-Energy, Low-Volt- CSL 2 commercially available due to their high age). for battery chargers, DOE examined the 6 (Medium-Energy, High-Volt- CSL 2 impacts on the cost of improving the cost. Where possible, DOE analyzed manufacturer estimates of max-tech age). efficiency of each of the representative 7 (High-Energy) ...... CSL 1 units to evaluate the impact and assess costs and efficiencies. In some cases, the viability of potential energy manufacturers were unable to offer any insight into efficiency level beyond the In addition, DOE received comments efficiency standards. As described in the on specific CSLs for specific product technology assessment and screening best ones currently available in the market. Therefore, DOE projected the classes. For Product Class 2 (low-energy, analysis, there are numerous design low-voltage) and Product Class 3 (low- options available for improving efficiency of a max-tech unit by estimating the impacts of adding any energy, medium voltage) since efficiency and each incremental stakeholders believed that intermediate technology improvement increases the remaining energy efficiency design options to the CSL unit analyzed. CSLs that more closely align with the battery charger efficiency along a CEC’s levels could be shown to be cost continuum. The engineering analysis On January 12, 2012, California effective based on specific units in the develops cost estimates for several CSLs proposed standards for small battery marketplace that meet intermediate along that continuum. chargers, which the State eventually levels. Specifically, these stakeholders CSLs are often based on (1) adopted.23 The California standards are suggested modifying Product Class 2 to efficiencies available in the market; (2) based on two metrics, one for 24-hour include a ‘‘CSL 2.5’’ and Product Class voluntary specifications or mandatory energy use, and one for the combined 3 to include a CSL ‘‘1.8.’’ (CA IOUs, No. standards that cause manufacturers to maintenance mode and standby mode 138 at p. 5–8; ASAP, No. 162 at p. 4, 6; develop products at particular efficiency power usage. DOE, using the usage NRDC, No. 114 at p. 5) NRDC and the levels; and (3) the maximum profiles it developed to translate these CEC also both urged DOE to reconsider technologically feasible level.22 standards into a value of UEC, the analysis for Product Class 3 and Currently, there are no energy compared its CSLs with the levels develop an intermediate CSL between conservation standards for battery adopted by California. DOE found that, CSL 1 and CSL 2. (NRDC, No. 114 at p. chargers. Therefore, DOE based the in most cases, the California proposed 6; California Energy Commission, No. CSLs for its battery charger engineering standards generally corresponded 117 at p. 12) Concerning Product Class analysis on the efficiencies obtainable closely with one of DOE’s CSLs for each 4, ARRIS asserted that setting the through the design options presented product class when the standards were standard at TSL 1 (CSL 1) will have no previously (see section IV.A). These converted into a value of UEC (using major effect on energy savings since the options are readily seen in various DOE’s usage profile assumptions). majority of products already meet this commercially available units. DOE However, since the adoption of the CEC level. (ARRIS Broadband 1, No. 90 at p. selected commercially available battery standards, DOE has attempted to adjust 3) chargers at the representative-unit its CSLs to align with the CEC standards DOE also received comments battery voltage and energy levels from to the extent possible. For example if regarding the specific limits chosen for the high-volume applications identified DOE’s test and teardown approach Product Class 10. Schneider requested in the market survey. DOE then tested resulted in a representative unit used to that DOE reconsider the proposed level these units in accordance with the DOE create CSL1 and the resulting CSL1 was set for CSL 2 and CSL 3, noting in battery charger test procedure. For each slightly more stringent than DOE’s particular that the product relied on by representative unit, DOE then selected translation of the CEC level, then DOE DOE to develop CSL2 was no longer on CSLs to correspond to the efficiency of would shift CSL1 to be more stringent the market (Schneider, No. 119 at p. 4) battery charger models that were and to more closely align with the CEC’s Furthermore, Schneider requested that comparable to each other in most standard. This methodology is outlined CSL 0 or CSL 1 be selected, stating that in more detail in Chapter 5 of the CSL 3 is speculative, if not impossible, accompanying SNOPR TSD. DOE seeks 22 The ‘‘max-tech’’ level represents the most in terms of feasibility. (Schneider, No. efficient design that is commercialized or has been 119 at p. 4) Schneider requested that if demonstrated in a prototype with materials or 23 The term ‘‘small battery charger system’’ is CSL 2 is chosen, a 3-year compliance technologies available today. ‘‘Max-tech’’ is not defined by the CEC as a battery charger system window from the date of the published constrained by economic justification, and is ‘‘with a rated input power of 2 kW or less, and typically the most expensive design option includes golf cart battery charger systems regardless final rule be set. (Schneider, No. 119 at considered in the engineering analysis. of the output power.’’ 20 Cal. Code 1602(w) (2014). p. 4) Regarding Product Class 10B,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:32 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52876 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Schneider requested that DOE used as the primary source for the standards for those products. In fact, recalculate higher levels for CSL 0 and MSPs. such an assumption would have the CSL 1 and that one of these levels be For this SNOPR engineering analysis, effect of steepening a cost-efficiency chosen with a 5-year compliance DOE continued to rely on its test and curve. If DOE were to assume that the window from the date of the published teardown data. Consequently, the test EPS must be improved in all battery final rule. (Schneider, No. 119 at p. 5, and teardown results reflected the charger systems, then DOE would be 6) NEMA argued that if the standards current technologies on the market and removing a design path that battery proposed in the NOPR were adopted, did not attempt to predict which charger manufacturers could potentially manufacturers would likely petition technological designs may become take. This would have the effect of DOE for hardship exemptions. (NEMA, available in the future. Multiple making incremental improvements to No. 134 at p. 5) interested parties criticized the test and performance more costly because it With the exception of the max tech teardown approach to the battery removes a degree of freedom from level, the CSLs presented in the March charger engineering because the market battery charger manufacturers. The test 2012 NOPR for all product classes does not naturally push products to and teardown approach has the benefit (including CSLs 2, 3, and 4), were based become just more efficient. Instead, of not eliminating any practicable on commercially available products and improved efficiency is often a byproduct design options from the analysis. This the costs to reach these levels were of other added utilities, such as making approach is technology neutral, and independently verified by products smaller and lighter. These although DOE does provide an analysis manufacturers and subject matter parties believed that DOE over- of the technologies that were used in the experts. For the SNOPR, DOE attempted estimated its costs to achieve certain products that it tore down, that does not to align at least one CSL in each product CSLs. (NRDC, No. 114 at p. 1: ASAP, mean that is the only design path to class subject to this proposed rule as No. 162 at p. 1: CA IOUs, No. 138 at p. achieve that performance level. Instead, closely as possible to the CEC standards 4) it is a reflection of the choices that to address comments to the NOPR Additionally, responding to the NOPR various battery charger manufacturers suggesting that DOE create a new CSL analyses, NRDC, the CA IOUs, NEEP, are currently making to improve the that more closely aligns with the CEC and ASAP suggested that DOE’s performance of their products. levels. Additionally, as previously engineering analysis for battery chargers Finally, DOE verified the accuracy of stated, DOE is no longer proposing should reflect a baseline in which the the IHS Technology results by reviewing standards for product class 10 because EPS that accompanies the battery aggregated results with individual these products are now being charger is compliant with DOE’s (then) manufacturers during interviews and considered as part of the Computer and future regulations for EPSs. (NRDC, No. subject matter experts. As discussed Backup Battery Systems rulemaking. 114 at p. 4; CA IOUs, No. 138 at pp. 7, later, DOE performed additional See 79 FR 41656. As such, comments 8; ASAP, et al., No. 136 at p. 7; ASAP, manufacturer interviews for the NOPR related to product class 10 are no longer No. 162 at p. 1, 5) One interested party and during these interviews, the initial relevant to this rulemaking and DOE also stated that DOE should ensure that IHS Technology results were again will not be addressing comments the units it uses to represent higher aggregated and reviewed with submitted in response to the NOPR for battery charger CSLs should incorporate manufacturers. DOE believes that it has Product Class 10 in this SNOPR. EPSs that meet future standards because sufficiently verified the accuracy of its those EPSs are cost-effective. (NEEP, No. teardown results and believes that all of 5. Test and Teardowns 144 at p. 2) Finally, one interested party the engineering costs gleaned from IHS The CSLs used in the battery charger suggested that DOE overstated the costs Technology are appropriate. engineering analysis were based on the of complying with higher efficiency efficiencies of battery chargers available standards because it tore down units 6. Manufacturer Interviews in the market. Following testing, the rather than explicitly making The engineering analysis also relies in units corresponding to each modifications to the EPSs of less part on information obtained through commercially available CSL were efficient battery chargers, thereby failing interviews with several battery charger disassembled to (1) evaluate the to capture potentially cost-effective manufacturers. These manufacturers presence of energy efficiency design savings of EPS improvements. (ASAP, et consisted of companies that options and (2) estimate the materials al., No. 136 at p. 4) manufacture battery chargers and cost. The teardowns included an The first two points made by original equipment manufacturers examination of the general design of the interested parties are similar and both (OEMs) of battery-operated products battery charger and helped confirm the points suggest that DOE modify CSLs to who package (and sometimes design, presence of any of the technology account for future EPS regulations. manufacture, and package) battery options discussed in section IV.A However, DOE notes that not all battery chargers with their end-use products. After the battery charger units chargers will incorporate an EPS that is, DOE followed this interview approach corresponding to the CSLs were or will be, subject to efficiency to obtain data on the possible evaluated, they were torn down by IHS regulations. For that reason, the baseline efficiencies and resultant costs of Technology (formerly iSuppli), a DOE efficiency and all higher efficiency consumer battery chargers. Aggregated contractor and industry expert. An in- levels that DOE analyzes are not information from these interviews is depth teardown and cost analysis was required to reflect a combination of provided in Chapter 5 of the SNOPR performed for each of these units. For technologies that includes an EPS that TSD. The interviews also provided some products, like camcorders and meets the higher efficiency levels that manufacturer inputs and comments in notebook computers, the battery charger will apply to certain classes of EPSs in preparing the manufacturer impact constitutes a small portion of the 2016. Regarding the assertions that DOE analysis, which is discussed in detail in circuitry. In evaluating the related costs, has overstated its costs by using a test section IV.J. IHS Technology identified the subset of and teardown approach, as mentioned DOE attempted to obtain teardown components in each product enclosure above, not all battery chargers will results for all of its product classes, but responsible for battery charging. The necessarily have to incorporate a more encountered difficulties in obtaining results of these teardowns were then efficient EPS as a result of any new useful and accurate teardown results for
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52877
one of its products classes—namely, See SNOPR TSD, Chapter 5 for requirement of nickel-based chemistries Product Class 1 (e.g., electric additional details. that they be maintained at a high charge toothbrushes). For this product class, In response to the NOPR engineering due to the secondary recombination DOE relied heavily on information analysis, DOE received multiple reaction that occurs in sealed cells, obtained from manufacturer interviews. comments on design options that were which affects state of charge and the life DOE found that when it attempted to not mentioned in DOE’s analysis. of the battery cells. (AHAM, No. 124 at teardown Product Class 1 devices, most ECOVAECOVA argued that more p. 3) However, SCE separately noted contained potting (i.e., material used to efficient nickel-based charger designs that the recombination reaction is waterproof internal electronics). exist and should be considered for important to account for during the Removal of the potting also removed the determining costs of standards. Its charge cycle (or active mode charging) identifying markings that IHS comments also noted, however, that no but accounting for this reaction does not Technology needed to estimate a cost commercially available products use need to persist in maintenance mode. It for the components. As a result, these more efficient designs. added that the current calculated for the manufacturer interview data helped (ECOVAECOVA, No. 97 at p. 1) The CEC standard level is sufficient. (SCE, furnish the necessary information to CEC and ASAP suggested that DOE No. 164 at p. 2) Finally, PTI, AHAM, assist DOE in estimating these costs. consider designs presented by and CEA jointly stated that ECOVA’s ECOVAECOVA that demonstrated the 7. Design Options suggested design modifications are higher efficiency levels that are possible technically infeasible, resulting in Design options are technology options when compared to what is currently reduced battery lifetimes, and that that remain viable for use in the available in the marketplace for nickel- adopting efficiency levels at the engineering analysis after applying the based designs. (California Energy stringency suggested by ECOVA would screening criteria as discussed above in Commission, No. 117 at p. 2; Transcript, effectively eliminate Ni-Cd products section IV.B. DOE notes that all No. 104 at p. 256; ASAP, et al., No. 136 with battery energies above 20Wh. (PTI, technology options that are not at p. 8) The California Investor-Owned AHAM, CEA, No. 161 at p. 3) eliminated in the screening analysis, Utilities (‘‘CA IOUs’’) made a similar DOE based its analysis on section IV.B, become design options that comment, stating that a teardown and commercially available products when are considered in the engineering redesign of Product Class 4 shows the establishing candidate standard levels analysis. Most CSLs, except for those previously proposed CSL 2 to be cost for Product Classes 2–6. Through related to max-tech units and chargers effective. (CA IOUs, No. 138 at p. 9) falling in Product Class 1 and Product NRDC and NEEP also argued that DOE extensive testing, discussion with SMEs, Class 6, where DOE did not tear down overestimated the costs to improve and market research, DOE found that units, are based on actual teardowns of efficiency in Product Classes 2–6, manufacturers have already moved units manufactured and sold in today’s stating that DOE’s representative units away from nickel-based systems, to battery charger market. Consequently, do not use the most cost-effective lithium-based systems, partly as a DOE did not control which design designs to achieve proposed and that means of improving efficiency (lithium options were used at each CSL. No the previously proposed CSL 2 in also offers other benefits to consumers, technology options were preemptively Product Class 3 could be achieved with such as higher energy density and cycle eliminated from use with a particular a battery chemistry other than lithium. life). This shift away from nickel-based product class. Similarly, if products are (NRDC, No. 114 at p. 3; NEEP, No. 144 systems is due, in part, to the fact that being manufactured and sold, DOE at pp. 1–2) Southern California Edison these systems have to counteract believes that fact indicates the absence (SCE) similarly stated that the reason no secondary reactions within the battery of any significant loss in utility, such as nickel-based chargers that meet the cells, which result in self-discharge— an extremely limited operating previously proposed CSL 2 for Product which, in turn, shortens battery life. To temperature range or shortened cycle- Classes 2–4 have been found is that counteract this, nickel-based chargers life. Therefore, DOE believes that all strong market forces discourage the must have a certain level of CSLs can be met with technologies that development of efficient nickel chargers maintenance mode power to preserve a are feasible and that fit the intended and, therefore, the current market is an full (100%) charge and maintain application. Details on the technology ineffective place to identify high consumer utility. (Lithium-based associated with each CSL can be found efficiency designs. (SCE, No. 164 at p. systems experience similar reactions, in Chapter 5 of the accompanying 1) Finally, SCE stated that current but with much lower levels of self- SNOPR TSD. charge rates seen in the previously discharge and can reach much lower For the max-tech designs, which are proposed CSL 1 for Product Classes 2– power levels in maintenance mode.) not commercially available, DOE 4 can be 3–12 times lower while still DOE has updated this analysis to focus developed these levels in part with a maintaining a full charge. (SCE, No. 164 on improved nickel-based battery focus on maintaining product utility as at p. 2) chargers and through further testing and projected energy efficiency improved. In response to public comments made teardowns conducted as part of this Although some features, such as by ECOVAECOVA at the NOPR public SNOPR, found that designs similar to decreased charge time, were considered meeting, PTI, AHAM and CEA, ECOVA’s proposed design are being as added utilities, DOE did not assign challenged the idea that lower implemented and sold into the market. any monetary value to such features. maintenance mode power levels could These already-available designs suggest Additionally, DOE did not assume that be achieved. PTI noted that the CEC that improvements to nickel-based such features were undesirable, standards are not achievable for battery designs may be a feasible option in particularly if the incremental chargers that charge nickel-cadmium certain cases for manufacturers to improvement in performance causes a (Ni-Cd) or nickel-metal-hydride (Ni-MH) employ to meet their utility significant savings in energy costs. cells and that ECOVAECOVA’s claims requirements and improve the energy Finally, to the extent possible DOE fail to meet any possible criteria for efficiency of their battery chargers. considered durability, reliability, and technical feasibility. (PTI, No. 133 at p. Accordingly, DOE has updated the other performance and utility-related 2) AHAM similarly noted that proposed CSLs and found that features that affect consumer behavior. ECOVAECOVA’s claims neglect the deploying solely lithium-based systems
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52878 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
would not necessarily be required to meeting the standard for battery All of these factors weigh in favor of the meet the proposed levels. chargers would cause special hardship, teardown approach, which is more DOE received further comments from inequity, or unfair distribution of likely to provide a reasonable stakeholders concerning the costs burdens, the manufacturer may petition approximation of the costs involved to associated with moving from nickel to the Office of Hearings and Appeals produce a given battery charger with a lithium designs rather than to more (OHA) for exception relief or exemption particular set of features and efficiency efficient nickel designs. NRDC and CEC from the standard pursuant to OHA’s level than other methods that do not commented that by using lithium authority under section 504 of the DOE account for these factors. designs, the actual costs of moving from Organization Act (42 U.S.C. 7194), as DOE also received comments during the previously proposed CSL 1 to CSL implemented at subpart B of 10 CFR the NOPR public meeting regarding the 2 in Product Class 3 are over stated. part 1003. OHA has the authority to possible decline in the cost of lithium (NRDC, Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 104 at p. 57: grant such relief on a case-by-case basis batteries and the effects that this decline NRDC, No. 114 at p. 5) NRDC and CEC if it determines that a manufacturer has could have on the cost model. NRDC claimed that this same argument applies demonstrated that meeting the standard asserted that DOE had not factored in to Product Classes 2–6 and that the costs would cause hardship, inequity, or the rapid decline in the cost of lithium for all of these product classes are unfair distribution of burdens. batteries that DOE itself has shown in its overstated and inaccurate. (California own cost projections. (NRDC, Pub. Mtg. Energy Commission, No. 117 at p. 7, 12, 8. Cost Model Tr, No. 104 at p. 58) DOE understands 13: NRDC, No. 114 at p. 5) When This proposed rule continues to apply that commodity prices fluctuate for considering design solutions and paths, the same approach used in the NOPR emerging technologies and they can DOE relied heavily on information and preliminary analysis to generate the decrease over time, perhaps even during provided by manufacturers during manufacturer selling prices (MSPs) for the course of the analysis period. interviews. However, DOE has the engineering analysis. For those However, lithium-based battery chargers conducted additional testing and market product classes other than Product Class in consumer products have not research in response to these comments. 1, DOE’s MSPs rely on the teardown experienced as sharp a decline as the DOE found that while many lithium- results obtained from IHS Technology. cost for lithium batteries in other based systems have been introduced The bills of materials provided by IHS applications, such as those used for into the market, there are also many Technology were multiplied by a electric vehicles, mainly because of the products deploying nickel-based battery markup based on product class. For scale and size of those systems. Without charging systems with minor updates those product classes for which DOE more substantive data that specifically that reduce maintenance mode and could not estimate MSPs using the IHS addresses lithium batteries and lithium- overall energy use at a lower cost than Technology teardowns–Product Class 1– based battery chargers for the consumer some lithium designs. The costs used in DOE relied on aggregate manufacturer market, DOE chose to base its analysis this SNOPR reasonably reflect real interview data. Additional details on stable indicators rather than data world design changes and the feasibility regarding the cost model and the prone to market fluctuations, such as and cost of such changes have been markups assumed for each product class lithium prices are. Furthermore, corroborated by manufacturers and are presented in Chapter 5 of the commodity prices can fluctuate for any subject matter experts. SNOPR TSD. Finally, DOE received comments from DOE’s cost estimates reflect real world number of reasons, potentially resulting GE Healthcare and Schumacher noting costs and have been updated where in adverse effects on consumers. that outside elements may prevent them necessary for this SNOPR. The CA IOUs 9. Battery Charger Engineering Results from pursuing certain design pathways asserted that the methodology used to for their respective products. GE derive costs was fundamentally flawed The results of the engineering analysis Healthcare commented that there are and overestimated BOM costs. (CA are reported as cost-efficiency data (or medical devices which are deployed in IOUs, No. 138 at p. 11) DOE disagrees. ‘‘curves’’) in the form of MSP (in adverse conditions, extreme The primary benefit to the teardown dollars) versus unit energy consumption temperatures, or gaseous environments approach is that it relies on real-world (in kWh/yr). These data form the basis which may prevent certain types of designs and reflects practices and for this SNOPR analyses. This section battery chemistries from being used. (GE approaches that manufacturers are illustrates the results that DOE obtained Healthcare, No. 142 at p. 2) Schumacher currently using to improve product for all seven product classes in its commented that certain design patents performance. As a result, DOE’s engineering analysis. held by their competition prevent them estimates are based on actual pricing DOE received several comments from deploying switch mode designs in and cost data for the various supporting the Product Class 1 their engine-start automotive battery components and manufacturing engineering results in the NOPR. chargers. (Schumacher, No. 143 at p. 4) technologies employed by industry. (NRDC. No. 114 at p. 8; California As noted earlier, DOE is not proposing Additionally, by applying this method, Energy Commission, No. 117 at p. 28) to set standards that would affect DOE can examine battery chargers used No changes were made to the medical battery chargers. More generally in multiple applications, which allows engineering results for Product Class 1 in response to both comments, DOE its estimated costs to reflect various and the results are shown below in notes that if a manufacturer finds that constraints and manufacturer choices. Table IV–4.
TABLE IV–4—PRODUCT CLASS 1 (INDUCTIVE CHARGERS) ENGINEERING ANALYSIS RESULTS
CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3
CSL Description ...... Baseline Intermediate Best in Market Max Tech 24-Hour Energy (Wh) ...... 26.7 19.3 10.8 5.9 Maintenance Mode Power (W) ...... 1.2 0.8 0.4 0.2 No-Battery Mode Power (W) ...... 0.5 0.4 0.2 0.1
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52879
TABLE IV–4—PRODUCT CLASS 1 (INDUCTIVE CHARGERS) ENGINEERING ANALYSIS RESULTS—Continued
CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3
Off-Mode Power (W) ...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unit Energy Consumption (kWh/yr) ...... 8.73 6.10 3.04 1.29 MSP [$] ...... $2.05 $2.30 $2.80 $6.80
DOE received several comments DOE also received specific comments approximate to the CEC standard, BOM regarding costs for Product Class 2 in about how it derived its costs for costs were used as well. Further detail response to the NOPR. NRDC, CEC, and Product Classes 2, 3, and 4. ASAP and on these costs and representative units the CA IOUs all claimed that the NEEP requested that DOE explain how can be found in Chapter 5 and projected costs for Product Class 2 were these costs were derived and identify Appendix 5B of the accompanying incorrect and did not reflect real world which units were used. (ASAP, No. 162 SNOPR TSD. costs. (NRDC, No. 114 at p. 5; California at p. 2–7; NEEP, No. 160 at p. 1) For the Energy Commission, No. 117 at p. 10, SNOPR analysis, DOE used the Based on further analysis, DOE 11; CA IOUs, No. 138 at p. 4) DOE has representative unit cost associated with adjusted the results for Product Class 2. updated its analysis and discussion for a single unit with a BOM that can be These adjusted results are shown in the this product class. See Chapter 5 of the found in Appendix 5B of the SNOPR Table IV–5. More details on these accompanying Chapter 5 of the SNOPR TSD. For the instances where a updates can be found in Chapter 5 of the TSD. representative unit was created to be accompanying SNOPR TSD.
TABLE IV–5—PRODUCT CLASS 2 (LOW-ENERGY, LOW-VOLTAGE) ENGINEERING ANALYSIS RESULTS
CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 4
CSL Description ...... Baseline Intermediate 2nd Best in Market Max Tech Intermediate 24-Hour Energy (Wh) ...... 25.79 13.6 8.33 8.94 6.90 Maintenance Mode Power (W) ...... 1.1 0.5 0.13 0.1 0.04 No-Battery Mode Power (W) ...... 0.3 0.3 0.03 0.02 0.10 Off-Mode Power (W) ...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unit Energy Consumption (kWh/yr) ...... 5.33 3.09 1.69 1.58 1.11 MSP [$]...... $1.16 $1.20 $1.49 $2.43 $4.31
DOE also received several comments Product Class 3. They also noted that used in the analysis. Additional testing regarding costs used in the engineering this projected cost increase could have and teardowns were completed for analysis for Product Class 3. The CA been part of the reason why costs were Product Class 3 to replace the analysis IOUs noted that DOE may have omitted overestimated. (CA IOUs, No. 138 at p. that previously relied on this no longer a component in one of the BOMs used 7) DOE revisited the IHS Technology produced unit. Representative units and to derive this CSL that may have led to data for these units and updated the cost updated results for Product Class 3 are the projected increase in cost between data to include the missing component. shown in the Table IV–6. nickel and lithium battery chargers in However, this unit is no longer being
TABLE IV–6—PRODUCT CLASS 3 (LOW-ENERGY, MEDIUM-VOLTAGE) ENGINEERING ANALYSIS RESULTS
CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3
CSL Description ...... Baseline Intermediate Best in Market Max Tech 24-Hour Energy (Wh) ...... 42.60 28.00 17.0 15.9 Maintenance Mode Power (W) ...... 1.70 0.50 0.26 0.26 No-Battery Mode Power (W) ...... 0.30 0.30 0.20 0.20 Off-Mode Power (W) ...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unit Energy Consumption (kWh/yr) ...... 3.65 1.42 0.74 0.70 MSP [$] ...... $1.12 $1.20 $4.11 $5.51
Regarding Product Class 4, NRDC, the handheld vacuum unit from the test has chosen single units as representative CEC, ASAP, and the CA IOUs argued results, since the costs for that unit are units for this product class. DOE that DOE overestimated the costs for higher than the other products in that believes each CSL is representative of some CSLs. (NRDC, No. 114 at p. 6; product class and may not reflect the technology that can be widely applied California Energy Commission, No. 117 lowest cost design. (ASAP Et Al., No. to all applications in this product class. at p. 14; ASAP, No. 162 at p. 7; CA 136 at p. 8) The updated costs can be seen in Table IOUs, No. 138 at p. 8–9) ASAP urged DOE has conducted more tests and IV–7. DOE to remove the results for the teardowns since the NOPR analysis and
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52880 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE IV—7 PRODUCT CLASS 4 (LOW-ENERGY, HIGH-VOLTAGE) ENGINEERING ANALYSIS RESULTS
CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3
CSL Description ...... Baseline Intermediate Best in Market Max 24-Hour Energy (Wh)...... 60.75 44.00 29.30 27.2 Maintenance Mode Power (W) ...... 2.40 0.50 0.50 0.4 No-Battery Mode Power (W) ...... 0.30 0.30 0.50 0.3 Off-Mode Power (W) ...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unit Energy Consumption (kWh/yr) ...... 12.23 5.38 3.63 3.05 MSP [$] ...... $1.79 $2.60 $5.72 $18.34
For Product Class 6, DOE performed results and analyzed how the DOE believes these costs are an accurate additional product testing during the performance may be impacted if similar representation of the MSPs, but seeks NOPR stage, but did not obtain a technologies are used. The resulting comment on its methodology in scaling complete data set upon which to base its performance parameters are shown in the results of Product Class 5 to Product engineering analysis. This situation was Table IV–8. To account for the projected Class 6, including the decision to hold due in large part to DOE’s inability to variation in energy consumption, DOE MSPs constant. locate products with sufficiently similar used information on charge time and DOE received several comments in battery energies and the fact that the maintenance mode power to adjust the response to the NOPR regarding the products tested did not span a corresponding values for 24-hour energy engineering results for Product Classes 5 significant range of performance. DOE’s use. Additionally, DOE discussed with and 6. The CEC argued that test data for this product class are manufacturers how costs may differ in manufacturers could meet CSL 3 available in Chapter 5 of the manufacturing a 12 V (Product Class 5) without including a shut-off relay into accompanying SNOPR TSD. To develop charger versus a 24 V (Product Class 6) the charger design and therefore the an engineering analysis for this product charger. Manufacturers indicated during costs associated with CSL 3 are too high class, DOE relied on, among other manufacturer interviews that, holding in DOE’s analysis. (California Energy things, the results gleaned from Product constant all other factors, there would Commission, No. 117 at p. 16) CEC also Class 5, interviews with manufacturers, likely be minimal change, if any, in the commented that for these product and its limited test data from Product cost. Therefore, because DOE scaled classes, DOE’s results show that units at Class 6. performance assuming that the designs the max tech levels, or CSL 3, perform The difference between Product Class for corresponding CSLs in each product worse in active mode efficiency levels 5 and Product Class 6 is the range of class used the same design options and in units lower than CSL 2. (California voltages that are covered. Product Class only differed in voltage, DOE did not Energy Commission, No. 117 at p. 16) 5 covers low-voltage (less than 20 V) scale costs from Product Class 5. Rather For Product Classes 5 and 6, CSL 3 is and medium energy (100 Wh to 3,000 than scaling the Product Class 5 costs, the maximum technologically feasible Wh) products, while Product Class 6 DOE used the same MSPs for Product level analyzed by DOE. By definition, covers high-voltage (greater than or Class 6 that were developed from IHS these products were not found to be equal to 20 V) and medium energy (100 Technology teardown data for Product present in the market. The NOPR and Wh to 3,000 Wh) products. The Class 5. CEC and NRDC commented that Chapter 5 of the accompanying SNOPR representative unit examined for while Product Classes 5 and 6 share the TSD both indicate that manufacturers Product Class 5 is a 12 V, 800 Wh same costs, DOE should use lower cost support non-novel improvements in battery charger, while the representative estimates for units that are less improving the efficiency of the SCR unit analyzed for Product Class 6 is a 24 powerful. (California Energy (semiconductor rectifier) and switch V, 400 Wh battery charger. Despite the Commission, No. 117 at p. 16; NRDC, mode topologies. However, these change in voltage, DOE believes that No. 114 at p. 7) DOE is not persuaded improvements would not result in similar technology options and battery that lower cost estimates for less compliance with CSL 3 and that only by charging strategies are available in both powerful units would accurately reflect introducing a relay to bring the non- classes. Both chargers are used with costs for Product Classes 5 and 6 active and maintenance mode energy relatively large sealed, lead-acid because this assertion is contrary to use to zero could this level be met. batteries in products like electric statements made during interviews with Manufacturers and subject matter scooters and electric lawn mowers. manufacturers during the NOPR stage of experts were consulted to verify the However, since the battery chargers in this analysis. Additionally, many of the costs with making these changes. Product Class 6 work with higher battery chargers in Product Classes 5 Concerning the drop in active mode voltages, current can be reduced for the and 6 are multi-voltage, multi-capacity efficiency identified by CEC, DOE found same output power, which creates the chargers, therefore, costs typically a calculation error in E24 use for these potential for making these devices reflecting component costs required to products that caused this error in the slightly more efficient because I2R achieve the higher power range. representative UEC values. The errors losses24 will be reduced. Consequently, varying cost by power have been corrected and updated results DOE examined as part of its NOPR levels in the manner suggested by these can be seen in Table IV–8 and Table IV– and this SNOPR its Product Class 5 commenters would be inappropriate. 9.
24 At a basic level, I2R losses are the power losses a component’s electrical resistance. In electrical are the result of high levels of current flow through caused by the flow of an electrical current through circuits, I2R losses manifest themselves as heat and a device.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52881
TABLE IV–8—PRODUCT CLASS 5 (MEDIUM-ENERGY, LOW-VOLTAGE) ENGINEERING ANALYSIS RESULTS
CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3
CSL Description ...... Baseline Intermediate Best in Market Max Tech 24-Hour Energy (Wh) ...... 2036.9 1647.3 1292.00 1025.64 Maintenance Mode Power (W) ...... 21.2 11.9 0.50 0.0 No-Battery Mode Power (W) ...... 20.1 11.6 0.30 0.0 Off-Mode Power (W) ...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unit Energy Consumption (kWh/yr) ...... 84.60 56.09 21.39 9.11 Incremental MSP [$] ...... $18.48 $21.71 $26.81 $127.00
TABLE IV–9—PRODUCT CLASS 6 (MEDIUM-ENERGY, HIGH-VOLTAGE) ENGINEERING ANALYSIS RESULTS
CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3
CSL Description ...... Baseline Intermediate Best in Market Max Tech 24-Hour Energy (Wh) ...... 891.6 786.1 652.00 466.20 Maintenance Mode Power (W) ...... 10.6 6.0 0.50 0.0 No-Battery Mode Power (W) ...... 10.0 5.8 0.30 0.0 Off-Mode Power (W) ...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unit Energy Consumption (kWh/yr) ...... 120.60 81.72 33.53 8.15 Incremental MSP [$] ...... $18.48 $21.71 $26.81 $127.00
DOE received a comment from NRDC 8) No other comments specific to DOE’s and no changes were made to its results, supporting the proposed standards for costs for Product Class 7 were received which are presented in Table IV–10. Product Class 7. (NRDC, No. 114 at p.
