DOE Wrongheaded on Proposed ‘Computer Systems’ Energy Rules, CEA Says

But by “grouping different types of products, including some with design features for the commercial market,” under the general heading computer and battery backup systems, DOE “appears to cobble together sufficient residential energy use to meet the minimum criteria in EPCA,” CEA said. “We view this current effort as an attempt to assemble disparate types of consumer and commercial products to justify meeting the minimum criteria for a covered product. However, this is a weak and problematic legal and policy foundation on which to build a proposed regulation."

The EPCA “does not fit this type of cobbling together of disparate types of products, which have different features and capacities, to create an artificial grouping that is identified as a ‘consumer product,'” CEA argued. The law “was based on a world of stand-alone, relatively autonomous household appliances that could be considered as stand-alone equipment,” it said. “DOE can try to cobble together mixed consumer and commercial components of an IT system in order to be able to meet the kilowatt hour minimum required for the law, but even the preliminary determination recognizes there will not be one standard for the entire ‘computer’ product category. Indeed, unlike household appliance subclasses, individual IT component standards would not be similar in terms of test procedures, metrics or requirements."

The IT Industry Council agreed, telling DOE in its comments that consumers “rarely buy ‘computer systems,’ as proposed to be defined by DOE.” If computers, computer servers and battery back-up systems had “similar functions or intended uses,” as the EPCA requires for product groupings, “the products would be interchangeable in the marketplace,” the council said. “This is simply not the case. The three products listed are functionally distinct, and therefore, should not be considered as a grouping for purposes of establishing energy conservation standards under EPCA."

In its regulatory proposal, DOE decided computer and backup battery systems are a covered product, meeting the EPCA’s average annual per-household energy consumption requirement of 100 kilowatt-hours per year, the council said. But “it is inaccurate to estimate” average household energy consumption based on the presence of computers, servers and uninterruptible power supplies (UPS), it said. Servers and UPS “are institutional commercial products, with capabilities and features designed for the commercial market, which are not present in commerce to any significant extent for personal use or consumption,” and so are not valid under the EPCA because they're not consumer products, it said.

IBM “contributed” to the council’s comments and supports its conclusions, the company said. But it wanted to submit separate comments of its own as well because it’s “concerned with the breadth of the product categories under the proposed framework because most of the server and UPS products identified under the regulation are neither consumer products nor can they be classified as dual purpose products in a manner similar to that which can be considered for PCs,” the company said. Computers, servers and backup batteries “should not be regulated as a system because they are functionally dissimilar,” IBM said. Servers are not consumer products and, therefore, “are outside of the scope” of the EPCA, it said. Moreover, the DOE “does not give legally sufficient reasons why these products should be regulated together."

However, an alliance of seven green and consumer groups supports the DOE’s decision “to initiate the energy conservation standards setting process for computers and battery backup systems,” the groups said. The alliance includes the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Consumer Federation of America, Consumers Union, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships and the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. The DOE rulemaking “is an important energy savings opportunity that will reduce electricity bills for American consumers and businesses, and will help avoid the carbon and toxic pollution associated with the building of new power plants,” the groups said. Energy conservation standards for computers “also provide an opportunity to support what has historically been a very robust and effective ENERGY STAR program for computers,” they said.

The groups fear that “DOE may be underestimating the energy consumption of computers in the United States by a factor of at least two,” they said. Moreover, “we propose adjustments to DOE’s proposed definitions to ensure that the scope of the regulation is clear and remains relevant for the period over which standards are intended to affect the market,” they said. Computers “share many functional characteristics with other electronic products, which could make them difficult to differentiate,” they said. Better product definitions also are important because electronic products and technology are “evolving rapidly,” they said: “It is critical that (where possible) product definitions can anticipate and capture new form factors within their scope.”