**Testimony of Steven Nadel,**

**Executive Director**

**American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE)**

**Before the Senate Energy Committee**

**Hearing on:**

**Energy Efficient Lighting for a Brighter Tomorrow Act (S. 2017)**

**September 12, 2007**

**Summary**

This testimony is presented on behalf of a coalition of energy
efficiency advocacy organizations. We believe that S. 2017 is a huge
step in the right direction for improving the efficient use of energy in
the United States. The version of the bill as introduced is a
substantial improvement over earlier drafts, particularly in how it sets
a floor for the DOE rulemaking that will set a revised standard that
takes effect in 2020. We think it is vitally important to set such a
floor so that large savings are ensured (nearly half the savings are
from the second stage standard) and so that manufacturers have ample
time to prepare for the product changes that will be needed to meet this
new standard.

While there are many provisions we like in the bill, we also think it
can and should be improved in order to:

1.  Expand coverage of the bill to additional lamp types and take other
    steps that are needed to plug loopholes that would allow
    low-efficiency exempted products to be sold in place of the higher
    efficiency products called for by the bill. If these loopholes are
    not addressed, much of the savings projected for the bill could
    evaporate. 

2.  Include lumen per Watt requirements and/or adjust lumen output bins
    in order to reduce the likelihood that lamps with low light output
    will be sold that consumers think are too dim. If consumers find
    that lamps are too dim, some of them will switch to higher wattage
    lamps, eliminating significant energy savings.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
3.  Modify the preemption of state standard provisions in order to
    protect states that have adopted or are in the process of adopting
    state standards on general service incandescent lamps.

4.  Make a variety of technical changes so that intent is not
    misunderstood and implementation can proceed in a logical fashion.

5.  Consider a new section on fluorescent tube efficiency standards
    based on discussions between ACEEE and lamp manufacturers. This new
    provision would update standards set by Congress in the Energy
    Policy Act of 1992.

With our recommended changes we estimate that this bill will, by 2030,
reduce annual electricity use by nearly 200 billion kWh, reduce peak
demand by 31,000 MW (equivalent to capacity of more than 100 power
plants of 300 MW each) and reduce consumer and business energy bills by
about \$18 billion per year. These are very large savings. In addition,
these provisions will reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 40
million metric tonnes, adding to the substantial savings in the
Senate-passed energy bill and making a useful downpayment in efforts to
address global warming. We urge you to include these improved provisions
in an energy bill reported out of this Committee and the upcoming
House-Senate energy bill conference.

 

**Introduction**

My name is Steven Nadel and I am the Executive Director of the American
Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), a nonprofit
organization dedicated to increasing energy efficiency as a means of
promoting both economic prosperity and environmental protection. I am
here today representing a coalition of energy efficiency organizations
that has been working together on lamp standard issues for many months.
In addition to ACEEE, other members of this coalition are the Alliance
to Save Energy, Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Earth Day
Network, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Southwest Energy
Efficiency Project. Our coalition thanks you for the opportunity to
testify today.

S. 2017 is an important step forward in efforts to secure large energy
savings and greenhouse gas reductions by reducing the energy now used by
general service incandescent lamps and also metal halide lighting
fixtures. The provisions on consumer education will also be very useful
as are the sections on research and development and mercury use. We
thank Senators Bingaman and Stevens for introducing this bill and moving
the discussion forward on how best to regulate lighting products to
produce energy savings in a way that provides consumers with the light
and amenities they need and that is workable for manufacturers.

In my testimony here today I will discuss each of the bill\'s sections
in turn---what we like about this bill and how it can be improved. I
will also recommend that a new section be added to adopt updated
standards on fluorescent tubes, based on discussions between ACEEE and
the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA).

**General Service Incandescent Lamps**

General service incandescent lamps are a very important target for
energy savings. According to a recent study commissioned by the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE), there are approximately 4 billion general
incandescent lamps in use in the U.S. that consume approximately 286
billion kWh of electricity annually. At the current national average
electricity price of about 9 cents per kWh, this means consumers and
businesses are paying more than \$25 billion per year to operate general
service incandescent lamps. Of this energy use, 58% is in the
residential sector, making these standards particularly important to
individual consumers.[^1]

S. 2017 will save energy from general service incandescent lamps in
several stages. In the first stage, effective 2012-2014, it will phase
out the most common types of incandescent lamps in favor of products
that use about 25-30% less energy (e.g., a 60 Watt bulb will be replaced
with a bulb using 43 Watts or less). In addition, because these 43 Watt
bulbs likely will cost somewhat more than today\'s 60 Watt bulbs, many
consumers will choose to purchase a compact fluorescent lamp (CFL),
saving additional energy (e.g., one using about 15 Watts instead of 43
Watts) at little additional cost. In the second stage, the bill requires
the DOE to set a new standard, but provides an important backstop by
requiring that the new standard save at least as much energy as a
standard that would require 45 lumens of light output per Watt of energy
input. Using the same example of a current 60 Watt bulb, this means that
in stage 2, energy use will be reduced to about 20 Watts, more than
doubling the energy savings from the first stage. The bill also calls
for a third stage, with the standard to be set by DOE.