TABLE IV–10—PRODUCT CLASS 7 (HIGH-ENERGY) ENGINEERING ANALYSIS RESULTS
CSL 0 CSL 1 CSL 2
CSL Description ...... Baseline Intermediate Max Tech 24-Hour Energy (Wh) ...... 5884.2 5311.1 4860.0 Maintenance Mode Power (W) ...... 10.0 3.3 2.6 No-Battery Mode Power (W) ...... 0.0 1.5 0.0 Off-Mode Power (W) ...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 Unit Energy Consumption (kWh/yr) ...... 255.05 191.74 131.44 Incremental MSP [$] ...... $88.07 $60.86 $164.14
DOE requests stakeholder comments one flat, nominal standard. For this impact of battery energy on UECs that on the updated engineering analysis product class, test data showed that were calculated for Product Class 1. results presented in this analysis for battery energy appeared to have little Finally, when DOE was developing its Products Classes 2–6. impact on UEC. In response to these CSL equations for UEC, it found during data, DOE received comment from testing that the correlation between 10. Scaling of Battery Charger Candidate several interested parties, ITI, CEA, and points at low battery energies was much Standard Levels NRDC, who requested that Product worse than for the rest of the range of In preparing its proposed standards Class 1 be scaled similarly to the other battery energy, which indicated that the for products within a product class product classes by battery energy. (ITI, initial equations DOE had initially (which would address all battery No. 134 at p. 6, 7; ITI. Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. planned to use did not match the test energies and voltages falling within that 104 at p. 46; CEA, No. 106 at p. 5; results. To address this situation, DOE class), DOE used a UEC scaling NRDC, No. 114 at p. 8) Similarly, generated a boundary condition for its approach. After developing the Duracell suggested that if DOE declined CSL equations, which essentially engineering analysis results for the to update its usage profile assumptions, flattens the UEC below a certain representative units, DOE had to discussed later in section IV.F, then threshold of battery energy to recognize determine a methodology for extending DOE should maintain its current use that below certain values, fixed power the UEC at each CSL to all other ratings assumptions and adopt the formula for components of UEC, such as not directly analyzed for a given determining the maximum UEC limit maintenance mode power, dominate product class. In the NOPR, DOE that was proposed for Product Class 2. UEC. Making this change helped DOE to proposed making UEC a function of (Duracell, No. 109 at p. 1) DOE found create a better-fitting equation to battery energy. DOE also indicated that in testing that UEC for Product Class 1 account for these types of conditions to it based this proposed UEC function on did not vary with battery energy or ensure that any standards that are set the test data that had been obtained up voltage, so DOE opted to maintain its better reflect the particular through the NOPR. approach proposed in the NOPR to characteristics of a given product. For Product Classes 2–7, DOE created adopt a constant standard across all The CEC and the CA IOUs equations for UEC that scale with battery energies. No changes were made commented on the use of boundary battery energy. In contrast, for Product to the updated SNOPR TSD for the conditions in certain product classes. Class 1, each CSL was represented by reasons stated above regarding the CEC requested that DOE, where
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52882 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
possible, reduce the number of product chargers are approximations of the evidence is lacking with respect to classes by creating a single product class battery charger markups. appliance retailer markup practices where the scaling and boundary In the case of battery chargers, the when a product increases in cost (due condition transition seamlessly from dominant path to market typically to increased efficiency or other factors). one product class to the other. involves an end-use product DOE understands that real-world (California Energy Commission, No. 117 manufacturer (i.e., an original retailer markup practices vary at p. 26, 29) While the CA IOUs were equipment manufacturer or ‘‘OEM’’) and depending on market conditions and on concerned that the boundary condition retailer. DOE developed OEM and the magnitude of the change in cost of creates a scenario where voltage can be retailer markups by examining annual goods sold (CGS) associated with an adjusted to exploit the standards for financial filings, such as Securities and increase in appliance efficiency. DOE Product Classes 2–4, (CA IOUs, No. 138 Exchange Commission (SEC) 10–K acknowledges that detailed information at p. 20), DOE’s approach separates reports, from more than 80 publicly on actual retail practices would be product classes as described in Chapter traded OEMs, retailers, and distributors helpful in evaluating changes in 3 of the SNOPR TSD and section IV.A.3 engaged in the manufacturing and/or markups on products after appliance of this SNOPR. When setting standards, sales of consumer applications that use standards take effect. For this this segregation of product classes battery chargers. rulemaking, DOE requested data from should adequately address the natural DOE calculated two markups for each stakeholders in support of alternative groupings of products in the market. product in the markups analysis. A approaches to markups, as well as any Accordingly, DOE made no changes to markup applied to the baseline data that shed light on actual practices its proposed product class distinctions component of a product’s cost (referred by retailers; however, no such data were as part of its SNOPR analysis. to as a baseline markup) and a markup provided. Thus, DOE’s analysis applied to the incremental cost increase Concerning the scaling of specific continues using an approach that is that would result from energy product classes, DOE received several consistent with the conventionally- conservation standards (referred to as an comments. Duracell commented that the accepted economic theory of firm incremental markup). The incremental standards for Product Class 1, inductive behavior in competitive markets. markup relates the change in the MSP chargers, seem to underlay stricter Chapter 6 of the SNOPR TSD provides of higher-efficiency models (the standards than comparable products details on DOE’s development of incremental cost increase) to the change that are galvanic-coupled, such as markups for battery chargers. in the retailer’s selling price. Product Class 2. (Duracell, No. 109 at p. Commenting on retail markups, E. Energy Use Analysis 1) NRDC and CEC both support DOE’s Phillips, Schumacher, and Wahl Clipper The energy use analysis estimates the engineering results and proposed stated that the concept of margins is range of energy use of battery chargers standard for Product Class 1. (NRDC, very significant to retailers, and it is not in the field, i.e., as they are actually No. 114 at p. 8; California Energy realistic to predict that retailers will used by consumers. The energy use Commission, No. 117 at p. 28) DOE voluntarily reduce their profit margins. analysis provides the basis for the other notes that Product Class 1, as stated (Philips, No. 128 at p. 6; Schumacher, analyses DOE uses when assessing the above, is not scaled, which could give No. 182 at p. 6; Wahl Clipper, No 153 costs and benefits of setting standards the mistaken impression that Product at p. 2) Motorola commented that for a given product. Particularly Class 1 has a stricter standard compared retailers will not be willing to lower dependent on the energy analysis are to other product class applications that their markups because product assessments of the energy savings and allow for higher energy consumption as efficiency has increased. (Motorola the savings in consumer operating costs battery energy increased. However, as Mobility, No. 121 at p. 4) In contrast, that could result from the adoption of indicated in the NOPR, DOE determined PTI stated that DOE’s estimates of new or amended standards. that the UEC for this product class did markups are sufficient for the purposes Battery chargers are power conversion not vary with battery energy or voltage, of the analysis. (PTI, No. 133 at p. 6) devices that transform input voltage to thereby eliminating the need to scale. DOE recognizes that retailers may a suitable voltage for the battery they are For additional details and the exact seek to preserve margins. However, powering. A portion of the energy that CSL equations developed for each DOE’s approach assumes that appliance flows into a battery charger flows out to product class, please see Chapter 5 in retail markets are reasonably a battery and, thus, cannot be the accompanying SNOPR TSD. competitive, so that an increase in the considered to be consumed by the manufacturing cost of appliances is not D. Markups Analysis battery charger. However, to provide the likely to contribute to a proportionate necessary output power, other factors The markups analysis develops rise in retail profits, as would be contribute to the battery charger energy appropriate markups in the distribution expected to happen if markups consumption, e.g., internal losses and chain to convert the MSP estimates remained constant. DOE’s methodology overhead circuitry.26 Therefore, the derived in the engineering analysis to for estimating markups is based on a traditional method for calculating consumer prices. At each step in the mix of economic theory, consultation energy consumption—by measuring the distribution channel, companies mark with industry experts, and data from energy a product draws from mains 25 up the price of the product to cover appliance retailers. In conducting while performing its intended business costs and profit margin. Given research, DOE has found that empirical function(s)—is not appropriate for a the variety of products that use battery battery charger because that method 25 chargers, distribution varies depending An extensive discussion of the methodology would not factor in the energy delivered on the product class and application. As and justification behind DOE’s general approach to markups calculation is presented in Larry Dale, et such, similar to the approach used in al., ‘‘An Analysis of Price Determination and 26 Internal losses are energy losses that occur the NOPR, DOE assumed that the Markups in the Air-Conditioning and Heating during the power conversion process. Overhead dominant path to market establishes the Equipment Industry.’’ LBNL–52791 (2004). circuitry refers to circuits and other components of retail price and, thus, the markup for a Available for download at http://eetd.lbl.gov/sites/ the battery charger, such as monitoring circuits, all/files/an_analysis_of_price_determiniation_and_ logic circuits, and LED indicator lights, that given application. The markups applied markups_in_the_air_conditioning_and_heating_ consume power but do not directly contribute to end-use products that use battery equipment_industry_lbnl-52791.pdf≤ power to the end-use application.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52883
by the battery charger to the battery, and that it believed would be more (manufacturer selling price, distribution thus would overstate the battery applicable to toothbrushes and shavers. chain markups, sales tax, and charger’s energy consumption. Instead, DOE has based its estimate of the usage installation costs) plus operating costs DOE considered energy consumption to profile on responses from the (expenses for energy use, maintenance, be the energy dissipated by the battery manufacturer interviews and believes and repair). To compute the operating chargers (losses) and not delivered to that it has accurately described usage for costs, DOE discounts future operating the battery as a more accurate means to battery chargers in Product Classes 1 costs to the time of purchase and sums determine the energy consumption of and 2, and did not make changes to them over the lifetime of the product. these products. Once the energy and these usage profiles for the SNOPR. • The PBP (payback period) is the power requirements of those batteries PTI and AHAM both voiced support estimated amount of time (in years) it were determined, DOE considered them for the usage profiles presented by DOE takes consumers to recover the fixed, and DOE focused its analysis on in the NOPR. PTI commented that DOE increased purchase cost (including how standards would affect the energy accurately captured variations in the installation) of a more-efficient product consumption of battery chargers commercial and residential use of through lower operating costs. DOE themselves. power tools in its product class average calculates the PBP by dividing the Applying a single usage profile to usage profiles. (PTI, No. 133 at p. 3) change in purchase cost at higher each application, DOE calculated the While AHAM commented that DOE efficiency levels by the change in unit energy consumption for battery could more accurately capture the usage annual operating cost for the year that chargers. In addition, as a sensitivity of infrequently used product classes, amended or new standards are assumed analysis, DOE examined the usage AHAM supported DOE’s efforts to to take effect. profiles of multiple user types for consider the variation in usage for For any given efficiency level, DOE applications where usage varies widely battery chargers and recommended that measures the change in LCC relative to (for example, a light user and a heavy DOE reevaluate these usage profiles in an estimate of the base-case product user). the future to more accurately quantify efficiency distribution. The base case In response to the NOPR, stakeholders the usage profiles for infrequently distribution reflects the market in the suggested alternative usage profiles for charged products. (AHAM, No. 124 at p. absence of new or amended energy two applications. Delta-Q recommended 7) Based on these comments, DOE saw conservation standards, including alternate usage profiles for golf cart no need to alter its usage profiles. market trends for products that exceed battery chargers used in the residential Responding to the NOPR, the CEC the current energy conservation and commercial sectors. These submitted comments stating that it standards. In contrast, the PBP is suggested usage profiles assumed higher found inconsistencies between the measured relative to the baseline levels of time in active and maintenance NOPR TSD, energy use spreadsheet, and product. modes and no time in unplugged mode. the NIA spreadsheet. These errors were For each considered efficiency level (Delta-Q, No. 113 at p. 1) For the NOPR, with the CSL 0 and CSL 1 24-hour in each product class, DOE calculated DOE based its estimate of the golf cart energy assumption and the average unit the LCC and PBP for a nationally usage profile on responses from the energy consumption estimates, representative set of consumers. For manufacturer interviews. The usage particularly for battery charger Product each sampled consumer, DOE profile suggested by Delta-Q is Class 2. (California Energy Commission, determined the energy consumption for consistent with the stakeholder- No. 117 at p. 9) the battery charger and the appropriate provided data that currently underlie In light of the CEC’s observation, DOE electricity price. By developing a DOE’s golf cart battery charger usage reviewed its spreadsheet and confirmed representative sample of consumers, the profile. Based on these estimates, the that the energy use analysis contained analysis captured the variability in usage profiles developed for the NOPR an error in the 24-hour energy values for energy consumption and energy prices have accurately described usage for golf CSLs 0 and 1 for Product Class 2. DOE associated with the use of battery cart battery charges and no changes to has since rectified this error, and chargers. the updated analysis were required. revised the engineering and energy use Inputs to the calculation of total Duracell recommended that DOE analyses in its updated SNOPR TSD. installed cost include the cost of the adopt one of three alternative The corrected 24-hour energy values product—which includes MSPs, approaches to capturing usage profiles resulted in a small increase in UECs in manufacturer markups, retailer and and energy use for inductive battery the energy use analysis. distributor markups, and sales taxes— chargers. (Duracell, No. 109 at p. 1) and installation costs. Inputs to the First, it requested that DOE allow each F. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period calculation of operating expenses inductive battery charger manufacturer Analyses include annual energy consumption, to apply use conditions based on the DOE conducted LCC and PBP energy prices and price projections, typical use of its products. However, analyses to evaluate the economic repair and maintenance costs, product DOE believes this approach to be impacts on individual consumers from lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE infeasible, as it would be potential battery charger energy created distributions of values for administratively burdensome for DOE conservation standards. The effect of product lifetime, discount rates, and with its limited resources to verify the new or amended energy conservation sales taxes, with probabilities attached individual usage profiles applied by standards on individual consumers to each value, to account for their each manufacturer for each product to usually involves a reduction in uncertainty and variability. determine compliance with the given operating cost and an increase in The computer model DOE uses to standard. DOE notes that its proposed purchase cost. DOE used the following calculate the LCC and PBP, which approach relies on usage profiles based two metrics to measure consumer incorporates Crystal BallTM (a on available data and provides a impacts: commercially-available software reasonable average usage approximation • The LCC (life-cycle cost) is the total program), relies on a Monte Carlo of the products falling within each consumer expense of an appliance or simulation to incorporate uncertainty proposed class. Second, Duracell asked product over the life of that product, and variability into the analysis. The DOE to adopt a revised usage profile consisting of total installed cost Monte Carlo simulations randomly
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52884 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
sample input values from the battery chargers manufactured 2 years this SNOPR. The subsections that follow probability distributions and battery after the date on which any final provide further discussion on these charger user samples. The model amended standard is published. For this inputs and the comments DOE received calculated the LCC and PBP for SNOPR, DOE estimates publication of a regarding its presentation of the LCC products at each efficiency level for final rule in 2016. Therefore, for and PBP analyses in the NOPR, as well 10,000 consumers per simulation run. purposes of its analysis, DOE used 2018 as DOE’s responses. Details of the DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for as the first year of compliance with any spreadsheet model, and of all the inputs all consumers as if each were to amended standards. to the LCC and PBP analyses, are purchase a new product in the year that Table IV–11 summarizes the approach contained in chapter 8 and its compliance with any amended and data that DOE used to derive the appendices of the SNOPR TSD. standards is expected to be required. inputs to the LCC and PBP calculations Any national standards would apply to for the NOPR and the changes made for
TABLE IV–11—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE NOPR AND SNOPR LCC AND PBP ANALYSES
Inputs March 2012 NOPR Changes for the SNOPR
Manufacturer Selling Derived from the Engineering Analysis through manufacturer interviews Adjusted component breakdowns and prices Price. and test/teardown results. based on updated cost data from IHS Technology and SME feedback for Prod- uct Classes 2 through 6. Markups ...... Considered various distribution channel pathways for different applica- No change. tions. Applied a reduced ‘‘incremental’’ markup to the portion of the product price exceeding the baseline price. See Chapter 6 of the SNOPR TSD for details. Sales Tax ...... Derived weighted-average tax values for each Census division and large Updated the sales tax using the latest infor- state from data provided by the Sales Tax Clearinghouse.1 mation from the Sales Tax Clearing- house.2 Installation Costs ..... Assumed to be zero ...... No change. Annual Energy Use Determined for each application based on battery characteristics and No change. usage profiles.. Energy Prices ...... Price: Based on EIA’s 2008 Form EIA–861 data.3 Variability: Regional en- Updated to EIA’s 2012 Form EIA–861 data.4 ergy prices determined for 13 regions. DOE also considered subgroup Separated top tier and peak time-of-use analyses using electricity prices for low-income consumers and top tier consumers into separate subgroup anal- marginal price consumers. yses. Energy Price Trends Forecasted with EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2010 5 ...... Updated with EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2014.6 Repair and Mainte- Assumed to be zero ...... No change. nance Costs. Product Lifetime ...... Determined for each application based on multiple data sources See No change. chapter 3 of the SNOPR TSD for details.. Discount Rates ...... Residential: Approach based on the finance cost of raising funds to pur- Residential: DOE updated the calculations to chase and operate battery chargers either through the financial cost of consider the geometric means for all time- any debt incurred (based on the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer series data from 1984–2013. DOE added Finances data 7 for 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, and 2007) or data from the Federal Reserve’s Survey of the opportunity cost of any equity used. Time-series data was based on Consumer Finances for 2010. geometric means from 1980–2009. Commercial: DOE updated all sources to the Commercial: Derived discount rates using the cost of capital of publicly- most recent version (Damodaran Online traded firms based on data from Damodaran Online,8 the Value Line In- and the OMB Circular No. A–94). vestment survey,9 and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular No. A–94.10 DOE used a 40-year average return on 10-year treasury notes to derive the risk-free rate. DOE updated the equity risk premium to use the geometric average return on the S&P 500 over a 40-year time period. Sectors Analyzed .... All reference case results represent a weighted average of the residential No change. and commercial sectors. Base Case Market Where possible, DOE derived market efficiency distributions for specific No change. Efficiency Distribu- applications within a product class. tion. Compliance Date ..... 2013 ...... 2018. 1 The four large States are New York, California, Texas, and Florida. 2 Sales Tax Clearinghouse, Aggregate State Tax Rates. Available at: https://thestc.com/STRates.stm. 3 U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. Form EIA–861 Final Data File for 2008. May, 2014. Washington, D.C. Avail- able at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html. 4 U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. Form EIA–861 Final Data File for 2012. September, 2012. Washington, D.C. Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html. 5 U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2010. November, 2010. Washington, D.C. Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/. 6 U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2014. April, 2014. Washington, D.C. Available at: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/. 7 The Federal Reserve Board, Survey of Consumer Finances. Available at: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/scfindex.html. 8 Damodaran Online Data Page, Historical Returns on Stocks, Bonds and Bills—United States, 2010. Available at: http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/ ∼adamodar. 9 Value Line. Value Line Investment Survey. Available at: http://www.valueline.com. 10 U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular No. A–94. Appendix C. 2009. Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a094_ a94_appx-c/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52885
1. Product Cost chargers. However, DOE believes that and the NPV results from the associated a. Manufacturer Selling Price these indexes are sufficiently broad that sensitivity cases, are described in they may not accurately capture the appendix 10–B of the SNOPR TSD. In the preliminary analysis, DOE used trend for battery chargers. Furthermore, 2. Installation Cost a combination of test and teardown battery chargers are not typical results and manufacturer interview consumer products; they more closely As detailed in the NOPR, DOE results to develop MSPs. DOE resemble commodities that OEMs considered installation costs to be zero conducted tests and teardowns on a purchase. for battery chargers because installation large number of additional units and Given the uncertainty involved with would typically entail a consumer applications for the NOPR, and these products, DOE did not incorporate simply unpacking the battery charger incorporated these findings into the product price changes into the NOPR from the box in which it was sold and MSP. For the SNOPR, DOE adjusted analysis and is not including them in connecting the device to mains power component breakdowns and prices this SNOPR. For the NIA, DOE also and its associated battery. Because the based on updated cost data from IHS analyzed the sensitivity of results to two cost of this ‘‘installation’’ (which may be Technology (formerly i-Suppli) and alternative battery charger price considered temporary, as intermittently SME feedback for Product Classes 2, 3, forecasts. Appendix 10–B of the SNOPR used devices might be unplugged for 4, 5 and 6. DOE adjusted its MSPs based TSD describes the derivation of storage) is not quantifiable in dollar on these changes. Further detail on the alternative price forecasts. terms, DOE considered the installation MSPs can be found in chapter 5 of the cost to be zero. SNOPR TSD. b. Markups DOE received comments responding Examination of historical price data DOE applies a series of markups to to its installation cost methodology. for a number of appliances that have the MSP to account for the various NEMA asserted that the results of the been subject to energy conservation distribution chain markups applied to LCC cost and PBP analysis did not standards indicates that an assumption the analyzed product. These markups accurately reflect the impact to industry of constant real prices and costs may are evaluated for each application as the cost of implementation was overestimate long-term trends in individually, depending on its path to consistently underestimated, resulting appliance prices. Economic literature market. Additionally, DOE splits its in an overestimation of savings. NEMA and historical data suggest that the real markups into ‘‘baseline’’ and noted that the LCC and PBP calculations costs of these products may in fact trend ‘‘incremental’’ markups. The baseline did not include installation costs and downward over time according to markup is applied to the entire MSP of the cost of implementation failed to ‘‘learning’’ or ‘‘experience’’ curves. On the baseline product. The incremental include safety and reliability regression February 22, 2011, DOE published a markups are then applied to the testing. In its view, this testing ensures Notice of Data Availability (NODA) marginal increase in MSP over the the long term intended efficiency gains stating that DOE may consider refining baseline’s MSP. Further detail on the resulting from changes made to address its analysis by addressing equipment markups can be found in chapter 6 of the limits. NEMA criticized the price trends. (76 FR 9696) It also raised the SNOPR TSD. proposed scope as being too broad and the possibility that once sufficient long- the limits too severe, both of which term data are available on the cost or c. Sales Tax would force manufacturers to withdraw price trends for a given product subject As in the NOPR, DOE obtained State systems from the marketplace until to energy conservation standards (such and local sales tax data from the Sales testing is concluded. NEMA asserted as battery chargers), DOE would Tax Clearinghouse. The data that shipping cycle times also impact consider these data to forecast future represented weighted averages that the availability in the marketplace; some trends. include county and city rates. DOE used of these products are already sourced To forecast a price trend for the the data to compute population- from Asia where a 90-day cycle time for NOPR, DOE considered the experience weighted average tax values for each shipping by ocean is a necessity due to curve approach, in which an experience Census division and four large States the low margins associated with rate parameter is derived using two (New York, California, Texas, and consumer products. (NEMA, No. 134 at historical data series on price and Florida). For the SNOPR, DOE retained p. 2) NEEA pointed out that the LCC cumulative production. But in the this methodology and used updated focuses on incremental costs, rather absence of historical shipments of sales tax data from the Sales Tax than overall costs. It noted that it would battery chargers and sufficient historical Clearinghouse.28 DOE also obtained be very difficult to find data supporting Producer Price Index (PPI) data for updated population estimates from the an installation cost that increases with small electrical appliance U.S. Census Bureau for this SNOPR.29 increasing efficiency levels. (NEEA, manufacturing from the U.S. Pub. Mtg. Transcript, No. 104 at p. 200) Department of Labor’s Bureau of Labor d. Product Price Forecast NEMA did not give examples of Statistics’ (BLS),27 DOE could not use As noted in section IV.F, to derive its systems which may be removed from this approach. This situation is partially central estimates DOE assumed no the market as a result of safety and due to the nature of battery charger change in battery charger prices over the reliability testing. In addition, LCC designs. Battery chargers are made up of 2018–2047 period. In addition, DOE analysis calculations only take into many electrical components whose size, conducted a sensitivity analysis using account the cost to consumers across the cost, and performance rapidly change, two alternative price trends based on lifetime of the product. Safety and which leads to relatively short design AEO price indexes. These price trends, reliability regression testing would not lifetimes. DOE also considered be a cost to the consumer, but rather a performing an exponential fit on the 28 Sales Tax Clearinghouse, Aggregate State Tax cost to the manufacturer. The MIA deflated AEO’s Projected Price Indexes Rates. https://thestc.com/STRates.stm. accounts for safety and reliability 29 The U.S. Census Bureau. Annual Estimates of regression testing as it is already that most narrowly include battery the Population for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2010 to July 1, incorporated into their product 27 Series ID PCU33521–33521; http:// 2013. http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/ conversion costs. Adding these costs to www.bls.gov/ppi/. totals/2013/tables/NST-EST2013-01.xls. the LCC calculations would inaccurately
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52886 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
inflate the impact of these costs by 5. Repair and Maintenance Costs between repurchasing a lithium battery effectively accounting for them twice in In the NOPR analysis, DOE did not instead of a nickel battery, the increase the analysis. DOE agrees with the consider repair or maintenance costs for when purchasing the initial battery was comments made by NEEA, as any battery chargers. In making this not considered for the analysis. Thus, installation costs would likely be decision, DOE recognized that in some DOE determined that the maintenance constant across all battery charger cases the service life of a stand-alone cost did not apply to the battery charger efficiency levels and would have no battery charger typically exceeds that of unit subject to the proposed standard, impact when comparing LCCs between the consumer product it powers. and removed all maintenance costs from CSLs in the analysis. Accordingly, DOE Furthermore, DOE noted that the cost to the SNOPR LCC analysis. Further detail maintained its assumption that zero repair the battery charger might exceed on maintenance costs can be found in installation costs would continue to the initial purchase cost, as these chapter 8, section 8.2.5 of the SNOPR 30 apply. products are relatively low cost items. TSD. 3. Annual Energy Consumption Thus, DOE estimated that it would be 6. Product Lifetime extremely unlikely that a consumer For the NOPR analysis, DOE The SNOPR analysis uses the same would incur repair or maintenance costs considered the lifetime of a battery approach for determining UECs as the for a battery charger. Also, if a battery charger to be from the moment it is approach used in the NOPR. The UEC charger failed, DOE expects that purchased for end-use up until the time was determined for each application consumers would typically discard the when it is permanently retired from based on battery characteristics and battery charger and purchase a service. Because the typical battery usage profiles. As a result of new testing replacement. DOE received no charger is purchased for use with a and teardowns, described above, DOE comments challenging this assumption single associated application, DOE updated some or all of the UEC values and has continued relying on this assumed that it would remain in service for battery charger Product Classes 2, 3, assumption for purposes of calculating for as long as the application does. Even 4, 5 and 6 for the SNOPR. The same the SNOPR’s potential costs and though many of the technology options approach and equations used to benefits. to improve battery charger efficiencies calculate the representative unit UECs Although DOE did not assume any may result in an increased useful life for remain consistent with the NOPR. repair or maintenance costs would the battery charger, the lifetime of the Further detail on the UEC calculations apply generally to battery chargers, DOE battery charger is still directly tied to can be found in section IV.E of this included a maintenance cost for the the lifetime of its associated application. notice and in chapter 7 of the SNOPR replacement of lithium ion batteries in The typical consumer will not continue TSD. certain battery charger applications in to use a battery charger once its the NOPR analysis. Through 4. Energy Prices application has been discarded. For this conversations with manufacturers and reason, DOE used the same lifetime DOE determined energy prices by subject matter experts, DOE learned that estimate for the baseline and standard deriving regional average prices for 13 such batteries would need replacing level designs of each application for the geographic areas consisting of the nine within the service life of the battery LCC and PBP analyses. U.S. Census divisions, with four large charger for certain applications based on Following the NOPR, Lester States (New York, Florida, Texas, and the battery lifetime and the usage profile encouraged DOE to carefully consider California) treated separately. The assigned to the application. Lithium ion differences in product longevity in their derivation of prices was based on the batteries are marginally more expensive LCC and PBP model. They noted that in latest available EIA data, covering 2012. than batteries with nickel chemistries Product Class 7, CSL 0 and CSL 1 In the NOPR analysis, DOE used data (e.g. ‘‘Ni-MH’’), as explained in chapter products employed significantly from EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 5 of accompanying SNOPR TSD. The different technologies that have (AEO) 2010 to project electricity prices NOPR analysis accounted for this considerably different lifetimes; the to the end of the product lifetime.31 For marginal cost increase of those difference in product longevity could this SNOPR, DOE used the final release applications at CSLs that require the use result in major changes to the DOE LCC of the AEO2014,32 which contained of lithium batteries. This maintenance and PBP model. (Lester Electrical, No. reference, high- and low-economic- cost only applied to applications where 139 at p. 3) DOE notes that because the growth scenarios. DOE received no DOE believed the lifetime of the lifetime of the battery charger is directly comments on the electricity price application would surpass the lifetime tied to the lifetime of its associated forecasts it used in its NOPR analyses. of the battery. DOE estimated the battery application, improved technologies lifetime based on the total number of affecting the lifetime of the battery 30 DOE notes that ‘‘installation costs’’ are not the charges the battery could handle charger will not change the effective same as ‘‘installed costs.’’ ‘‘Installation costs’’ refer divided by the number of charges per lifetime for the typical consumer. In the to the costs incurred to install a given product—in year projected for the application. DOE absence of adverse comments to DOE’s this case, to plug the charger into the electrical relied on data provided by outlet in order to use it. In contrast, ‘‘installed approach, DOE is continuing to use it in costs’’ refer to the costs incurred to obtain and use manufacturers to estimate the total the SNOPR analysis. Further detail on the product. These costs, as noted earlier, include number of charges the battery could product lifetimes and how they relate to the cost of the product—which includes MSPs, undergo before expiring. See chapter 8, applications can be found in chapter 3 manufacturer markups, retailer and distributor section 8.2.5 of the accompanying of the SNOPR TSD. markups, and sales taxes—as well as any SNOPR TSD. installation costs that might apply. 7. Discount Rates 31 U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information For the SNOPR, DOE determined that Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2010. the maintenance costs included in the The NOPR analysis derived November, 2010. Washington, DC http:// NOPR LCC analysis were not residential discount rates by identifying www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/. comparable to the costs associated with all possible debt or asset classes that 32 U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information might be used to purchase and operate Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2014. May, those applications that had no 2014. Washington, DC http://www.eia.gov/ maintenance costs. While the NOPR products, including household assets forecasts/aeo/. costs considered the increase in price that might be affected indirectly. DOE
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52887
estimated the average shares of the commercial sectors, respectively. For manufacturers must manufacture various debt and equity classes in the further details on discount rates, see products that comply with the standard. average U.S. household equity and debt chapter 8 and appendix 8D of the DOE’s publication of a final rule in this portfolios using data from the Survey of SNOPR TSD. standards rulemaking is scheduled for Consumer Finances (SCF) from 1989 to completion by 2016. There are no 8. Sectors Analyzed 2007.33 DOE used the mean share of requirements for the compliance date each class across the seven sample years The NOPR analysis included an for battery charger standards, but DOE as a basis for estimating the effective examination of a weighted average of has chosen a two-year time period financing rate for products. DOE the residential and commercial sectors between publication and compliance for estimated interest or return rates as the reference case scenario. two reasons. First, manufacturers are associated with each type of equity Additionally, all application inputs already complying with the current CEC using data from the U.S. Federal were specified as either residential or standards, which suggests that a two- Reserve 34 and Damodaran. The analysis commercial sector data. Using these year time frame would be reasonable. calculates the risk-free rate using a 40- inputs, DOE then sampled each Second, this time-frame is consistent year average return on 10-year U.S. application based on its shipment with the one that DOE initially Treasury notes, as reported by the U.S. weighting and used the appropriate proposed to apply for external power Federal Reserve, and the equity risk residential or commercial inputs based supplies, which were previously premium using the geometric average on the sector of the sampled bundled together with battery chargers return on the S&P 500 over a 40-year application. This approach provided as part of DOE’s initial efforts to regulate time period. The mean real effective rate specificity as to the appropriate input both of these products. DOE calculated across the classes of household debt and values for each sector, and permitted an the LCCs for all consumers as if each equity, weighted by the shares of each examination of the LCC results for a would purchase a new product in the class, was 5.1 percent. given product class in total. DOE year that manufacturers would be For the commercial sector, DOE maintained this approach in the required to meet the new standard derived the discount rate from the cost SNOPR. For further details on sectors (2018). However, DOE bases the cost of of capital of publicly-traded firms that analyzed, see chapter 8 of the SNOPR the equipment on the most recently manufacture products that involve the TSD. available data, with all dollar values purchase of battery chargers. To obtain 9. Base Case Market Efficiency expressed in 2013$. an average discount rate value for the Distribution commercial sector, DOE used the share 11. Payback Period Inputs of each industry category in total paid For purposes of conducting the LCC The PBP is the amount of time it takes employees provided by BLS,35 as well analysis, DOE analyzed CSLs relative to the consumer to recover the additional as employment data from both the U.S. a base case (i.e., a case without new installed cost of more-efficient products, Office of Personnel Management 36 and Federal energy conservation standards). compared to baseline products, through the U.S. Census Bureau.37 By This analysis required an estimate of the energy cost savings. Payback periods are multiplying the discount rate for each distribution of product efficiencies in expressed in years. Payback periods that industry category by its share of paid the base case (i.e., what consumers exceed the life of the product mean that employees, DOE derived a commercial would have purchased in 2018 in the the increased total installed cost is not discount rate of 7.1 percent. absence of new Federal standards). recovered in reduced operating For the SNOPR, DOE used the same Rather than analyzing the impacts of a expenses. methodology as the NOPR with particular standard level assuming that The inputs to the PBP calculation for applicable updates to data sources. all consumers will purchase products at each efficiency level are the change in When deriving the residential discount the baseline efficiency level, DOE total installed cost of the product and rates, DOE added the 2010 Survey of conducted the analysis by taking into the change in the first-year annual Consumer Finances to their data set. For account the breadth of product energy operating expenditures relative to the all time-series data, DOE evaluated rates efficiencies that consumers are expected baseline. The PBP calculation uses the over the 30-year time period of 1984– to purchase under the base case. same inputs as the LCC analysis, except 2013. The new discount rates are In preparing the NOPR analysis, DOE that energy price trends and discount estimated to be 5.2 percent and 5.1 derived base case market efficiency rates are not needed; only energy prices percent in the residential and distributions that were specific to each for the year the standard becomes application where it had sufficient data required for compliance (2018 in this 33 The Federal Reserve Board, Survey of to do so. This approach helped to case) are needed. Consumer Finances. Available at: http:// ensure that the market distribution for EPCA, as amended, establishes a www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/ rebuttable presumption that a standard scfindex.html applications with fewer shipments was 34 The Federal Reserve Board, Statistical Releases not disproportionately skewed by the is economically justified if the Secretary and Historical Data, Selected Interest Rates market distribution of the applications finds that the additional cost to the (Daily)—H.15. http://www.federalreserve.gov/ with the majority of shipments. DOE consumer of purchasing a product releases/H15/data.htm. complying with an energy conservation 35 U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Labor Force factored into its efficiency distributions Statistics from the Current Population Survey. the current efficiency regulations in standard level will be less than three Table 17—Employed persons by Industry, Sex, California. See section IV.G.3). For this times the value of the first year’s energy Race, and Occupation. http://www.bls.gov/cps/ SNOPR, DOE maintained the savings resulting from the standard, as cpsaat17.pdf. calculated under the applicable test 36 U.S. Office of Personnel Management. Federal methodology for generating base case Employment Reports. Historical Federal Workforce market efficiency distributions used in procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) Tables. http://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/ the NOPR analysis. For each considered efficiency level, data-analysis-documentation/federal-employment- DOE determined the value of the first reports/historical-tables/total-government- 10. Compliance Date year’s energy savings by calculating the employment-since-1962. The compliance date is the date when energy savings in accordance with the 37 U.S. Census Bureau. Government Employment and Payroll. 2012 State and Local Government. a new standard becomes operative, i.e., applicable DOE test procedure, and http://www2.census.gov/govs/apes/12stlall.xls. the date by which battery charger multiplying those savings by the average
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52888 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
energy price forecast for the year in shipments of products were calculated detachable batteries. Results for all which compliance with the proposed based on current shipments of product battery charger applications are standards would be required. applications powered by battery contained in appendix 9A to the SNOPR DOE received a comment from ITI on chargers. The inventory model takes an TSD. The corresponding impacts on its PBP analysis. ITI pointed out that the accounting approach, tracking national energy savings (‘‘NES’’) and NOPR stated ‘‘a standard is remaining shipments and the vintage of NPV are included in appendix 10A. economically justified if the Secretary units in the existing stock for each year finds that the additional cost to the of the analysis period. 1. Shipment Growth Rate consumer of purchasing a product Based on comments received on the In the NOPR, DOE noted that the complying with an energy conservation Preliminary Analysis, DOE conducted a market for battery chargers grew standard level will be less than three sensitivity analysis to examine how tremendously in the previous ten years. times the value of the energy savings increases in end-use product prices Additionally, DOE found that many during the first year.’’ (ITI, No. 131 at p. resulting from standards might affect market reports had predicted enormous 6) shipment volumes. To DOE’s DOE’s LCC and PBP analyses generate future growth for the applications that knowledge, elasticity estimates are not values that calculate the PBP for employ battery chargers. However, in readily available in existing literature consumers of products subject to projecting the size of these markets over for battery chargers, or the end-use potential energy conservation standards, the next 30 years, DOE considered the consumer products that DOE is which includes, but is not limited to, possibility that much of the market analyzing in this rulemaking. Because the three-year PBP contemplated under growth associated with battery chargers some applications using battery chargers the rebuttable presumption test. had already occurred. In many reports could be considered more discretionary However, DOE routinely conducts a full predicting the growth of applications than major home appliances, which economic analysis that considers the that employ battery chargers, DOE noted have an estimated relative price that this growth was predicted for new full range of impacts, including those to ¥ 38 the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, elasticity of 0.34, DOE believed a applications, but older applications and environment, as required under 42 higher elasticity of demand was were generally not included. That is, U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) and 42 U.S.C. possible. In its sensitivity analysis, DOE battery charger demand did not grow, assumed a price elasticity of demand of but the products using these devices 6316(e)(1). The results of this analysis ¥ serve as the basis for DOE to definitively 1, meaning a given percentage have transitioned to a new product mix. evaluate the economic justification for a increase in the final product price For example, during its initial market potential standard level (thereby would be accompanied by that same assessment, DOE identified mobile supporting or rebutting the results of percentage decrease in shipments. phones, digital cameras, personal digital any preliminary determination of Even under this relatively high assistants, and MP3 players as economic justification). assumption for price elasticity of applications that use battery chargers. demand, DOE’s battery charger However, in the past several years, the G. Shipments Analysis standards are unlikely to have a use of smart phones, which can function Projections of product shipments are significant effect on the shipment as all four of these individual needed to forecast the impacts that volumes of those battery charger applications, has accelerated, and these standards are likely to have on the applications mentioned by stakeholders, individual products may no longer be Nation. DOE develops shipment with forecasted effects ranging from a sold in large volumes in the near future. projections based on an analysis of key decrease of 0.004 percent for electric A quantitative example of this is shown market drivers for each considered shavers to a decrease of 0.1 percent for in Table IV–12. (See chapter 9 of the product. In DOE’s shipments model, do-it-yourself (‘‘DIY’’) power tools with SNOPR TSD.)
