Battery Chargers and External Power Supplies Framework Document Public Meeting Issues for Comment for

Informations

• Publié par: Nifor
• Nombre de lectures: 30
• Langue: English

Extrait

Public

Meeting

for

Energy

Conservation

Standards

for

Battery

Chargers

and

External

Power

Supplies

July

16th,

2007

–

Washington,

DC

Issues

for

Stakeholder

Comment

The

U.S.

Department

of

Energy

(DOE)

published

a

document

on

its

website

in

conjunction

with

this

public

meeting:

Energy

Conservation

Standards

Rulemaking

Framework

Document

for

Battery

Chargers

and

External

Power

Supplies.

While

DOE

invites

comments

from

stakeholders

on

all

aspects

of

the

material

presented

in

this

document,

there

are

several

issues

in

particular

on

which

DOE

seeks

comment.

These

are

highlighted

in

issue

boxes

throughout

the

document

and

the

associated

public

meeting

presentation.

The

list

of

issues

to

be

presented

during

today’s

public

meeting

is

reproduced

below,

grouped

according

to

the

session

at

which

they

will

be

discussed.

Within

those

groupings,

the

issues

are

numbered

according

to

their

appearance

in

the

framework

document.

Unnumbered

items

are

additional

issues

that

do

not

appear

in

the

Framework

Document.

1.

Welcome

[No

Issues]

2.

Introduction

and

Agenda

Review

[No

Issues]

3.

Regulatory

Overview

[No

Issues]

4.

Energy

Conservation

Standards

Rulemaking

[No

Issues]

5.

Stakeholder

Comments

[No

Issues]

6.

Scope

of

Analysis

Additional

Item

DOE

welcomes

comments

on

the

scope

of

the

rulemaking.

Item

6

DOE

requests

comment

on

its

interpretation

of

the

definition

of

“detachable

battery,”

and

the

impact

on

EPSs

excluded

from

Class

A.

Page

1

of

5

Issues

for

Comment

Item

5

DOE

welcomes

comment

on

any

products

with

detachable

batteries

that

are

not

motor

operated,

the

wall

adapters

of

which

should

also

be

excluded

from

Class

A

EPS

standards.

Item

4

DOE

seeks

comments

on

including

DC-powered

battery

chargers

within

the

scope

of

the

BC

standards

rulemaking.

Item

13

DOE

is

seeking

input

on

these

and

any

additional

criteria

it

should

consider

in

determining

the

presence

of

wall

adapter

charge

control

functions.

Item

10

DOE

welcomes

comment

on

additional

functionality

provided

by

some

wall

adapters

for

battery

chargers

that

may

impede

their

ability

to

meet

the

same

standards

as

comparable

wall

adapters

for

other

applications

(considered

EPSs).

Item

9

DOE

seeks

comments

on

the

four

approaches

to

interpreting

the

BC

and

EPS

definitions

to

resolve

ambiguities

in

the

scope

of

the

analyses.

Item

11

DOE

welcomes

comment

on

the

manufacturer

burden

of

compliance

with

current

EISA

Class

A

EPS

standards

under

each

of

the

four

approaches

and

seeks

information

on

how

DOE

can

minimize

this

burden

while

ensuring

that

the

standards

are

being

met

consistently

by

the

industry.

Item

12

DOE

also

welcomes

comment

on

the

likely

manufacturer

burden

of

compliance

with

possible

future

EPS

and

BC

standards

under

each

of

the

four

approaches.

To

this

end,

DOE

also

seeks

information

from

the

industry

regarding

how

the

monitoring

of

compliance

with

these

standards

can

be

accomplished.

7.

Test

Procedures

Additional

Item

The

Department

invites

stakeholder

comments

on

changes

to

the

standby

and

off

mode

measurement

period.

Additional

Item

The

Department

invites

stakeholder

comments

on

changes

to

the

single-voltage

EPS

test

procedure

to

accommodate

USB-compliant

wall

adapters.

Additional

Item

The

Department

invites

stakeholder

comments

on

the

above

changes

to

the

previously

proposed

multiple-voltage

EPS

test

procedure.

Item

22

DOE

seeks

comments

on

how

DOE

should

amend

its

BC

test

procedure

to

measure

energy

consumption

in

active

mode.

Additional

Item

The

Department

invites

stakeholder

comments

on

directly

measuring

charger

output

energy

versus

battery

output

energy.

Additional

Item

The

Department

invites

stakeholder

comments

on

categorizing

BC

usage

profiles

using

capacity

characteristics.

Additional

Item

The

Department

invites

stakeholder

comments

on

shortening

of

active

and

maintenance

mode

testing

periods,

in

particular

regarding

typical

charging

times

for

consumer

products

that

use

rechargeable

batteries.

Additional

Item

The

Department

invites

stakeholder

comments

on

representative

depths-of-discharge

for

common

end-use

consumer

product

applications.

Page

2

of

5

Issues

for

Comment

8.

Market

Assessment

Item

56,

57

DOE

welcomes

comments

on

its

lifetime

estimates

and

data

for

all

applications

that

use

EPSs

and

BCs.