Our coalition believes this bill is a huge step in the right direction
for improving the efficient use of energy in the United States. However,
we also think it can and should be improved, primarily by plugging
potential loopholes in the bill that would allow low-efficiency exempted
products to be sold in place of the higher efficiency products called
for by the bill. In addition, we think that refinements are needed to
reduce the likelihood that lamps with low light output will be sold that
consumers think are too dim and to protect states that have adopted or
are in the process of adopting state standards on general service lamps.
Later in my testimony I elaborate on these points, as well as several
recommended technical corrections.

As most of you probably know, the energy bill recently adopted by the
House of Representatives includes a section on general service
incandescent lamp standards authored by Representatives Jane Harman and
Fred Upton. This provision is broadly similar to S. 2017 in that it
requires efficiency improvements to these lamps in two stages with
effects similar to the first two stages in S. 2017. However, there are
quite a few differences in the details of these bills, some of which are
important.

For example, S. 2017 was drafted to fit into existing appliance and
equipment standards law while the House bill is a stand-alone section.
We support the S. 2017 approach since it takes advantage of the many
important implementation details now in current law. We also like the
fact that S. 2017 includes phase 1 standards based on maximum power
(watts) for each range of light output (lumens) that is comparable to
today\'s incandescent lamps. By contrast, the House bill used a
lumens-per-watt approach that, unless Watt caps are also added, could
allow improved efficiency to be translated into more light (i.e.,
higher-output lamps) rather than lamps that use less electricity while
providing about the same amount of light. On the other hand, there are
several provisions in the House bill that are superior and should be
incorporated in S. 2017 as I discuss later in my testimony.

ACEEE, with help from the Alliance to Save Energy, has estimated that
the House general service incandescent lamp standard provision will
reduce U.S. electricity use by about 81 billion kWh in 2020, peak
electric demand by nearly 10,000 MW (the capacity of 33 power plants of
300 MW each), and greenhouse gas emissions by 16 million metric tonnes
of carbon. By 2030, due to the stage two standards in the bill, these
annual savings increase to 143 billion kWh, 17,500 MW of peak power (the
capacity of 58 power plants), and 28.5 million metric tonnes of carbon.
At 9 cents per kWh, annual energy bill savings from these standards will
be about \$7 billion from stage 1 and \$13 billion from stage 2.

By comparison, our estimate is that S. 2017 will save a little more
energy in 2020 and a little less in 2030 than the House bill. Savings in
2020 are higher since S. 2017 includes watt limits on intermediate and
candelabra base lamps and also includes wattage caps on all lamps (these
items are not in the House bill). Savings are lower in 2030 since the
guaranteed second stage standard is stronger in the House bill.
Specifically, our estimates of savings from S. 2017 are as follows:

-   In 2020, annual energy savings of 85 billion kWh (reducing bills by
    \$7.7 billion) and peak demand reductions of 10,500 MW (the capacity
    of 35 power plants of 300 MW each). Greenhouse gas reductions of 17
    million metric tonnes of carbon.

-   In 2030, annual energy savings of 139 billion kWh (reducing bills by
    \$12.6 billion) and peak demand reductions of 11,600 MW (the
    capacity of 38½ power plants of 300 MW each). Greenhouse gas
    reductions of 27.8 million metric tonnes of carbon.

Our estimates of savings from both bills are highly approximate as they
depend on judgments on the second stage standard to be set by DOE (our
estimate assumes the minimum) and how widely manufacturers and importers
exploit loopholes that differ between the bills.

*To assure these savings, it is absolutely critical that final
legislation close the easy-to-exploit loopholes that would allow
circumvention of the intended standards.*

Turning now to some of the details of S. 2017, our comments fall into
five categories:

> 1\. The second stage standard (which takes effect 2020)
>
> 2\. Closing potential loopholes
>
> 3\. Discouraging dim lamps
>
> 4\. Preemption of state standards
>
> 5\. Additional technical issues

**Second Stage Standard**

Our coalition strongly supports having a guaranteed second stage
standard in the bill. S. 2017 takes a smart approach by calling for a
DOE rulemaking but providing a backstop standard in case DOE either does
not complete the rule in time or the DOE standard fails to achieve the
same energy savings as a 45 lumen per Watt standard. Effectively, this
provision puts a floor on the DOE rulemaking, based on current known
products (e.g., CFLs) and products that are expected to achieve these
efficiency levels well before 2020 (e.g., light emitting diodes, or
LEDs).[^2]

As this committee knows, DOE has missed all of its Congressionally-set
deadlines for new efficiency standards since 1990, so it is important to
have a clear and achievable minimum standard in place if DOE does not
act in time. Most of the new standards set by Congress in the Energy
Policy Act of 2005 and in energy bills passed by the House and Senate in
2007 either contain such a backstop provision or allow states to set
standards if DOE misses its deadlines. Also, in the case of new lamp
standards, in order to achieve the large energy savings that can clearly
be achieved with stage two, major product changes will be needed. The
provision to create a floor for the stage 2 standard provides a clear
direction to manufacturers to work on developing a full array of
products that can meet this floor by 2020. In other words, manufacturers
have 13 years to prepare for the new standard.