TABLE IV–12—EXAMPLE OF PRODUCT TRANSITION
Application 2007 Shipments 2008 Shipments 2009 Shipments 2011 Shipments
Smart Phones ...... 19,500,000 28,555,000 41,163,000 110,178,600 Mobile Phones ...... 101,500,000 102,775,000 94,239,000 58,563,400 Personal Digital Assistants ...... 2,175,000 1,977,000 1,750,000 800,000 MP3 Players ...... 48,020,000 43,731,000 40,101,000 40,696,691
Total ...... 171,195,000 177,038,000 177,253,000 210,238,691
With this in mind, DOE based its that use battery chargers will grow at the purchase rate by using the projected shipments projections such that the per- same rate as the U.S. population. population growth rate as the capita consumption of battery chargers The NOPR analysis estimated future compound annual market growth rate. will remain steady over time, and that market size while assuming no change Population growth rate values were the overall number of individual units in the per-capita battery charger obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau
38 See http://ees.ead.lbl.gov/publications/ analysis-price-elasticity (last accessed January 13, 2015).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52889
2009 National Projections, which within a given product class, and the distribution of efficiency in the market. forecast U.S. resident population lifetimes of those applications. These It is also possible that DOE’s battery through 2050. DOE took the average values were combined to estimate the charger standards could cause other annual population growth rate, 0.75 percentage of units of a given vintage organizations to tighten their efficiency percent, and applied this rate to all remaining in use in each year following specifications as well. However, EPA’s battery charger product classes. the initial year in which those units ENERGY STAR program for battery For the SNOPR, DOE retained the were shipped and placed in service. chargers ended on December 30, 2014, same approach and updated the growth DOE received no comments regarding and the ENERGY STAR label is no rate from 0.75% to 0.62% using U.S. this methodology and maintained this longer available for this product Census Bureau projections released methodology for the SNOPR. For more category.41 Thus, DOE did not adjust its December 2012. information on the calculation of battery charger efficiency distributions NRDC commented that battery product class lifetime profiles, see to account for any potential market chargers shipments had been growing chapter 10 of the SNOPR TSD. effects of a future ENERGY STAR significantly faster than the growth program. shown in the NOPR, driven in part by 3. Forecasted Efficiency in the Base Case The CEC battery charger standards growth in consumer electronics and and Standards Cases that took effect in 2013, affect most, if portable appliances over the previous A key component of the NIA is the not all, of the battery chargers within few years. They suggested using a trend in energy efficiency forecasted for the scope of DOE’s rulemaking. In the growth rate of 4% in 2011, gradually the base case (without new and NOPR, DOE adjusted its base case declining to 0.75% by 2028 (reduction amended standards) and each of the efficiency distributions for battery of 0.2% per year). This would lead to standards cases. To project the trend in chargers to account for these standards shipment projections which are 32% efficiency over the entire forecast by assuming that, in the absence of higher in 2042 than what used in the period, DOE considered recent Federal standards, all battery chargers NOPR analysis. (NRDC, No. 114 at p. 19) standards, voluntary programs such as sold in California would meet the CEC The CA IOUs also asserted that battery ENERGY STAR, and other trends. standards. In the absence of market chargers shipments would grow faster For battery charger efficiency trends, share data, DOE assumed in the NOPR than the population. These faster growth DOE considered three key factors: that California’s share of the U.S. battery rates would increase the energy savings European standards, the EPA’s ENERGY charger market would be equivalent to attributable to the standards. The CA STAR program, and the battery charger its share of U.S. GDP (13 percent). IOUs stated that they supported the standards that took effect on February 1, Also in the NOPR, DOE recognized conclusions of NRDC, but did not 2013, in California. that the CEC standards may also raise present additional data of their own. The EU included battery chargers in the efficiency of battery chargers sold (CA IOUs, No. 138 at p. 20) a preparatory study on eco-design outside of California. However, the DOE recognizes that shipments for requirements that it published in magnitude of this effect could not be certain applications are increasing very January 2007.39 However, it has not yet determined. Nevertheless, to explore the rapidly. However, DOE researched announced plans to regulate battery full range of possibilities, DOE also product growth trends dating back to chargers. Thus, DOE did not adjust the evaluated the potential impacts of 2006 and found that other products, like efficiency distributions that it calculated Federal standards under the assumption digital cameras, have seen flat for battery chargers between the present- that the CEC standards become the de shipments. Some critical applications day and the compliance date in 2018 to facto standard for the nation, i.e., all have even had shipments decline year- account for European standards. battery chargers sold in the United over-year. There is also significant DOE examined the ENERGY STAR States just before the Federal standard convergence in the consumer voluntary program for battery charging takes effect meet the CEC standards. electronics industry, in which one new systems and found that as of October 19, This scenario represented an upper device may replace multiple retired 2012, less than 350 battery charging bound on the possible impacts of the devices (such as a single smart phone systems had been qualified.40 PTI CEC standards and a lower bound on replacing a mobile phone, digital commented that its members’ products the energy savings that could be camera, GPS device, and PDA). DOE make up a significant portion of the achieved by Federal standards. seeks to forecast shipments for battery ENERGY STAR Battery Charging Both during and after the NOPR chargers as a whole, but given the Systems listings. PTI claimed that, to public meeting, multiple stakeholders complexity of these markets, any the extent that DOE’s battery charger provided input on how the CEC attempts to forecast behavior of the standard would impact future revisions standards may impact products in market will be inherently inexact. to the ENERGY STAR criteria, then it is California and the rest of the Nation. Therefore, in this SNOPR, DOE decided possible that there would be The CEC commented that California’s to maintain its approach to use improvements in efficiency to some standards, in the absence of national population growth to project shipments, products in the market that already meet standards, would become the ‘‘de facto’’ but updated the value to match the the DOE standard. (PTI, No. 133 at p. 5) national standards. Thus, less stringent latest U.S. Census information: from DOE recognizes that unforeseen new standards—such as those proposed in 0.75% growth per year from the NOPR or revised energy efficiency the NOPR—would lead to greater to 0.62% growth rate in this SNOPR. In specifications are a possibility and that national energy consumption than if its shipment forecasts, DOE projects that these factors would impact the DOE took no action, which would ‘‘run by 2018, shipments of battery chargers afoul’’ of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3), which will be 4.4% percent greater than they 39 Available here: http://www.eceee.org/ mandates that DOE prescribe standards _ _ _ were in 2011. ecodesign/products/battery chargers/Final Report that results in the significant Lot7. 2. Product Class Lifetime 40 EPA, ‘‘Qualified Product (QP) List for ENERGY conservation of energy. The CEC further STAR Qualified Battery Charging Systems.’’ For the NOPR, DOE calculated Retrieved on October 18, 2012 from http:// 41 https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/ product class lifetime profiles using the downloads.energystar.gov/bi/qplist/Battery_ specs//BCS%20Final%20Decision%20Sunset%20 percentage of shipments of applications Charging_Systems_Product_List.xls?5728–8a42. Memo.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52890 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
argued that standards should be the Berkeley Research Group, PTI NOPR. (Delta-Q Technologies, No. 113 evaluated with a base case of no action, agreed with DOE that the CEC’s adopted at p. 1). in which case the adoption of standards for Product Classes 2–4 would For further details about the California’s standards and the adoption not be cost effective for the nation. (PTI, forecasted efficiency distributions, see of DOE’s proposed standards would No. 133 at p. 2) chapter 9 of the SNOPR TSD. DOE seeks lead to an increase in national energy For this SNOPR, DOE has revised its comments on its approach in updating consumption. The CEC also advised that base case efficiency distributions and the base case efficiency distributions for products sold in California that meet the now assumes that 95% of the market this rule using the CEC database. CEC standards would regress to lower meets the CEC standards. DOE based H. National Impacts Analysis efficiency levels should DOE adopt this assumption on a review of the The NIA assesses the national energy standards lower than those set by the existing market, both online and via in- savings (NES) and the NPV of total CEC because the CEC standards would store visits, and found that retailers consumer costs and savings that would be preempted. (California Energy nationwide, and not just in California, be expected to result from new and Commission, No. 117 at p. 2–6) are selling units complying with the amended standards at specific efficiency Earthjustice concurred with the CEC’s CEC standards. DOE acknowledges, levels. DOE calculates the NES and NPV claims, stating that DOE’s assumption however, that units not complying with that California’s standards will not based on projections of annual unit the current CEC standards can still be shipments, along with the annual impact products sold outside of sold outside of California, but believes California was arbitrary and contrary to energy consumption and total installed the percentage of such units is small. cost data from the energy use and LCC evidence presented for EPSs. With the For this analysis, DOE assumed 5% of CEC standards as the de facto national analyses. DOE projected the energy units sold do not meet the CEC savings, operating cost savings, product standards, the adoption by DOE of standards. DOE’s testing conducted for weaker requirements would not save costs, and NPV of net consumer benefits this SNOPR focused on improving for products sold over a 30-year significant energy and would be baseline unit efficiency. In examining prohibited under EPCA. (Earthjustice, period—from 2018 through 2047. these units, DOE found that they No. 118 at p. 3) Panasonic also claimed CEA commented that it is complied with the CEC standards— that the CEC standards would become unreasonable for DOE to project including CEC-marked units purchased de facto national standards in the shipments, energy savings, and outside of California. While this absence of Federal regulations. emissions reductions over a 30-year resulted in assumptions of nearly all (Panasonic, No. 120 at p. 5) The period. Product lifecycles for many of units sold nationally as meeting or Appliance Standards Awareness Project the covered products are typically exceeding the CEC standards, DOE agreed that DOE’s proposal risked measured in months, so it can be recognizes that there are some units that increasing national energy difficult to make projections years out. could be sold outside of California and consumption. They recommended that, (CEA, No. 106 at p. 9) Although the 30- to fully understand the potential not through common channels and/or year analysis period is longer than the impacts of California’s standards, DOE large retailers either online or in stores. average lifetime of battery chargers, DOE should explore scenarios in which DOE assumes that the volume of such estimates that the considered standard 100%, 75%, and 50% of products sold non-CEC-compliant units is small. levels analyzed will transform the outside of California comply with Using all of these assumptions, DOE market to higher energy efficiencies California’s standard. developed its revised base case than in the base-case, resulting in AHAM suggested that DOE efficiency distribution using the CEC energy and emission savings throughout 42 overestimated the amount of the market database of battery charger models the analysis period. Further, DOE has that would shift to comply with the CEC sold in California combined with DOE’s conducted a sensitivity analysis that standards, because not all products will usage profiles as described earlier in projects NIA results out over nine years be able to meet those efficiency levels, Section IV.C.4. See chapter 9 of the of shipments instead of 30 years. Results even in California. However, AHAM SNOPR TSD for more details. of this sensitivity analysis are available suggested that DOE leave its analysis To estimate efficiency trends in the in section V.B.3 of this notice. unchanged. (AHAM, No. 124 at p. 2) PTI standards cases, DOE has used ‘‘roll-up’’ As in the LCC analysis, DOE evaluates commented that within the standard and/or ‘‘shift’’ scenarios in its standards the national impacts of new and levels that DOE proposed, market rulemakings. Under the ‘‘roll-up’’ amended standards by comparing base- elasticity is not an issue. However, it scenario, DOE assumes: (1) Product case projections with standards-case noted that at the CEC standard levels, efficiencies in the base case that do not projections. The base-case projections there is a higher cost of compliance that meet the standard level under characterize energy use and consumer would impact market elasticity. (PTI, consideration would ‘‘roll-up’’ to meet costs for each product class in the No. 133 at p. 5) the new standard level; and (2) product absence of new and amended energy The CEC also approximated CSLs that efficiencies above the standard level conservation standards. DOE compares would be equivalent to its standard under consideration would not be these projections with projections levels and inputted those CSLs into affected. Under the ‘‘shift’’ scenario, characterizing the market for each DOE’s NIA model. It concluded that DOE reorients the distribution above the product class if DOE adopted new and doing so yielded an additional 1.06 new minimum energy conservation amended standards at specific energy quads of energy savings and $3.8 billion standard. For this rule, DOE proposed efficiency levels (i.e., the TSLs or of net social benefits nationally, when use of the ‘‘roll-up’’ scenario and has standards cases) for that class. compared to DOE’s proposal. Given maintained this approach for the To make the analysis more accessible these additional potential savings, the SNOPR. This approach was supported and transparent to all interested parties, CEC recommended that DOE revise its by Delta-Q Technologies in its public DOE used an MS Excel spreadsheet analyses and adopt standards at least as comments following publication of the model to calculate the energy savings stringent as those adopted in California. and the national consumer costs and (California Energy Commission, No. 117 42 http://www.appliances.energy.ca.gov/ savings from each TSL. The SNOPR at p. 32) Citing an analysis performed by AdvancedSearch.aspx. TSD, and other supplemental
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52891
documentation DOE releases, For this SNOPR, the NIA used on these cases are presented in collectively explain the models and how projections of energy prices from the appendix 10A to the SNOPR TSD. to use them. Interested parties can AEO2014 Reference case. In addition, Table IV–13 summarizes the inputs review DOE’s analyses by changing DOE analyzed scenarios that used and key assumptions DOE used in the various input quantities within the inputs from the AEO2014 High NIA. Discussion of these inputs and spreadsheet models that DOE releases. Economic Growth, and Low Economic changes follows the table. See chapter The NIA spreadsheet model uses Growth cases. These cases have higher 10 of the SNOPR TSD for further details. average values as inputs (as opposed to or lower energy price trends compared probability distributions). to the Reference case. NIA results based
TABLE IV–13—SUMMARY OF INPUTS, SOURCES AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS
Inputs NOPR Description Changes for SNOPR rule
Base Year Shipments ...... Annual shipments from Market Assessment ... No change in methodology. Includes updated data from 2011. Shipment Growth Rate ...... 0.75 percent annually, equal to population Updated to 0.62 percent using revised U.S. Census projec- growth. tions (2012). Lifetimes ...... Battery charger lifetime is equal to the lifetime No changes in methodology. Product Class lifetimes were re- of the end-use product it powers.. vised based on removal of medical products. Base Year Efficiencies ...... From Market Assessment ...... Obtained from the CEC’s database of Small Battery Chargers (2014) Base-Case Forecasted Effi- Efficiency distributions remain unchanged No change. ciencies. throughout the forecast period. Standards-Case Forecasted Ef- ‘‘Roll-up’’ scenario ...... No change. ficiencies. Annual Energy Consumption Annual shipment weighted-average marginal No change in the methodology. Inputs to the calculation were per Unit. energy consumption values for each prod- revised based on removal of medical products. uct class. Improvement Cost per Unit ...... From the Engineering Analysis ...... No change. Markups ...... From Markups Analysis ...... No change. Repair and Maintenance Cost Assumed to be zero ...... No change. per Unit. Energy Prices ...... AEO2010 projections (to 2035) and extrapo- Updated to AEO2014. lation for 2044 and beyond. Electricity Site-to-Source Con- Based on AEO 2010 ...... Updated to AEO2014. version Factor. Present Year ...... 2011 ...... 2015 Discount Rate ...... 3% and 7% real ...... No change. Compliance Date of Standard 2013 ...... 2018 (Start of Analysis Period).
1. Product Price Trends Producer Price Index (PPI) data for the Given the above considerations, DOE As noted in section IV.F.1, DOE small electrical appliance decided to use a constant price assumed no change in battery charger manufacturing industry from BLS.43 assumption as the default price factor pricing over the 2018–2047 period in Therefore, DOE examined a projection index to project future battery charger the reference case. AHAM commented based on the price indexes that were prices in 2018 and out to 2047. While that it opposes the use of price trends projected for AEO2014. DOE performed a more conservative method, following and agreed that DOE should not use that an exponential fit on two deflated this approach helped ensure that DOE approach. (AHAM, No. 124 at p. 9) In projected price indexes that may did not understate the incremental contrast, PG&E and SDG&E supported include the products that battery impact of standards on the consumer the consideration of price trends as an chargers are components of: information purchase price. Thus, DOE’s product NIA sensitivity and recommended that equipment (Chained price index— prices forecast for the LCC, PBP, and price trends be incorporated into the investment in non-residential NIA analyses for the SNOPR were held constant for each efficiency level in reference case, given past declines in equipment and software—information each product class. DOE also conducted the costs of electronic products. (PG&E equipment), and consumer durables and SDG&E, No. 163 at pp. 1–2) The a sensitivity analysis using alternative (Chained price index—other durable price trends based on AEO indexes. Power Sources Manufacturers goods). However, DOE believes that Association (PSMA) agreed, stating that These price trends, and the NPV results these indexes are too broad to accurately while improvements to overall battery from the associated sensitivity cases, are capture the trend for battery chargers. charger efficiency do entail cost described in Appendix 10B of the premiums, these premiums are often Furthermore, most battery chargers are SNOPR TSD. reduced as volumes increase and unlike typical consumer products in that they are typically not purchased 2. Unit Energy Consumption and manufacturing technologies improve. Savings (PSMA, No. 147 at p. 2) independently by consumers. Instead, As discussed in section IV.G.1, it is they are similar to other commodities DOE uses the efficiency distributions difficult to predict the consumer and typically bundled with end-use for the base case along with the annual electronics market far in advance. To products. unit energy consumption values to derive a price trend for battery chargers, estimate shipment-weighted average DOE did not have any historical 43 Series ID PCU33521–33521; http:// unit energy consumption under the base shipments data or sufficient historical www.bls.gov/ppi/. and standards cases, which are then
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52892 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
compared against one another to yield which are lower in value than discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, unit energy savings values for each residential sector rates. DOE used this DOE published a statement of amended considered efficiency level. approach so as to not overstate energy policy in which DOE explained its As discussed in section IV.G.3, DOE cost savings in calculating the NIA. determination that EIA’s National assumes that energy efficiency will not In order to determine the energy usage Energy Modeling System (NEMS) is the improve after 2018 in the base case. split between the residential and most appropriate tool for its FFC Therefore, the projected UEC values in commercial sector, DOE first separated analysis and its intention to use NEMS the analysis, as well as the unit energy products into residential-use and for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, savings values, do not vary over time. commercial-use categories. Then, for 2012). NEMS is a public domain, multi- Consistent with the roll-up scenario, the each product class, using shipment sector, partial equilibrium model of the analysis assumes that manufacturers values for 2018, average lifetimes, and U.S. energy sector. EIA uses NEMS to would respond to a standard by base-case unit energy consumption prepare its Annual Energy Outlook. improving the efficiency of values, DOE calculated the approximate For further details about the underperforming products but not those annual energy use split between the two calculation of national energy savings, that already meet or exceed the sectors. DOE applied the resulting ratio see chapter 10 of the SNOPR TSD. The standard. to the electricity pricing to obtain a approach used for deriving FFC DOE received no comments on its sector-weighted energy price for each measures of energy use and emissions is methodology for calculating unit energy product class. This ratio was held described in appendix 10B of the consumption and savings in the NOPR constant throughout the period of SNOPR TSD. analysis. and maintained its methodology in the 7. Discount Rates SNOPR. For further details on the DOE received no comments on its calculation of unit energy savings for methodology for calculating energy The inputs for determining the NPV the NIA, see chapter 10 of the SNOPR costs in the NOPR and maintained its of the total costs and benefits TSD. approach for the SNOPR. For further experienced by consumers of battery details on the determination of energy chargers are: (1) total increased product 3. Unit Costs prices for the NIA, see chapter 10 of the cost, (2) total annual savings in DOE uses the efficiency distributions SNOPR TSD. operating costs, and (3) a discount for the base case along with the unit cost factor. For each standards case, DOE 6. National Energy Savings values to estimate shipment-weighted calculated net savings each year as total average unit costs under the base and The national energy savings analysis savings in operating costs, less total standards cases, which are then involves a comparison of national increases in product costs, relative to compared against one another to give energy consumption of the considered the base case. DOE calculated operating incremental unit cost values for each products in each potential standards cost savings over the life of each TSL. DOE received no comments on its case with consumption in the base case product shipped from 2018 through methodology for calculating unit costs with no new or amended energy 2047. in the NOPR and maintained its conservation standards. DOE calculated DOE multiplied the net savings in methodology in the SNOPR. For further the national energy consumption by future years by a discount factor to details on the calculation of unit costs multiplying the number of units (stock) determine their present value. DOE for the NIA, see chapter 10 of the of each product (by vintage or age) by estimated the NPV of consumer benefits SNOPR TSD. the unit energy consumption (also by using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent vintage). DOE calculated annual NES real discount rate. DOE uses these 4. Repair and Maintenance Cost per based on the difference in national discount rates in accordance with Unit energy consumption for the base case guidance provided by the Office of In the NOPR, DOE considered the (without amended efficiency standards) Management and Budget (OMB) to incremental maintenance cost for the and for each higher efficiency standard. Federal agencies on the development of replacement of lithium ion batteries in DOE estimated energy consumption and regulatory analysis.44 The 7-percent real certain applications. After examining savings based on site energy and value is an estimate of the average the possible impact of this cost in the converted the electricity consumption before-tax rate of return to private LCC and PBP analyses, DOE determined and savings to primary energy (i.e., the capital in the U.S. economy. The 3- that the actual impact at the product energy consumed by power plants to percent real value represents the class level would most likely be generate site electricity) using annual ‘‘societal rate of time preference,’’ which negligible. Thus, DOE opted not to conversion factors derived from is the rate at which society discounts retool its NIA model to account for this AEO2014. Cumulative energy savings future consumption flows to their cost. For further discussion of this issue, are the sum of the NES for each year present value. see section IV.F.3 above. DOE received over the timeframe of the analysis. For further details about the no comments on this approach, and In 2011, in response to the calculation of net present value, see maintained this assumption for the recommendations of a committee on chapter 10 of the SNOPR TSD. SNOPR. ‘‘Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle I. Consumer Subgroup Analysis Measurement Approaches to Energy 5. Energy Prices Efficiency Standards’’ appointed by the In analyzing the potential impacts of While the focus of this rulemaking is National Academy of Sciences, DOE new or amended standards, DOE on consumer products found in the announced its intention to use full fuel evaluates the impacts on the LCC of residential sector, DOE is aware that cycle (‘‘FFC’’) measures of energy use identifiable subgroups of consumers many products that employ battery and greenhouse gas and other emissions that may be disproportionately affected chargers are located within commercial in the national impact analyses and by a national standard. In the NOPR, buildings. Given this fact, the NOPR emissions analyses included in future 44 OMB Circular A–4 (Sept. 17, 2003), section E, analysis relied on calculated energy cost energy conservation standards ‘‘Identifying and Measuring Benefits and Costs. savings from such products using rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ commercial sector electricity rates, 2011). After evaluating the approaches memoranda/m03-21.html.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52893
DOE analyzed four consumer subgroups commercial sectors were $0.310 and in the SNOPR. Chapter 11 of the SNOPR of interest—low-income consumers, $0.225, respectively. In the SNOPR TSD contains further information on the small businesses, top marginal stage, DOE divided this subgroup into LCC analyses for all subgroups. electricity price tier consumers, and two new subgroups because further J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis consumers of specific applications analysis showed that these consumers within a product class. In this SNOPR, were two distinct groups. For top tier DOE conducted a manufacturer DOE maintains the same subgroups; electricity price consumers, DOE impact analysis (MIA) on battery however, DOE separates the top researched tiered electricity rates for chargers to estimate the financial impact marginal electricity price tier consumers general usage in the residential sector, of new energy conservation standards into two subgroups because further and found the highest price to be on this industry. The MIA is both a analysis showed that these consumers $0.359. For peak time-of-use electricity quantitative and qualitative analysis. were two distinct groups. The two new price consumers, DOE researched prices The quantitative part of the MIA relies subgroups are top tier electricity price that varied with the time of day for both on the Government Regulatory Impact consumers and peak time-of-use the residential and commercial sectors, Model (GRIM), an industry cash flow electricity price consumers. For each obtaining peak values of $0.514 and model customized for applications that subgroup, DOE considered variations on $.494, respectively. include battery chargers covered in this the standard inputs to the general LCC Lastly, for the application-specific rulemaking. The key MIA output is model. subgroup, DOE used the inputs from industry net present value (INPV). DOE DOE defined low-income consumers each application for lifetime, markups, used the GRIM to calculate cash flows as residential consumers with incomes market efficiency distribution, and UEC using standard accounting principles at or below the poverty line, as defined to calculate LCC and PBP results. and to compare the changes in INPV by the U.S. Census Bureau. In the NOPR In response to the NOPR, Nokia noted resulting from the base case and various stage, DOE found from 2005 Residential that DOE should consider life-cycle TSLs (the standards case). The Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) costs when deciding standards. In the difference in INPV between the base and data 45 that these consumers face case of mobile phones, it argued that standards cases represents the financial electricity prices that are 0.2 cents per standards could not be justified on the impact of the new standards on kWh lower, on average, than the prices basis of life-cycle costs (Nokia, No. 132 manufacturers. Different sets of faced by consumers above the poverty at p. 1). assumptions (scenarios) produce Mobile phone battery chargers fall line. In the SNOPR stage, DOE found different results. into Product Class 2. The selected CSL DOE calculated the MIA impacts of that the updated 2009 RECS data 46 no for Product Class 2 exhibits a positive new energy conservation standards by longer showed a significant difference LCC savings of $0.06 over the lifetime creating a GRIM for battery charger in electricity price between low-income of a given mobile phone battery charger. application manufacturers. In the GRIM, and general consumers. Instead, DOE DOE notes that the standards and life- DOE grouped similarly impacted used the same source to identify cycle costs are for the battery chargers, products to better analyze the effects population distributions of low-income and not for end-use products. Looking new standards will have on the consumers among regions of the U.S. to across all of Product Class 2, the industry. DOE presented the battery distinguish low-income consumers from standards proposed will be beneficial to charger application impacts by product the general population. DOE requests consumers, on average. For this reason, class groups (Product Class 1; Product comment on the new methodology of DOE believes that standards are justified Classes 2, 3, and 4; Product Classes 5 filtering RECS data to obtain a at the current proposed levels for mobile and 6; and Product Class 7) and by TSL. population distribution of low-income phones on the basis of life-cycle costs. DOE also presented the results for consumers. DOE’s subgroup analysis for Product Classes 2, 3, and 4 by For small businesses, DOE analyzed consumers of specific applications manufacturer industry (consumer the potential impacts of standards by considered the LCC impacts of each electronics, small appliance, and power conducting the analysis with a different application within a product class. This tool manufacturers). This is necessary discount rate applicable to this approach allowed DOE to consider the because the impacts in this product subgroup, as small businesses do not LCC impacts of individual applications class group vary significantly by have the same access to capital as larger when choosing the proposed standard industry type. Therefore, grouping all businesses. DOE estimated that for level, regardless of the application’s industries together could overlook the businesses purchasing battery chargers, weighting in the calculation of average potential negative impacts that small companies have an average impacts. The impacts of the standard on manufacturers of a specific industry discount rate that is 4.16 percent higher the cost of the battery charger as a face. By segmenting the results into than the industry average. percentage of the application’s total these industries, DOE is also able to In the NOPR, DOE identified the purchase price are not relevant to DOE’s discuss how each subgroup of battery highest rates for top tier marginal LCC analysis. DOE used the cost of the charger application manufacturers will electricity price consumers using both battery charger component, not the final be impacted by new energy tiered rates and time of usage. DOE price of the application, in the LCC. conservation standards. found that top tier marginal rates for Therefore, a $2,000 and $20 product are DOE outlined its complete general usage in the residential and assumed to have the same cost for a methodology for the MIA in the NOPR. battery charger (e.g., $5) if they are 45 77 FR 18478, 18549–59 (March 27, U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information within the same CSL of the same Administration. RECS Public Use Microdata Files, 2012). The complete MIA is presented calendar year 2005. 2009. Washington, DC. http:// product class. The application-specific in chapter 12 of the accompanying 205.254.135.7/consumption/residential/data/2005/ subgroup analyses represent an estimate SNOPR TSD. index.cfm?view=microdata of the marginal impacts of standards on 46 U.S. Department of Energy-Energy Information consumers of each application within a 1. Manufacturer Production Costs Administration. RECS Public Use Microdata Files, calendar year 2009. 2013. Washington, DC. http:// product class. Through the MIA, DOE attempts to 205.254.135.7/consumption/residential/data/2009/ DOE maintained its approach to the model how changes in efficiency impact index.cfm?view=microdata application specific consumer subgroup manufacturer production costs
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52894 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(‘‘MPCs’’). DOE used two critical inputs reflect the most recent battery charger manufacturers to avoid performing two to calculate manufacturer impacts at the pricing trends and changes in material rounds of testing, labeling, and OEM level. The first input is the price costs from the previous analysis. compliance with two different standards that the application OEM charges for its in a very short period of time. (AHAM, 2. Product and Capital Conversion Costs finished product, used to calculate No. 124 at p. 5) (CEA, No. 106 at p. 3) revenue. The second input is the New energy conservation standards (Motorola, No. 121 at p. 11) (Nintendo portion of that price represented by its will cause manufacturers to incur one- of America, No. 135 at p. 2) (Panasonic, battery charger, used to calculate costs, time conversion costs to bring their No. 120 at p. 5) (Philips, No. 128 at p. at each CSL. production facilities and product 7) (PTI, No. 133 at p. 2 & 6) (Wahl, No. For the first component, DOE designs into compliance with the new 153 at p. 1) (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 104 at determined representative retail prices standards. For the MIA, DOE classified p. 251–254) Additionally, ITI supported for each application by surveying these one-time conversion costs into a compliance period of less than two popular online retailer Web sites to two major groups: (1) Product years for Product Class 5 in addition to sample a number of price points of the conversion costs and (2) capital Product Classes 2, 3, and 4. It also most commonly sold products for each conversion costs. Product conversion asserted that manufacturers will be application. The price of each costs are one-time investments in ready to meet DOE’s proposed battery application can vary greatly depending research, development, testing, charger standards for all these product on many factors (such as the features of marketing, and other non-capitalized classes in the very near term and will each individual product). For each costs focused on making product not require the full two-year compliance application, DOE used the average designs comply with the new energy period. (ITI, No. 131 at p. 2 & 6) application price found in the product conservation standards. Capital Other commenters urged DOE to survey. DOE then discounted this conversion costs are one-time adopt at least a two-year compliance representative retail price back to the investments in property, plant, and period for all battery charger product application MSP using the retail equipment to adapt or change existing classes. These commenters stated markups derived from annual SEC 10– production facilities so that new manufacturers must be allowed K reports in the Markups Analysis, as product designs can be fabricated and sufficient time to redesign and conduct discussed in section IV.D. assembled. thorough testing on their products in DOE calculated the second figure— NRDC commented that DOE order to manufacture adequately safe the price of the battery charger itself at overestimated the conversion costs and reliable products that comply with each CSL—in the engineering analysis. associated with battery charger DOE’s battery charger standards. In this analysis, DOE calculated a standards and caused the MIA results to (Flextronics, No. 145 at p.1) (Microsoft, separate cost efficiency curve for each of overstate the negative financial impacts No. p. 110) (Nebraska Energy Office, No. the seven battery charger product on battery charger manufacturers. NRDC 98 at p. 2) (Nokia, No. 132 at p. 2) classes. Based on product testing data, believes the changes required by the (Salcomp Plc, No. 73 at p. 2) (Schneider, tear-down data and manufacturer selected standards for battery chargers No. 119 at p. 6) Additionally, some feedback, DOE created a BOM at the are simple and will only require limited manufacturers supported a compliance original device manufacturer (ODM) capital conversion costs. (NRDC, No. date of at least 18 months or two years level to which markups were applied to 114 at p. 21) After reviewing the battery just for Product Classes 5, 6, and/or 7. calculate the MSP of the battery charger charger conversion costs, DOE believes (Actuant Electric, No. 146 at p. 2) at each CSL. DOE then allocated the that the values listed in the NOPR are (Lester Electrical, No. 139 at p. 2) (Lester battery charger MSPs of each product accurate based on the available data and Electrical, No. 87 at p. 1) (Schumacher, class to all the applications within each is declining to alter the battery charger No. 143 at p. 2) (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 104 product class. In this way, DOE arrived conversion cost methodology for this at p. 30) at the cost to the application OEM of the SNOPR. Since the CEC battery charger battery charger for each application. standard has already been implemented NRDC commented that DOE 3. Comments From Interested Parties at the time of this SNOPR publication overestimated the incremental MPCs in Related to Battery Chargers and available data indicate that the NOPR analysis for battery chargers, Several stakeholders commented on manufacturers are already complying which caused DOE to overstate the DOE’s NOPR MIA. These comments with that standard, DOE is proposing to negative financial impacts reported in centered on compliance-related issues, use a compliance date of two years after the NOPR MIA. (NRDC, No. 114 at p. employment impacts, and the MIA’s the publication of the final rule for this 21) NRDC did not give any specific data scope. rulemaking. to support their claim that DOE overestimated the incremental MPCs in a. Compliance Date and Implementation b. Employment Impacts the NOPR analysis. As part of the Period Some manufacturers expressed SNOPR analysis, DOE did conduct Interested parties expressed concern concern that this rulemaking could lead another round of product purchasing, regarding the proposed timeline for an to a loss of domestic jobs. Lester testing, and tear downs to update the appropriate compliance date to DOE’s Electrical stated that the proposed MPCs for the SNOPR analysis to battery charger standard. They standard level for Product Class 7 will account for the most recent pricing supported DOE’s proposal to set a lead to job losses in its domestic trends for each product. For some compliance date as soon as possible but manufacturing plant. (Lester Electrical, products, the incremental MPCs not later than July 1, 2013 for battery No. 139 at p. 2) (Pub. Mtg. Tr., No. 104 increased and for others the incremental charger products classes 2, 3, and 4. The at p. 31) The Nebraska Energy Office MPCs decreased compared to the NOPR industry also argued that since the CEC also commented that the proposed analysis incremental MPCs. DOE used a battery charger standards for these standard is not economically justified similar methodology for tear downs in product classes are more stringent and and would contribute an unacceptable the SNOPR as it did in the NOPR; would be effective in February 2013, level of regulatory burden. (Nebraska however, the changes in incremental setting an earlier compliance date for Energy Office, No. 98 at p. 2) DOE MPC from the NOPR to the SNOPR the standard would enable estimates that Lester Electrical employs
