**Testimony to the United States Senate Energy and Natural Resources
Committee hearing on the status of energy-efficient lighting
technologies and on S. 2017 the "Energy-efficient lighting for a better
tomorrow act", September 12^th^ 2007.**

Prepared by Dr Paul Waide, Senior Policy Analyst in the Energy
Efficiency and Environment Division of the International Energy Agency,
Paris, September 2007

# Disclaimer

The information and views expressed in this testimony reflect the
personal understanding and opinion of Dr Paul Waide. He accepts no
liability for the accuracy of the information presented or any
subsequent use that is made of it, but offers this testimony in good
faith according to his best understanding of the topic at the time of
writing.

# 1. Synopsis

This testimony summarises the international status of policy efforts to
phase-out inefficient incandescent lighting, provides estimates of
potential energy and CO~2~ savings, gives a timeline of the developments
to date, explains broader international policy dynamics and how they may
influence the US lamp market and provides comments on some issues
pertinent to the proposed US legislation.

# 2. Summary

Since early 2007 almost all OECD governments have begun to develop
policies aimed at phasing-out inefficient incandescent lighting. The
intention of the regulations already adopted or under consideration is
to encourage energy savings through the usage of higher efficiency lamps
and most notably the use of compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) in place of
standard incandescent lamps (known as GLS, which is an abbreviation of
*general service lamps*)[^1]. The countries which are currently actively
developing policy measures to phase-out incandescent lamps account for
roughly half the global GLS market and consume about 6.5 billion GLS per
year out of a global market volume of approximately 12.5 billion lamps.
Other countries may also be poised to introduce similar initiatives in
the near future, such that it is conceivable that standard GLS lamps
could be phased-out globally within a decade. The USA is the largest
single GLS market and accounts for almost a third of the global market
by volume. The next largest markets are the European Union and China,
which each account for about a sixth of the global GLS market. The
global market for screw-based CFLs is estimated to have been roughly 1.6
billion lamps in 2006 of which approximately four-fifths were
manufactured in China. CFL sales are growing strongly internationally,
with growth in demand in almost all markets, but GLS sales are likely to
remain high and even increase without policy intervention.

Incandescent lamps consume about 7% of global electricity consumption
and give rise to approximately 2% of global energy-related CO~2~
emissions[^2]. First commercialised in 1879 the technology is little
changed since the 1920s and has a physical energy efficiency of about
5%, which means that only 5% of the input power is converted to visible
light and the rest is converted into heat. Compact fluorescent lamps are
typically between four and five times more energy-efficient i.e. they
convert between 20 and 25% of the input power into visible light. Were
people around the world to universally stop using incandescent lamps
from 2012 onwards and instead use lamps with an efficiency of CFLs it
would save 5.5% of global power demand and avoid roughly 500 million
metric tonnes of CO~2~ emissions[^3]. This magnitude of CO~2~ abatement
is equivalent to what would be achieved by installing one hundred times
current US wind generation capacity in lieu of unsequestered coal-fired
power plants, or alternatively from building 77 one-gigawatt nuclear
power plants in lieu of unsequestered coal-fired power plants. To give
an alternative context were these savings to be realised it would amount
to abatement of CO~2~ emissions equivalent to almost three-quarters of
the 2012 reduction commitment of the Kyoto Protocol signatories[^4].

However, CFLs are not the only alternative to conventional general
service incandescent lamps and there are other lamp technologies which
could be used in place of GLS lamps that have higher (or slightly
higher) energy efficiency but are not as efficient as CFLs. They
include: halogen lamps, which can have efficiencies that are between a
few percent better than GLS to up to twice as high as GLS depending on
the technology used; and light emitting diodes (LEDs), which are just
beginning to appear on the market. LED technology is making great
advances; however, it is still unclear how viable it will eventually be
as a replacement for general service incandescent lamps. There is
uncertainty about the future rate of product development and the
eventual market acceptance of LED costs, light level and distribution
characteristics, heat dissipation and chromatic properties.