Without such clear direction, manufacturers could argue during a
2014-2017 rulemaking that they are not ready for a strong standard and
either the standard needs to be weakened or they need many more years to
prepare, delaying the effective date of the new standard. These savings
are substantial---*ACEEE estimates that nearly half of the annual energy
and carbon reductions in 2030 from the general service incandescent lamp
standard in S. 2017 are due to the stage 2 standard.*

*The costs of any delay in stage 2 implementation would be enormous.
Unlike many other products, lamps last a few months to a few years. As a
result, the total effect in reduced electricity demand and emissions
reductions from a new standard is attained soon after implementation.*

Our coalition also notes that while we support the approach in S. 2017,
we are also comfortable with the approach in the House bill that sets a
similar stage 2 standard, but without the DOE rulemaking. (Some of our
coalition prefer the House approach.)

While we strongly support the stage 2 lamp standard provision in S.
2017, we also think it should be refined in a few ways:

> 1\. The wording on p. 18 (lines 10-16) is ambiguous and should be
> clarified in order to make clear that the backstop standard goes into
> effect if DOE either misses the deadline or sets a standard that
> results in less energy savings than a 45 lumen per Watt standard. We
> suggest specific rewording in the appendix to my testimony.
>
> 2\. The backup standard of 300% of the efficacy of a 100 Watt lamp (p.
> 18, line 19-23) is imprecise, because there are many types of 100 Watt
> lamps. The most common 100 Watt lamps on the market today are about 17
> lumens per Watt. To eliminate ambiguity, we recommend that 50 lumens
> per Watt (rounding 300% of 17 lumens per watt) be the backstop
> standard. This would save a lot of work to interpret this provision
> and help avoid the prospect of controversy, potential delays, and
> litigation.
>
> 3\. The bill calls for the Secretary to formally set the backstop
> standard (p. 18, lines 17-23), even if the backstop goes into effect
> because of DOE inaction. If a specific backstop standard is set as we
> recommend above, then Congress can and should just set the backstop
> standard instead of requiring DOE action.
>
> 4\. The bill makes clear that DOE, in the stage 2 rulemaking, should
> not limit consideration of new standards to just those achievable by
> incandescent technology (p. 17, lines 9-10). We think it would be
> useful to further clarify that if other provisions of the law are met
> (including the provision to not reduce consumer utility), it is
> possible that the new standard will be met only by technologies that
> are not incandescent. We are not saying such an event is likely, but
> instead saying that the legislation should be clear about permitting
> such an event if justified. We suggest specific legislative language
> in the appendix to this testimony.
>
> 5\. In discussing the DOE stages 2 and 3 rulemakings, the bill uses
> the term \"more stringent maximum wattage than the standards specified
> \[for stage one\]\" (p. 17, lines 1-4) and page 19, lines 5-10). We
> think DOE should have more flexibility to consider other metrics such
> as lumens per Watt, especially since the default standard is specified
> in lumens per Watt. More agency flexibility could enable DOE to better
> meet the underlying legal criteria of economic justification and
> technical feasibility and may be useful for harmonizing with
> international standards. To allow such consideration, the words
> \"maximum wattage than the\" should be deleted. Alternatively, a
> period could be added after \"amended\" in line 1 on page 17 and the
> rest of the paragraph through the end of line 4 struck.

**Closing Potential Loopholes**

Past history shows that when Congress sets lamp standards, creative
manufacturers (not necessarily large companies or even companies in the
market today) can often find ways to legally evade the law by exploiting
loopholes. Typically a small manufacturer takes the first step to
exploit a loophole and evade Congressional intent, and then larger
manufacturers produce similar \"loophole products\" in order to be
competitive.

For example, in the Energy Policy Act of 1992, a small niche product
known as \"BR\" lamps (BR for \"bulged reflector\") were exempted
because they were an obscure niche product. However, after enactment,
the inefficient BR lamp became the dominant reflector lamp for the
residential market, increasing from niche status to more than 50% of
sales. This loophole is finally being narrowed in the incandescent
reflector lamp provision of the 2007 House and Senate energy bills.

Likewise, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 required ceiling fan light kits
to use CFLs, but provided an exception for lamps that do not use
medium-screw bases (the common \~1 inch diameter screw base). Since this
legislation, intermediate base incandescent lamps (\~1/2 inch in
diameter) have become prevalent in ceiling fan light kits and use of
candelabra bases (\~1/4 in diameter) has also increased, defeating the
intent of the law, which was to ensure use of more efficient CFLs rather
than inefficient incandescent lamps in ceiling fans.

Given this history, this new legislation should be especially vigilant
for potential loopholes. S. 2017 takes important steps in this regard,
including identifying likely loopholes such as vibration service, rough
service, and shatter-proof lamps and calling for monitoring of sales of
these lamps and a procedure to close these loopholes if sales of these
exempt products double from baseline levels. However, much more is
needed to prevent loopholes. Below we identify a number of potential
loopholes and suggest ways to fix these.

**New lamp shapes and bases:** The bill lists specific lamp shapes that
are regulated or their \"equivalent\" (p. 4, lines 14-18).
\"Equivalent\" can be a very specific term and this appears to us to
allow manufacturers to develop new shapes that are similar to but not
equivalent to current shapes in order to get around the law. We strongly
recommend changing the bill language to cover all screw base lamps, and
then adding to the list of exemptions as needed---for example, exempting
T and G40 lamps as well as exempting B, BA, CA, F, G16½, and S lamps
less than or equal to 40 Watts. Significantly, if all bases are covered,
there is no incentive for some manufacturer to develop a new base.