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52895
approximately 100 domestic production energy conservation standards for contiguous States and the District of workers that produce a wide variety of battery chargers. In addition, DOE Columbia (DC). SO2 emissions from 28 covered and non-covered battery estimated emissions impacts in eastern states and DC were also limited chargers. The direct employment production activities (extracting, under the Clean Air Interstate Rule analysis indicates that a maximum of processing, and transporting fuels) that (CAIR; 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)), 100 domestic jobs could be lost as a provide the energy inputs to power which created an allowance-based result of DOE’s proposed battery charger plants. These are referred to as trading program that operates along standards due to the projected impacts ‘‘upstream’’ emissions. Together, these with the Title IV program. CAIR was on Lester Electrical. This estimate of 100 emissions account for the full-fuel-cycle remanded to the U.S. Environmental domestic jobs lost represents the upper- (FFC). In accordance with DOE’s FFC Protection Agency (EPA) by the U.S. bound of potential job loss, since it is Statement of Policy (76 FR 51282 (Aug. Court of Appeals for the District of likely that Lester Electrical will at least 18, 2011)), the FFC analysis includes Columbia Circuit but it remained in continue to produce the battery chargers impacts on emissions of methane (CH4) effect.49 In 2011 EPA issued a not covered by this proposed standard and nitrous oxide (N2O), both of which replacement for CAIR, the Cross-State domestically. Relocating a company’s are recognized as greenhouse gases. Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR). 76 FR manufacturing facility is a complex DOE primarily conducted the 48208 (August 8, 2011). On April 29, business decision and not a decision emissions analysis using emissions 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed mandated by any government action. factors for CO2 and most of the other the judgment of the D.C. Circuit and Since one path to compliance is as gases derived from data in AEO2014. remanded the case for further likely as the next, it is difficult to Combustion emissions of CH4 and N2O proceedings consistent with the accurately predict how Lester Electrical were estimated using emissions Supreme Court’s opinion.50 On October would respond to the proposed battery intensity factors published by the 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit lifted the stay charger standards. Environmental Protection Agency of CSAPR.51 Pursuant to this action, (EPA), GHG Emissions Factors Hub.47 c. Scope of the MIA CSAPR went into effect (and CAIR DOE developed separate emissions ceased to be in effect) as of January 1, A few manufacturers stated that they factors for power sector emissions and 2015. believe the MIA did not include all upstream emissions. The method that Because AEO2014 was prepared prior parties affected by DOE’s battery charger DOE used to derive emissions factors is to the Supreme Court’s opinion, it standard. Duracell commented that DOE described in chapter 13 of the SNOPR assumed that CAIR remains a binding should specifically account for the TSD. regulation through 2040. Thus, DOE’s impacts on battery manufacturers, For CH4 and N2O, DOE calculated especially those who design battery emissions reduction in tons and also in analysis used emissions factors that chargers around the batteries they terms of units of carbon dioxide assume that CAIR, not CSAPR, is the regulation in force. However, the manufacture. (Duracell, No. 109 at p. 4) equivalent (CO2eq). Gases are converted difference between CAIR and CSAPR is The MIA focused on battery charger and to CO2eq by multiplying the physical battery charger application units (i.e., tons) by the gas’ global not relevant for the purpose of DOE’s manufacturers only. DOE believes the warming potential (GWP) over a 100- analysis of emissions impacts from MIA should only focus on businesses year time horizon. Based on the Fifth energy conservation standards. that are directly impacted by DOE’s Assessment Report of the The attainment of emissions caps is standards and does not believe that Intergovernmental Panel on Climate typically flexible among EGUs and is battery manufacturers fall into this Change,48 DOE used GWP values of 28 enforced through the use of emissions category. While DOE acknowledges that for CH4 and 265 for N2O. allowances and tradable permits. Under battery manufacturers could be EIA prepares the Annual Energy existing EPA regulations, any excess indirectly affected by the proposed Outlook using the National Energy SO2 emissions allowances resulting standard, those impacts fall outside the Modeling System (NEMS). Each annual from the lower electricity demand scope of this rulemaking. version of NEMS incorporates the caused by the adoption of an efficiency projected impacts of existing air quality standard could be used to permit 4. Manufacturer Interviews regulations on emissions. AEO2014 offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by DOE conducted additional interviews generally represents current legislation any regulated EGU. In past rulemakings, with manufacturers following the and environmental regulations, DOE recognized that there was preliminary analysis in preparation for including recent government actions, for uncertainty about the effects of the NOPR analysis. These interviews which implementing regulations were efficiency standards on SO2 emissions were separate from those DOE available as of October 31, 2013. covered by the existing cap-and-trade conducted as part of the engineering SO2 emissions from affected electric system, but it concluded that negligible analysis. DOE did not conduct generating units (EGUs) are subject to reductions in power sector SO2 additional interviews between the nationwide and regional emissions cap- emissions would occur as a result of publication of the NOPR and this and-trade programs. Title IV of the standards. SNOPR. DOE outlined the key issues for Clean Air Act sets an annual emissions this rulemaking for manufacturers in the cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 49 See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. NOPR. See 77 FR at 18558–18559. DOE Cir. 2008); North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 did not receive any further comments 47 http://www.epa.gov/climateleadership/ (D.C. Cir. 2008). inventory/ghg-emissions.html. 50 See EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, 134 on the key issues listed in the NOPR. 48 IPCC, 2013: Climate Change 2013: The Physical S.Ct. 1584, 1610 (U.S. 2014). The Supreme Court K. Emissions Analysis Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to held in part that EPA’s methodology for quantifying the Fifth Assessment Report of the emissions that must be eliminated in certain States In the emissions analysis, DOE Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change due to their impacts in other downwind States was estimated the reduction in power sector [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, based on a permissible, workable, and equitable S.K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex interpretation of the Clean Air Act provision that emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), and P.M. Midgley (eds.)]. Cambridge University provides statutory authority for CSAPR. nitrogen oxides (NOX), sulfur dioxide Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, 51 See Georgia v. EPA, Order (D.C. Cir. filed (SO2), and mercury (Hg) from potential NY, USA. Chapter 8. October 23, 2014) (No. 11–1302),
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52896 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Beginning in 2016, however, SO2 analysis and retained the same approach should be updated over time to reflect emissions will fall as a result of the as in the NOPR. increasing knowledge of the science and Mercury and Air Toxics Standards economics of climate impacts. L. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other (MATS) for power plants. 77 FR 9304 As part of the interagency process that Emissions Impacts (Feb. 16, 2012). In the final MATS rule, developed the SCC estimates, technical EPA established a standard for hydrogen As part of the development of the experts from numerous agencies met on chloride as a surrogate for acid gas proposed rule, DOE considered the a regular basis to consider public hazardous air pollutants (HAP), and also estimated monetary benefits from the comments, explore the technical established a standard for SO2 (a non- reduced emissions of CO2 and NOX that literature in relevant fields, and discuss HAP acid gas) as an alternative are expected to result from each of the key model inputs and assumptions. The equivalent surrogate standard for acid TSLs considered. In order to make this main objective of this process was to gas HAP. The same controls are used to calculation analogous to the calculation develop a range of SCC values using a reduce HAP and non-HAP acid gas; of the NPV of consumer benefits, DOE defensible set of input assumptions considered the reduced emissions thus, SO2 emissions will be reduced as grounded in the existing scientific and a result of the control technologies expected to result over the lifetime of economic literatures. In this way, key installed on coal-fired power plants to products shipped in the forecast period uncertainties and model differences comply with the MATS requirements for each TSL. This section summarizes transparently and consistently inform for acid gas. AEO2014 assumes that, in the basis for the monetary values used the range of SCC estimates used in the order to continue operating, coal plants for each of these emissions reduction rulemaking process. must have either flue gas estimates and presents the values a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions desulfurization or dry sorbent injection considered in this SNOPR. systems installed by 2016. Both For this SNOPR, DOE did not receive When attempting to assess the any comments on this section of the technologies are used to reduce acid gas incremental economic impacts of CO2 analysis and retained the same approach emissions, and they also reduce SO emissions, the analyst faces a number of 2 as in the NOPR. DOE relied on a set of emissions. Under the MATS, emissions challenges. A report from the National values for the social cost of carbon will be far below the cap established by Research Council 53 points out that any (SCC) that was developed by a Federal CAIR, so it is unlikely that excess SO assessment will suffer from uncertainty, 2 interagency process. The basis for these emissions allowances resulting from the speculation, and lack of information values is summarized below, and a more lower electricity demand would be about: (1) Future emissions of GHGs; (2) detailed description of the needed or used to permit offsetting the effects of past and future emissions methodologies used is provided as an increases in SO emissions by any on the climate system; (3) the impact of 2 appendix to chapter 14 of the SNOPR regulated EGU. Therefore, DOE believes changes in climate on the physical and TSD. that efficiency standards will generally biological environment; and (4) the reduce SO2 emissions in 2016 and 1. Social Cost of Carbon translation of these environmental beyond. The SCC is an estimate of the impacts into economic damages. As a CAIR established a cap on NOX monetized damages associated with an result, any effort to quantify and emissions in 28 eastern States and the incremental increase in carbon monetize the harms associated with District of Columbia.52 Energy emissions in a given year. It is intended climate change will raise questions of conservation standards are expected to to include (but is not limited to) changes science, economics, and ethics and have little effect on NOX emissions in in net agricultural productivity, human should be viewed as provisional. those States covered by CAIR because health, property damages from Despite the limits of both excess NOX emissions allowances increased flood risk, and the value of quantification and monetization, SCC resulting from the lower electricity ecosystem services. Estimates of the estimates can be useful in estimating the demand could be used to permit SCC are provided in dollars per metric social benefits of reducing CO2 emissions. The agency can estimate the offsetting increases in NOX emissions. ton of CO2. A domestic SCC value is However, standards would be expected meant to reflect the value of damages in benefits from reduced (or costs from to reduce NOX emissions in the States the United States resulting from a unit increased) emissions in any future year by multiplying the change in emissions not affected by the caps, so DOE change in CO2 emissions, while a global estimated NOX emissions reductions SCC value is meant to reflect the value in that year by the SCC values from the standards considered in this of damages worldwide. appropriate for that year. The NPV of SNOPR for these States. Under section 1(b) of Executive Order the benefits can then be calculated by The MATS limit mercury emissions 12866, agencies must, to the extent multiplying each of these future benefits from power plants, but they do not permitted by law, ‘‘assess both the costs by an appropriate discount factor and include emissions caps and, as such, and the benefits of the intended summing across all affected years. DOE’s energy conservation standards regulation and, recognizing that some It is important to emphasize that the would likely reduce Hg emissions. DOE costs and benefits are difficult to interagency process is committed to estimated mercury emissions reduction quantify, propose or adopt a regulation updating these estimates as the science using emissions factors based on only upon a reasoned determination and economic understanding of climate AEO2014, which incorporates the that the benefits of the intended change and its impacts on society MATS. regulation justify its costs.’’ The purpose improves over time. In the meantime, For this SNOPR, DOE did not receive of the SCC estimates presented here is the interagency group will continue to any comments on this section of the to allow agencies to incorporate the explore the issues raised by this analysis monetized social benefits of reducing and consider public comments as part of 52 the ongoing interagency process. CSAPR also applies to NOx and it would CO2 emissions into cost-benefit analyses supersede the regulation of NOX under CAIR. As of regulatory actions. The estimates are stated previously, the current analysis assumes that 53 National Research Council. Hidden Costs of CAIR, not CSAPR, is the regulation in force. The presented with an acknowledgement of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy difference between CAIR and CSAPR with regard to the many uncertainties involved and Production and Use (2009). National Academies DOE’s analysis of NOX emissions is slight. with a clear understanding that they Press: Washington, DC.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52897
b. Development of Social Cost of Carbon c. Current Approach and Key climate sensitivity was specified as an Values Assumptions input into all three models. In addition, the interagency group used a range of In 2009, an interagency process was After the release of the interim values, the interagency group reconvened on a scenarios for the socio-economic initiated to offer a preliminary regular basis to generate improved SCC parameters and a range of values for the assessment of how best to quantify the estimates. Specifically, the group discount rate. All other model features benefits from reducing carbon dioxide considered public comments and were left unchanged, relying on the emissions. To ensure consistency in further explored the technical literature model developers’ best estimates and how benefits are evaluated across in relevant fields. The interagency group judgments. Federal agencies, the Administration relied on three integrated assessment The interagency group selected four sought to develop a transparent and models commonly used to estimate the sets of SCC values for use in regulatory defensible method, specifically SCC: The FUND, DICE, and PAGE analyses. Three sets of values are based designed for the rulemaking process, to models. These models are frequently on the average SCC from three quantify avoided climate change cited in the peer-reviewed literature and integrated assessment models, at damages from reduced CO2 emissions. were used in the last assessment of the discount rates of 2.5, 3, and 5 percent. The interagency group did not Intergovernmental Panel on Climate The fourth set, which represents the undertake any original analysis. Instead, Change (IPCC). Each model was given 95th percentile SCC estimate across all it combined SCC estimates from the equal weight in the SCC values that three models at a 3-percent discount existing literature to use as interim were developed. rate, is included to represent higher- values until a more comprehensive Each model takes a slightly different than-expected impacts from climate analysis could be conducted. The approach to model how changes in change further out in the tails of the outcome of the preliminary assessment emissions result in changes in economic SCC distribution. The values grow in by the interagency group was a set of damages. A key objective of the real terms over time. Additionally, the interagency process was to enable a interagency group determined that a five interim values: global SCC consistent exploration of the three range of values from 7 percent to 23 estimates for 2007 (in 2006$) of $55, models, while respecting the different percent should be used to adjust the $33, $19, $10, and $5 per metric ton of approaches to quantifying damages global SCC to calculate domestic CO2. These interim values represented taken by the key modelers in the field. effects,54 although preference is given to the first sustained interagency effort An extensive review of the literature consideration of the global benefits of within the U.S. government to develop was conducted to select three sets of reducing CO2 emissions. Table IV–14 an SCC for use in regulatory analysis. input parameters for these models: presents the values in the 2010 The results of this preliminary effort Climate sensitivity, socio-economic and interagency group report,55 which is were presented in several proposed and emissions trajectories, and discount reproduced in appendix 14–A of the final rules. rates. A probability distribution for SNOPR TSD.
TABLE IV–14—ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2010 INTERAGENCY REPORT, 2010–2050
[2007$ per Metric Ton CO2]
Discount rate Year 5% 3% 2.5% 3% Average Average Average 95th percentile
2010 ...... 4.7 21.4 35.1 64.9 2015 ...... 5.7 23.8 38.4 72.8 2020 ...... 6.8 26.3 41.7 80.7 2025 ...... 8.2 29.6 45.9 90.4 2030 ...... 9.7 32.8 50.0 100.0 2035 ...... 11.2 36.0 54.2 109.7 2040 ...... 12.7 39.2 58.4 119.3 2045 ...... 14.2 42.1 61.7 127.8 2050 ...... 15.7 44.9 65.0 136.2
The SCC values used for this notice Table IV–15 shows the updated sets of percent discount rate. However, for were generated using the most recent SCC estimates in 5-year increments from purposes of capturing the uncertainties versions of the three integrated 2010 to 2050. The full set of annual SCC involved in regulatory impact analysis, assessment models that have been estimates between 2010 and 2050 is the interagency group emphasizes the published in the peer-reviewed reported in appendix 14B of the SNOPR importance of including all four sets of literature.56 TSD. The central value that emerges is SCC values. the average SCC across models at the 3-
54 It is recognized that this calculation for Working Group on Social Cost of Carbon, United Order 12866, Interagency Working Group on Social domestic values is approximate, provisional, and States Government (February 2010) (Available at: Cost of Carbon, United States Government (May highly speculative. There is no a priori reason why http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/ 2013; revised November 2013) (Available at: http:// domestic benefits should be a constant fraction of inforeg/for-agencies/Social-Cost-of-Carbon-for- www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/ net global damages over time. RIA.pdf). inforeg/technical-update-social-cost-of-carbon-for- 55 Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory Impact 56 Technical Update of the Social Cost of Carbon regulator-impact-analysis.pdf). Analysis Under Executive Order 12866. Interagency for Regulatory Impact Analysis Under Executive
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52898 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE IV–15—ANNUAL SCC VALUES FROM 2013 INTERAGENCY REPORT, 2010–2050
[2007$ per Metric Ton CO2]
Discount rate Year 5% 3% 2.5% 3% Average Average Average 95th percentile
2010 ...... 11 32 51 89 2015 ...... 11 37 57 109 2020 ...... 12 43 64 128 2025 ...... 14 47 69 143 2030 ...... 16 52 75 159 2035 ...... 19 56 80 175 2040 ...... 21 61 86 191 2045 ...... 24 66 92 206 2050 ...... 26 71 97 220
It is important to recognize that a rate that had been used to obtain the For the SNOPR, DOE retained the number of key uncertainties remain, and SCC values in each case. same approach as in the NOPR for that current SCC estimates should be monetizing the emissions reductions 2. Social Cost of Other Air Pollutants treated as provisional and revisable from the proposed standards. since they will evolve with improved As noted above, DOE has taken into M. Utility Impact Analysis scientific and economic understanding. account how amended energy The interagency group also recognizes conservation standards would reduce The utility impact analysis estimates that the existing models are imperfect site NOX emissions nationwide and several effects on the electric power and incomplete. The 2009 National decrease power sector NOX emissions in industry that would result from the Research Council report mentioned those 22 States not affected by the CAIR. adoption of new and amended energy above points out that there is tension DOE estimated the monetized value of conservation standards. In the utility between the goal of producing NOX emissions reductions resulting impact analysis, DOE analyzes the quantified estimates of the economic from each of the TSLs considered for changes in installed electrical capacity damages from an incremental ton of this SNOPR based on estimates found in and generation that would result for carbon and the limits of existing efforts the relevant scientific literature. each trial standard level. The analysis is to model these effects. There are a Estimates of the monetary value for based on published output from NEMS, number of analytical challenges that are reducing NOX from stationary sources which is updated annually to produce being addressed by the research range from $476 to $4,893 per ton (in the AEO Reference case as well as a community, including research 2013$).57 DOE calculated monetary number of side cases that estimate the programs housed in many of the Federal benefits using an average value for NOX economy-wide impacts of changes to agencies participating in the interagency emissions of $2,684 per short ton (in energy supply and demand. DOE uses process to estimate the SCC. The 2013$), and real discount rates of 3 those published side cases that interagency group intends to percent and 7 percent. incorporate efficiency-related policies to periodically review and reconsider DOE is evaluating appropriate estimate the marginal impacts of those estimates to reflect increasing monetization of avoided SO2 and Hg reduced energy demand on the utility knowledge of the science and emissions in energy conservation sector. The output of this analysis is a economics of climate impacts, as well as standards rulemakings. DOE has not set of time-dependent coefficients that improvements in modeling. included monetization of those capture the change in electricity generation, primary fuel consumption, In summary, in considering the emissions in the current analysis. The CA IOUs and ECOVA asked that installed capacity and power sector potential global benefits resulting from DOE take into account the decreased emissions due to a unit reduction in reduced CO emissions, DOE used the 2 cost of complying with sulfur dioxide demand for a given end use. These values from the 2013 interagency report, emission regulations as a result of coefficients are multiplied by the stream adjusted to 2013$ using the implicit standards. (CA IOUs, No. 138 at p. 19; of electricity savings calculated in the price deflator for GDP from the Bureau ECOVA, Pub. pp. 292–293) As NIA to provide estimates of selected of Economic Analysis. For each of the discussed in section IV.K, under the utility impacts of new or amended four sets of SCC values, the values for MATS, SO emissions are expected to energy conservation standards. Chapter emissions in 2015 were $12.0, $40.5, 2 be well below the cap established by 15 of the SNOPR TSD describes the $62.4, and $119 per metric ton avoided CAIR. Thus, it is unlikely that the utility impact analysis in further detail. (values expressed in 2013$). DOE reduction in electricity demand derived values after 2050 using the N. Employment Impact Analysis resulting from energy efficiency relevant growth rate for the 2040–2050 standards would have an impact on the DOE considers employment impacts period in the interagency update. cost of complying with the regulations. in the domestic economy as one factor DOE multiplied the CO2 emissions in selecting a proposed standard. reduction estimated for each year by the 57 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Office Employment impacts include both SCC value for that year in each of the of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 2006 Report direct and indirect impacts. Direct four cases. To calculate a present value to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal employment impacts are any changes in Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, of the stream of monetary values, DOE Local, and Tribal Entities (2006) (Available at: the number of employees of discounted the values in each of the www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/ manufacturers of the products subject to four cases using the specific discount omb/inforeg/2006_cb/2006_cb_final_report.pdf). standards, their suppliers, and related
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52899
service firms. The MIA addresses those software includes a computer-based I–O requirements do not already exist. impacts. Indirect employment impacts model having structural coefficients that AHAM opposed any marking from standards consist of the net jobs characterize economic flows among 187 requirement, noting that these types of created or eliminated in the national sectors most relevant to industrial, requirements are used to (1) inform economy, other than in the commercial, and residential building consumers who can then make educated manufacturing sector being regulated, energy use. choices, (2) differentiate between caused by: (1) Reduced spending by end DOE notes that ImSET is not a general products where there are two standards users on energy; (2) reduced spending equilibrium forecasting model, and (e.g., UL/CSA); and/or (3) differentiate on new energy supplies by the utility understands the uncertainties involved products that use a voluntary standard. industry; (3) increased spending on new in projecting employment impacts, According to AHAM, none of these products to which the new standards especially changes in the later years of purposes would be served in the context apply; and (4) the effects of those three the analysis. Because ImSET does not of a mandatory standard with which factors throughout the economy. incorporate price changes, the manufacturers will need to demonstrate One method for assessing the possible employment effects predicted by ImSET compliance to DOE through its effects on the demand for labor of such may over-estimate actual job impacts certification requirements. In AHAM’s shifts in economic activity is to compare over the long run for this rule. view, a marking requirement would add sector employment statistics developed Therefore, DOE generated results for cost and burden without a by BLS.58 Data from BLS indicate that near-term timeframes, where these corresponding benefit. (AHAM, No. 124 expenditures in the utility sector uncertainties are reduced. For more at p. 8) ITI made similar arguments and generally create fewer jobs (both directly details on the employment impact noted that consumers are likely to and indirectly) than expenditures in analysis, see chapter 16 of the SNOPR ignore these marks. (ITI, No. 131 at p. other sectors of the economy.59 There TSD. 8) Panasonic commented that efficiency are many reasons for these differences, The CEC disagreed with DOE’s NOPR marking requirements for battery including wage differences and the fact employment impact analysis, which, in chargers and EPSs are unnecessary and that the utility sector is more capital- its view, shows that increasing energy superfluous as the covered products intensive and less labor-intensive than efficiency causes U.S. job losses. must comply with standards as a other sectors. Energy conservation (California Energy Commission, No. 117 condition of sale in the United States. standards have the effect of reducing at p. 33) It based its view on an assumed (Panasonic, No. 120 at pp. 3, 4) consumer utility bills. Because reduced ratio of jobs in the consumer goods DOE acknowledges that consumer expenditures for energy likely sector versus the utility sector. The CEC manufacturers are required to certify lead to increased expenditures in other did not provide independent data compliance with standards using the sectors of the economy, the general sources or references to support the Compliance Certification Management effect of efficiency standards is to shift assumption. Nevertheless, DOE System (‘‘CCMS’’) database. Under these economic activity from a less labor- reviewed its inputs to estimate requirements, battery charger intensive sector (i.e., the utility sector) employment impacts. Because nearly all manufacturers, like other manufacturers to more labor-intensive sectors (e.g., the battery chargers are imported, DOE of regulated products, would need to retail and service sectors). Thus, based reports the employment impacts as a follow the CCMS submission on the BLS data alone, DOE believes net range, with the low end assuming all requirements as well if DOE adopts national employment may increase due equipment cost increases remain in the standards for these products. While to shifts in economic activity resulting manufacturing country and the high end DOE also acknowledges that the use of from energy conservation standards. assuming all equipment cost increases general markings may have certain DOE estimated indirect national are returned to the United States limitations in ensuring compliance, employment impacts for the standard economy via trade. DOE assumed 50%– DOE also recognizes that manufacturers levels considered in this SNOPR using 75% of increased costs to return to the and retailers could use efficiency an input/output model of the U.S. United States so the employment markings or labels to help ensure that economy called Impact of Sector Energy impacts fall near the middle of the the end-use consumer products they sell Technologies version 3.1.1 (ImSET).60 reported range. The results of DOE’s comply with all applicable standards. ImSET is a special-purpose version of revised analysis are presented in section However, DOE has not received requests the ‘‘U.S. Benchmark National Input- V.B.3.c. from such parties requesting additional Output’’ (I–O) model, which was marking requirements for such designed to estimate the national O. Marking Requirements purposes. employment and income effects of Under 42 U.S.C. 6294(a)(5), Congress AHAM, ITI, and Panasonic further energy-saving technologies. The ImSET granted DOE with the authority to requested that if DOE were to require an establish labeling or marking efficiency marking for battery chargers, 58 Data on industry employment, hours, labor requirements for a number of consumer that marking should be the ‘‘BC’’ mark compensation, value of production, and the implicit products. Among these products are already required by the CEC rather than price deflator for output for these industries are battery chargers. a Roman numeral, as proposed by DOE. available upon request by calling the Division of Industry Productivity Studies (202–691–5618) or by In this SNOPR, DOE is not proposing Brother International also commented in sending a request by email to [email protected]. to establish marking requirements for support of the ‘‘BC’’ mark already Available at: www.bls.gov/news.release/ battery chargers. DOE arrived at this required by the CEC. The commenters prin1.nr0.htm. decision after considering all of the asserted that the transition from the 59 See Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional public comments it received on this CEC’s scheme to DOE’s [Roman Multipliers: A User Handbook for the Regional Input-Output Modeling System (RIMS II). subject and weighing the expected numeral] scheme would be very Washington, DC. U.S. Department of Commerce, benefits and burdens of marking difficult and costly and could 1992. requirements for battery chargers. These necessitate the wasteful scrapping of 60 J.M. Roop, M.J. Scott, and R.W. Schultz, ImSET public comments are summarized here. improperly marked devices. They also 3.1: Impact of Sector Energy Technologies, PNNL– 18412, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, 2009. DOE received comments requesting asserted that adopting the ‘‘BC’’ mark Available at: www.pnl.gov/main/publications/ that it not extend marking requirements would avoid any potential confusion external/technical_reports/PNNL-18412.pdf. to products for which such created by products bearing two
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52900 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
markings during the transition period. commented that any markings DOE 6297) However, DOE is not aware of any (AHAM, No. 124 at p. 8; Brother decides to require should be provisions in law that would prohibit a International, No. 111 at p. 2; ITI, No. consolidated with California so manufacturer from voluntarily marking 131 at p. 8; Panasonic, No. 120 at products do not have to be labeled twice its battery charger with a ‘‘BC’’ before or p. 3, 4) and incur double the cost. (Delta-Q after this time. NRDC, CEC, CA IOUs, and Delta-Q Technologies, No. 113 at p. 2) Technologies all supported a multi- After considering all of these P. Reporting Requirements level, national or international marking comments and weighing the expected Upon request from Panasonic, DOE protocol for battery chargers like the benefits and burdens of marking confirms that the CCMS online scheme proposed by DOE. NRDC requirements for battery chargers, DOE compliance process will be required for strongly encouraged DOE to adopt its is declining to propose marking this rulemaking. (Panasonic, No. 120 at own marking requirements for battery requirements for battery chargers in this p. 6) chargers, rather than adopting the SNOPR. CEC’s, and commented that doing so DOE received comments from two V. Analytical Results would (1) create a simple vocabulary for interested parties requesting that it not The following section addresses the all stakeholders, especially between view the CEC-mandated ‘‘BC ’’ mark as results from DOE’s analyses with manufacturers, retailers and government a violation of Federal law. AHAM respect to potential energy conservation enforcement agents; (2) facilitate commented that DOE should ‘‘address standards for battery chargers. It enforcement, as it drives accountability how it will view products that contain addresses the TSLs examined by DOE from the retailer to its supply-chain; (3) marks indicating compliance with CEC and the projected impacts of each of facilitate international adoption by standards. DOE should minimize these levels if adopted as energy offering a flexible multi-level scheme burden on manufacturers who decide to that allows adoption of different levels; sell product in California after the conservation standards for battery (4) facilitate market transformation by California standard goes into effect, but chargers. Additional details regarding encouraging voluntary programs such as are not yet preempted by DOE’s DOE’s analyses are contained in the ENERGY STAR to require higher standards by not considering it a SNOPR TSD supporting this notice. efficiency levels; and (5) create a longer violation to bear the California mark on A. Trial Standards Levels lived policy with more opportunity for a product for a reasonable time after differentiation and future improvement. DOE’s standard becomes mandatory.’’ DOE analyzed the benefits and NRDC further encouraged DOE to (AHAM, No. 124 at p. 9) Panasonic also burdens of four TSLs for battery initiate discussions with the CEC expressed its concern that a product chargers. These TSLs were developed regarding marking as early as possible in bearing the California marking would using combinations of efficiency levels order to give parties enough time to plan not comply with Federal requirements for the product classes analyzed by and implement any potential changes once the DOE’s regulation became DOE. DOE presents the results for those before CEC’s marking requirement goes effective. It sought DOE’s guidance on TSLs in this proposed rule. The results into effect on February 1, 2013. (NRDC, how to treat ‘‘BC’’-marked products and for all efficiency levels that DOE No. 114 at pp. 16–17) The CEC suggested that a grace period to be analyzed are in the SNOPR TSD. Table supported DOE’s labeling proposal and provided to manufacturers to adjust to V–1 presents the TSLs and the suggested that if DOE finalizes a rule whatever new requirements DOE corresponding efficiency levels for that differs in stringency and establishes. (Panasonic, No. 120 at battery chargers. TSL 4 represents the construction from the California pp. 3, 4) maximum technologically feasible standards, DOE should include a mark In light of DOE’s decision not to (‘‘max-tech’’) improvements in energy to represent the California standard propose battery charger marking efficiency for all product classes. While levels or set an effective date for requirements, manufacturers need not DOE examined most product classes marking that is equivalent to DOE’s be concerned that marking devices in individually, there were two groups of earliest effective date for battery charger accordance with the CEC’s present product classes that use generally standards. (California Energy requirements will be a violation of similar technology options and cover Commission, No. 117 at p. 30) The Federal law. The battery charger the exact same range of battery energies. California IOUs commented that they standards being proposed in this notice Because of this situation, DOE grouped contributed to and support the will become effective two years after the all three low-energy, non-inductive, conclusions in the CEC and NRDC publication of a final rule, at which time product classes (i.e., 2, 3, and 4) together comments, including specifically that the CEC will no longer be able to and examined the results. Similarly, ‘‘battery charger and EPS marking compel a manufacturer to mark its DOE grouped the two medium energy should [be] harmonize[d] product with a ‘‘BC’’ to signal that product classes, Product Classes 5 and internationally.’’ (CA IOUs, No. 138 at product’s compliance with the 6, together when it examined those p. 20) Finally, Delta-Q Technologies applicable CEC standard. (42 U.S.C. results.