Regulations could thus be promulgated, which would phase-out
conventional general service incandescent lamps but could still be met
by significantly less efficient lamps than CFLs. Under such
circumstances the magnitude of energy savings resulting from the
regulations would depend on the relative preference expressed in the
market place for the less-efficient compliant lamp options and for CFLs.
In the lower extreme energy savings could be as little as 10 to 20% of
GLS lamp energy consumption as compared to roughly 75% with the full
adoption of CFLs. Some of the factors to be considered when developing
such regulations are discussed in Section 4 of this testimony, including
a summary of the issues pertaining to current screw-based lamp
technology discussed in Section 5. The following section gives a
chronology of international regulatory developments in relation to the
phase-out of standard incandescent lamps and provides information on
their current status.

# 3. Chronology of international regulatory developments

## Regulations in place in 2006

In 2006 the only economies that had adopted any kind of regulation to
influence the efficiency of general purpose standard incandescent lamps
with screw-caps were the Republic of Korea and California. In both cases
the regulations are set at a level of stringency that continues to allow
conventional GLS lamps to be sold but excludes the least efficient
varieties. These measures are expected to result in energy savings for
screw-based lamps of a few percent which reflects the narrow spread in
energy efficiency of currently available GLS lamps.

With current commercially available lamps designed to use existing
screw-base sockets it is only possible to get much larger energy savings
by the use of fundamentally different lamp technologies[^5]. Energy
savings of 75-80% can be achieved through the use of compact fluorescent
lamps (CFLs) in place of GLS and lesser savings of from 0-50% can be
realised through the use of halogen lamp technology.

## Policy developments from 2006 to the present

### Light's Labour's Lost

In June 2006, as part of its work for the G8 Plan of Action on a *Clean,
Clever and Competitive Energy Future* the IEA released a 558 page
publication on lighting energy use and energy efficiency issues around
the world, entitled *Light's Labour's Lost: Policies for Energy
Efficient Lighting*.[^6] The book's findings received widespread media
attention and were widely circulated among lamp manufacturers and policy
makers. The key findings are:

-   Some 19% of global power consumption and some 3% of global oil
    demand is attributable to lighting[^7]

-   Overall lighting gives rise to 1900 million metric tonnes of CO~2~
    emissions, which is roughly 70% of the CO~2~ emitted by light duty
    vehicles (cars, SUVs, motorcycles etc.)

-   Without new policy measures global energy consumption for lighting
    is projected to grow by 60% from 2005 to 2030

-   Over 38% of future global lighting energy demand could be avoided by
    the use of more efficient lamps and ballasts[^8] which are routinely
    available on today's market.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Were the global phase-in of such high-efficiency lamps and ballasts
    to start in 2008 following natural equipment replacement cycles it
    would give rise to 16.6 billion metric tonnes of CO~2~ savings
    globally by 2030 and reduce the total cost of lighting over the same
    period by some 2.6 trillion US\$ due to reduced energy costs.

-   Each metric tonne of CO~2~ abated would provide a net economic
    benefit of US\$156.

The key findings regarding phasing-out inefficient incandescent lamps in
favour of more efficient technologies, such as CFLs, are:

-   Globally incandescent lamps are estimated to have accounted for 970
    TWh of final electricity consumption in 2005 and given rise to about
    560 million metric tonnes of CO~2~ emissions.

-   About 61% of this consumption is in the residential sector with most
    of the rest in commercial and public buildings.

-   The IEA estimates that incandescent lamps used in the USA and Canada
    jointly consumed about 350 TWh of delivered electricity in 2005 and
    gave rise to about 217 million metric tonnes of CO~2~ emissions.

-   If current trends continue incandescent lamps could use 1610 TWh of
    final electricity globally by 2030.

-   In the hypothetical case that all standard incandescent lamps were
    to be replaced by CFLs it would save roughly 800 TWh and 470 million
    metric tonnes of CO~2~ emissions in 2010 rising to 1200 TWh and 700
    million metric tonnes of CO~2~ in 2030.

-   Cumulatively this would reduce global net lighting costs by US\$1.3
    trillion from 2008 to 2030, and avoid 6.4 billion metric tonnes of
    CO~2~ emissions at a negative abatement cost of -US\$205 per tonne.

-   The typical rate of return on investment[^9] in a CFL compared with
    a standard GLS lamp is in excess of 180%.

### Time line of international policy developments since 2006

In May 2006, under the terms of the 1992 Energy Policy Act the US DOE
initiated a rulemaking process to determine the case for Federal
standards applicable to general service incandescent lamps, incandescent
reflector lamps and general service fluorescent lamps. Under the
original timetable it was expected that an advance notice of proposed
rulemaking would be issued by November 2007 and a final rule by June
2009, to take effect by June 2012.