At a minimum, the phrase \"equivalent\" should be changed to \"similar\"
and this section moved to after the reference to the ANSI standard,
since our understanding is that ANSI does not define either
\"equivalent\" or \"similar.\"

We should note that the House bill also has the same loophole problems.
Representative Harman\'s staff have told us they are supportive of
efforts to address this problem.

**Petitions for extended coverage:** If the Senate elects to stick with
the narrowly defined approach to coverage in the current bill, we
recommend that the provision allowing for extension of coverage on page
14 be clarified. Currently, the language allows for petitions seeking
extension of coverage to those products \"excluded\" from the
definition. The bill explicitly defines nineteen \"exclusions.\"
However, the bill also implicitly excludes dozens of other lamp types,
shapes and bases (some of which are not yet even invented) but which
could become common for general service lighting. The law should make
crystal clear that petitions to close loopholes may apply to both
explicitly and implicitly exempted products. We suggest language in the
appendix to the testimony.

Also, the procedure for interested parties to expand coverage to new
lamp classes (p. 15, lines 1-10) provides too high a burden on
petitioners. We recommend that line 5 be amended to insert
\"availability and/or\" in front of \"sales.\" It is hard for
petitioners outside of lamp companies to have sales data; data on lamp
availability can be more readily collected. Likewise, on line 9, insert
\"likely\" in front of \"being.\" Without doing an expensive field
survey, it cannot be determined if a specific type of lamp is widely
being used. Addition of the word \"likely\" or \"probably\" allows for
reasonable judgments to be made without definitive evidence. This
provision only initiates a longer process during which additional data
can be collected before decisions are made.

**G (globe) and P lamps:** G lamps are round lamps, which are becoming
more popular. While large lamps of this type (such as G40 lamps, which
are 5 inches in diameter) cannot be used in the most common lighting
fixtures, smaller lamps such as G25 and G30 (between 3 and 4 inches in
diameter) often can. Likewise, P lamps (pear?) can also be used in many
general lighting fixtures. The change suggested in the paragraph above
will address these problems. But if the Senate elects not to make this
change, these lamps should be added to the coverage of this standard so
they don\'t become loopholes. At an absolute minimum, these lamps should
be added to the sales monitoring section of the legislation and if sales
double relative to the baseline, then these lamps should be subject to
the same standards as their A-shaped cousins.

**B, BA, CA, F, G16½, and S lamps over 40 Watts**: These are different
types of decorative lamps that are generally 40 Watts or less, but for
most of these products, 60 W lamps are also sold. But 60 Watts is the
most common incandescent lamp size and if 60 Watt lamps of these types
are allowed, we would expect sales of these lamps to grow dramatically,
thus undercutting a significant fraction of the energy savings expected
from phase 1 standards. To address this problem, we strongly recommend
that these lamps be limited to no more than 40 Watts, the same as for
intermediate base lamps.

**Candelabra bases:** As noted above, candelabra bases are becoming more
common in ceiling fan light kits in order to get around the new standard
set in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. If new standards go into effect
for many of the more common lamps, we expect candelabra bases to become
even more common. S. 2017 attempts to addresses this problem by imposing
a 60 W cap on candelabra bases (p. 13, line 12). But, as discussed
above, 60 Watts is the most common incandescent lamp size and if 60 Watt
candelabra bases are allowed, we would expect sales of these lamps to
increase substantially, undercutting the standard. To address this
problem, we recommend that these lamps be limited to no more than 40
Watts, the same as for intermediate bases. Candelabra lamps are
historically designed for decorative purposes, usually in multi-socket
fixtures, and often with dimming controls, where the extra light output
of a 60 Watt lamp is not needed.

**Rough, vibration, etc. service:** As discussed above, S. 2017 requires
DOE to monitor the sales of rough and vibration service, and
shatter-resistant lamps. These lamps are virtually the same shape as
conventional lamps and can be used in virtually all conventional lamp
sockets. To help keep sales of these lamps from exploding, we recommend
that the bill direct that these lamps be exempted from the standards
only if sold at retail in single-lamp packages. Wholesale sales can
still be in bulk, but retail sales should be restricted. We have already
seen 10-packs of low-cost vibration service lamps for sale in California
in order to get around California\'s incandescent lamp standards.
Single-lamp packaging (or at most, two-lamp packaging) will keep that
from happening nationally. The House bill includes a requirement for
single-lamp packaging of these lamps. The Senate bill should adopt this
same provision. S. 2017 includes single-lamp packaging as part of the
backstop standard for these lamps, but by the time the backstop standard
is imposed, significant energy savings will be lost. It is better to
close this door before the horse leaves the barn.

As noted above, S. 2017 calls for an accelerated DOE rulemaking if the
sales of any of these lamps double relative to the baseline and provides
a backup standard if DOE does not complete the rulemaking within one
year. The House bill automatically imposes the backup standard without a
rulemaking, thereby imposing the backstop standard sooner and also
saving rulemaking resources for more important matters. We recommend
that the Senate adopt the House approach and drop the rulemaking
requirement.