TABLE V–1—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS
Trial standard level Product Class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4
PC1—Low E, Inductive ...... CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 2 CSL 3 PC2—Low E, Low Voltage ...... CSL 1 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 4 PC3—Low E, Medium Voltage ...... CSL 1 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 PC4—Low E, High Voltage ...... CSL 1 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 PC5—Medium E, Low Voltage ...... CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 3 PC6—Medium E, High Voltage ...... CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 3
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52901
TABLE V–1—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS—Continued
Trial standard level Product Class TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4
PC7—High E ...... CSL 1 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 2
For battery charger Product Class 1 product classes and is the level with the The key outputs of the LCC analysis (low-energy, inductive), DOE examined highest consumer NPV. Finally, TSLs 3 are average LCC savings for each trial standard levels corresponding to and 4 correspond to the max-tech product class for each TSL, relative to each of three CSLs developed in the efficiency level for both product classes the base case, as well as the percentage engineering analysis. TSL 1 is an and the maximum NES. of consumers for which the LCC will intermediate level of performance above For Product Class 7 (high-energy), increase relative to the base case. the baseline. TSLs 2 and 3 are DOE examined only two CSLs because Battery chargers are used in applications equivalent to the best-in-market and of the paucity of products available on that can have a wide range of operating corresponds to the maximum consumer the market. TSLs 1 and 2 correspond to hours. Battery chargers that are used NPV. TSL 4 is the max-tech level and an efficiency level equivalent to the more frequently will tend to have a corresponds to the greatest NES. best-in-market and maximizes consumer larger net LCC benefit than those that For its second set of TSLs, which NPV. TSLs 3 and 4 comprise the max- are used less frequently because of the covers Product Classes 2 (low-energy, tech level corresponding to the level large operating cost savings. low-voltage), 3 (low-energy, medium- with the maximum NES. The key output of the PBP analysis is voltage), and 4 (low-energy, high- the median PBP at each TSL. DOE voltage), DOE examined four TSLs of B. Economic Justification and Energy presents the median PBP rather than the different combinations of the various Savings mean PBP because it is more robust in efficiency levels found for each product 1. Economic Impacts on Individual the presence of outliers in the data.61 class in the engineering analysis. In this Consumers These outliers can skew the mean PBP grouping, TSLs 1 and 2 are intermediate calculation but have little effect on the efficiency levels above the baseline for DOE analyzed the economic impacts median PBP calculation. A small change each product class and corresponds to on battery charger consumers by looking in operating costs, which derive the the maximum consumer NPV. TSL 3 at the effects potential national denominator of the PBP calculation, can corresponds to an incremental standards at each TSL would have on sometimes result in a very large PBP, efficiency level below best-in-market for the LCC and PBP. DOE also examined which would skew the mean PBP Product Class 2, and the best-in-market the impacts of potential standards on calculation. For example, consider a efficiency level for Product Classes 3 consumer subgroups. These analyses are sample of PBPs of 2, 2, 2, and 20 years, and 4. Finally, TSL 4 corresponds to the discussed below. where 20 years is an outlier. The mean max-tech efficiency level for all product a. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period PBP would return a value of 6.5 years, classes and therefore, the maximum whereas the median PBP would return NES. Note that for Product Class 2 only, In general, higher-efficiency products a value of 2 years. Therefore, DOE CSL 3 (corresponding to a best-in- affect consumers in two ways: (1) considers the median PBP, which is not market efficiency level) was not Purchase price increases, and (2) annual susceptible to skewing by occasional analyzed in a given TSL due to the operating costs decrease. Inputs used for outliers. negative LCC savings results for this calculating the LCC and PBP include Table V–2 through Table V–15 show product class at CSL 3 and the fact that total installed costs (i.e., product price the LCC and PBP results for the TSL only four TSLs were analyzed. plus installation costs), and operating efficiency levels considered for each DOE’s third set of TSLs corresponds costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy product class. In the first of each pair of to the grouping of Product Classes 5 prices, energy price trends, repair costs, tables, the simple payback is measured (medium-energy, low-voltage) and 6 and maintenance costs). The LCC relative to the baseline product. In the (medium-energy, high-voltage). For both calculation also uses product lifetime second table, the LCC savings are product classes, TSL 1 is an and a discount rate. Chapter 8 of the measured relative to the base-case intermediate efficiency level above the SNOPR TSD provides detailed efficiency distribution in the baseline. TSL 2 corresponds to the best- information on the LCC and PBP compliance year (see section IV.F.9 of in-market efficiency level for both analyses. this notice).
TABLE V–2—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY TSL FOR PRODUCT CLASS 1
Average costs (2013$) Simple Average TSL CSL payback lifetime First year’s Lifetime years years Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC
– ...... 0 4.39 1.08 4.71 9.10 – 5.0 1 ...... 1 4.72 0.76 3.29 8.01 1.1 5.0 2 ...... 2 5.37 0.38 1.64 7.01 1.5 5.0 3 ...... 2 5.37 0.38 1.64 7.01 1.5 5.0
61 DOE notes that it uses the median payback This method, however, does not eliminate the period to reduce the effect of outliers on the data. outliers from the data.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:32 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52902 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–2—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY TSL FOR PRODUCT CLASS 1—Continued
Average costs (2013$) Simple Average TSL CSL payback lifetime First year’s Lifetime years years Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC
4 ...... 3 10.62 0.16 0.69 11.32 7.4 5.0 Note: The results for each TSL are calculated assuming that all consumers use products at that efficiency level. The PBP is measured relative to the baseline product.
TABLE V–3—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE-CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR PRODUCT CLASS 1
Life-cycle cost savings TSL CSL % of consumers Average that experience savings * net cost 2013$
1 ...... 1 0.0 0.08 2 ...... 2 0.0 0.71 3 ...... 2 0.0 0.71 4 ...... 3 96.3 ¥3.44 * The calculation includes households with zero LCC savings (no impact).
TABLE V–4—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY TSL FOR PRODUCT CLASS 2
Average costs (2013$) Simple Average TSL CSL payback lifetime First year’s Lifetime years years Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC
– ...... 0 2.62 0.43 1.43 4.05 – 4.0 1 ...... 1 2.68 0.27 0.86 3.54 0.6 4.0 2 ...... 1 2.68 0.27 0.86 3.54 0.6 4.0 3 ...... 2 3.11 0.16 0.45 3.57 2.5 4.0 4 ...... 4 7.31 0.11 0.31 7.62 19.5 4.0
TABLE V–5—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE-CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR PRODUCT CLASS 2
Life-cycle cost savings TSL CSL % of consumers Average that experience savings * net cost 2013$
1 ...... 1 1.2 0.07 2 ...... 1 1.2 0.07 3 ...... 2 33.1 0.06 4 ...... 4 73.8 ¥2.79
TABLE V–6—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY TSL FOR PRODUCT CLASS 3
Average costs (2013$) Simple Average TSL CSL payback lifetime First year’s Lifetime years years Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC
– ...... 0 2.59 0.52 2.30 4.89 – 4.9 1 ...... 1 2.70 0.18 0.82 3.52 0.8 4.9 2 ...... 1 2.70 0.18 0.82 3.52 0.8 4.9 3 ...... 2 6.84 0.10 0.43 7.27 21.6 4.9 4 ...... 3 8.83 0.09 0.41 9.24 31.2 4.9
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:32 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52903
TABLE V–7—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE-CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR PRODUCT CLASS 3
Life-cycle cost savings TSL CSL % of consumers Average that experience savings * net cost 2013$
1 ...... 1 0.6 0.08 2 ...... 1 0.6 0.08 3 ...... 2 39.0 ¥1.36 4 ...... 3 40.8 ¥2.17
TABLE V–8—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY TSL FOR PRODUCT CLASS 4
Average costs (2013$) Simple Average TSL CSL payback lifetime First year’s Lifetime years years Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC
– ...... 0 3.75 1.61 5.62 9.37 ...... 3.7 1 ...... 1 4.89 0.67 2.28 7.17 1.4 3.7 2 ...... 1 4.89 0.67 2.28 7.17 1.4 3.7 3 ...... 2 9.29 0.45 1.55 10.84 5.2 3.7 4 ...... 3 27.06 0.38 1.30 28.36 20.7 3.7
TABLE V–9—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE-CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR PRODUCT CLASS 4
Life-cycle cost savings TSL CSL % of consumers Average that experience savings * net cost 2013$
1 ...... 1 1.3 0.11 2 ...... 1 1.3 0.11 3 ...... 2 12.6 ¥0.38 4 ...... 3 25.8 ¥4.91
TABLE V–10—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY TSL FOR PRODUCT CLASS 5
Average costs (2013$) Simple Average TSL CSL payback lifetime First year’s Lifetime years years Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC
– ...... 0 46.58 11.68 68.85 115.43 ...... 4.0 1 ...... 1 51.37 7.74 45.38 96.75 2.3 4.0 2 ...... 2 58.94 2.87 16.36 75.30 2.7 4.0 3 ...... 3 207.68 1.26 7.10 214.77 29.1 4.0 4 ...... 3 207.68 1.26 7.10 214.77 29.1 4.0
TABLE V–11—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE-CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR PRODUCT CLASS 5
Life-cycle cost savings TSL CSL % of consumers Average that experience savings * net cost 2013$
1 ...... 1 0.0 0.00 2 ...... 2 0.6 0.84 3 ...... 3 99.7 ¥138.63 4 ...... 3 99.7 ¥138.63
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:32 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52904 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–12—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY TSL FOR PRODUCT CLASS 6
Average costs (2013$) Simple Average TSL CSL payback lifetime First year’s Lifetime years years Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC
– ...... 0 45.39 15.93 113.08 158.47 ...... 9.7 1 ...... 1 50.14 10.81 77.60 127.74 1.0 9.7 2 ...... 2 57.64 4.45 33.33 90.98 1.1 9.7 3 ...... 3 205.07 2.24 16.94 222.01 12.5 9.7 4 ...... 3 205.07 2.24 16.94 222.01 12.5 9.7
TABLE V–13—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE-CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR PRODUCT CLASS 6
Life-cycle cost savings TSL CSL % of consumers Average that experience savings * net cost 2013$
1 ...... 1 0.0 0.00 2 ...... 2 0.0 1.89 3 ...... 3 100.0 ¥129.15 4 ...... 3 100.0 ¥129.15
TABLE V–14—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY TSL FOR PRODUCT CLASS 7
Average costs (2013$) Simple Average TSL CSL payback lifetime First year’s Lifetime years years Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC
– ...... 0 221.94 29.42 95.03 316.97 ...... 3.5 1 ...... 1 181.55 22.09 70.81 252.36 0.0 3.5 2 ...... 1 181.55 22.09 70.81 252.36 0.0 3.5 3 ...... 2 334.87 15.14 48.60 383.47 8.1 3.5 4 ...... 2 334.87 15.14 48.60 383.47 8.1 3.5
TABLE V–15—AVERAGE LCC SAVINGS RELATIVE TO THE BASE-CASE EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTION FOR PRODUCT CLASS 7
Life-cycle cost savings TSL CSL % of consumers Average that experience savings * net cost 2013$
1 ...... 1 0.0 51.06 2 ...... 1 0.0 51.06 3 ...... 2 100.0 ¥80.05 4 ...... 2 100.0 ¥80.05
The LCC results for battery chargers positive through TSL 2 but become businesses, residential top tier depend on the product class being negative at TSL 3. The high-energy electricity price consumers, time-of-use considered. See Table V–2 through product class (Product Class 7) has peak electricity price consumers, and Table V–15. LCC savings results for positive LCC savings through TSL 2, consumers of specific applications. See Product Class 1 are positive through and then becomes negative at TSL 3. section IV.F of this SNOPR for a review TSL 3. For the low-energy product of the inputs to the LCC analysis. LCC b. Consumer Subgroup Analysis classes (Product Classes 2, 3, and 4), and PBP results for consumer subgroups LCC results are positive through TSL 2 Certain consumer subgroups may be are presented in Table V–16 through and become negative at TSL 3, with disproportionately affected by Table V–22. The abbreviations are Product Class 2 becoming negative at standards. DOE performed LCC described after Table V–22. The ensuing TSL 4. The medium-energy product subgroup analyses in this SNOPR for discussion presents the most significant classes (Product Classes 5 and 6) are low-income consumers, small results from the LCC subgroup analysis.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52905
TABLE V–16—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 1
Average life-cycle cost savings Simple payback period TSL (2013$) (years) LI SB TT P–TOU All LI SB TT P–TOU All
1 ...... 0.08 0.00 0.26 0.39 0.08 1.1 0.0 0.3 0.2 1.1 2 ...... 0.71 0.00 2.88 4.31 0.71 1.5 0.0 0.5 0.3 1.5 3 ...... 0.71 0.00 2.88 4.31 0.71 1.5 0.0 0.5 0.3 1.5 4 ...... (3.46) 0.00 0.44 3.00 (3.44) 7.4 0.0 2.3 1.6 7.4
TABLE V–17—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 2
Average life-cycle cost savings Simple payback period TSL (2013$) (years) LI SB TT P–TOU All LI SB TT P–TOU All
1 ...... 0.06 0.08 0.17 0.29 0.07 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.6 2 ...... 0.06 0.08 0.17 0.29 0.07 0.5 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.6 3 ...... 0.05 (0.01) 0.58 0.96 0.06 2.4 3.8 0.9 0.6 2.5 4 ...... (2.76) (3.29) (2.05) (1.56) (2.79) 18.6 25.2 6.9 4.8 19.5
TABLE V–18—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 3
Average life-cycle cost savings Simple payback period TSL (2013$) (years) LI SB TT P–TOU All LI SB TT P–TOU All
1 ...... 0.07 0.14 0.23 0.36 0.08 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.8 2 ...... 0.07 0.14 0.23 0.36 0.08 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.8 3 ...... (1.38) (1.10) (0.86) (0.43) (1.36) 22.0 4.8 6.9 4.8 21.6 4 ...... (2.19) (1.85) (1.65) (1.20) (2.17) 31.3 6.6 10.0 7.0 31.2
TABLE V–19—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 4
Average life-cycle cost savings Simple payback period TSL (2013$) (years) LI SB TT P–TOU All LI SB TT P–TOU All
1 ...... 0.15 0.06 0.57 0.68 0.11 0.9 1.5 0.3 0.3 1.4 2 ...... 0.15 0.06 0.57 0.68 0.11 0.9 1.5 0.3 0.3 1.4 3 ...... (0.49) (0.27) 0.07 0.53 (0.38) 4.0 5.5 1.2 1.1 5.2 4 ...... (5.80) (3.83) (5.07) (3.79) (4.91) 15.6 21.7 4.7 4.3 20.7
TABLE V–20—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 5
Average life-cycle cost savings Simple payback period TSL (2013$) (years) LI SB TT P–TOU All LI SB TT P–TOU All
1 ...... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.3 0.0 0.8 0.5 2.3 2 ...... 0.84 0.00 3.14 4.64 0.84 2.7 0.0 0.9 0.6 2.7 3 ...... (138.81) 0.00 (118.82) (105.75) (138.63) 29.1 0.0 9.8 6.8 29.1 4 ...... (138.81) 0.00 (118.82) (105.75) (138.63) 29.1 0.0 9.8 6.8 29.1
VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:10 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52906 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–21—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 6
Average life-cycle cost savings Simple payback period TSL (2013$) (years) LI SB TT P–TOU All LI SB TT P–TOU All
1 ...... 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.0 0.0 0.3 0.2 1.0 2 ...... 1.87 0.00 6.24 9.10 1.89 1.1 0.0 0.4 0.3 1.1 3 ...... (129.38) 0.00 (93.98) (70.73) (129.15) 12.6 0.0 4.0 2.8 12.5 4 ...... (129.38) 0.00 (93.98) (70.73) (129.15) 12.6 0.0 4.0 2.8 12.5
TABLE V–22—COMPARISON OF LCC SAVINGS AND PBP FOR CONSUMER SUBGROUPS AND ALL HOUSEHOLDS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 7
Average life-cycle cost savings Simple payback period TSL (2013$) (years) LI SB TT P–TOU All LI SB TT P–TOU All
1 ...... 51.88 49.36 89.56 116.93 51.06 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 ...... 51.88 49.36 89.56 116.93 51.06 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 ...... (93.28) (82.08) (39.75) 62.98 (80.05) 20.1 8.0 6.4 1.6 8.1 4 ...... (93.28) (82.08) (39.75) 62.98 (80.05) 20.1 8.0 6.4 1.6 8.1
Where: businesses typically have a cost of greater LCC savings than those in the LI = Low-income consumers capital that is 4.16 percent higher than reference case scenario. This result SB = Small businesses the industry average, which was applied occurs because these consumers pay TT = Top tier electricity price consumers to the discount rate for the small more for their electricity than other P–TOU = Peak time-of-use electricity price business consumer subgroup analysis. consumers, and, therefore, experience consumers The small business consumer greater savings when using products All = Entire population subgroup LCC results are not directly that are more energy efficient. This Low-Income Consumers comparable to the reference case LCC subgroup analysis changed the negative results because this subgroup only LCC savings for Product Class 1 at TSL For low-income consumers, the LCC considers commercial applications. In 4 and Product Class 4 at TSL 3 to impacts and PBPs are different from the the reference case scenario, the LCC positive LCC savings. general population. This subgroup results are strongly influenced by the Peak Time-of-Use Electricity Price considers only the residential sector, presence of residential applications, Consumers and uses an adjusted population which typically comprise the majority distribution from the reference case of application shipments. Note that For peak time-of-use electricity price scenario. Using 2009 RECS data, DOE Product Classes 1, 5, and 6 have no consumers, the LCC impacts and PBPs determined that low-income consumers results for small businesses because are different from the general have a different population distribution there are no commercial applications for population. Time-of-use pricing is than the general population. To account these product classes. No LCC results available for both residential and for this difference, DOE adjusted that were positive for all consumers commercial electricity rates, so both population distributions for each region become negative in the small business sectors were considered. DOE analyzed according to the shift between subgroup analysis, with the exception of researched upper tier inclined marginal general and low-income populations. Product Class 2, which became -$0.01 at block rates for electricity, resulting in The LCC savings and PBPs of low- TSL 3. No negative LCC results for all adjusted electricity prices of $0.514 per income consumers are similar to that of consumers became positive for small kWh for residential and $0.494 for the total population of consumers. In businesses. These observations indicate commercial consumers. general, low-income consumers that small business consumers would This subgroup analysis increased the experience slightly reduced LCC experience similar LCC impacts as the LCC savings of most of the savings, with the exceptions of TSL 4 of general population. representative units significantly. This Product Class 2 and TSLs 1 and 2 of subgroup analysis changed the Product Classes 4 and 7. None of the Top Tier Electricity Price Consumers following negative LCC results to changes in LCC savings move a TSL For top tier electricity price positive savings: Product Class 1 at TSL from positive to negative LCC savings, consumers, the LCC impacts and PBPs 4, Product Class 4 at TSL 3, and Product or vice versa. are different from the general Class 7 at TSLs 3 and 4. Some product classes would still have negative LCC Small Businesses population. Tiered pricing is generally only used for residential electricity savings, which indicates that these For small business customers, the rates, so the analysis for this subgroup product classes have increasing LCC impacts and PBPs are different only considers the residential sector. installed costs (purchase price plus from the general population. This DOE researched upper tier inclined installation costs, the latter of which are subgroup analysis considers only the marginal block rates for the electricity, assumed to be zero) at higher TSLs that commercial sector, and uses an adjusted resulting in a price of $0.359 per kWh. cannot be overcome through operating discount rate from the reference case Consumers in the top tier electricity cost savings using peak time-of-use scenario. DOE found that small price bracket generally experience electricity prices.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52907
Consumers of Specific Applications applications have significantly positive presents the rebuttable-presumption LCC savings, they balance out the PBPs for the considered TSLs. While DOE performed an LCC and PBP negative savings from the top two analysis on every application within DOE examined the rebuttable- applications. Some Product Class 4 each product class. This subgroup presumption criterion, it considered applications at TSLs 1 through 3 analysis used each application’s specific whether the standard levels considered featured results that were positive inputs for lifetime costs, markups, base for this rule are economically justified where the shipment-weighted results case market efficiency distribution, and through a more detailed analysis of the were negative, or vice versa. However, economic impacts of those levels, UEC. Many applications in each product shipments and magnitude of the LCC class experienced LCC impacts and pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i), savings were not enough to change the that considers the full range of impacts PBPs that were different from the overall direction (positive or negative) average results across the product class. to the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, of the weighted average. In the other and environment. The results of that Because of the large number of battery charger product classes, the applications considered in the analysis, analysis serve as the basis for DOE to individual application results reflected definitively evaluate the economic some of which span multiple product the same trend as the overall results for classes, DOE did not present justification for a potential standard the product class. See chapter 11 of the level, thereby supporting or rebutting application-specific LCC results here. SNOPR TSD for further detail. Detailed results on each application are the results of any preliminary available in chapter 11 of the SNOPR c. Rebuttable Presumption Payback determination of economic justification. TSD. As discussed in section III.E.2, EPCA Table V–23 shows considered TSLs for DOE noted a few trends highlighted establishes a rebuttable presumption the battery charger product classes by the application-specific subgroup. that an energy conservation standard is where the rebuttable presumption PBPs For Product Class 2, the top two economically justified if the increased show they are economically justified. application LCC savings representing 46 purchase cost for a product that meets Because a PBP of less than three years percent of shipments are negative the standard is less than three times the indicates that the increased purchase beyond TSL 1, but frequently used value of the first-year energy savings cost is less than three times the value of applications within that class—e.g., resulting from the standard. As required the first-year energy savings for that answering machines, cordless phones, by EPCA, DOE based the energy use efficiency level, this table highlights and home security systems—experience calculation on the DOE test procedures product class TSLs where the PBP is positive LCC savings. Because these for battery chargers. Table V–23 less than three years.
TABLE V–23—TRIAL STANDARD LEVELS WITH REBUTTABLE PAYBACK PERIOD LESS THAN THREE YEARS
Rebuttable Trial Candidate presumption Product class Description standard standard PBP level level years
1 ...... Low-Energy, Inductive ...... 1 1 1.1 2 2 1.5 3 2 1.5 2 ...... Low-Energy, Low-Voltage ...... 1 1 0.6 2 1 0.6 3 2 2.5 3 ...... Low-Energy, Medium-Voltage ...... 1 1 0.8 2 1 0.8 4 ...... Low-Energy, High-Voltage ...... 1 1 1.4 2 1 1.4 5 ...... Medium-Energy, Low-Voltage ...... 1 1 2.3 2 2 2.7 6 ...... Medium-Energy, High-Voltage ...... 1 1 1.0 2 2 1.1 7 ...... High-Energy ...... 1 1 0.0 2 1 0.0
2. Economic Impact on Manufacturers DOE calculated by summing the groupings. When appropriate, DOE also DOE performed an MIA to estimate discounted industry cash flows from the discusses the results for groups of the impact of new energy conservation base year (2015) through the end of the related applications that would standards on battery charger application analysis period. The discussion also experience impacts significantly manufacturers. The following sections notes the difference in the annual cash different from the overall product class describe the expected impacts on flow between the base case and the group to which they belong. battery charger application standards case in the year before the In general, two major factors drive the manufacturers at each TSL. Chapter 12 compliance date of new energy INPV results: (1) the relative difference of this SNOPR TSD explains the MIA in conservation standards. This figure between a given applications’ MSP and further detail. provides a proxy for the magnitude of the incremental cost of improving its the required conversion costs, relative to battery charger; and (2) the dominant a. Industry Cash-Flow Analysis Results the cash flow generated by the industry base case battery charger technology The INPV results refer to the in the base case. that a given application uses, which is difference in industry value between the DOE reports INPV impacts at each approximated by the application’s base case and the standards case, which TSL for the four product class efficiency distribution.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52908 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
With respect to the first factor, the efficient battery chargers to their to maintain their base case gross margin, higher the MSP of the application customers. This scenario generally as a percentage of revenue, at higher relative to the battery charger cost, the results in the most significant negative CSLs, despite the higher product costs lower the impacts of battery charger impacts because no incremental costs associated with more efficient battery standards on OEMs of the application. added to the application—whether chargers. In other words, manufacturers For example, an industry that sells an driven by higher battery charger can fully pass on—and markup—the application for $500 would be less component costs or depreciation of higher incremental product costs affected by a $2 increase in battery required capital investments—can be associated with more efficient battery charger costs than one that sells its recouped. chargers. In the pass-through scenario, DOE application for $10. On the second Product Class 1 factor regarding base case efficiency assumes that manufacturers are able to distribution, some industries, such as pass the incremental costs of more Table V–24 through Table V–27 producers of laptop computers, already efficient battery chargers through to summarize information related to the their customers, but not with any incorporate highly efficient battery analysis performed to project the markup to cover overhead and profit. chargers. Therefore, a higher standard potential impacts on Product Class 1 Therefore, though less severe than the would be unlikely to impact the laptop battery charger application constant price scenario in which industry as it would other applications manufacturers. manufacturers absorb all incremental using baseline technology in the same costs, this scenario results in negative product class. TABLE V–24—APPLICATIONS IN cash flow impacts due to margin DOE analyzed three markup compression and greater working capital PRODUCT CLASS 1 scenarios—constant price, pass-through, requirements. and flat markup. The constant price Finally, DOE considers a flat markup Product class 1 scenario analyzes the situation in which scenario to analyze the upper bound Rechargeable Toothbrushes application manufacturers are unable to (most positive) of profitability impacts. Rechargeable Water Jets pass on any incremental costs of more In this scenario, manufacturers are able
TABLE V–25—MANUFACTURERS IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 1 BATTERY CHARGER APPLICATIONS—FLAT MARKUP SCENARIO
Trial standard level Units Base case 1 2 3 4
INPV ...... 2013$ Millions ...... 497 497 496 496 519 Change in INPV ...... 2013$ Millions ...... 0 (1) (1) 22 (%) ...... 0.0 (0.1) (0.1) 4.5 Product Conversion Costs .. 2013$ Millions ...... 0.1 1.7 1.7 5.1 Capital Conversion Costs ... 2013$ Millions ...... 0.0 1.5 1.5 2.3 Total Investment Required .. 2013$ Millions ...... 0.1 3.2 3.2 7.4
TABLE V–26—MANUFACTURERS IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 1 BATTERY CHARGER APPLICATIONS—PASS THROUGH MARKUP SCENARIO
Trial standard level Units Base case 1 2 3 4
INPV ...... 2013$ Millions ...... 497 491 470 470 348 Change in INPV ...... 2013$ Millions ...... (6) (27) (27) (149) (%) ...... (1.1) (5.4) (5.4) (29.9) Product Conversion Costs .. 2013$ Millions ...... 0.1 1.7 1.7 5.1 Capital Conversion Costs ... 2013$ Millions ...... 0.0 1.5 1.5 2.3 Total Investment Required .. 2013$ Millions ...... 0.1 3.2 3.2 7.4
TABLE V–27—MANUFACTURERS IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 1 BATTERY CHARGER APPLICATIONS— CONSTANT PRICE MARKUP SCENARIO
Trial standard level Units Base case 1 2 3 4
INPV ...... 2013$ Millions ...... 497 478 412 412 122 Change in INPV ...... 2013$ Millions ...... (18) (84) (84) (375) (%) ...... (3.7) (16.9) (16.9) (75.5) Product Conversion Costs .. 2013$ Millions ...... 0.1 1.7 1.7 5.1 Capital Conversion Costs ... 2013$ Millions ...... 0.0 1.5 1.5 2.3 Total Investment Required .. 2013$ Millions ...... 0.1 3.2 3.2 7.4
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52909
Product Class 1 has only two exceed the efficiency levels required at $22 million, or a change in INPV of applications: rechargeable toothbrushes TSL 1. Consequently, DOE expects ¥75.5 percent to 4.5 percent. At TSL 4, and water jets. Rechargeable conversion costs to be small at TSL 1, industry free cash flow is estimated to toothbrushes represent over 99 percent since so many applications already meet decrease to $36 million, or a drop of 8 of the Product Class 1 shipments. DOE or exceed this requirement. percent, compared to the base-case found the majority of these models TSL 2 and TSL 3 set the efficiency value of $39 million in 2017. include Ni-Cd battery chemistries, level at CSL 2 for Product Class 1. At Percentage impacts on INPV range although products with NiMH and Li- TSL 2 and TSL 3, DOE estimates from significantly negative to slightly ion chemistries exist in the market. impacts on the change in INPV to range ¥ ¥ positive at TSL 4. DOE anticipates that During interviews, manufacturers from $84 million to $1 million, or some Product Class 1 battery charger indicated that energy efficiency was not a change in INPV of ¥16.9 percent to ¥ application manufacturers could lose a a primary selling point in this market. 0.1 percent. At TSL 2 and TSL 3, significant portion of their INPV at TSL industry free cash flow is estimated to As a consequence, manufacturers expect 4. DOE projects that in the expected decrease to $38 million, or a drop of 4 that stringent standards would likely year of compliance, 2018, 4 percent of percent, compared to the base-case impact the low-end of the market, where all Product Class 1 battery charger value of $39 million in 2017. price competition is most fierce and applications would meet the efficiency retail selling prices are lowest. Percentage impacts on INPV range from slightly negative to moderately levels required at TSL 4. DOE expects TSL 1 sets the efficiency level at CSL negative at these TSLs. DOE does not conversion costs to increase from $3.2 1 for Product Class 1. At TSL 1, DOE anticipate that Product Class 1 battery million at TSL 2 and TSL 3 to $7.4 estimates impacts on the change in million at TSL 4. This is still relatively ¥ charger application manufacturers INPV to range from $18 million to less would lose a significant portion of their a modest amount compared to the base than one million dollars, or a change in case INPV of $497 million and annual ¥ INPV at these TSLs. DOE projects that INPV of 3.7 percent to less than 0.1 in the expected year of compliance, cash flow of $39 million for Product percent. At TSL 1, industry free cash 2018, 37 percent of all Product Class 1 Class 1 battery charger applications. At flow (operating cash flow minus capital battery charger applications would meet TSL 4, the battery charger MPC expenditures) is estimated to decrease or exceed the efficiency levels required increases to $6.80 compared to the by less than one million dollars, which at TSL 2 and TSL 3. DOE expects baseline MPC value of $2.05. This corresponds to less than one percent in conversion costs to increase from $0.1 represents a moderate increase in the 2017, the year leading up to new energy million at TSL 1 to $3.2 million at TSL application price when compared to the conservation standards. 2 and TSL 3. This is still a relatively shipment-weighted average application Percentage impacts on INPV are modest amount compared to the base MPC of $40.06. slightly negative at TSL 1. DOE does not case INPV of $497 million and annual Product Classes 2, 3, and 4 anticipate that Product Class 1 battery cash flow of $39 million for Product charger application manufacturers Class 1 battery charger applications. The following tables (Table V–28 would lose a significant portion of their TSL 4 sets the efficiency level at CSL through Table V–34) summarize INPV at this TSL. DOE projects that in 3 for Product Class 1. This represents information related to the analysis the expected year of compliance, 2018, max tech for Product Class 1. At TSL 4, performed to project the potential 93 percent of all Product Class 1 battery DOE estimates impacts on the change in impacts on manufacturers of devices charger applications would meet or INPV to range from ¥$375 million to falling into Product Classes 2, 3, and 4.