Also in May 2006 and within the rubric of the G8 Plan of Action, which
was launched following the 2005 Summit of the G8 in Gleneagles, the IEA
made four concrete policy recommendations on energy efficiency for
consideration by the G8 at the St Petersburg summit in July. The
recommendation regarding lighting encouraged G8 and plus-5[^10] leaders
to enact policies to raise the energy efficiency of lighting in line
with international best practice. The G8 welcomed the recommendations
and asked the IEA to elaborate on them with more explicit proposals.

In the USA, Wal-Mart and Home Depot launched programmes to dramatically
increase the sale of CFLs in their retail outlets.

Cuba banned the sale of incandescent lamps and implemented a programme
of direct substitution of GLS with CFLs in households. It is understood
that this was completed sometime in 2007 making Cuba the first country
in the world to have phased-out incandescent lighting. Another 10
Caribbean countries and Venezuela are reported to be implementing
similar measures.

In December 2006 Philips Lighting, the worlds largest lamp manufacturer,
held a press conference in Brussels at which they announced they would
welcome the global phase-out of general service incandescent lamps over
a 10 year period under proviso that the same regulatory conditions apply
to all market actors.

On January 30, 2007, California Assemblyman Lloyd Levine proposed a bill
to ban the sale of general service incandescent lamps in the state by
2012.

On February 26^th^ 2007 the IEA and European Commission held a joint
workshop in Paris on *CFL Quality and Strategies to Phase-out
Incandescent Lighting* which was attended by energy efficiency policy
makers and industry. At this workshop the other major international lamp
producers[^11], who supply the majority of lamps sold within the
economies of the OECD, announced their support for the objective of
phasing-out of inefficient incandescent lamps within a reasonable
timeframe.

In the week preceding the IEA workshop (on February 20^th^) the
government of Australia held a press conference announcing their
intention to phase-out inefficient incandescent lighting by 2011. The
Government of New Zealand has since confirmed that they support the
policy and will harmonise their requirements with Australia. The final
details of the regulation are still being settled but as of the end of
August 2007 the structure of the regulations appeared to be as follows.
From 1 October 2008 the majority of screw-based lamps imported into
Australia would need to have an efficacy[^12] of 20 lumens per Watt
(denoted (lm/W)).[^13] The intended result of these regulations is that
conventional GLS lamps will effectively be eliminated from the
Australian marketplace and that CFLs will dominate screw-based lamp
sales afterwards, although some mains voltage halogen lamps would
remain. From 2010 the scope will be expanded so that decorative
screw-based lamps such as candle-shaped, "fancy rounds", etc. have to
meet the 20 lm/W requirement. From 2012 mains voltage halogen lamps and
incandescent reflector lamps (PAR, R, ER, etc.) will also be required to
attain 20 lm/W. From 2014 pilot lamps, refrigerator and oven lamps will
need to satisfy 20 lm/W.[^14]

In the same week (on February 22) the "How Many Legislators Does it Take
to Change a Light Bulb Act (AB 722)", was introduced in the California
State Legislature. This proposed that GLS lamps would not be sold after
2012.

On March 9th, 2007, the EU Council of Ministers[^15] called on the
European Commission to establish a regulation addressing incandescent
lighting by 2009 within the framework of the already existing Eco-design
for Energy Using Products Directive 2005/32/EC. This Directive is a
regulatory framework which grants the European Commission authority to
set mandatory (or voluntary) energy performance standards for tradable
goods sold across the EU.

On March 12th, 2007, the UK government announced a plan to complete the
phase-out of inefficient incandescent lamps within the UK by 2011, even
if this is in advance of the provisions that are ultimately set in the
EU Eco-Design Directive. Under the terms of the European Single Market
individual EU member states do not have the authority to set non-EU
harmonised performance requirements for tradable goods. Accordingly it
is understood that the UK government are considering a mixture of:
voluntary agreements with lamp suppliers and retailers; subsidies to
encourage the sale of high quality compact fluorescent lamps; and fiscal
measures to discourage the sale of low efficiency incandescent lamps.
Some major UK retailers have already announced that they will stop
stocking GLS lamps.