**Discouraging Dim Lamps**

S. 2017 sets minimum lamp wattages for different lumen bins. The bins
are meant to be equivalent to conventional 40, 60, 75 and 100 Watt
lamps, but some of the bins are broad enough that lamps 14% dimmer than
today\'s most common lamps can be sold. The approach in S. 2017
encourages production of dimmer lamps by implicitly reducing the
efficacy (lumens per watt) requirement as light output declines with
each lumen bin. As lamps get dimmer, some consumers may be dissatisfied
and move up to a higher lumen class, eroding much of the savings
achieved. To address this potential problem, the bill would include both
wattage caps and lumen per Watt floors in order to keep lamps from being
too dim or too bright. We recommend adding the following lumen per watt
(LPW) minimums within the various lumen bins of the tier one
incandescent lamp standards in the table on p. 11 of the bill: 1490-2600
lumens: 22.5 LPW, 1050-1489 lumens: 22 LPW, 730-1049 lumens: 20 LPW,
310-729 lumens: 17 LPW.

But if this step is not taken, at a minimum, we recommend revising
several of the lumen classes in order to limit the bottom of the class
to only 10% dimmer than today\'s most common bulbs. Specifically, we
recommend that the 60 Watt equivalent class be 750-1049 lumens (not the
730-1009 lumens now in the bill) and that the adjoining classes be
adjusted so that the next lower class ends at 749 lumens and the next
higher one starts at 1050 lumens (this change should be made in the
table on p. 11).[^3] A similar change should be made to the lumen ranges
for modified spectrum lamps (for the table on top of p. 12).

Also, regarding the standards for modified spectrum lamps (on top of p.
12), these modified spectrum lamps will be considerably dimmer than the
conventional lamps they replace. The lumen ranges in S. 2017 for
modified spectrum lamps are 25% lower than for standard lamps. Given
recent technical developments announced by the major manufacturer of
modified spectrum lamps,[^4] we believe that lower lumen levels are not
needed, but if lumen levels are relaxed for modified spectrum lamps,
they should be dropped no more than 15%.

**Preemption of State Standards**

S. 2017 preempts state lamp standards with one limited
exception---states with standards that precede the legislation
(currently California and Nevada) are allowed to enforce their standards
until the federal legislation takes effect (p. 34, lines 16-24). We
support the ability of states to enforce their existing standards, but
believe that the preemption language overall is an unacceptable
infringement on states\' rights. What is most troubling is that a strong
Nevada standard now part of state law will be replaced by a weaker
federal standard when the initial federal standards in S. 2017 take
effect. To our knowledge, in the 20 years of federal standards
legislation, Congress has never done this before. In the past, stronger
state standards have been grandfathered and preemption does not apply to
them. We recommend that this approach be taken here and the Nevada
standard (and any other state standards on general service incandescent
lamps adopted prior to the enactment of federal standards) be
grandfathered.

In addition, California has begun a proceeding to revise its
incandescent lamps efficiency standards and would like to continue this
rulemaking without preemption so that they may meet the requirements of
existing and pending state laws. California is submitting detailed
comments to the Committee on this issue. We support California\'s
ability to complete their current rulemaking and move up the effective
dates of the different federal standards, if such action is taken by
appropriate authorities in the state.

**Additional Technical Issues**

We have a few other technical corrections to suggest as follows.

> 1\. General service lamps are defined (p. 4, lines 9-10) to be
> 200-3000 lumens, but the standard in the legislation only covers lamps
> of 310-2600 lumens. The coverage should be modified to be the same as
> the specific standards so as not to leave 200-310 and 2600-3000 lumen
> lamps in a state of limbo.
>
> 2\. The definition (p. 4, lines 11-13) includes lamps with \"a voltage
> range at least partially within 110 to 130 volts.\" It is unclear
> whether lamps that may be advertised as \"rated for 140 volts,\" but
> that will operate at 110-130 volts, are covered by the standards. They
> should be covered, to avoid yet another potentially serious loophole.
> We recommend this sentence be changed to read \"is capable of
> operating at a voltage at least partially within the range of 110-130
> volts.\" We believe this is the intent of the provision. The same
> change should be made in Section 105 on page 35, lines 22-23. Our
> understanding is that the major lamp manufacturers agree with this
> recommendation.
>
> 3\. The provision on 150 Watt lamps (p. 27, line 4 through p. 28, line
> 15) should be specified in terms of a lumen range (e.g., 2601-3300
> lumens) and not as a specific wattage. As currently written, sales of
> 149 or 151 Watt lamps, for example, would not be tracked and could
> become a loophole. Specifically, the words "150-Watt" should be
> replaced with "2,601--3,300 lumens" each place it appears in this
> section (p. 27, line 4, p. 27, line 9, and p. 27, line 25).
>
> 4\. On page 8, we recommend clarifying the language by deleting
> \"similar to but not limited to\" in lines 7 and 8 and adding before
> the comma at the end of line 9, \"or similar configurations.\" We
> recommend parallel clarifications to lines 1 through 4 on page 10.
>
> 5\. In the heading to the table at the bottom of page 11, \"INSIDE
> FROST\" should be changed to \"FROSTED\" to be consistent with the
> definition on page 4 and usage throughout the rest of the bill.