Item

17

DOE

seeks

comments

and

input

on

BC

and

EPS

shipments.

Additional

Item

DOE

seeks

data

on

the

distribution

of

BC

and

EPS

efficiency

across

the

market.

Additional

Item

DOE

seeks

comment

on

drivers

of

BC

and

EPS

efficiency,

such

as

technological

advances,

consumer

demands

for

portability,

or

international

agreements

and

standards.

9.

Product

Price

Determination

Item

52

DOE

seeks

comments

on

the

methodology

for

calculating

the

product

price

for

BCs

and

EPSs,

including

assumptions

about

the

percent

of

shipments

passing

through

each

distribution

channel

and

the

markups

associated

with

each

channel.

10.

Energy

Use

and

End

Use

Load

Characterization

Item

46

DOE

requests

comments

on

the

use

of

24-hour

charge

cycles

for

estimating

energy

consumption

for

BCs

in

active

mode.

Additional

Item

DOE

seeks

input

on

methods

for

separating

active

mode

time

from

maintenance

mode

time.

Item

45

DOE

seeks

alternate

sources,

databases

or

methodologies

with

which

to

develop

BC

usage

profiles.

Additional

Item

DOE

requests

comments

on

its

working

assumption

that

the

highest

active

mode

application

state

requires

80

percent

of

nameplate

output

power

and

that

the

lowest

active

mode

application

state

requires

15

percent

of

nameplate

output

power.

Additional

Item

DOE

requests

alternative

sources

for

application

state

loading

points.

Item

50

DOE

requests

comments

on

its

proposed

methodology

for

calculating

energy

consumption

at

output

levels

below

25

percent

of

nameplate

output

power.

11.

Technology

Assessment

Additional

Item

DOE

seeks

comment

on

the

above

impacts

of

energy

type,

capacity,

and

performance-related

features

on

topology.

Item

23

DOE

seeks

comments

on

BC

product

class

divisions,

including

whether

battery

voltage

is

the

appropriate

product

classification

criterion,

and/or

whether

DOE

should

take

into

account

other

factors,

such

as

charge

rate,

battery

capacity,

or

battery

chemistry.

Page

3

of

5

Issues

for

Comment

Item

26

DOE

seeks

comments

on

how

to

consider

output

voltage

in

developing

product

classes,

and

how

the

low-voltage

division

should

vary

with

EPS

output

power.

Item

27

DOE

seeks

comments

on

the

possible

approaches

discussed

concerning

EPS

product

classes,

and

invites

interested

parties

to

propose

alternative

approaches

and/or

other

factors

DOE

should

consider

in

developing

product

classes

for

the

preliminary

analyses

Item

30

DOE

seeks

comments

on

the

preliminary

technology

options

identified

in

this

section

and

whether

there

are

other

technology

options

it

should

consider.

12.

Screening

Analysis

Item

31

DOE

seeks

comments

on

how

the

four

screening

criteria

might

apply

to

the

technology

options

discussed

in

section

3.7

in

the

Framework

Document,

as

well

as

any

additional

technology

option(s)

that

an

interested

party

recommends

to

DOE.

13.

Engineering

Analysis

Item

34

DOE

invites

comments

on

the

identification

and

selection

of

representative

product

classes

and

on

models

that

may

serve

as

good

representative

units

within

each

product

class.

DOE

also

seeks

comments

on

appropriate

scaling

relationships

among

product

classes

for

both

BCs

and

EPSs.

Item

35

DOE

seeks

comments

on

representative

product

classes

and

selection

of

representative

units

from

those

representative

product

classes.

Item

33

DOE

seeks

recommendations

on

possible

candidate

standard

levels

to

use

when

analyzing

EPSs

and

BCs.

Item

38

DOE

seeks

comments

on

methods

for

normalizing

cost

and

efficiency

data

for

EPSs

with

output

power

and

output

voltage

that

differ

from

those

of

the

representative

units.

Item

37

DOE

invites

manufacturers

to

work

with

DOE

in

the

interviews

to

help

develop

aggregated

curves

of

manufacturer

selling

price

versus

efficiency

for

the

various

representative

units.

Item

36

DOE

seeks

comments

on

the

scaling

of

findings

from

representative

product

classes

to

other

product

classes

that

DOE

may

not

explicitly

analyze.

14.

Preliminary

Manufacturer

Impact

Analysis

[No

Issues]

Page

4

of

5

Issues

for

Comment

15.

Life-Cycle

Cost

Analysis

Item

53

DOE

seeks

comments

on

its

intention

to

focus

its

preliminary

LCC

analysis

on

the

residential

sector,

and

not

the

commercial

or

industrial

sectors

Item

54

DOE

seeks

comments

on

the

use

of

the

EIA

national

average

electricity

price

and

the

AEO

forecast

of

electricity

prices

over

the

analysis

period.

16.

National

Impact

Analysis

[No

Issues]

17.

Next

Steps

and

Closing

Remarks

[No

Issues]

Page

5

of

5