During the period of March to May 2007 the governments of the Republic
of Ireland, Portugal, Belgium and the Netherlands announced similar
policies and initiatives to the UK.

On March 15, 2007, US Representative Jane Harman proposed a bill
(HR1547) in the House of Congress that would impose efficacy standards
for general service lamps sold within the USA. This has since been
modified and entered within the House energy bill (S. 3221 -- Sec 109).

On March 28th, 2007, a cross-party group of members of the European
Parliament urged EU governments and the European Commission to quickly
introduce new energy efficiency standards for lighting and to introduce
market surveillance measures to prevent existing product quality
standards from being flouted by importers

Also in March 2007 California assemblyman Jared Huffman submitted a
competing bill (AB 1109) to the Levine bill (AB 722) based-on
technology-neutral performance standards for various categories of
lighting.

Shortly afterwards several other bills were introduced in other US
states. These include: bills in Rhode Island (SB 806), Nevada (AB 178),
New York (#A07944 and AB 6190) and North Carolina (DRH30218-RT-5) of a
similar nature to the CA Levine bill; a bill introduced in Minnesota (SB
1442) which proposed to tax the sale or transfer of incandescent lamps
by a wholesaler at \$0.25 per lamp; a bill entitled, "Act Concerning
Inefficient Incandescent Lamps" in Connecticut (HB 6550); bills that
would require all state buildings to switch to CFLs over the next three
years were introduced in New Jersey (A 3983), South Carolina (SB 97),
Illinois (HB 1460), Hawaii (SCR 53 and SR 28) and Arkansas (HB 2551).
The Nevada bill AB178 was approved by the Governor in June and requires
lamps sold in the state from 2012 to attain an efficacy of 25 lm/W or
higher.

April 18^th^, 2007, the government of Ontario announced a policy to
phase-out the sale of incandescent lamps within the province by 2012.

April 25^th^, 2007, the government of Canada announced a policy to set
performance standards for all lighting to phase-out the use of
inefficient light bulbs in common applications by 2012. The intention is
to have defined details of the requirements by the end of 2007. At a
workshop held in Toronto on June 26^th^ staff from the Office of Energy
Efficiency in Natural Resources Canada set out a provisional rulemaking
proposal containing the following elements. The standard is expressed by
an equation that represents the shape of a curve of lamp efficacy
(lumens per watt) to lumen output (lumens) where E (expressed in lumens
per watt) = 4.2375 \* ln(Lumens) - 13.7912. This equation is intended to
be approximately 50% higher than the best fit curve through existing
general service lighting products. The proposal also includes a lower
standard (at 30% higher than best fit) for "enhanced spectrum lamps". A
second Tier was proposed that would be approximately 100% higher than
current efficacy levels to come into effect in 2015. The following table
summarises the required efficacy thresholds that would apply were this
proposal to be adopted.

### Provisional Canadian government regulatory proposals for minimum efficacy levels applicable to screw-based lamps sold in Canada[^16]

![](media/image1.wmf){width="5.999305555555556in" height="2.49375in"}

On 5^th^ June 2007 the European Lamp Companies Federation, an industry
association which includes Philips, Osram, GE and Havells Sylvania,
issued a press release setting out a voluntary proposal to phase-out the
sale of GLS lamps in Europe. Under the proposal, by 2015, 85% of the
total EU traditional incandescent lamp market of 2.1 billion lamps would
need to meet new efficiency requirements. The proposal envisages a
staggered phase-out of GLS lamps such that lamps above 100W would have
to meet an initial efficacy limit of 18 lm/W by 2009 and a more
stringent one of 20 lm/W by 2011, lamps of 100W to 75W power would have
to meet a first efficacy requirement of 14 lm/W by 2011 and of 17 lm/W
by 2013, lamps of 60W to 75W would have to meet a first efficacy
requirement of 13 lm/W by 2013 and one of 15 lm/W by 2015, lamps of 40W
to 25W would need to satisfy a first efficacy requirement of 11 lm/W by
2015 and 14 lm/W by 2017 and lamps of less than 25W would need to
satisfy a first efficacy requirement of 10 lm/W by 2015 and 12 lm/W by
2017[^17]. There has yet to be any consideration of this proposal within
the European Commission's rulemaking process under the rubric of the
Eco-design of Energy Using Products Directive, 2005/32/EC. To date the
Commission has hired consultants to examine all the technical issues
pertinent to the preparation of a rule-making and they are planning to
report their first results in November 2007. The Commission has been
instructed by the EU Council of Ministers to issue a final rulemaking on
the topic before 2009 and is expected to begin a consultation process
with representatives of EU Member States in early 2008.