**Metal Halide Lighting Fixtures**

Metal halide lamps also provide a substantial savings opportunity,
although not as large as for incandescent lamps. Metal halide lamps are
commonly used in gymnasiums, big box retail stores, and other
high-ceiling applications. A recent study for DOE estimates there are
some 4 million metal halide fixtures in the U.S. that consume about 54
billion kWh per year.[^5] At 9 cents per kWh, these cost nearly \$5
billion per year to operate.

Multiple states have adopted standards requiring that new metal halide
fixtures use \"pulse start\" ballasts instead of the older and less
efficient \"probe start\" ballasts. Use of pulse start ballasts
typically reduces energy use by about 15%. States that have enacted
these standards are Arizona, California, Connecticut, Massachusetts,
Maryland, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington.

In July, 2007, ACEEE and NEMA completed negotiations on a consensus
federal standard that would achieve the same purpose but provide a
little more flexibility to manufacturers. ACEEE estimates that this
provision will save 14 billion kWh annually by 2030, reducing peak power
demand by about 3900 MW (the capacity of 13 power plants of 300 MW each)
and greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 3 million metric tonnes of
carbon. At 9 cents per kWh, this provision will reduce energy bills by
about \$1.4 billion per year after stock turnover gradually replaces the
existing fixture base. This provision is included in the House-passed
energy bill. We thank you for including this identical provision in S.
2017 and support its enactment into law.

**Consumer Education**

For incandescent lamp standards to work, consumers need to be educated
that they are purchasing lamps for their light output, not their watt
input. Section 102 directs that the FTC review and revise current lamp
labeling rules to help consumers better understand new high-efficiency
products. We see this as an essential complement to the standards set in
the bill.

**Fluorescent Tubes**

Fluorescent lamps account for about the same amount of energy use in the
U.S. as incandescent lamps---313 billion kWh per year according to a
recent study for DOE. At 9 cents per kWh, consumers and businesses spend
\$28 billion annually to operate fluorescent lamps.[^6]

Congress passed efficiency standards for these lamps in the Energy
Policy Act of 1992. Revisions to these standards are overdue. ACEEE and
NEMA have been discussing a set of recommendations that would set new
standards for fluorescent tubes. The primary effect of these new
standards will be to encourage consumers and businesses now using T12
tubes (1.5 inches in diameter) to use the more efficient T8 tubes (1
inch in diameter). T8 lighting systems are highly cost-effective to
consumers and businesses, but many (roughly half) have yet to convert to
T8. Our recommended standard would encourage the change by limiting T12
tubes to the very highest efficiency levels on the market. As a result,
T8 lamps will not only be more efficient than T12, they will also be
less expensive.

As this point, ACEEE and NEMA have not reached agreement. The primary
differences are in the stringency of the new T12 standard. ACEEE wants
only the most-efficient T12 lamps to meet the standard, thereby
encouraging further conversions to even more efficient T8 systems. NEMA
is suggesting that only the least-efficient T12 systems fail the
standard. There is also a difference regarding the effective date.

ACEEE estimates that its version of this provision will reduce U.S.
energy use by 23.5 billion kWh in 2030, reducing peak demand by 7550 MW
(the capacity of 25 power plants of 300 MW each). At 9 cents per kWh,
more than \$2 billion in annual energy bill savings will result.
Greenhouse gas emissions reductions will total nearly 5 million metric
tonnes of carbon in 2030.

A copy of our recommended changes to existing law is attached to my
testimony. If remaining issues can be resolved with manufacturers, we
urge you to incorporate this language into federal legislation.

**Other Provisions**

S. 2017 also includes provisions on research and development, market
research on ways to increase use of products that exceed the new
standards, and research on ways to limit the release of mercury from
lamps. We support all of these provisions.

**Conclusion**

S. 2017 contains important provisions to improve the efficiency of
general service incandescent lamps and metal halide lighting fixtures.
In my testimony our coalition recommends crucial ways to improve this
legislation by minimizing opportunities for loopholes and
misinterpretation, and addressing technical concerns and protecting
states\' rights for continuing to enforce state efficiency standards. We
also recommend adding new fluorescent tube standards to the legislation.
A table summarizing our estimate of savings from S. 2017, and savings
from our recommended modifications to the bill, is provided below.