TABLE V–28—APPLICATIONS IN PRODUCT CLASSES 2, 3, AND 4
Product class 2 Product class 3 Product class 4
Answering Machines Air Mattress Pumps DIY Power Tools (External) Baby Monitors Blenders Flashlights/Lanterns Beard and Moustache Trimmers Camcorders Handheld Vacuums Bluetooth Headsets DIY Power Tools (External) Netbooks Can Openers DIY Power Tools (Integral) Notebooks Consumer Two-Way Radios Handheld Vacuums Portable Printers Cordless Phones LAN Equipment Professional Power Tools Digital Cameras Mixers Rechargeable Garden Care Products DIY Power Tools (Integral) Portable DVD Players Robotic Vacuums E-Books Portable Printers Stick Vacuums Hair Clippers RC Toys Universal Battery Chargers Handheld GPS Stick Vacuums Home Security Systems Toy Ride-On Vehicles In-Vehicle GPS Universal Battery Chargers Media Tablets Wireless Speakers Mobile Internet Hotspots Mobile Phones MP3 Players MP3 Speaker Docks Personal Digital Assistants Portable Video Game Systems Shavers Smartphone Universal Battery Chargers Video Game Consoles Wireless Headphones
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52910 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–29—MANUFACTURERS IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 2, 3, AND 4 BATTERY CHARGER APPLICATIONS—FLAT MARKUP SCENARIO
Trial standard level Units Base case 1 2 3 4
INPV ...... 2013$ Millions...... 76,791 76,782 76,782 76,774 77,290 Change in INPV ...... 2013$ Millions ...... (10) (10) (17) 499 (%) ...... (0.0) (0.0) (0.0) 0.6 Product Conversion Costs .. 2013$ Millions ...... 11.5 11.5 90.1 280.5 Capital Conversion Costs ... 2013$ Millions ...... 1.8 1.8 25.6 67.3 Total Investment Required .. 2013$ Millions ...... 13.4 13.4 115.7 347.8
TABLE V–30—MANUFACTURERS IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 2, 3, AND 4 BATTERY CHARGER APPLICATIONS—PASS THROUGH MARKUP SCENARIO
Trial standard level Units Base case 1 2 3 4
INPV ...... 2013$ Millions...... 76,791 76,740 76,740 76,322 71,407 Change in INPV ...... 2013$ Millions ...... (51) (51) (469) (5,384) (%) ...... (0.1) (0.1) (0.6) (7.0) Product Conversion Costs .. 2013$ Millions ...... 11.5 11.5 90.1 280.5 Capital Conversion Costs ... 2013$ Millions ...... 1.8 1.8 25.6 67.3 Total Investment Required .. 2013$ Millions ...... 13.4 13.4 115.7 347.8
TABLE V–31—MANUFACTURERS IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 2, 3, AND 4 BATTERY CHARGER APPLICATIONS—CONSTANT MARKUP SCENARIO
Trial standard level Units Base case 1 2 3 4
INPV ...... 2013$ Millions...... 76,791 76,650 76,650 75,392 62,307 Change in INPV ...... 2013$ Millions ...... (141) (141) (1,400) (14,484) (%) ...... (0.2) (0.2) (1.8) (18.9) Product Conversion Costs .. 2013$ Millions ...... 11.5 11.5 90.1 280.5 Capital Conversion Costs ... 2013$ Millions ...... 1.8 1.8 25.6 67.3 Total Investment Required .. 2013$ Millions ...... 13.4 13.4 115.7 347.8
Taken together, Product Classes 2, 3, percent of all Product Class 2 battery manufacturers would lose a significant and 4 include the greatest number of charger applications, 94 percent of all portion of their INPV at this TSL. DOE applications and account for Product Class 3 battery charger projects that in the expected year of approximately 96 percent of all battery applications, and 94 percent of all compliance, 2018, 49 percent of all charger application shipments in 2018, Product Class 4 battery charger Product Class 2 battery charger the anticipated compliance year for new applications would meet or exceed the applications, 60 percent of all Product energy conservation standards. efficiency levels required at TSL 1 and Class 3 battery charger applications, and TSL 1 and TSL 2 set the efficiency TSL 2. Consequently, DOE expects 86 percent of all Product Class 4 battery level at CSL 1 for all product classes in conversion costs to be small at TSL 1 charger applications would meet or this grouping. At TSL 1 and TSL 2, DOE and TSL 2, approximately $13.4 million exceed the efficiency levels required at estimates impacts on the change in since so many applications already meet TSL 3. DOE expects conversion costs to INPV to range from ¥$141 million to or exceed this requirement. increase from $13.4 million at TSL 1 ¥$10 million, or a change in INPV of TSL 3 sets the efficiency level at CSL and TSL 2 to $115.7 million at TSL 3. ¥0.2 percent to less than ¥0.1 percent. 2 for all product classes in this This represents a relatively modest At TSL 1 and TSL 2, industry free cash grouping. At TSL 3, DOE estimates amount compared to the base case INPV flow is estimated to decrease to $6,018 impacts on the change in INPV to range of $76.8 billion and annual cash flow of million, or a drop of less than one from ¥$1,400 million to $17 million, or $6,02 billion for Product Class 2, 3, and percent, compared to the base-case a change in INPV of ¥1.8 percent to less 4 battery charger applications. value of $6,024 million in 2017. than ¥0.1 percent. At TSL 3, industry TSL 4 sets the efficiency level at CSL Percentage impacts on INPV are free cash flow is estimated to decrease 3 for Product Classes 3 and 4 and CSL slightly negative at TSL 1 and TSL 2. to $5,973 million, or a drop of 1 percent, 4 for Product Class 2. These efficiency DOE does not anticipate that most compared to the base-case value of levels represent max tech for all the Product Class 2, 3, and 4 battery charger $6,024 million in 2017. product classes in this grouping. At TSL application manufacturers would lose a Percentage impacts on INPV are 4, DOE estimates impacts on the change significant portion of their INPV at TSL slightly negative at this TSL. DOE does in INPV to range from ¥$14.48 billion 1 or TSL 2. DOE projects that in the not anticipate that Product Class 2, 3, to $499 million, or a change in INPV of expected year of compliance, 2018, 91 and 4 battery charger application ¥18.9 percent to 0.6 percent. At TSL 4,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52911
industry free cash flow is estimated to that this projected increase of $16.55 in consumer electronics category, with the decrease to $5.87 billion, or a drop of 3 the battery charger MPC from the remaining share split between small percent, compared to the base-case baseline to the max tech may seem appliances and power tools. Consumer value of $6.02 billion in 2017. significant, its impact is modest when electronics applications have a much Percentage impacts on INPV range compared to the shipment-weighted higher shipment-weighted average MPC from moderately negative to slightly average Product Class 4 battery charger ($147.29) than the other product positive at TSL 4. DOE anticipates that application MPC of $192.40—in categories ($58.32 for power tools and some Product Class 2, 3, and 4 battery essence, it represents a 8.6 percent $43.63 for small appliances). charger application manufacturers could increase in the average battery charger Consequently, consumer electronics lose a significant portion of their INPV application MPC. manufacturers are better able to absorb at TSL 4. DOE projects that in the These product classes also include a higher battery charger costs than small expected year of compliance, 2018, 25 wide variety of applications, appliance and power tool percent of all Product Class 2 battery characterized by differing shipment manufacturers. Further, consumer charger applications, 58 percent of all volumes, base case efficiency electronics typically incorporate higher Product Class 3 battery charger distributions, and MSPs. Because of this efficiency battery chargers already, applications, and 74 percent of all variety, this product class grouping, while small appliances and power tool Product Class 4 battery charger more than any other, requires a greater applications tend to cluster around applications would meet the efficiency level of disaggregation to evaluate baseline and CSL 1 efficiencies. These levels required at TSL 4. DOE expects specific industry impacts. Presented factors lead to proportionally greater conversion costs to significantly only on a product class basis, industry impacts on small appliance and power increase from $115.7 million at TSL 3 to impacts are effectively shipment- tool manufacturers in the event they are $347.8 million at TSL 4. At TSL 4, the weighted and mask impacts on certain not able to pass on and markup higher Product Class 2 battery charger MPC industry applications that vary battery charger costs. increases to $4.31 compared to the substantially from the aggregate results. Table V–32 through Table V–34 baseline MPC value of $1.16. This Therefore, in addition to the overall present INPV impacts in the pass- represents a small application price product class group results, DOE also through markup scenario for consumer increase considering that the shipment- presents results by industry electronic, power tool, and small weighted average Product Class 2 subgroups—consumer electronics, appliance applications, respectively (for battery charger application MPC is power tools, and small appliances—in only those applications incorporating $127.73. For Product Class 3, the MPC the pass-through scenario, which battery chargers in Product Classes 2, 3 increases to $5.51 compared to the approximates the mid-point of the or 4). The results indicate manufacturers baseline MPC value of $1.12. This potential range of INPV impacts. These of power tools and small appliances estimate also represents a small results highlight impacts at various would face disproportionately adverse application price increase since the TSLs. impacts, especially at the higher TSLs, shipment-weighted average Product As discussed in the previous section, as compared to consumer electronics Class 3 battery charger application MPC these aggregated results can mask manufacturers and the overall product is $61.11. For Product Class 4, the differentially impacted industries and group’s results (shown in Table V–29 battery charger MPC increases to $18.34 manufacturer subgroups. Nearly 90 through Table V–31), if they are not able compared to the baseline battery charger percent of shipments in Product Classes to mark up the incremental product MPC of $1.79. While DOE recognizes 2, 3 and 4 fall under the broader costs.
TABLE V–32—MANUFACTURERS IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 2, 3, AND 4 BATTERY CHARGER APPLICATIONS—PASS THROUGH MARKUP SCENARIO—CONSUMER ELECTRONICS
Trial standard level Units Base case 1 2 3 4
INPV ...... 2013$ Millions...... 73,840 73,805 73,805 73,511 69,568 Change in INPV ...... 2013$ Millions ...... (36) (36) (329) (4,272) (%) ...... (0.0) (0.0) (0.4) (5.8) Product Conversion Costs .. 2013$ Millions ...... 10.2 10.2 77.6 242.2 Capital Conversion Costs ... 2013$ Millions ...... 1.7 1.7 20.0 56.3 Total Investment Required .. 2013$ Millions ...... 11.9 11.9 97.6 298.5
TABLE V–33—MANUFACTURERS IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 2, 3, AND 4 BATTERY CHARGER APPLICATIONS—PASS THROUGH MARKUP SCENARIO—POWER TOOLS
Trial standard level Units Base case 1 2 3 4
INPV ...... 2013$ Millions...... 2,190 2,179 2,179 2,102 1,351 Change in INPV ...... 2013$ Millions ...... (11) (11) (88) (839) (%) ...... (0.5) (0.5) (4.0) (38.3) Product Conversion Costs .. 2013$ Millions ...... 0.9 0.9 7.3 22.3 Capital Conversion Costs ... 2013$ Millions ...... 0.0 0.0 3.3 5.5 Total Investment Required .. 2013$ Millions ...... 1.0 1.0 10.6 27.8
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52912 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–34—MANUFACTURERS IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 2, 3, AND 4 BATTERY CHARGER APPLICATIONS—PASS THROUGH MARKUP SCENARIO—SMALL APPLIANCES
Trial standard level Units Base case 1 2 3 4
INPV ...... 2013$ Millions ...... 761 756 756 709 487 Change in INPV ...... 2013$ Millions ...... (5) (5) (52) (273) (%) ...... (0.6) (0.6) (6.8) (35.9) Product Conversion Costs .. 2013$ Millions ...... 0.4 0.4 5.1 16.0 Capital Conversion Costs ... 2013$ Millions ...... 0.1 0.1 2.4 5.5 Total Investment Required .. 2013$ Millions ...... 0.5 0.5 7.5 21.5
Product Classes 5 and 6 TABLE V–35—APPLICATIONS IN TABLE V–35—APPLICATIONS IN PROD- PRODUCT CLASSES 5 AND 6 UCT CLASSES 5 AND 6—Continued The following tables (Table V–35 through Table V–38) summarize Product class 5 Product class 6 Product class 5 Product class 6 information related to the analysis performed to project the potential Marine/Automotive/ Electric Scooters Toy Ride-On Vehicles Motorized Bicycles impacts on manufacturers of devices RV Chargers Wheelchairs Wheelchairs falling into Product Classes 5 and 6. Mobility Scooters Lawn Mowers
TABLE V–36—MANUFACTURERS IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 5 AND 6 BATTERY CHARGER APPLICATIONS— FLAT MARKUP SCENARIO
Trial standard level Units Base case 1 2 3 4
INPV ...... 2013$ Millions...... 1,493 1,493 1,493 2,065 2,065 Change in INPV ...... 2013$ Millions ...... 0 0 572 572 (%) ...... 0.0 0.0 38.3 38.3 Product Conversion Costs .. 2013$ Millions ...... 0.0 1.1 33.1 33.1 Capital Conversion Costs ... 2013$ Millions ...... 0.0 0.2 6.4 6.4 Total Investment Required .. 2013$ Millions ...... 0.0 1.3 39.6 39.6
TABLE V–37—MANUFACTURERS IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 5 AND 6 BATTERY CHARGER APPLICATIONS— PASS THROUGH MARKUP SCENARIO
Trial standard level Units Base case 1 2 3 4
INPV ...... 2013$ Millions ...... 1,493 1,491 1,370 878 878 Change in INPV ...... 2013$ Millions ...... (2) (123) (615) (615) (%) ...... (0.2) (8.2) (41.2) (41.2) Product Conversion Costs .. 2013$ Millions ...... 0.0 1.1 33.1 33.1 Capital Conversion Costs ... 2013$ Millions ...... 0.0 0.2 6.4 6.4 Total Investment Required .. 2013$ Millions ...... 0.0 1.3 39.6 39.6
TABLE V–38—MANUFACTURERS IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 5 AND 6 BATTERY CHARGER APPLICATIONS— CONSTANT MARKUP SCENARIO
Trial standard level Units Base case 1 2 3 4
INPV ...... 2013$ Millions ...... 1,493 1,486 1,145 586 586 Change in INPV ...... 2013$ Millions ...... (7) (348) (907) (907) (%) ...... (0.5) (23.3) (60.8) (60.8) Product Conversion Costs .. 2013$ Millions ...... 0.0 1.1 33.1 33.1 Capital Conversion Costs ... 2013$ Millions ...... 0.0 0.2 6.4 6.4 Total Investment Required .. 2013$ Millions ...... 0.0 1.3 39.6 39.6
Product Classes 5 and 6 together shipments. DOE found that all Product Product Class 5 and 6 applications, but comprise seven unique applications. Class 5 and 6 shipments are at either the energy usage profiles are different. Toy ride-on vehicles represent over 70 CSL 1 or CSL 2. The battery charger cost TSL 1 sets the efficiency level at CSL percent of the Product Class 5 and 6 associated with each CSL is the same for 1 for Product Classes 5 and 6. At TSL
VerDate Sep<11>2014 21:41 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52913
1, DOE estimates impacts on the change 95 percent of all Product Class 5 battery application manufacturers could lose a in INPV to range from ¥$7 million to charger applications and 95 percent of significant portion of their INPV at TSL no change at all, or a change in INPV of all Product Class 6 battery charger 3 and TSL 4. DOE projects that in the ¥0.5 percent to no change at all. At TSL applications would meet or exceed the expected year of compliance, 2018, no 1, industry free cash flow is estimated efficiency levels required at TSL 2. DOE Product Class 5 or 6 battery charger to remain at $117 million in 2017. expects conversion costs to slightly applications would meet the efficiency Percentage impacts on INPV range increase to $1.3 million at TSL 2. levels required at TSL 3 and TSL 4. DOE from slightly negative to unchanged at TSL 3 and TSL 4 set the efficiency expects conversion costs to significantly TSL 1. DOE does not anticipate that level at CSL 3 for Product Classes 5 and increase from $1.3 million at TSL 2 to Product Class 5 and 6 battery charger 6. This efficiency level represents max $39.6 million at TSL 3 and TSL 4. At application manufacturers would lose a tech for Product Classes 5 and 6. At TSL TSL 3 and TSL 4, the Product Class 5 significant portion of their INPV at TSL 3 and TSL 4, DOE estimates impacts on and 6 battery charger MPC increases to 1. DOE projects that in the expected the change in INPV to range from $127.00 compared to the baseline year of compliance, 2018, all Product ¥$907 million to $572 million, or a battery charger MPC value of $18.48. Class 5 and 6 battery charger change in INPV of ¥60.8 percent to 38.3 This represents a huge application price applications would meet or exceed the percent. At TSL 3 and TSL 4, industry increase considering that the shipment- efficiency levels required at TSL 1. free cash flow is estimated to decrease weighted average Product Class 5 and 6 Consequently, DOE does not expect to $100 million, or a drop of 15 percent, battery charger application MPC, with there to be any conversion costs at TSL compared to the base-case value of $117 no standards, is $131.14 and $262.21 1. million in 2017. respectively. TSL 2 sets the efficiency level at CSL Percentage impacts on INPV range Product Class 7 2 for Product Classes 5 and 6. At TSL from significantly negative to 2, DOE estimates impacts on the change significantly positive at TSL 3 and TSL The following tables (Table V–39 in INPV to range from ¥$348 million to 4. This large INPV range is related to the through Table V–42) summarize less than one million dollars, or a significant increase in battery charger information related to the analysis change in INPV of ¥23.3 percent to less MPC required at TSL 3 and TSL 4. DOE performed to project the potential than 0.1 percent. At TSL 2, industry free believes that it is unlikely battery impacts on manufacturers of devices cash flow is estimated to decrease to charger application manufacturers falling into Product Class 7. $117 million, or a drop of less than one would be able to pass on this larger percent, compared to the base-case increase in the MPC of the battery TABLE V–39—APPLICATIONS IN value of $117 million in 2017. charger, which would imply that the PRODUCT CLASS 7 Percentage impacts on INPV range negative INPV impact is a more realistic from moderately negative to slightly scenario than the positive INPV impact Product class 7 positive at TSL 2. DOE projects that in scenario. DOE anticipates that most Golf Cars the expected year of compliance, 2018, Product Class 5 and 6 battery charger
TABLE V–40—MANUFACTURERS IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 7 BATTERY CHARGER APPLICATIONS—FLAT MARKUP SCENARIO
Trial standard level Units Base case 1 2 3 4
INPV ...... 2013$ Millions...... 1,124 1,116 1,116 1,143 1,143 Change in INPV ...... 2013$ Millions ...... (8) (8) 20 20 (%) ...... (0.7) (0.7) 1.7 1.7 Product Conversion Costs .. 2013$ Millions ...... 1.3 1.3 3.3 3.3 Capital Conversion Costs ... 2013$ Millions ...... 0.4 0.4 1.8 1.8 Total Investment Required .. 2013$ Millions ...... 1.7 1.7 5.1 5.1
TABLE V–41—MANUFACTURERS IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 7 BATTERY CHARGER APPLICATIONS—PASS THROUGH MARKUP SCENARIO
Trial standard level Units Base case 1 2 3 4
INPV ...... 2013$ Millions...... 1,124 1,134 1,134 1,091 1,091 Change in INPV ...... 2013$ Millions ...... 11 11 (32) (32) (%) ...... 0.9 0.9 (2.9) (2.9) Product Conversion Costs .. 2013$ Millions ...... 1.3 1.3 3.3 3.3 Capital Conversion Costs ... 2013$ Millions ...... 0.4 0.4 1.8 1.8 Total Investment Required .. 2013$ Millions ...... 1.7 1.7 5.1 5.1
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52914 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–42—MANUFACTURERS IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR PRODUCT CLASS 7 BATTERY CHARGER APPLICATIONS— CONSTANT MARKUP SCENARIO
Trial standard level Units Base case 1 2 3 4
INPV ...... 2013$ Millions ...... 1,124 1,168 1,168 998 998 Change in INPV ...... 2013$ Millions ...... 44 44 (126) (126) (%) ...... 3.9 3.9 (11.2) (11.2) Product Conversion Costs .. 2013$ Millions ...... 1.3 1.3 3.3 3.3 Capital Conversion Costs ... 2013$ Millions ...... 0.4 0.4 1.8 1.8 Total Investment Required .. 2013$ Millions ...... 1.7 1.7 5.1 5.1
Golf cars are the only application in decrease to $86 million, or a drop of 3 Also, DOE was able to find a few Product Class 7. Approximately 80 percent, compared to the base-case manufacturers of medium and high percent of the market incorporates value of $88 million in 2017. power applications with facilities in the baseline battery charger technology—the Percentage impacts on INPV range U.S. However, only a limited number of remaining 20 percent employs from moderately negative to slightly these companies produce battery technology that meets the efficiency positive at TSL 3 and TSL 4. DOE chargers domestically for these requirements at CSL 1. The cost of a projects that in the expected year of applications. Therefore, based on battery charger in Product Class 7, compliance, 2018, no Product Class 7 manufacturer interviews and DOE’s though higher relative to other product battery charger applications would meet research, DOE believes that golf cars are classes, remains a small portion of the the efficiency levels required at TSL 3 the only application with U.S.-based overall selling price of a golf cart. This and TSL 4. DOE expects conversion battery charger manufacturing. Any analysis, however, focuses on the costs to increase from $1.7 million at change in U.S. production employment application manufacturer (OEM). DOE TSL 1 and TSL 2 to $5.1 million at TSL due to new battery charger energy identified one small U.S. manufacturer 3 and TSL 4. This represents a relatively conservation standards is likely to come of golf cart battery chargers. The impacts modest amount compared to the base from changes involving these particular of standards on these small businesses case INPV of $1,124 million and annual products. DOE seeks comment on the is addressed in the Regulatory cash flow of $88 million for Product presence of any domestic battery Flexibility Analysis (see section VI.B for Class 7 battery charger applications. At charger manufacturing outside of the the results of that analysis). TSL 3 and TSL 4 the battery charger golf car industry and beyond TSL 1 and TSL 2 set the efficiency MPC increases to $164.14 compared to prototyping for R&D purposes. level at CSL 1 for Product Class 7. At the baseline battery charger MPC value At the proposed efficiency levels, TSL 1 and TSL 2, DOE estimates of $88.07. This change represents only domestic golf car manufacturers will impacts on the change in INPV to range a moderate increase in the application need to decide whether to attempt to from ¥$8 million to $44 million, or a price since the shipment-weighted manufacture more efficient battery change in INPV of ¥0.7 percent to 3.9 average application MPC is $2,608.09. chargers in-house and try to compete percent. At TSL 1 and TSL 2, industry with a greater level of vertical b. Impacts on Employment free cash flow is estimated to decrease integration than their competitors, move to $87 million, or a drop of 1 percent, DOE attempted to quantify the production to lower-wage regions compared to the base-case value of $88 number of domestic workers involved in abroad, or outsource their battery million in 2017. battery charger production. Based on charger manufacturing. DOE believes Percentage impacts on INPV range manufacturer interviews and reports one of the latter two strategies would be from slightly negative to slightly from vendors such as Hoovers, Dun and more likely for domestic golf car positive at TSL 1 and TSL 2. DOE does Bradstreet, and Manta, the vast majority manufacturers. DOE describes the major not anticipate that Product Class 7 of all small appliance and consumer implications for golf car employment in battery charger application electronic applications are the regulatory flexibility act section, manufacturers, the golf car manufactured abroad. When looking VI.B, because the major domestic manufacturers, would lose a significant specifically at the battery charger manufacturer is also a small business portion of their INPV at this TSL. DOE component, which is typically designed manufacturer. DOE does not anticipate projects that in the expected year of by the application manufacturer but any major negative changes in the compliance, 2018, 20 percent of all sourced for production, the same domestic employment of the design, Product Class 7 battery charger dynamic holds to an even greater extent. technical support, or other departments applications would meet or exceed the That is, in the rare instance when an of battery charger application efficiency levels required at TSL 1 and application’s production occurs manufacturers located in the U.S. in TSL 2. DOE expects conversion costs to domestically, it is very likely that the response to new energy conservation be $1.7 million at TSL 1 and TSL 2. battery charger component is still standards. Standards may require some TSL 3 and TSL 4 set the efficiency produced and sourced overseas. For companies to redesign their battery level at CSL 2 for Product Class 7. This example, DOE identified several power chargers, change marketing literature, represents max tech for Product Class 7. tool applications with some level of and train some technical and sales At TSL 3 and TSL 4, DOE estimates domestic manufacturing. However, support staff. However, during impacts on the change in INPV to range based on more detailed information interviews, manufacturers generally from ¥$126 million to $20 million, or obtained during interviews, DOE agreed these changes would not lead to a change in INPV of ¥11.2 percent to believes the battery charger components positive or negative changes in 1.7 percent. At TSL 3 and TSL 4, for these applications are sourced from employment, outside of the golf car industry free cash flow is estimated to abroad. battery charger industry.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52915
c. Impacts on Manufacturing Capacity grouping (consumer electronics, small not impose a significant burden on DOE does not anticipate that the appliances, power tools, and high manufacturers, the combined effects of standards proposed in this SNOPR energy application). Because certain recent or impending regulations may would adversely impact manufacturer application groups are have serious consequences for some capacity. The battery charger disproportionately impacted compared manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, application industry is characterized by to the overall product class groupings, or an entire industry. Assessing the rapid product development lifecycles. DOE reports those manufacturer impact of a single regulation may While there is no specific statutory application group results individually overlook this cumulative regulatory compliance date for battery charger so they can be considered as part of the burden. In addition to energy standards, DOE believes a compliance overall MIA. For the results of this conservation standards, other date of two years after the publication manufacturer subgroup, see section regulations can significantly affect of the final rule would provide V.B.2.a. manufacturers’ financial operations. sufficient time for manufacturers to DOE also identified small businesses Multiple regulations affecting the same ramp up capacity to meet the proposed as a manufacturer subgroup that could manufacturer can strain profits and lead standards for battery chargers. DOE potentially be disproportionally companies to abandon product lines or requests comment on the appropriate impacted. DOE discusses the impacts on markets with lower expected future compliance date for battery charger. the small business subgroup in the returns than competing products. For regulatory flexibility analysis, section these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis d. Impacts on Sub-Group of VI.B. of cumulative regulatory burden as part Manufacturers of its rulemakings pertaining to product e. Cumulative Regulatory Burden Using average cost assumptions to efficiency. develop an industry cash-flow estimate One aspect of assessing manufacturer For the cumulative regulatory burden is not adequate for assessing differential burden involves looking at the analysis, DOE looks at other regulations impacts among manufacturer subgroups. cumulative impact of multiple DOE that could affect battery charger Small manufacturers, niche equipment standards and the regulatory actions of application manufacturers that will take manufacturers, and manufacturers other Federal agencies and States that effect approximately three years before exhibiting a cost structure substantially affect the manufacturers of a covered or after the compliance date of new different from the industry average product or equipment. DOE believes energy conservation standards for these could be affected disproportionately. that a standard level is not economically products. The compliance years and DOE addressed manufacturer subgroups justified if it contributes to an expected industry conversion costs of in the battery charger MIA, by breaking unacceptable cumulative regulatory relevant new energy conservation out manufacturers by application burden. While any one regulation may standards are indicated in Table V–43.
TABLE V–43—COMPLIANCE DATES AND EXPECTED CONVERSION EXPENSES OF FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS AFFECTING BATTERY CHARGER APPLICATION MANUFACTURERS
Approximate Federal energy conservation standards compliance Estimated total industry date conversion expense
External Power Supplies 79 FR 7846 (February 10, 2014) ...... 2016 $43.4 million (2012$) Computer and Battery Backup Systems ...... * 2019 N/A † * The dates listed are an approximation. The exact dates are pending final DOE action. † For energy conservation standards for rulemakings awaiting DOE final action, DOE does not have a finalized estimated total industry conver- sion cost.
DOE is aware that the CEC already has charger and battery charger application products purchased in the 30-year energy conservation standards in place manufacturers must make. period. DOE quantified the energy for battery chargers. DOE assumes that 3. National Impact Analysis savings attributable to each TSL as the this rulemaking will preempt the CEC difference in energy consumption battery charger standards when a. Significance of Energy Savings between each standards case and the finalized. Therefore, DOE did not For each TSL, DOE projected energy base case. Table V–44 and Table V–45 consider the CEC standards as savings for battery chargers purchased present the estimated primary and full- contributing to the cumulative in the 30-year period that begins in the fuel cycle energy savings, respectively, regulatory burden of this rulemaking. year of compliance with amended for each considered TSL. The approach DOE seeks comment on the compliance standards (2018–2047). The savings are used is further described in section costs of any other regulations battery measured over the entire lifetime of IV.H.62
62 Chapter 10 of the SNOPR TSD presents tables Discounted energy savings represent a policy in the future are less significant than energy savings that show the magnitude of the energy savings perspective in which energy savings realized farther realized in the nearer term. discounted at rates of 3 percent and 7 percent.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52916 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–44—BATTERY CHARGERS: CUMULATIVE PRIMARY NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2018–2047 (QUADS)
Trial standard level Product class 1 2 3 4
1 ...... 0.004 0.047 0.047 0.084 2, 3, 4 ...... 0.087 0.087 0.307 0.423 5, 6 ...... 0.000 0.017 0.130 0.130 7 ...... 0.012 0.012 0.026 0.026
TABLE V–45—BATTERY CHARGERS: CUMULATIVE FFC NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2018– 2047 (QUADS)
Trial standard level Product class 1 2 3 4
1 ...... 0.004 0.049 0.049 0.088 2, 3, 4 ...... 0.091 0.091 0.321 0.442 5, 6 ...... 0.000 0.018 0.136 0.136 7 ...... 0.013 0.013 0.028 0.028
OMB Circular A–4 requires agencies shipments. The choice of a 9-year Thus, such results are presented for to present analytical results, including period is a proxy for the general informational purposes only and are not separate schedules of the monetized timeline in EPCA for the review of indicative of any change in DOE’s benefits and costs that show the type certain energy conservation standards analytical methodology. The NES and timing of benefits and costs. 63 and potential revision of, and sensitivity analysis results based on a Circular A–4 also directs agencies to compliance with, such revised nine-year analytical period are 64 consider the variability of key elements standards. The review timeframe presented in Table V–46. The impacts underlying the estimates of benefits and established in EPCA is generally not are counted over the lifetime of costs. For this rulemaking, DOE synchronized with the product lifetime, products purchased in 2018–2026. undertook a sensitivity analysis using product manufacturing cycles, or other nine, rather than 30, years of product factors specific to battery chargers.
TABLE V–46—BATTERY CHARGERS: CUMULATIVE FFC NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2018– 2026 (QUADS)
Trial standard level Product class 1 2 3 4
1 ...... 0.001 0.015 0.015 0.027 2, 3, 4 ...... 0.028 0.028 0.097 0.134 5, 6 ...... 0.000 0.005 0.041 0.041 7 ...... 0.004 0.004 0.008 0.008
b. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs the U.S. economy, and reflects the represents the rate at which society and Benefits returns on real estate and small business discounts future consumption flows to capital as well as corporate capital. This their present value. It can be DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of discount rate approximates the approximated by the real rate of return the total costs and savings for customers opportunity cost of capital in the private on long-term government debt (i.e., that would result from the TSLs considered for battery chargers. In sector. (OMB analysis has found the yield on United States Treasury Notes), accordance with OMB’s guidelines on average rate of return on capital to be which has averaged about 3 percent for regulatory analysis,65 DOE calculated near this rate.) The 3-percent rate the past 30 years. the NPV using both a 7-percent and a 3- reflects the potential effects of standards Table V–47 shows the customer NPV percent real discount rate. The 7-percent on private consumption (e.g., through results for each TSL considered for rate is an estimate of the average before- higher prices for products and reduced battery chargers. The impacts cover the tax rate of return on private capital in purchases of energy). This rate
63 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, compliance is required, except that in no case may period may not be appropriate given the variability Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis (Sept. 17, 2003) any new standards be required within 6 years of the that occurs in the timing of standards reviews and (Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ compliance date of the previous standards. While the fact that for some consumer products, the _ _ circulars a004 a-4/). adding a 6-year review to the 3-year compliance compliance period is 5 years rather than 3 years. 64 Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to review period adds up to 9 years, DOE notes that it may 65 OMB Circular A–4, section E (Sept. 17, 2003). its standards at least once every 6 years, and undertake reviews at any time within the 6 year requires, for certain products, a 3-year period after period and that the 3-year compliance date may Available at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/ _ _ any new standard is promulgated before yield to the 6-year backstop. A 9-year analysis circulars a004 a–4.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52917
lifetime of products purchased in 2018– 2047.
TABLE V–47—BATTERY CHARGERS: CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2018–2047 [2013$ billions]
Trial standard level (billion 2013$) Discount rate 1 2 3 4
3 percent ...... 0.9 1.2 ¥16.2 ¥47.9 7 percent ...... 0.5 0.6 ¥9.5 ¥27.9
The NPV results based on the products purchased in 2018–2026. As in DOE’s analytical methodology or aforementioned 9-year analytical period mentioned previously, this information decision criteria. are presented in Table V–48. The is presented for informational purposes impacts are counted over the lifetime of only and is not indicative of any change
TABLE V–48—BATTERY CHARGERS: CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2018–2026 [2013$ billions]
Trial standard level (billion 2013$) Discount rate 1 2 3 4
3 percent ...... 0.3 0.4 ¥6.2 ¥18.1 7 percent ...... 0.2 0.3 ¥4.8 ¥14.1
c. Indirect Impact on Employment employment. Chapter 16 of the SNOPR with respect to battery chargers, DOE DOE expects energy conservation TSD presents more detailed results. will transmit a copy of this SNOPR and the accompanying SNOPR TSD to the standards for battery chargers to reduce 4. Impact on Utility and Performance of Attorney General. DOE will consider energy bills for consumers of these the Products products, and the resulting net savings DOJ’s comments, if any, on this to be redirected to other forms of Based on testing conducted in support supplemental proposal in determining economic activity. These expected shifts of this proposed rule, discussed in whether to proceed with the proposed in spending and economic activity section IV.C.5 of this notice, DOE energy conservation standards. DOE could affect the demand for labor. As concluded that the standards proposed will also publish and respond to DOJ’s described in section IV.N, DOE used an in this SNOPR would not reduce the comments in the Federal Register. utility or performance of the battery input/output model of the U.S. economy 6. Need of the Nation To Conserve chargers under consideration in this to estimate indirect employment Energy impacts of the TSLs that DOE rulemaking. Manufacturers of these considered in this rulemaking. DOE products currently offer units that meet Enhanced energy efficiency, where understands that there are uncertainties or exceed these proposed standards. economically justified, improves the involved in projecting employment DOE has also declined to propose Nation’s energy security, strengthens the impacts, especially changes in the later battery charger marking requirements as economy, and reduces the years of the analysis. Therefore, DOE part of today’s SNOPR, providing environmental impacts of energy generated results for near-term manufacturers with more flexibility in production. Reduced electricity demand timeframes, where these uncertainties the way that they design, label, and due to energy conservation standards is are reduced. market their products. also likely to reduce the cost of maintaining the reliability of the DOE reviewed its inputs and 5. Impact on Any Lessening of electricity system, particularly during determined that the indirect Competition employment impacts will be positive at peak-load periods. As a measure of this TSL 1 (in 2018 and 2023) and TSL 2 (in DOE has also considered any reduced demand, chapter 15 in the 2023 only), while at TSL 3 and TSL 4, lessening of competition that is likely to SNOPR TSD presents the estimated the increased equipment costs are far result from the proposed standards. The reduction in generating capacity for the larger than the operating cost savings. Attorney General determines the TSLs that DOE considered in this The magnitude of the estimated effect is impact, if any, of any lessening of rulemaking. very small, however. The results suggest competition likely to result from a Energy savings from standards for that the proposed standards are likely to proposed standard, and transmits such battery chargers are expected to yield have negligible impact on the net determination to DOE, together with an environmental benefits in the form of demand for labor in the economy. The analysis of the nature and extent of such reduced emissions of air pollutants and net change in jobs is so small that it impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) greenhouse gases. Table V–49 provides would be imperceptible in national and (B)(ii)) DOE’s estimate of cumulative emissions labor statistics and might be offset by To keep the Attorney General reductions to result from the TSLs other, unanticipated effects on informed of DOE’s rulemaking efforts considered in this rulemaking. The table
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52918 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
includes both power sector emissions annual emissions reductions for each and upstream emissions. DOE reports TSL in chapter 13 of the SNOPR TSD.