On 6-8 June 2007 the G8 Summit met at Heiligendamm in Germany and
endorsed twelve concrete energy efficiency policy recommendations from
the IEA. In the case of lighting the IEA recommended that:

-   Governments should move to phase-out the most inefficient
    incandescent bulbs as soon as commercially and economically viable

These recommendations were also circulated to the 26 IEA energy
ministers for consideration at the 2007 IEA Ministerial held in Paris on
May 15^th^ 2007 and were strongly supported.

On June 12^th^ US Senator Bingaman introduced a Senate Bill 1115 the
*Energy Efficiency Promotion Act* that is subsequently renumbered as
S1419 and then S.2017 (the subject of the current hearing). The bill
includes measures aimed at phasing-out inefficient general purpose
lighting.

In August 2007 the Government of Switzerland published an Energy
Efficiency Action Plan which included a proposal for regulations to
phase-out inefficient incandescent lamps. Under the proposal all
incandescent lamps sold from 2008 onwards will need to be of an
efficiency of class E or higher according to the EU household lamps
energy label[^18] (e.g. requires a minimum efficacy of 11.2 lm/W for a
750 lm lamp), from 2010 onwards to be class D or higher (e.g. requires a
minimum efficacy of 13.0 lm/W for a 750 lm lamp) and from 2012 to be
class B or higher (e.g. requires a minimum efficacy of 20.5 lm/W for a
750 lm lamp). Fluorescent lamps must perform to level A from 2010
onwards (e.g. requires a minimum efficacy of 65.9 lm/W for a 750 lm
lamp). This proposal is currently entering into a consultation process.

Beyond the economies of the OECD the governments of Thailand and of
Ghana have recently announced policies to phase-out incandescent lamps.
Government and utilities in Egypt, India, Indonesia, South Africa and
Vietnam are all strengthening existing major CFL promotional programmes.
Several other countries including Brazil and Mexico have previously
launched successful large scale programmes to promote the use of CFLs in
place of incandescent lamps.

The Government of China is understood to be in the process of initiating
a project to investigate the issues associated with phasing-out
incandescent lamps to help them to determine whether to introduce new
policy measures to that effect.

The Global Environment Facility of the UNFCCC is currently in the
process of developing a global project to support non-OECD economies to
phase-out incandescent lighting. It is anticipated this project will be
formally launched before the end of 2007.

# 4. Issues being considered by legislators:

Legislators around the world considering the adoption of regulations to
phase-out inefficient incandescent lighting are facing similar issues.
They need to weigh in the balance the potential for energy performance
requirements to deliver significant energy savings, and their associated
environmental and economic benefits, with the desire to ensure there is
an on-going supply of lamps that satisfy consumer needs. Setting general
energy performance requirements in a manner that facilitates the
required industrial and commercial transition but doesn't result in
unintended consequences is a challenge. In particular, determining
appropriate treatment for niche applications without creating
substantive loopholes is one of the biggest technical issues to be
addressed and reaching and a satisfactory resolution will require
careful attention to detail during the policy making process.

A recurrent issue is whether to set requirements that allow more than
one type of currently-available screw-based lamp technology to be
deployed, or whether to set them at a level which guarantees maximum
energy savings but may exclude some genres of lamp technologies. The
response will depend on how regulators and the market view the
suitability of the various higher-efficiency alternatives to standard
incandescent lamps and on the relative importance given to the
trade-offs implied. To provide some sense of what these are the main
characteristics of the principal alternative technologies to general
service incandescent lamps are briefly described in section 5. Some
thoughts are also offered about complementary measures which can help to
minimise some of the trade-offs.