+-----------+----------+--------+-----------+------------+-----------+
| Item      | Annual   |        |           |            |           |
|           | Savings  |        |           |            |           |
|           | in 2030  |        |           |            |           |
+-----------+----------+--------+-----------+------------+-----------+
|           | Billion  | Peak   | Power     | Energy     | Million   |
|           | kWh      | MW     | Plants    | Bills      | Metric    |
|           |          |        |           |            | Tonnes    |
|           |          |        | (300 MW   | (@         | Carbon    |
|           |          |        | ea.)      | \$.09/kWh) |           |
+-----------+----------+--------+-----------+------------+-----------+
| *S. 2017* |          |        |           |            |           |
+-----------+----------+--------+-----------+------------+-----------+
| Inc       | 139      | 17,100 | 57        | \$12.6     | 27.8      |
| andescent |          |        |           |            |           |
+-----------+----------+--------+-----------+------------+-----------+
| Metal     | [14]{.un | [      | [13]{.u   | [1.4]{.    | [2.9]{.u  |
| halide    | derline} | 3,900] | nderline} | underline} | nderline} |
|           |          | {.unde |           |            |           |
|           |          | rline} |           |            |           |
+-----------+----------+--------+-----------+------------+-----------+
| Subtotal  | 153      | 21,000 | 70        | 14.0       | 30.7      |
+-----------+----------+--------+-----------+------------+-----------+
|           |          |        |           |            |           |
+-----------+----------+--------+-----------+------------+-----------+
| *Modif    |          |        |           |            |           |
| ications* |          |        |           |            |           |
+-----------+----------+--------+-----------+------------+-----------+
| Inc       | 20       | 2,500  | 8         | 1.8        | 4.0       |
| andescent |          |        |           |            |           |
+-----------+----------+--------+-----------+------------+-----------+
| Fl        | [24]{.un | [      | [25]{.u   | [2.1]{.    | [4.7]{.u  |
| uorescent | derline} | 7,500] | nderline} | underline} | nderline} |
|           |          | {.unde |           |            |           |
|           |          | rline} |           |            |           |
+-----------+----------+--------+-----------+------------+-----------+
| Subtotal  | 44       | 10,000 | 33        | 3.9        | 8.7       |
+-----------+----------+--------+-----------+------------+-----------+
|           |          |        |           |            |           |
+-----------+----------+--------+-----------+------------+-----------+
| TOTAL     | 197      | 31,000 | 103       | \$17.9     | 39.4      |
+-----------+----------+--------+-----------+------------+-----------+

With our recommended changes we estimate that this bill will, by 2030,
reduce annual electricity use by nearly 200 billion kWh, reduce peak
demand by 31,000 MW (the capacity of more than 100 power plants) and
reduce consumer and business energy bills by about \$18 billion per
year. These are very large savings. In addition, these provisions will
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by nearly 40 million metric tonnes,
adding to the substantial savings in the Senate-passed energy bill and
making a useful downpayment in efforts to address global warming. We
urge you to include these improved provisions in an energy bill reported
out of this Committee and the upcoming House-Senate energy bill
conference.

This concludes my testimony. Thank you for the opportunity to present
these views.

**Appendix: Specific Legislative Changes**

*Recommend change to p. 18, lines 10-23, as discussed on p. 4 of the
testimony. Replace these lines with the following:*

\"(v) BACKSTOP REQUIREMENT. - The standard shall be 51 lumens per watt,
effective for products manufactured after January 1, 2020, unless both
of the following occur:

(I) The Secretary completes a rulemaking in accordance with clauses (i)
    through (iv); and (II)

(II) The Secretary finds that the standard issued under clause (I) will
     produce savings that are greater than or equal to the savings from
     a minimum efficacy standard of 45 lumens per watt.

*Recommended change to p. 17, lines 9-10 and page 19, lines 14-16.
Replace these lines with the following:*

\"(I) shall consider both incandescent technologies and non-incandescent
technologies such as LED and fluorescent and may result in a standard
only met by non- incandescent technologies.\"

*Recommended change to page 14, lines 14 to 18.*

"(E) Extension of Coverage.--

> \(i\) Petition.--Any person may petition the Secretary to establish
> standards for lamp types, shapes or bases that are explicitly or
> implicitly excluded from the definition of general service lamps.

*Recommended language for fluorescent tubes:*

**Fluorescent Lamp Standard Amendments**

[Highlighted sections are areas where there is not yet a consensus
between ACEEE and NEMA.]{.mark}

EPCA Sec. 321 is amended as follows:

Delete paragraph (30), subparagraphs (A) and (B) and replace with the
following:

\(30\) (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (e), the term 'fluorescent
lamp' means a low pressure mercury electric-discharge source in which a
fluorescing coating transforms some of the ultraviolet energy generated
by the mercury discharge into light, including only the following:

> \(i\) Any straight-shaped lamp (commonly referred to as 4-foot medium
> bi-pin lamps) with medium bi-pin bases of nominal length of 48 inches
> and nominal diameters of 1 inch through 1.5 inches, as defined in ANSI
> 78.81-2005.
>
> \(ii\) Any U-shaped lamp (commonly referred to as 2-foot U-shaped
> lamps) with medium bi-pin bases of nominal overall length between 22
> and 25 inches and nominal diameters of 1 inch through 1.5 inches, as
> defined in ANSI 78.81-2005.

(iii) Any rapid start lamp (commonly referred to as 8-foot high output
      lamps) with recessed double contact bases of nominal overall
      length of 96 inches, nominal diameters of 1 inch through 1.5
      inches, and 0.800 nominal amperes at 60 Hz or 0.400 nominal
      amperes at high frequency, as defined in ANSI 78.81-2005.