TABLE V–49—BATTERY CHARGERS: CUMULATIVE EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2018–2047
Trial standard level 1 2 3 4
Power Sector Emissions
CO2 (million metric tons) ...... 6.29 9.92 31.03 40.41 SO2 (thousand tons) ...... 5.62 8.82 27.56 35.92 NOX (thousand tons) ...... 5.01 7.88 24.64 32.10 Hg (tons) ...... 0.017 0.027 0.085 0.111 CH4 (thousand tons) ...... 0.583 0.922 2.886 3.757 N2O (thousand tons) ...... 0.084 0.132 0.413 0.538
Upstream Emissions
CO2 (million metric tons) ...... 0.335 0.530 1.659 2.159 SO2 (thousand tons) ...... 0.060 0.095 0.296 0.385 NOX (thousand tons) ...... 4.75 7.52 23.57 30.67 Hg (tons) ...... 0.000 0.000 0.001 0.001 CH4 (thousand tons) ...... 27.7 43.8 137.3 178.7 N2O (thousand tons) ...... 0.003 0.005 0.015 0.019
Total FFC Emissions
CO2 (million metric tons) ...... 6.63 10.45 32.69 42.57 SO2 (thousand tons) ...... 5.68 8.92 27.86 36.30 NOX (thousand tons) ...... 9.76 15.41 48.21 62.77 Hg (tons) ...... 0.017 0.027 0.086 0.112 CH4 (thousand tons) ...... 28.3 44.8 140.2 182.4 CH4 (thousand tons CO2eq) * ...... 791 1253 3925 5108 N2O (thousand tons) ...... 0.086 0.137 0.428 0.557 N2O (thousand tons CO2eq) * ...... 22.9 36.2 113.4 147.6
*CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same GWP.
As part of the analysis for this uses a 5-percent discount rate), $40.5/ Table V–50 presents the global value proposed rule, DOE estimated monetary metric ton (the average value from a of CO2 emissions reductions at each benefits likely to result from the distribution that uses a 3-percent TSL. For each of the four cases, DOE reduced emissions of CO2 and NOX that discount rate), $62.4/metric ton (the calculated a present value of the stream DOE estimated for each of the average value from a distribution that of annual values using the same considered TSLs. As discussed in uses a 2.5-percent discount rate), and discount rate as was used in the studies section IV.L of this notice, for CO2, DOE $119/metric ton (the 95th-percentile upon which the dollar-per-ton values used the most recent values for the SCC value from a distribution that uses a 3- are based. DOE calculated domestic developed by an interagency process. percent discount rate). The values for values as a range from 7 percent to 23
The four sets of SCC values for CO2 later years are higher due to increasing percent of the global values; these emissions reductions in 2015 resulting damages (emissions-related costs) as the results are presented in chapter 14 of from that process (expressed in 2013$) projected magnitude of climate change the SNOPR TSD. are represented by $12.0/metric ton (the average value from a distribution that increases.
TABLE V–50—BATTERY CHARGERS: ESTIMATES OF GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2018–2047
SCC Case * (million 2013$) TSL 3% Discount 5% Discount 3% Discount 2.5% Discount rate, 95th rate, average rate, average rate, average percentile
Power Sector Emissions
1 ...... 50.7 218.6 342.7 673.1 2 ...... 79.4 343.5 538.7 1058.1 3 ...... 247.7 1072.5 1682.4 3304.0 4 ...... 322.9 1397.6 2192.3 4305.4
Upstream Emissions
1 ...... 2.6 11.4 18.0 35.3
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52919
TABLE V–50—BATTERY CHARGERS: ESTIMATES OF GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2018–2047—Continued
SCC Case * (million 2013$) TSL 3% Discount 5% Discount 3% Discount 2.5% Discount rate, 95th rate, average rate, average rate, average percentile
2 ...... 4.1 18.1 28.4 55.8 3 ...... 12.9 56.5 88.8 174.4 4 ...... 16.8 73.6 115.7 227.0
Total FFC Emissions
1 ...... 53.3 230.1 360.7 708.5 2 ...... 83.5 361.6 567.1 1113.8 3 ...... 260.5 1129.0 1771.3 3478.4 4 ...... 339.7 1471.2 2307.9 4532.5 * For each of the four cases, the corresponding SCC value for emissions in 2015 is $12.0, $40.5, $62.4, and $119 per metric ton (2013$).
DOE is well aware that scientific and and other GHG emissions. This ongoing DOE also estimated the cumulative economic knowledge about the review will consider the comments on monetary value of the economic benefits contribution of CO2 and other GHG this subject that are part of the public associated with NOX emissions emissions to changes in the future record for this and other rulemakings, as reductions anticipated to result from the global climate and the potential well as other methodological considered TSLs for battery chargers. resulting damages to the world economy assumptions and issues. However, The dollar-per-ton value that DOE used continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any consistent with DOE’s legal obligations, is discussed in section IV.L of this value placed on reducing CO2 emissions and taking into account the uncertainty notice. Table V–51 presents the in this rulemaking is subject to change. involved with this particular issue, DOE cumulative present values for each TSL DOE, together with other Federal has included in this proposed rule the calculated using 7-percent and 3- agencies, will continue to review most recent values and analyses percent discount rates. various methodologies for estimating resulting from the ongoing interagency the monetary value of reductions in CO2 review process.
TABLE V–51—BATTERY CHARGERS: ESTIMATES OF PRESENT VALUE OF NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTION FOR PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2018–2047
Million 2013$ TSL 3% Discount 7% Discount rate rate
Power Sector Emissions
1 ...... 8.2 4.8 2 ...... 12.8 7.4 3 ...... 39.9 22.9 4 ...... 52.1 29.9
Upstream Emissions
1 ...... 7.4 4.0 2 ...... 11.6 6.3 3 ...... 36.3 19.5 4 ...... 47.3 25.5
Total FFC Emissions
1 ...... 15.6 8.8 2 ...... 24.4 13.6 3 ...... 76.2 42.4 4 ...... 99.3 55.4
7. Other Factors 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) DOE did not underlying that decision are discussed consider any other factors with respect above. The Secretary of Energy, in to the specific standards proposed in determining whether a standard is 8. Summary of National Economic this SNOPR. As for those particular Impacts economically justified, may consider battery chargers that DOE is declining to any other factors that the Secretary regulate at this time, the reasons The NPV of the monetized benefits deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. associated with emissions reductions
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52920 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
can be viewed as a complement to the estimates of the potential economic considered for battery chargers, at both NPV of the consumer savings calculated benefits resulting from reduced CO2 and a 7-percent and a 3-percent discount for each TSL considered in this NOX emissions in each of four valuation rate. The CO2 values used in the rulemaking. Table V–52 presents the scenarios to the NPV of consumer columns of each table correspond to the NPV values that result from adding the savings calculated for each TSL four sets of SCC values discussed above.
TABLE V–52—BATTERY CHARGERS: NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER SAVINGS COMBINED WITH PRESENT VALUE OF MONETIZED BENEFITS FROM CO2 AND NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS
Billion 2013$ SCC Case SCC Case SCC Case SCC Case TSL $12.0/t and $40.5/t and $62.4/t and $119/t and medium NOX medium NOX medium NOX medium NOX value value value value
Consumer NPV at 3% Discount Rate added with:
1 ...... 0.9 1.1 1.2 1.6 2 ...... 1.3 1.6 1.8 2.3 3 ...... ¥15.9 ¥15.0 ¥14.4 ¥12.6 4 ...... ¥47.5 ¥46.4 ¥45.5 ¥43.3
Consumer NPV at 7% Discount Rate added with:
1 ...... 0.5 0.7 0.8 1.2 2 ...... 0.7 1.0 1.2 1.8 3 ...... ¥9.2 ¥8.4 ¥7.7 ¥6.0 4 ...... ¥27.5 ¥26.4 ¥25.5 ¥23.3
Although adding the value of Secretary must determine whether the upfront costs and energy savings in the consumer savings to the values of benefits of the standard exceed its absence of government intervention. emission reductions provides a valuable burdens, considering to the greatest Much of this literature attempts to perspective, two issues should be extent practicable the seven statutory explain why consumers appear to considered. First, the national operating factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. undervalue energy efficiency cost savings are domestic U.S. monetary 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The new or amended improvements. This undervaluation savings that occur as a result of market standard must also result in a significant suggests that regulation that promotes transactions, while the value of CO2 conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. energy efficiency can produce reductions is based on a global value. 6295(o)(3)(B)) significant net private gains (as well as Second, the assessments of operating The Department considered the producing social gains by, for example, cost savings and the SCC are performed impacts of standards at each TSL, reducing pollution). There is evidence with different methods that use different beginning with a maximum that consumers undervalue future time frames for analysis. The national technologically feasible level, to energy savings as a result of (1) a lack operating cost savings is measured for determine whether that level was of information; (2) a lack of sufficient the lifetime of products shipped in 2018 economically justified. Where the max- salience of the long-term or aggregate to 2047. Because CO2 emissions have a tech level was not justified, DOE then benefits; (3) a lack of sufficient savings very long residence time in the considered the next most efficient level to warrant delaying or altering atmosphere,66 the SCC values in future and undertook the same evaluation until purchases; (4) excessive focus on the years reflect future climate-related it reached the highest efficiency level short term, in the form of inconsistent impacts resulting from the emission of that would be both technologically weighting of future energy cost savings CO2 that continue well beyond 2100. feasible and economically justified and relative to available returns on other save a significant amount of energy. investments; (5) computational or other C. Conclusions To aid the reader as DOE discusses difficulties associated with the When considering proposed the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL, evaluation of relevant tradeoffs; and (6) standards, the new or amended energy DOE has included a series of tables a divergence in incentives (between conservation standard that DOE adopts presenting a summary of the results of renters and owners, or builders and for any type (or class) of covered DOE’s quantitative analysis for each purchasers). Having less than perfect product must be designed to achieve the TSL. In addition to the quantitative foresight and a high degree of maximum improvement in energy results presented in the tables, DOE also uncertainty about the future, consumers efficiency that the Secretary determines considers other burdens and benefits may trade off these types of investments is technologically feasible and that affect economic justification. Those at a higher than expected rate between economically justified. (42 U.S.C. include the impacts on identifiable current consumption and uncertain 6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining whether a subgroups of consumers who may be future energy cost savings. standard is economically justified, the disproportionately affected by a national In DOE’s current regulatory analysis, standard. Section V.B.1.b of this notice potential changes in the benefits and 66 The atmospheric lifetime of CO2 is estimated of presents the estimated impacts of each costs of a regulation due to changes in the order of 30–95 years. Jacobson, MZ (2005). TSL for these subgroups. consumer purchase decisions are ‘‘Correction to ‘Control of fossil-fuel particulate black carbon and organic matter, possibly the most DOE also notes that the economics included in two ways. First, if effective method of slowing global warming.’ ’’ J. literature provides a wide-ranging consumers forego a purchase of a Geophys. Res. 110. pp. D14105. discussion of how consumers trade off product in the standards case, this
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52921
decreases sales for product subcategories of products or specific to the methodology by which these manufacturers, and the impact on features, or consumer price sensitivity impacts are defined and estimated in manufacturers attributed to lost revenue variation according to household the regulatory process.68 DOE welcomes is included in the MIA. Second, DOE income.67 comments on how to more fully assess accounts for energy savings attributable While DOE is not prepared at present the potential impact of energy only to products actually used by to provide a fuller quantifiable conservation standards on consumer consumers in the standards case; if a framework for estimating the benefits choice and how to quantify this impact regulatory option decreases the number and costs of changes in consumer in its regulatory analysis in future of products used by consumers, this purchase decisions due to an energy rulemakings. decreases the potential energy savings conservation standard, DOE is 1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs from an energy conservation standard. committed to developing a framework Considered for Battery Chargers DOE provides estimates of shipments that can support empirical quantitative and changes in the volume of product tools for improved assessment of the Table V–53 and Table V–54 purchases in chapter 9 and appendix 9A consumer welfare impacts of appliance summarize the quantitative impacts of the SNOPR TSD. However, DOE’s standards. DOE has posted a paper that estimated for each TSL for battery current analysis does not explicitly discusses the issue of consumer welfare chargers. The efficiency levels control for heterogeneity in consumer impacts of appliance energy efficiency contained in each TSL are described in preferences, preferences across standards, and potential enhancements section V.A of this notice.
TABLE V–53—BATTERY CHARGERS: SUMMARY OF NATIONAL IMPACTS
Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4
Cumulative FFC Energy Savings (quads)
0.108 0.170 0.534 0.695
NPV of Consumer Costs and Benefits (2013$ billion)
3% discount rate ...... 0.9 1.2 ¥16.2 ¥47.9 7% discount rate ...... 0.5 0.6 ¥9.5 ¥27.9
Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction
CO2 million metric tons ...... 6.63 10.45 32.69 42.57 SO2 thousand tons ...... 5.68 8.92 27.86 36.30 NOX thousand tons ...... 9.76 15.41 48.21 62.77 Hg tons ...... 0.017 0.027 0.086 0.112 CH4 thousand tons ...... 28.3 44.8 140.2 182.4 CH4 thousand tons CO 2eq* ...... 791 1253 3925 5108 N2O thousand tons ...... 0.086 0.137 0.428 0.557 N2O thousand tons CO2eq* ...... 22.9 36.2 113.4 147.6
Value of Emissions Reduction
CO2 2013$ billion** ...... 0.053 to 0.708 0.084 to 1.114 0.261 to 3.478 0.340 to 4.532 NOX—3% discount rate 2013$ million ...... 15.60 24.43 76.19 99.34 NOX—7% discount rate 2013$ million ...... 8.80 13.65 42.41 55.38 Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. *CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same GWP. ** Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions.
TABLE V–54—BATTERY CHARGERS: SUMMARY OF MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS
Category TSL 1* TSL 2* TSL 3* TSL 4*
Manufacturer Impacts
Industry NPV (2013$ million) (Base Case INPV = 79,904) ...... 79,782–79,887 79,375–79,887 77,387–80,479 64,012–81,017 Industry NPV (% change) ...... (0.2)–(0.0) (0.7)–(0.0) (3.2)–0.7 (19.9)–1.4
Consumer Average LCC Savings (2013$)
PC1—Low E, Inductive* ...... 0.08 0.71 0.71 (3.44) PC2—Low E, Low-Voltage ...... 0.07 0.07 0.06 (2.79) PC3—Low E, Medium-Voltage ...... 0.08 0.08 (1.36) (2.17) PC4—Low E, High-Voltage ...... 0.11 0.11 (0.38) (4.91) PC5—Medium E, Low-Voltage* ...... 0.00 0.84 (138.63) (138.63) PC6—Medium E, High-Voltage* ...... 0.00 1.89 (129.15) (129.15)
67 P.C. Reiss and M.W. White. Household 68 Alan Sanstad, Notes on the Economics of 2010. Available online at: www1.eere.energy.gov/ Electricity Demand, Revisited. Review of Economic Household Energy Consumption and Technology buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/consumer_ee_ Studies (2005) 72, 853–883. Choice. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. theory.pdf
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52922 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–54—BATTERY CHARGERS: SUMMARY OF MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS—Continued
Category TSL 1* TSL 2* TSL 3* TSL 4*
PC7—High E ...... 51.06 51.06 (80.05) (80.05)
Consumer Simple PBP (years)
PC1—Low E, Inductive* ...... 1.1 1.5 1.5 7.4 PC2—Low E, Low-Voltage ...... 0.6 0.6 2.5 19.5 PC3—Low E, Medium-Voltage ...... 0.8 0.8 21.6 31.2 PC4—Low E, High-Voltage ...... 1.4 1.4 5.2 20.7 PC5—Medium E, Low-Voltage* ...... 2.3 2.7 29.1 29.1 PC6—Medium E, High-Voltage* ...... 1.0 1.1 12.5 12.5 PC7—High E ...... 0.0 0.0 8.1 8.1
% of Consumers that Experience Net Cost
PC1—Low E, Inductive* ...... 0.0 0.0 0.0 96.3 PC2—Low E, Low-Voltage ...... 1.2 1.2 33.1 73.8 PC3—Low E, Medium-Voltage ...... 0.6 0.6 39.0 40.8 PC4—Low E, High-Voltage ...... 1.3 1.3 12.6 25.8 PC5—Medium E, Low-Voltage* ...... 0.0 0.6 99.7 99.7 PC6—Medium E, High-Voltage* ...... 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 PC7—High E ...... 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 * Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values.
DOE first considered TSL 4, which would be outweighed by the economic At TSL 3, the projected change in represents the max-tech efficiency burden on consumers (demonstrated by INPV ranges from a decrease of $2,517 levels. TSL 4 would save 0.695 quads of a negative NPV and LCC for all product million to an increase of $574 million, energy, an amount DOE considers classes), and the impacts on equivalent to ¥3.2 percent and 0.7 significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of manufacturers, including the conversion percent, respectively. consumer benefit would be -$27.9 costs and profit margin impacts that The Secretary tentatively concludes billion using a discount rate of 7 could result in a large reduction in that at TSL 3 for battery chargers, the percent, and -$47.9 billion using a INPV. Consequently, the Secretary has benefits of energy savings, emission discount rate of 3 percent. tentatively concluded that TSL 4 is not reductions, and the estimated monetary The cumulative emissions reductions economically justified. value of the CO2 emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 42.57 Mt of CO2, 62.77 DOE then considered TSL 3. TSL 3 would be outweighed by the economic thousand tons of NOX, 36.30 thousand would save 0.534 quads of energy, an burden on consumers (demonstrated by tons of SO2, 0.112 ton of Hg, 182.4 amount DOE considers significant. a negative NPV and LCC for most thousand tons of CH4, and 0.557 Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer product classes), and the impacts on thousand tons of N2O. The estimated benefit would be ¥$9.5 billion using a manufacturers, including the conversion monetary value of the CO2 emissions discount rate of 7 percent, and ¥$16.2 costs and profit margin impacts that reduction at TSL 4 ranges from $0.340 billion using a discount rate of 3 could result in a large reduction in billion to $4.532 billion. percent. INPV. Consequently, the Secretary has At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is tentatively concluded that TSL 3 is not a cost of $3.44 for PC1, $2.79 for PC2, The cumulative emissions reductions economically justified. $2.17 for PC3, $4.91 for PC4, $138.63 for at TSL 3 are 32.69 Mt of CO2, 48.21 DOE then considered TSL 2. TSL 2 PC5, $129.15 for PC6, and $80.05 for thousand tons of NOX, 27.86 thousand would save 0.170 quads of energy, an PC7. The simple payback period is 7.4 tons of SO2, 0.086 ton of Hg, 140.2 amount DOE considers significant. years for PC1, 19.5 years for PC2, 31.2 thousand tons of CH4, and 0.428 Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer years for PC3, 20.7 years for PC4, 29.1 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated benefit would be $0.6 billion using a years for PC5, 12.5 years for PC6, and monetary value of the CO2 emissions discount rate of 7 percent, and $1.2 8.1 years for PC7. The fraction of reduction at TSL 3 ranges from $0.261 billion using a discount rate of 3 consumers experiencing a net LCC cost billion to $3.478 billion. percent. is 96.3 percent for PC1, 73.8 percent for At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is The cumulative emissions reductions PC2, 40.8 percent for PC3, 25.8 percent a savings of $0.71 for PC1 and $0.06 for at TSL 2 are 10.45 Mt of CO2, 15.41 for PC4, 99.7 percent for PC5, 100 PC2, and a cost of $1.36 for PC3, $0.38 thousand tons of NOX, 8.92 thousand percent for PC6, and 100 percent for for PC4, $138.63 for PC5, $129.15 for tons of SO2, 0.027 ton of Hg, 44.8 PC7. PC6, and $80.05 for PC7. The simple thousand tons of CH4, and 0.137 At TSL 4, the projected change in payback period is 1.5 years for PC1, 2.5 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated INPV ranges from a decrease of $15,892 years for PC2, 21.6 years for PC3, 5.2 monetary value of the CO2 emissions million to an increase of $1,113 million, years for PC4, 29.1 years for PC5, 12.5 reduction at TSL 2 ranges from $0.084 equivalent to ¥19.9 percent and 1.4 years for PC6, and 8.1 years for PC7. The billion to $1.114 billion. percent, respectively. fraction of consumers experiencing a net At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is The Secretary tentatively concludes LCC cost is 0.0 percent for PC1, 33.1 a savings of $0.71 for PC1, $0.07 for that at TSL 4 for battery chargers, the percent for PC2, 39.0 percent for PC3, PC2, $0.08 for PC3, $0.11 for PC4, $0.84 benefits of energy savings, emission 12.6 percent for PC4, 99.7 percent for for PC5, $1.89 for PC6, and $51.06 for reductions, and the estimated monetary PC5, 100 percent for PC6, and 100 PC7. The simple payback period is 1.5 value of the CO2 emissions reductions percent for PC7. years for PC1, 0.6 years for PC2, 0.8
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52923
years for PC3, 1.4 years for PC4, 2.7 The Secretary tentatively concludes After considering the analysis and the years for PC5, 1.1 years for PC6, and 0.0 that at TSL 2 for battery chargers, the benefits and burdens of TSL 2, the years for PC7. The fraction of consumers benefits of energy savings, positive NPV Secretary tentatively concludes that this experiencing a net LCC cost is 0.0 of consumer benefits, emission TSL will offer the maximum percent for PC1, 1.2 percent for PC2, 0.6 reductions, and the estimated monetary improvement in efficiency that is percent for PC3, 1.3 percent for PC4, 0.6 value of the CO2 emissions reductions, technologically feasible and percent for PC5, 0.0 percent for PC6, and positive average LCC savings would economically justified, and will result and 0.0 percent for PC7. outweigh the negative impacts on some in the significant conservation of At TSL 2, the projected change in consumers and on manufacturers, energy. Therefore, DOE proposes TSL 2 INPV ranges from a decrease of $529 including the conversion costs that for battery chargers. The proposed million to a decrease of $18 million, amended energy conservation standards ¥ could result in a reduction in INPV for equivalent to 0.7 percent and less manufacturers. for battery chargers are shown in Table than ¥0.1 percent, respectively. V–55.
TABLE V–55—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS
Maximum unit energy consumption Product class Description (kWh/yr)
1 ...... Low-Energy, Inductive ...... 3.04 2 ...... Low-Energy, Low-Voltage ...... 0.1440 * Ebatt + 2.95 3 ...... Low-Energy, Medium-Voltage ...... For Ebatt < 10Wh, UEC = 1.42 kWh/y Ebatt ≥ 10 Wh, = 0.0255 * Ebatt + 1.16 4 ...... Low-Energy, High-Voltage ...... = 0.11 * Ebatt + 3.18 5 ...... Medium-Energy, Low-Voltage ...... For Ebatt < 19 Wh, = 1.32 kWh/yr For Ebatt ≥ 19 Wh, = 0.0257 * Ebatt + .815 6 ...... Medium-Energy, High-Voltage ...... For Ebatt < 18 Wh = 3.88 kWh/yr For Ebatt ≥ 18 Wh = 0.0778 * Ebatt + 2.4 7 ...... High-Energy ...... = 0.0502(Ebatt) + 4.53
2. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Table V–56 shows the annualized and $1.26 million in reduced NOX Proposed Standards values for battery chargers under TSL 2, emissions. In this case, the net benefit The benefits and costs of the proposed expressed in 2013$. The results under amounts to $80 million per year. Using standards can also be expressed in terms the primary estimate are as follows. a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits of annualized values. The annualized Using a 7-percent discount rate for and costs and the SCC series monetary values are the sum of (1) the benefits and costs other than CO2 corresponding to a value of $40.5/ton in annualized national economic value of reductions, for which DOE used a 3- 2015 (in 2013$), the cost of the the benefits from operating products percent discount rate along with the standards for battery chargers in the that meet the proposed standards SCC series corresponding to a value of proposed rule is $10 million per year in (consisting of operating cost savings $40.5/ton in 2015 (in 2013$), the cost of increased equipment costs, while the from using less energy, minus increases the standards for battery chargers in the benefits are $75 million per year in in product purchase costs, which is proposed rule is $9 million per year in reduced operating costs, $20 million in another way of representing consumer increased equipment costs, while the CO2 reductions, and $1.32 million in NPV), and (2) the monetary value of the annualized benefits are $68 million per reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the benefits of CO2 and NOX emission year in reduced equipment operating net benefit amounts to $86 million per 69 reductions. costs, $20 million in CO2 reductions, year.
TABLE V–56—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF NEW AND AMENDED STANDARDS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS
(Million 2013$/year) Discount rate Low net High net Primary estimate * benefits benefits estimate * estimate *
Benefits
Operating Cost Savings ...... 7% ...... 68 ...... 68 ...... 69 3% ...... 75 ...... 74 ...... 76
69 To convert the time-series of costs and benefits with each year’s shipments in the year in which the value of CO2 reductions, for which DOE used case- into annualized values, DOE calculated a present shipments occur (2020, 2030, etc.), and then specific discount rates. Using the present value, value in 2014, the year used for discounting the discounted the present value from each year to DOE then calculated the fixed annual payment over NPV of total consumer costs and savings. For the 2015. The calculation uses discount rates of 3 and a 30-year period, starting in the compliance year benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated 7 percent for all costs and benefits except for the that yields the same present value.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52924 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE V–56—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF NEW AND AMENDED STANDARDS FOR BATTERY CHARGERS— Continued
(Million 2013$/year) Discount rate Low net High net Primary estimate * benefits benefits estimate * estimate *
CO2 Reduction Monetized Value 5% ...... 6 ...... 6 ...... 6 ($12.0/t case)*. CO2 Reduction Monetized Value 3% ...... 20 ...... 20 ...... 20 ($40.5/t case)*. CO2 Reduction Monetized Value 2.5% ...... 28 ...... 28 ...... 28 ($62.4/t case)*. CO2 Reduction Monetized Value 3% ...... 60 ...... 60 ...... 60 ($119/t case)*. NOX Reduction Monetized Value (at 7% ...... 1.26 ...... 1.26 ...... 1.26 $2,684/ton)**. 3% ...... 1.32 ...... 1.32 ...... 1.32 Total Benefits † ...... 7% plus CO2 range ...... 76 to 130 ...... 75 to 130 ...... 76 to 131 7% ...... 89 ...... 89 ...... 90 3% plus CO2 range ...... 82 to 136 ...... 82 to 136 ...... 83 to 138 3% ...... 96 ...... 95 ...... 97
Costs
Consumer Incremental Product 7% ...... 9 ...... 9 ...... 6 Costs. 3% ...... 10 ...... 10 ...... 6
Net Benefits
Total † ...... 7% plus CO2 range ...... 66 to 120 ...... 66 to 120 ...... 70 to 124 7% ...... 80 ...... 79 ...... 84 3% plus CO2 range ...... 73 to 127 ...... 72 to 126 ...... 77 to 132 3% ...... 86 ...... 86 ...... 91 * This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with battery chargers shipped in 2018¥2047. These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2047 from the products purchased in 2018¥2047. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The Primary, Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO2014 Reference case, Low Estimate, and High Estimate, respectively. Additionally, the High Benefits Estimates include a price trend on the incremental product costs. ** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2013$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case rep- resents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series incorporate an escalation factor. The value for NOX is the average of high and low values found in the literature. † Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to the average SCC with 3-percent discount rate ($40.5/t case). In the rows labeled ‘‘7% plus CO2 range’’ and ‘‘3% plus CO2 range,’’ the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values.
3. Stakeholder Comments on Standards proposed in California for Product that DOE’s proposed levels are Proposed in NOPR Classes 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6. These technologically feasible and In addition to the issues addressed interested parties provided a number of economically justified while California’s above, DOE received a number of justifications for harmonizing with are not. (AHAM, No. 124 at p. 4; PTI, general comments on the California that are addressed in detail No. 133 at p. 3; CEA, No. 106 at p. 2; appropriateness of the battery charger elsewhere. The CEC and ASAP urged Motorola Mobility, No. 121 at p. 6; standards proposed in the NOPR. The DOE to take the time to fully analyze the Philips, No. 128 at p. 6) For Product CEC, CBIA, ASAP, and NRDC, NEEP, more stringent levels, even if it means Class 7, Delta-Q Technologies found and PSMA—along with a number of a later effective date for the standards, that the proposed standard was representatives from a variety of State while both the City of Cambridge and acceptable, while Lester Electrical legislatures 70 and the City of the various State legislators urged DOE opposed the proposed level. (Delta-Q Cambridge, Massachusetts—all to adopt levels similar to those already Technologies, No. 113 at p. 2; Lester supported DOE’s proposed levels for in place in California. (CEC, No. 117 at Electrical, No. 139 at p. 2). Panasonic Product Classes 1, 7, 8, and 10 but urged p. 6; CBIA, No. 126 at p. 2; ASAP Et Al., commented that the proposed standard DOE to adopt the more stringent levels No. 136 at p. 2; NEEP, No. 160 at p.1; for Product Class 1 was too stringent. States, No. 159 at p. 1; City of (Panasonic, No. 120 at p. 2) Cambridge, MA, No. 155 at p. 1; PSMA, 70 Comments were received in the form of a letter DOE has addressed the specific points from Senator Jackie Dingfelder of the Oregon State No. 147 at p. 1) underpinning these general comments Senate. Representatives of the following States also In addition, manufacturers, including in the preceding sections of this SNOPR. signed onto that letter: Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, AHAM, PTI, CEA, Motorola, and The proposed standard levels would, if Illinois, Iowa, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York, North Philips, generally opposed adopted, save a significant amount of Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode harmonization with California for energy, are technologically feasible, and Island, Utah, Washington, and Wisconsin. Product Classes 2 through 6, arguing are economically justified.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00076 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52925
The CEC commented that failing to set would be free, however, to voluntarily environmental protection, and national standards for Product Class 9 would use the ‘‘BC’’ mark if it chose to do so. security that are not reflected in energy create a category of unregulated Cobra Electronics commented that the prices, such as reduced emissions of air products that could lead to compliance ENERGY STAR program is an effective pollutants and greenhouse gases that and enforcement loopholes in the means for encouraging the development impact human health and global future. It stated that battery chargers of more efficient technologies. warming. with DC input greater than 9V are Furthermore, the use of a voluntary In addition, DOE has determined that regulated under the California standards program would allow DOE to comply this proposed regulatory action is not a and will remain so if the DOE does not with Executive Order 13563, which ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under adopt standards, but expressed concern directed Federal agencies to ‘‘identify Executive Order 12866. Therefore, DOE that this may lead to industry confusion. and assess available alternatives to did not present for review to the Office (California Energy Commission, No. 117 direct regulation.’’ (Cobra Electronics, of Information and Regulatory Affairs at p. 7) While it is technically possible No. 130 at p. 8) DOE notes that (OIRA) in the OMB the draft rule and that a product that is not an in-vehicle Executive Order 13563 also stated that other documents prepared for this charger could meet the parameters of regulations should be adopted ‘‘only rulemaking, including a regulatory Product Class 9, no such products upon a reasoned determination that its impact analysis (RIA). existed when DOE conducted its benefits justify its costs.’’ Because the DOE has also reviewed this regulation analysis. DOE can only evaluate selected standard levels are pursuant to Executive Order 13563. 76 whether standards are justified based on technologically feasible and FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011). Executive Order the products currently on the market. If economically justified, DOE has 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly new products come on the market in the fulfilled its statutory obligations as well reaffirms the principles, structures, and future, DOE can revisit whether to set as the directives in Executive Order definitions governing regulatory review standards for Product Class 9 as part of 13563. In addition, DOE considered the established in Executive Order 12866. a future rulemaking. impacts of a voluntary program as part To the extent permitted by law, agencies of the Regulatory Impact Analysis and are required by Executive Order 13563 Regarding California’s assertions to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation related to preemption, DOE notes that found that such a program would save less energy than the proposed standards, only upon a reasoned determination under 42 U.S.C. 6297, which lays out that its benefits justify its costs the process by which State and local especially since the ENERGY STAR program for battery chargers has already (recognizing that some benefits and energy conservation standards are costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor preempted, once DOE sets standards for ended. See Chapter 17 of the SNOPR TSD. regulations to impose the least burden a product any State or local standards on society, consistent with obtaining for that product are preempted. In the VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory regulatory objectives, taking into case of battery chargers, preemption Review account, among other things, and to the does not apply until the Federal A. Review Under Executive Orders extent practicable, the costs of standards are required for compliance. cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 12866 and 13563 See 42 U.S.C. 6295(ii)(1). In particular, choosing among alternative regulatory under this provision, any State or local Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order approaches, those approaches that standard prescribed or enacted for 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and maximize net benefits (including battery chargers before the date on Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), potential economic, environmental, which the final rule is issued shall not requires each agency to identify the public health and safety, and other be preempted ‘‘until the energy problem that it intends to address, advantages; distributive impacts; and conservation standard that has been including, where applicable, the failures equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify established [under the appropriate of private markets or public institutions performance objectives, rather than statutory provision] for the product that warrant new agency action, as well specifying the behavior or manner of takes effect.’’ While this provision has as to assess the significance of that compliance that regulated entities must clear implications regarding the timing problem. The problems that the adopt; and (5) identify and assess of preemption, it does not alter the proposed standards address are as available alternatives to direct scope of its application by narrowing follows: regulation, including providing the range of products that would be (1) Insufficient information and the economic incentives to encourage the affected by preemption once DOE has high costs of gathering and analyzing desired behavior, such as user fees or set standards for ‘‘the product’’ at issue. relevant information leads some marketable permits, or providing Accordingly, in DOE’s view, once the consumers to miss opportunities to information upon which choices can be Agency sets standards for battery make cost-effective investments in made by the public. chargers and the compliance date for energy efficiency. DOE emphasizes as well that those standards has been reached, all (2) In some cases the benefits of more Executive Order 13563 requires agencies State and local energy conservation efficient equipment are not realized due to use the best available techniques to standards for battery chargers would be to misaligned incentives between quantify anticipated present and future preempted. With respect to any labeling purchasers and users. An example of benefits and costs as accurately as requirements, DOE notes that 42 U.S.C. such a case is when the equipment possible. In its guidance, the Office of 6297 already prescribes that States and purchase decision is made by a building Information and Regulatory Affairs has local jurisdictions may not require the contractor or building owner who does emphasized that such techniques may disclosure of information other than that not pay the energy costs. include identifying changing future required by DOE or FTC. Since DOE is (3) There are external benefits compliance costs that might result from not proposing to require that resulting from improved energy technological innovation or anticipated manufacturers label their battery efficiency of appliances and equipment behavioral changes. For the reasons chargers, those labeling requirements that are not captured by the users of stated in the preamble, DOE believes would also be preempted. See 42 U.S.C. such products. These benefits include that this proposed rule is consistent 6297(a). An individual manufacturer externalities related to public health, with these principles, including the
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00077 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52926 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
requirement that, to the extent North American Industry Classification c. Industry Structure permitted by law, benefits justify costs System (NAICS) code and industry and that net benefits are maximized. description and are available at http:// With respect to battery chargers, www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/files/ industry structure is typically defined B. Review Under the Regulatory Size_Standards_Table.pdf. Battery by the characteristics of the industry of Flexibility Act charger manufacturing is classified the application(s) for which the battery The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 under NAICS 335999, ‘‘All Other chargers are produced. In the case of the U.S.C. 601, et seq.) requires preparation Miscellaneous Electrical Equipment and small business DOE identified, however, of an initial regulatory flexibility Component Manufacturing.’’ The SBA the battery charger itself is the product analysis (IRFA) for any rule that by law sets a threshold of 500 employees or less the small business produces. That is, the must be proposed for public comment, for an entity to be considered as a small company does not also produce the unless the agency certifies that the rule, business for this category. applications with which the battery if promulgated, will not have a To estimate the number of companies charger is intended to be used—in this significant economic impact on a that could be small business case, battery chargers predominantly substantial number of small entities. As manufacturers of products covered by intended for golf cars (Product Class 7). required by Executive Order 13272, this rulemaking, DOE conducted a A high level of concentration exists in ‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities market survey using all available public both battery charger markets. Two golf in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 information to identify potential small car battery charger manufacturers (August 16, 2002), DOE published battery charger manufacturers. DOE’s account for the vast majority of the golf procedures and policies on February 19, research involved industry trade car battery charger market and each 2003, to ensure that the potential association membership directories, have a similar share. Both competitors impacts of its rules on small entities are product databases, individual company in the golf car battery charger market properly considered during the Web sites, and the SBA’s Small are, in terms of the number of their rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE Business Database to create a list of employees, small entities: one is has made its procedures and policies every company that could potentially foreign-owned and operated, while the available on the Office of the General manufacture products covered by this other is a domestic small business, as Counsel’s Web site (http://energy.gov/ rulemaking. DOE also asked defined by SBA. Despite this gc/office-general-counsel). DOE has stakeholders and industry concentration, there is considerable prepared the following IRFA for the representatives if they were aware of competition for three main reasons. products that are the subject of this any other small manufacturers during First, each golf car battery charger rulemaking. manufacturer interviews and at previous manufacturer sells into a market that is As a result of this review, DOE has DOE public meetings. DOE contacted almost as equally concentrated: three prepared an IRFA addressing the companies on its list, as necessary, to golf car manufacturers supply the impacts on small manufacturers. DOE determine whether they met the SBA’s majority of the golf cars sold will transmit a copy of the IRFA to the definition of a small business domestically and none of them Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small manufacturer of covered battery manufactures golf car battery chargers. Business Administration (SBA) for chargers. DOE screened out companies Second, while there are currently only review under 5 U.S.C 605(b). As that did not offer products covered by two major suppliers of golf car battery presented and discussed in the this rulemaking, did not meet the chargers to the domestic market, the following sections, the IFRA describes definition of a ‘‘small business,’’ or are constant prospect of potential entry potential impacts on small business foreign-owned and operated. from other foreign countries has ceded Based on this screening, DOE manufacturers of battery chargers substantial buying power to the three identified 30 companies that could associated with the required capital and golf car OEMs. Third, golf car potentially manufacture battery product conversion costs at each TSL manufacturers can choose not to build chargers. DOE eliminated most of these and discusses alternatives that could electric golf cars (eliminating the need companies from consideration as small minimize these impacts. for the battery charger) by opting to business manufacturers based on a A statement of the reasons and build gas-powered products. DOE review of product literature and Web objectives of the proposed rule, along examines a price elasticity sensitivity sites. When those steps yielded with its legal basis, are set forth scenario for this in chapter 12 of the inconclusive information, DOE elsewhere in the preamble and not SNOPR TSD to assess this possibility. contacted the companies directly. As repeated here. Currently, roughly three-quarters of the part of these efforts, DOE identified golf car market is electric-based, with 1. Description on Estimated Number of Lester Electrical, Inc. (Lincoln, the remainder gas-powered. Small Entities Regulated Nebraska), a manufacturer of golf car battery chargers, as the only small The majority of industry shipments a. Methodology for Estimating the flow to the ‘‘fleet’’ segment—i.e. battery Number of Small Entities business that appears to produce covered battery chargers domestically. chargers sold to golf car manufacturers For manufacturers of battery chargers, who then lease the cars to golf courses. the SBA has set a size threshold, which b. Manufacturer Participations Most cars are leased for the first few defines those entities classified as Before issuing this proposed rule, years before being sold to smaller golf ‘‘small businesses’’ for the purposes of DOE contacted the potential small courses or other individuals for personal the statute. DOE used the SBA’s small business manufacturers of battery use. A smaller portion of golf cars are business size standards to determine chargers it had identified. One small sold as new through dealer distribution. whether any small entities would be business consented to being interviewed Further upstream, approximately half subject to the requirements of the rule. during the MIA interviews conducted of the battery chargers intended for golf 65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15, 2000), as prior to the publication of the NOPR. car use is manufactured domestically, amended at 65 FR 53533, 53544 (Sept. DOE also obtained information about while the other half is foreign-sourced. 5, 2000) and codified at 13 CFR part small business impacts while During the design cycle of the golf car, 121. The size standards are listed by interviewing large manufacturers. the battery charger supplier and OEM
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52927
typically work closely together when owned and operated and does not 5, 6, and 7 will drive different levels of designing the battery charger. qualify as a small business per the SBA small business impacts. The compliance The small business manufacturer is definition. These two small entities costs associated with the proposed TSLs also a relatively smaller player in the have a similar market share and sales are present in Table VI–1 through Table markets for wheelchair and industrial volumes. DOE did not identify any large VI–3. lift battery chargers. Most wheelchair businesses with which to compare the DOE does not expect the proposed battery chargers and the wheelchairs projected impacts on small businesses. themselves are manufactured overseas. TSL to require significant capital Three wheelchair manufacturers supply 2. Description and Estimate of expenditures. Although some the majority of the U.S. market, but do Compliance Requirements replacement of fixtures, new assembly not have domestic manufacturing. equipment and tooling would be The U.S.-owned small business DOE required, the magnitude of these d. Comparison Between Large and Small identified manufacturers of battery expenditures would be unlikely to cause Entities chargers for golf cars (Product Class 7). significant adverse financial impacts. As discussed in the previous section, DOE anticipates the proposed rule will Product Class 7 drives the majority of there are two major suppliers in the golf require both capital and product these costs. See Table VI–1 for the car battery charger market. Both are conversion costs to achieve compliance. estimated capital conversion costs for a small entities, although one is foreign- The CSLs proposed for Product Classes typical small business.