(iv) Any instant start lamp (commonly referred to as 8-foot slimline
     lamps) with single pin bases of nominal overall length of 96
     inches, and nominal diameters of 1 inch through 1.5 inches, as
     defined in ANSI 78.81-2005.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
(B) The term 'general service fluorescent lamp' means fluorescent lamps
    which can be used to satisfy the majority of fluorescent
    applications, but does not include any lamp designed and marketed
    for the following non-general lighting applications:

    i.  Fluorescent lamps designed to promote plant growth

    ii. Fluorescent lamps specifically designed for cold temperature
        installations.

    iii. Colored fluorescent lamps.

    iv. Impact-resistant fluorescent lamps.

    v.  Reflectorized or aperture lamps.

    vi. Fluorescent lamps designed for use in reprographic equipment.

    vii. Lamps primarily designed to produce radiation in the
         ultra-violet region of the spectrum.

    viii. Lamps with a color rendering index of 90 or greater.

    ix. Lamps with 3200K, 3700K and 5600K correlated color temperatures
        and color rendering index of greater than or equal to 85 that
        are labeled and marketed for photographic, studio, theater and
        cinema use.

    x.  [Four-foot medium bi-pin lamps with a CRI or 70 or more, an
        efficacy of 80 lumens per watt or more, that are labeled and
        marketed for residential use only and that are sold at retail in
        packs of no more than two lamps.]{.mark}

EPCA Sec. 325, subsection (i) is amended to add the following:

Each of the following general service fluorescent lamps manufactured
after Jan. 1, 201[0]{.mark} shall meet or exceed the following lamp
efficacy and CRI standards:

+-------------------+----------+---------------+------------+--------+
| Lamp              | Lamp     | Nominal Lamp  | Minimum    | M      |
|                   |          | Wattage       |            | inimum |
| Type              | Diameter |               | CRI        |        |
|                   |          |               |            | LPW    |
+-------------------+----------+---------------+------------+--------+
| 4-foot            | \> T8    | [\<]{.        | 70         | [83]{  |
|                   |          | underline}45W |            | .mark} |
| medium bi-pin     |          |               |            |        |
+-------------------+----------+---------------+------------+--------+
| 4-foot            | T8       | [\<]{.        | 75         | 84     |
|                   |          | underline}38W |            |        |
| medium bi-pin     |          |               |            |        |
+-------------------+----------+---------------+------------+--------+
| 2-foot            | \> T8    | [\<]{.        | 70         | [78]{  |
|                   |          | underline}45W |            | .mark} |
| U-shaped          |          |               |            |        |
+-------------------+----------+---------------+------------+--------+
| 2-foot            | T8       | [\<]{.        | 75         | 80     |
|                   |          | underline}38W |            |        |
| U-shaped          |          |               |            |        |
+-------------------+----------+---------------+------------+--------+
| 8-foot instant    | \> T8    | [\<]{.        | 70         | [90]{  |
| start             |          | underline}60W |            | .mark} |
|                   |          |               |            |        |
| single-pin        |          |               |            |        |
+-------------------+----------+---------------+------------+--------+
| 8-foot instant    | T8       | [\<]{.        | 75         | 90     |
| start             |          | underline}65W |            |        |
|                   |          |               |            |        |
| Single-pin        |          |               |            |        |
+-------------------+----------+---------------+------------+--------+
| 8-foot rapid      | \> T8    | [\<]{.u       | 70         | [85]{  |
| start HO          |          | nderline}115W |            | .mark} |
+-------------------+----------+---------------+------------+--------+
| 8-foot HO         | T8       | [\<]{.        | 75         | 90     |
|                   |          | underline}90W |            |        |
+-------------------+----------+---------------+------------+--------+

\(8\) Not withstanding any other requirement in this subsection, the
Secretary shall conduct a rulemaking to determine if the standards for
T8 lamps established under paragraph (1) should be amended. This
rulemaking shall also consider appropriate standards for T8 lamps with
correlated color temperatures of more than 4500 degrees Kelvin. The
Secretary shall publish a final rule no later than June 30, 2009. The
Secretary shall, based on the rulemaking record, determine a date by
which new products shall meet the new standard. Such date shall be a
minimum of 3 years and a maximum of 5 years from the date the final rule
is issued.

[^1]: Navigant Consulting, 2002, *U.S. Lighting Market Characterization,
    Volume 1: National Lighting Inventory and Energy Consumption
    Estimate*. Washington, DC: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable
    Energy, USDOE.

[^2]: Other promising technologies are also in development such as
    ceramic filaments, selective emitters, and photonic lattices. See
    Calwell, Chris, Jan. 25, 2005, \"Technical Basis for General Service
    Incandescent Lamp Standards in California.\" Power Point
    presentation available from Ecos Consulting, Durango, CO. Additional
    options are provided by more efficient fill gases (used today but
    use could expand) and low voltage input (planned for some European
    products).

[^3]: A soft white 60 W lamp is typically 840 lumens; 10% lower is 756
    lumens. A soft white 75 W lamp is typically 1180 lumens; 10% lower
    is 1062 lumens. We have rounded to the nearest 50 lumens.

[^4]: "GE Announces Advancement in Incandescent Technology; New
    High-Efficiency Lamps Targeted for Market by 2010." Press release
    issued Feb. 23, 2007.

    <http://www.genewscenter.com/Content/Detail.asp?ReleaseID=1260&NewsAreaID=2&MenuSearchCategoryID=7>.

[^5]: See footnote 1 for reference.

[^6]: See footnote 1 for reference.