TABLE VI–1—ESTIMATED CAPITAL CONVERSION COSTS FOR A SMALL BUSINESS
Product class and estimated capital TSL 1 TSL 2 * TSL 3 TSL 4 conversion cost
Product Classes 5 and 6 ...... CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 3 Product Class 7 ...... CSL 1 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 2 Estimated Capital Conversion Costs (2013$) ...... $0.1 $0.1 $0.2 $0.2 * This is the TSL proposed in this SNOPR rulemaking.
The product conversion costs produce linear or less efficient high- period of this SNOPR, DOE has found associated with standards are more frequency design battery chargers to that manufacturers (including those significant for the small business invest in the development of a new based domestically) who previously manufacturer at issue than the projected product design, which would require sold exclusively, or primarily, linear capital conversion costs. TSL 2 for investments in engineering resources for battery chargers, are now selling switch- Product Class 7 reflects a technology R&D, testing and certification, and mode battery chargers, which are change from a linear battery charger or marketing and training changes. Again, capable of charging batteries equal to less efficient high-frequency design the level of expenditure at each TSL is similar batteries charged by linear battery charger at the baseline to a more driven almost entirely by the changes battery chargers offered by the same efficient switch-mode or high-frequency required for Product Class 7 at each manufacturer. See Table VI–2 for the design battery charger. This change TSL. Additionally, based on market estimated product conversion costs for a would require manufacturers that research conducted during the analysis typical small business.
TABLE VI–2—ESTIMATED PRODUCT CONVERSION COSTS FOR A SMALL BUSINESS
Product class and estimated product TSL 1 TSL 2 * TSL 3 TSL 4 conversion cost
Product Classes 5 and 6 ...... CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 3 Product Class 7 ...... CSL 1 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 2 Estimated Product Conversion Costs (2013$) ...... $1.8 $2.0 $5.1 $5.1 * This is the TSL proposed in this SNOPR rulemaking.
Table VI–3 displays the total capital and product conversion costs associated with each TSL.
TABLE VI–3—ESTIMATED TOTAL CONVERSION COSTS FOR A SMALL BUSINESS
Product class and estimated total TSL 1 TSL 2 * TSL 3 TSL 4 conversion cost
Product Classes 5 and 6 ...... CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 3 CSL 3 Product Class 7 ...... CSL 1 CSL 1 CSL 2 CSL 2 Estimated Total Conversion Costs (2013$) ...... $1.9 $2.1 $4.3 $4.3 * This is the TSL proposed in this SNOPR rulemaking.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52928 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Based on its engineering analysis, adopts that TSL in satisfaction of its data needed, and completing and manufacturer interviews and public obligations under EPCA. reviewing the collection of information. comments, DOE believes TSL 2 for In addition to the other TSLs being Notwithstanding any other provision Product Class 7 would establish an considered, the SNOPR TSD for this of the law, no person is required to efficiency level that standard linear proposed rule includes an analysis of respond to, nor shall any person be battery chargers could not cost- non-regulatory alternatives in chapter subject to a penalty for failure to comply effectively achieve. Not only would the 17. For battery chargers, these policy with, a collection of information subject size and weight of such chargers alternatives included: (1) No standard, to the requirements of the PRA, unless potentially conflict with end-user (2) consumer rebates, (3) consumer tax that collection of information displays a preferences, but the additional steel and credits, (4) manufacturer tax credits, and currently valid OMB Control Number. copper requirements would make such (5) early replacement. While these D. Review Under the National chargers cost-prohibitive in the alternatives may mitigate to some Environmental Policy Act of 1969 marketplace. Baseline linear designs are varying extent the economic impacts on Pursuant to the National already significantly more costly to small entities compared to the proposed Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of manufacture than the more-efficient standards, DOE does not intend to 1969, DOE has determined that this switch-mode designs, as DOE’s cost consider these alternatives further proposal would fit within the category efficiency curve shows in the because in several cases, they would not of actions included in Categorical engineering section (see Table IV–10). be feasible to implement without Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and otherwise While the majority of the battery authority and funding from Congress, meets the requirements for application chargers manufactured by the one small and in all cases, DOE has determined of a CX. See 10 CFR part 1021, App. B, business DOE identified, that would be that the energy savings of these B5.1(b); 1021.410(b) and Appendix B, affected by the proposed battery charger alternatives are significantly smaller B1–B5. This proposal fits within this standards, would need to be modified to than those that would be expected to category of actions because it would meet the proposed standards for Product result from adoption of the proposed establish energy conservation standards Class 7, this manufacturer has the standard levels. Accordingly, DOE is for consumer products or industrial capability to manufacture switch-mode declining to adopt any of these equipment, and for which none of the battery chargers. Therefore, DOE alternatives and is proposing the exceptions identified in CX B5.1(b) anticipates that this manufacturer could standards set forth in this rulemaking. apply. Therefore, DOE has made a CX comply with the proposal by modifying (See chapter 17 of the SNOPR TSD for determination for this rulemaking, and their existing switch-mode battery further detail on the policy alternatives DOE does not need to prepare an charger specifications. This would DOE considered.) Environmental Assessment or require significantly fewer R&D DOE continues to seek input from Environmental Impact Statement for resources than completely redesigning businesses that would be affected by this rule. DOE’s CX determination for all of their production line. this rulemaking and will consider this rule is available at http:// Additionally, DOE acknowledges that comments received in the development cxnepa.energy.gov. some or all existing domestic linear of any final rule. battery charger manufacturing could be E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 C. Review Under the Paperwork lost due to the proposed standards, Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism.’’ Reduction Act since it is likely that switch-mode 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999) imposes battery charger manufacturing would If DOE adopts standards for battery certain requirements on Federal likely be manufactured abroad. chargers, manufacturers of these agencies formulating and implementing 3. Duplication, Overlap and Conflict products would need to certify to DOE policies or regulations that preempt With Other Rules and Regulations that their products comply with the State law or that have Federalism applicable energy conservation implications. The Executive Order Since the CEC battery charger standards. In certifying compliance, requires agencies to examine the standards would be preempted by a manufacturers must test their products constitutional and statutory authority battery charger energy conservation according to the DOE test procedures for supporting any action that would limit standard set by DOE, DOE is not aware battery chargers, including any the policymaking discretion of the of any rules or regulations that amendments adopted for those test States and to carefully assess the duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the procedures. DOE has established necessity for such actions. The rule being considered in this notice. regulations for the certification and Executive Order also requires agencies 4. Significant Alternatives to the recordkeeping requirements for all to have an accountable process to Proposed Rule covered consumer products and ensure meaningful and timely input by commercial equipment, including State and local officials in the The discussion in the previous battery chargers. (76 FR 12422 (March 7, development of regulatory policies that sections analyzes impacts on small 2011); 80 FR 5099 (Jan. 30, 2015). The have Federalism implications. On businesses that would result from the collection-of-information requirement March 14, 2000, DOE published a other TSLs DOE considered. Though for the certification and recordkeeping statement of policy describing the TSLs lower than the proposed TSL are is subject to review and approval by intergovernmental consultation process expected to reduce the impacts on small OMB under the Paperwork Reduction it will follow in the development of entities, DOE is required by EPCA to Act (PRA). This requirement has been such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has establish standards that achieve the approved by OMB under OMB control examined this proposed rule and has maximum improvement in energy number 1910–1400. Public reporting tentatively determined that it would not efficiency that are technically feasible burden for the certification is estimated have a substantial direct effect on the and economically justified, and result in to average 30 hours per response, States, on the relationship between the a significant conservation of energy. including the time for reviewing national government and the States, or Once DOE determines that a particular instructions, searching existing data on the distribution of power and TSL meets those requirements, DOE sources, gathering and maintaining the responsibilities among the various
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52929
levels of government. EPCA governs and inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires publishes an explanation for doing prescribes Federal preemption of State a Federal agency to publish a written otherwise, or the selection of such an regulations as to energy conservation for statement that estimates the resulting alternative is inconsistent with law. As the products that are the subject of this costs, benefits, and other effects on the required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), this proposed rule. States can petition DOE national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) proposed rule would establish energy for exemption from such preemption to The UMRA also requires a Federal conservation standards for battery the extent, and based on criteria, set agency to develop an effective process chargers that are designed to achieve the forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297) to permit timely input by elected maximum improvement in energy Therefore, no further action is required officers of State, local, and Tribal efficiency that DOE has determined to by Executive Order 13132. governments on a proposed ‘‘significant be both technologically feasible and intergovernmental mandate,’’ and F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 economically justified. A full discussion requires an agency plan for giving notice of the alternatives considered by DOE is With respect to the review of existing and opportunity for timely input to presented in the ‘‘Regulatory Impact regulations and the promulgation of potentially affected small governments Analysis’’ section of the SNOPR TSD for new regulations, section 3(a) of before establishing any requirements this proposed rule. Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice that might significantly or uniquely Reform,’’ imposes on Federal agencies affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE H. Review Under the Treasury and the general duty to adhere to the published a statement of policy on its General Government Appropriations following requirements: (1) Eliminate process for intergovernmental Act, 1999 drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write consultation under UMRA. 62 FR Section 654 of the Treasury and regulations to minimize litigation; (3) 12820. DOE’s policy statement is also General Government Appropriations provide a clear legal standard for available at http://energy.gov/sites/ Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires affected conduct rather than a general prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_ Federal agencies to issue a Family standard; and (4) promote simplification 97.pdf. Policymaking Assessment for any rule and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. Although this proposed rule does not that may affect family well-being. This 7, 1996). Regarding the review required contain a Federal intergovernmental proposed rule would not have any by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive mandate, it may require expenditures of impact on the autonomy or integrity of Order 12988 specifically requires that $100 million or more by the private the family as an institution. Executive agencies make every sector. Specifically, the proposed rule Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it reasonable effort to ensure that the would likely result in a final rule that is not necessary to prepare a Family regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the could require expenditures of $100 Policymaking Assessment. preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly million or more. Such expenditures may specifies any effect on existing Federal include: (1) Investment in research and I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 law or regulation; (3) provides a clear development and in capital Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, legal standard for affected conduct expenditures by battery charger ‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference while promoting simplification and manufacturers in the years between the with Constitutionally Protected Property burden reduction; (4) specifies the final rule and the compliance date for Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 15, 1988), retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately the new standards, and (2) incremental DOE has determined that this proposed defines key terms; and (6) addresses additional expenditures by consumers rule would not result in any takings that other important issues affecting clarity to purchase higher-efficiency battery might require compensation under the and general draftsmanship under any chargers, starting at the compliance date Fifth Amendment to the U.S. guidelines issued by the Attorney for the applicable standard. Constitution. General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order Section 202 of UMRA authorizes a 12988 requires Executive agencies to Federal agency to respond to the content J. Review Under the Treasury and review regulations in light of applicable requirements of UMRA in any other General Government Appropriations standards in section 3(a) and section statement or analysis that accompanies Act, 2001 3(b) to determine whether they are met the proposed rule. (2 U.S.C. 1532(c)). Section 515 of the Treasury and or it is unreasonable to meet one or The content requirements of section General Government Appropriations more of them. DOE has completed the 202(b) of UMRA relevant to a private Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) required review and determined that, to sector mandate substantially overlap the provides for Federal agencies to review the extent permitted by law, this economic analysis requirements that most disseminations of information to proposed rule meets the relevant apply under section 325(o) of EPCA and the public under information quality standards of Executive Order 12988. Executive Order 12866. The guidelines established by each agency SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of pursuant to general guidelines issued by G. Review Under the Unfunded the proposed rule and the ‘‘Regulatory OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Impact Analysis’’ section of the SNOPR at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and Title II of the Unfunded Mandates TSD for this proposed rule respond to DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires those requirements. FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has each Federal agency to assess the effects Under section 205 of UMRA, the reviewed this proposed rule under the of Federal regulatory actions on State, Department is obligated to identify and OMB and DOE guidelines and has local, and Tribal governments and the consider a reasonable number of concluded that it is consistent with private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. regulatory alternatives before applicable policies in those guidelines. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a promulgating a rule for which a written proposed regulatory action likely to statement under section 202 is required. K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 result in a rule that may cause the (2 U.S.C. 1535(a)). DOE is required to Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions expenditure by State, local, and Tribal select from those alternatives the most Concerning Regulations That governments, in the aggregate, or by the cost-effective and least burdensome Significantly Affect Energy Supply, private sector of $100 million or more alternative that achieves the objectives Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May in any one year (adjusted annually for of the proposed rule unless DOE 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52930 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a analyses. Generation of this report alternate forms of Photo-ID include: U.S. Statement of Energy Effects for any involved a rigorous, formal, and Passport or Passport Card; an Enhanced proposed significant energy action. A documented evaluation using objective Driver’s License or Enhanced ID-Card ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as criteria and qualified and independent issued by the states of Minnesota, New any action by an agency that reviewers to make a judgment as to the York or Washington (Enhanced licenses promulgates or is expected to lead to technical/scientific/business merit, the issued by these states are clearly marked promulgation of a final rule, and that: actual or anticipated results, and the Enhanced or Enhanced Driver’s (1) Is a significant regulatory action productivity and management License); a military ID or other Federal under Executive Order 12866, or any effectiveness of programs and/or government issued Photo-ID card. successor order; and (2) is likely to have projects. The ‘‘Energy Conservation In addition, you can attend the public a significant adverse effect on the Standards Rulemaking Peer Review meeting via webinar. Webinar supply, distribution, or use of energy, or Report,’’ dated February 2007, has been registration information, participant (3) is designated by the Administrator of disseminated and is available at the instructions, and information about the OIRA as a significant energy action. For following Web site: capabilities available to webinar any proposed significant energy action, www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ participants will be published on DOE’s the agency must give a detailed appliance_standards/peer_review.html. Web site at: http:// statement of any adverse effects on www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ energy supply, distribution, or use VII. Public Participation appliance_standards/ should the proposal be implemented, A. Attendance at the Public Meeting product.aspx?productid=84. and of reasonable alternatives to the Participants are responsible for ensuring The time, date, and location of the action and their expected benefits on their systems are compatible with the DATES energy supply, distribution, and use. public meeting are listed in the webinar software. DOE has tentatively concluded that and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared this regulatory action, which proposes of this notice. If you plan to attend the General Statements for Distribution energy conservation standards for public meeting, please notify Ms. battery chargers, is not a significant Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or Any person who has plans to present energy action because the proposed [email protected]. a prepared general statement may standards are not likely to have a Please note that foreign nationals request that copies of his or her significant adverse effect on the supply, visiting DOE Headquarters are subject to statement be made available at the distribution, or use of energy, nor has it advance security screening procedures public meeting. Such persons may been designated as such by the which require advance notice prior to submit requests, along with an advance Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, attendance at the public meeting. If a electronic copy of their statement in DOE has not prepared a Statement of foreign national wishes to participate in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Energy Effects on this proposed rule. the public meeting, please inform DOE Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file of this fact as soon as possible by format, to the appropriate address L. Review Under the Information contacting Ms. Regina Washington at shown in the ADDRESSES section at the Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (202) 586–1214 or by email: beginning of this notice. The request On December 16, 2004, OMB, in [email protected] so that and advance copy of statements must be consultation with the Office of Science the necessary procedures can be received at least one week before the and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued completed. public meeting and may be emailed, its Final Information Quality Bulletin DOE requires visitors to have laptops hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR and other devices, such as tablets, prefers to receive requests and advance 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin checked upon entry into the building. copies via email. Please include a establishes that certain scientific Any person wishing to bring these telephone number to enable DOE staff to information shall be peer reviewed by devices into the Forrestal Building will make follow-up contact, if needed. qualified specialists before it is be required to obtain a property pass. disseminated by the Federal Visitors should avoid bringing these C. Conduct of the Public Meeting Government, including influential devices, or allow an extra 45 minutes to DOE will designate a DOE official to scientific information related to agency check in. Please report to the visitor’s preside at the public meeting and may regulatory actions. The purpose of the desk to have devices checked before also use a professional facilitator to aid bulletin is to enhance the quality and proceeding through security. discussion. The meeting will not be a credibility of the Government’s Due to the REAL ID Act implemented judicial or evidentiary-type public scientific information. Under the by the Department of Homeland hearing, but DOE will conduct it in Bulletin, the energy conservation Security (DHS), there have been recent accordance with section 336 of EPCA standards rulemaking analyses are changes regarding ID requirements for (42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will ‘‘influential scientific information,’’ individuals wishing to enter Federal be present to record the proceedings and which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific buildings from specific states and U.S. prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the information the agency reasonably can territories. Driver’s licenses from the right to schedule the order of determine will have, or does have, a following states or territory will not be presentations and to establish the clear and substantial impact on accepted for building entry and one of procedures governing the conduct of the important public policies or private the alternate forms of ID listed below public meeting. After the public sector decisions.’’ 70 FR 2667. will be required. DHS has determined meeting, interested parties may submit In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE that regular driver’s licenses (and ID further comments on the proceedings as conducted formal in-progress peer cards) from the following jurisdictions well as on any aspect of the rulemaking reviews of the energy conservation are not acceptable for entry into DOE until the end of the comment period. standards development process and facilities: Alaska, American Samoa, The public meeting will be conducted analyses and has prepared a Peer Arizona, Louisiana, Maine, in an informal, conference style. DOE Review Report pertaining to the energy Massachusetts, Minnesota, New York, will present summaries of comments conservation standards rulemaking Oklahoma, and Washington. Acceptable received before the public meeting,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52931
allow time for prepared general it in the comment itself or in any Documents should not contain special statements by participants, and documents attached to your comment. characters or any form of encryption encourage all interested parties to share Any information that you do not want and, if possible, they should carry the their views on issues affecting this to be publicly viewable should not be electronic signature of the author. rulemaking. Each participant will be included in your comment, nor in any Campaign form letters. Please submit allowed to make a general statement document attached to your comment. campaign form letters by the originating (within time limits determined by DOE), Otherwise, persons viewing comments organization in batches of between 50 to before the discussion of specific topics. will see only first and last names, 500 form letters per PDF or as one form DOE will allow, as time permits, other organization names, correspondence letter with a list of supporters’ names participants to comment briefly on any containing comments, and any compiled into one or more PDFs. This general statements. documents submitted with the reduces comment processing and At the end of all prepared statements comments. posting time. on a topic, DOE will permit participants Do not submit to regulations.gov Confidential Business Information. to clarify their statements briefly and information for which disclosure is According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any comment on statements made by others. restricted by statute, such as trade person submitting information that he Participants should be prepared to secrets and commercial or financial or she believes to be confidential and answer questions by DOE and by other information (hereinafter referred to as exempt by law from public disclosure participants concerning these issues. Confidential Business Information should submit via email, postal mail, or DOE representatives may also ask (CBI)). Comments submitted through hand delivery/courier two well-marked questions of participants concerning regulations.gov cannot be claimed as copies: one copy of the document other matters relevant to this CBI. Comments received through the marked confidential including all the rulemaking. The official conducting the Web site will waive any CBI claims for information believed to be confidential, public meeting will accept additional the information submitted. For and one copy of the document marked comments or questions from those information on submitting CBI, see the non-confidential with the information attending, as time permits. The Confidential Business Information believed to be confidential deleted. presiding official will announce any section below. Submit these documents via email or on DOE processes submissions made further procedural rules or modification a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own through regulations.gov before posting. of the above procedures that may be determination about the confidential Normally, comments will be posted needed for the proper conduct of the status of the information and treat it public meeting. within a few days of being submitted. according to its determination. A transcript of the public meeting will However, if large volumes of comments be included in the docket, which can be are being processed simultaneously, Factors of interest to DOE when viewed as described in the Docket your comment may not be viewable for evaluating requests to treat submitted section at the beginning of this notice. up to several weeks. Please keep the information as confidential include: (1) In addition, any person may buy a copy comment tracking number that A description of the items; (2) whether of the transcript from the transcribing regulations.gov provides after you have and why such items are customarily reporter. successfully uploaded your comment. treated as confidential within the Submitting comments via email, hand industry; (3) whether the information is D. Submission of Comments delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and generally known by or available from DOE will accept comments, data, and documents submitted via email, hand other sources; (4) whether the information regarding this proposed delivery, or mail also will be posted to information has previously been made rule before or after the public meeting, regulations.gov. If you do not want your available to others without obligation but no later than the date provided in personal contact information to be concerning its confidentiality; (5) an the DATES section at the beginning of publicly viewable, do not include it in explanation of the competitive injury to this proposed rule. Interested parties your comment or any accompanying the submitting person which would may submit comments, data, and other documents. Instead, provide your result from public disclosure; (6) when information using any of the methods contact information in a cover letter. such information might lose its described in the ADDRESSES section at Include your first and last names, email confidential character due to the the beginning of this notice. address, telephone number, and passage of time; and (7) why disclosure Submitting comments via optional mailing address. The cover of the information would be contrary to regulations.gov. The regulations.gov letter will not be publicly viewable as the public interest. Web page will require you to provide long as it does not include any It is DOE’s policy that all comments your name and contact information. comments. may be included in the public docket, Your contact information will be Include contact information each time without change and as received, viewable to DOE Building Technologies you submit comments, data, documents, including any personal information staff only. Your contact information will and other information to DOE. If you provided in the comments (except not be publicly viewable except for your submit via mail or hand delivery/ information deemed to be exempt from first and last names, organization name courier, please provide all items on a public disclosure). (if any), and submitter representative CD, if feasible. It is not necessary to E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment name (if any). If your comment is not submit printed copies. No facsimiles processed properly because of technical (faxes) will be accepted. Although DOE welcomes comments difficulties, DOE will use this Comments, data, and other on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is information to contact you. If DOE information submitted to DOE particularly interested in receiving cannot read your comment due to electronically should be provided in comments and views of interested technical difficulties and cannot contact PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or parties concerning the following issues: you for clarification, DOE may not be Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 1. DOE requests stakeholder comment able to consider your comment. format. Provide documents that are not on the proposed elimination of Product However, your contact information secured, that are written in English, and Classes 8, 9, 10a, and 10b from the will be publicly viewable if you include that are free of any defects or viruses. analysis. (See section IV.A.3.b)
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 52932 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules
2. DOE requests stakeholder 9. DOE seeks comment on the Issued in Washington, DC, on July 30, comments on the updated engineering compliance costs of any other 2015. analysis results presented in this regulations battery charger and battery David T. Danielson, analysis for products classes 2–6. (See charger application manufacturers must Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and section IV.C.9) make, especially if compliance with Renewable Energy. 3. DOE requests comment on the new those other regulations is required three For the reasons set forth in the methodology of shifting CSLs in Product years before or after the estimated preamble, DOE proposes to amend part Classes 2–6 to more closely align with compliance date of this proposed 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title the CEC standards. (See section IV.C.4) standard (2018) (see section V.B.2.e). 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 4. DOE seeks comment on its 10. DOE seeks comments on the as set forth below: methodology in scaling the results of existence of any small business battery Product Class 5 to Product Class 6, charger or battery charger application PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION including the decision to hold MSPs manufacturers other than the one PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER constant. (See section IV.C.9) identified by DOE. DOE also requests PRODUCTS 5. DOE requests comment on the new comments on the impacts of the methodology for determining the base ■ 1. The authority citation for part 430 proposed efficiency levels on any small continues to read as follows: case efficiency distributions using the businesses manufacturing battery CEC database of battery charger models chargers that would be subject to the Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. sold in California combined with DOE’s proposed standards or applications that 2461 note. usage profiles. (See section IV.G.3) would use these chargers. (See section ■ 2. Section 430.32 is amended by 6. DOE requests comment on the VI.B). adding paragraph (z) to read as follows: methodology of filtering RECS data to obtain a population distribution of low- VIII. Approval of the Office of the § 430.32 Energy and water conservation income consumers that was used for the Secretary standards and their effective dates. low-income consumers LCC subgroup * * * * * analysis. (See section V.B.1) The Secretary of Energy has approved (z) Battery Chargers. (1) Battery 7. DOE seeks comments on its publication of this proposed rule. chargers manufactured starting on the approach in updating the base case List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 date corresponding to two years after efficiency distributions for this rule the publication of the final rule for this using the CEC database. (See section Administrative practice and rulemaking, shall have a unit energy IV.G.3) procedure, Confidential business consumption (UEC) less than or equal to 8. DOE seeks comment on the information, Energy conservation, the prescribed ‘‘Maximum UEC’’ potential domestic employment impacts Household appliances, Imports, standard when using the equations for to battery charger manufacturers at the Intergovernmental relations, Reporting the appropriate product class and proposed efficiency levels. (See section and recordkeeping requirements, and corresponding measured battery energy V.B.2.b and section VI.B). Small businesses. as shown in the following table:
Product class Input/Output Battery energy Special characteristic or battery Maximum UEC No. type (Wh) voltage (kWh/yr)
1 ...... AC In, DC Out .. < 100 ...... Inductive Connection * ...... 3.04. 2 ...... < 4 V ...... 0.1440 * Ebatt + 2.95. 3 ...... 4–10 V ...... For Ebatt < 10Wh, 1.42 kWh/yr; Ebatt ≥ 10 Wh, 0.0255 * Ebatt + 1.16. 4 ...... > 10 V ...... 0.11 * Ebatt + 3.18. 5 ...... 100–3000 ...... < 20 V ...... For Ebatt < 19 Wh, 1.32 kWh/yr; For Ebatt ≥ 19 Wh, 0.0257 * Ebatt + .815. 6 ...... ≥ 20 V ...... For Ebatt < 18 Wh, 3.88 kWh/yr; For Ebatt ≥ 18 Wh, 0.0778 * Ebatt + 2.4. 7 ...... > 3000 ...... 0.0502 * Ebatt + 4.53. * Inductive connection and designed for use in a wet environment (e.g. electric toothbrushes). ** Ebatt = Measured battery energy as determined in section 5.6 of appendix Y to subpart B of this part.
(2) Unit energy consumption shall be listed below. If a device is tested and its below, equation (ii) shall be used to calculated for a device seeking charge test duration as determined in calculate UEC; otherwise a device’s UEC certification as being compliant with the section 5.2 of appendix Y to subpart B shall be calculated using equation (i). relevant standard using one of the two of this part minus 5 hours exceeds the equations (equation (i) or equation (ii)) threshold charge time listed in the table
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 169 / Tuesday, September 1, 2015 / Proposed Rules 52933
Where: Pm = Maintenance mode power as tcd = Charge test duration as determined in E24 = 24-hour energy as determined in determined in § 429.39(a) of this chapter, § 429.39(a) of this chapter, § 429.39(a) of this chapter, Psb = Standby mode power as determined in and Ebatt = Measured battery energy as determined § 429.39(a) of this chapter, ta&m, n, tsb, and toff, are constants used in § 429.39(a) of this chapter, Poff = Off mode power as determined in depending upon a device’s product class § 429.39(a) of this chapter, and found in the following table:
Active + Standby Off Charges Threshold Product class maintenance (tsb) (toff) (n) charge time * (ta&m)
Hours per Day ** Number per Hours Day
1 ...... 20.66 0.10 0.00 0.15 135.41 2 ...... 7.82 5.29 0.00 0.54 19.00 3 ...... 6.42 0.30 0.00 0.10 67.21 4 ...... 16.84 0.91 0.00 0.50 33.04 5 ...... 6.52 1.16 0.00 0.11 56.83 6 ...... 17.15 6.85 0.00 0.34 50.89 7 ...... 8.14 7.30 0.00 0.32 25.15 * If the duration of the charge test (minus 5 hours) as determined in section 5.2 of appendix Y to subpart B of this part exceeds the threshold charge time, use equation (ii) to calculate UEC otherwise use equation (i). ** If the total time does not sum to 24 hours per day, the remaining time is allocated to unplugged time, which means there is 0 power con- sumption and no changes to the UEC calculation is needed.
(3) A battery charger shall not be Administration (FDA) listing and section 513 of the Federal Food, Drug, subject to the standards in paragraph approval as a life-sustaining or life- and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360(c)). (z)(1) of this section if it is a device that supporting device in accordance with [FR Doc. 2015–20218 Filed 8–31–15; 8:45 am] requires Federal Food and Drug BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014 20:20 Aug 31, 2015 Jkt 235001 PO 00000 Frm 00085 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\01SEP2.SGM 01SEP2 mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2 EP01SE15.002