When developing regulations care needs to be taken to ensure that
regulatory lead times and market rewards are sufficient for industry to
adjust their manufacturing base to produce compliant lamps in the
required volumes. At present, most regulatory discussions have been
taking place independently of those in other jurisdictions and there has
been relatively limited discussion between regulatory authorities about
the combined impact of their measures on global lamp supply. As lamps
are internationally traded products and a large proportion of lamps sold
in any one jurisdiction are often sourced from elsewhere there may be a
need to ensure that international regulatory developments are
coordinated to minimise the risk of lamp shortages once the regulations
come into effect. Specifically the risk of a shortage in
regulatory-compliant lamps arises from the following concerns:

a\) The substantially different average lifetimes of CFLs compared to
incandescent lamps means that, dependent on the rate of transition to
CFLs, there is a possibility of the development of a short-lived peak in
global demand for CFLs followed by a depression as lamp markets move to
significantly longer replacement cycles[^19]. Were this to occur it
would create a risk of those manufacturers investing in new CFL
production capacity being left with stranded assets. From a regulators
perspective the concern is that industry might not invest sufficiently
in meeting the peak in global CFL demand and thus bring about a
shortfall in lamps at the moment of inflection in global compliant-lamp
demand.

b\) There are technical limits to the rate at which the global lamp
industry is capable of increasing CFL production capacity mostly due to
the time it takes to increase production and supply of key materials and
components (notably glass of an appropriate grade, phosphors and
electronics). This is a particular concern for the supply of higher
quality CFLs, such are currently sold in the economies of the OECD.

Performing simulations of the potential impacts of current global
regulatory developments on demand for CFLs and other
regulatory-compliant lamp types would be one means of assessing the
seriousness of these risks and determining if greater coordination in
policy setting may be required. The IEA is developing a project to
examine this issue.

Lastly, not only do near-term regulatory performance thresholds need to
be achievable with current technology but regulators must also be
mindful about the signals they send regarding investment in future
technology. It is appropriate to consider the degree to which the
regulatory framework put in place in the short-term may influence near
and medium-term investment decisions in lamp production capacity and the
extent to which this is consistent with longer-term public policy
objectives. To this end regulators will need to decide whether to
specify longer-term performance objectives at the same time as
announcing near-term regulatory requirements or not.

# 5. Suitability of replacement lamps 

  ---------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  ![](media/image2.wmf){width="1.6041666666666667in"   Common types of screw-based CFLs having 4 to 5
  height="5.4375in"}                                   times the energy efficiency of conventional GLS
                                                       lamps and lasting from 5 to 15 times longer.
                                                       Smaller CFLs are also available on the market
                                                       including those in the form of spirals,
                                                       golf-balls, reflector lamps and candle-shapes.

                                                       Examples of new advanced halogen lamps having
                                                       roughly twice the energy efficiency of comparable
                                                       conventional GLS lamps.

                                                       Examples of substitute GLS and reflector lamps
                                                       using LEDs (currently designed for decorative
                                                       lighting applications)
  ---------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------

Photos courtesy of Philips Lighting

### CFLs

The suitability of CFLs as replacements for incandescent lamps has
increased significantly in the last decade due to on-going improvements
in the lamp technology and their production. CFLs are now available at
much lower prices than hitherto, they come in a much larger range of
dimensions and thus models can be found which will fit into almost all
light fixtures using a screw-based socket, and their light quality has
improved substantially. Because they require only a quarter to a fifth
of the energy of conventional GLS lamps CFLs are far more economical to
operate and hence are more cost-effective for the end-user. They also
last between five and fifteen times as long as a standard GLS lamp (5000
to 15000 hours for CFLs compared with 750-1500 hours for GLS). The
limitations of CFLs compared with GLS lamps are as follows:

-   Good CFLs give out light with a colour-rendering index (CRI) of
    about 85 as compared with that from an incandescent or halogen lamp
    of 100. This means that they are not quite as good at producing a
    faithful rendering of colour as are incandescent lamps. For most
    applications a CRI of 85 is perfectly adequate for end-users but
    there may be some cases where end-users would prefer a higher CRI.

-   While an incandescent lamp produces light as soon as they are
    switched on there is a very short delay for CFLs and the lamps take
    slightly longer to produce their full light output.

-   While CFLs are available in much smaller sizes than was previously
    the case there is a limit to how small they can be made.
    Incandescent lamps and halogen capsules can be produced that are
    even smaller still and these may be better suited to certain kinds
    of lamp fixtures.

-   CFLs contain trace levels of mercury. The levels included in modern
    lamps are much less than was previously the case but some economies,
    most notably the EU, are introducing requirements for their safe
    disposal at end of life. The corollary to this issue is that in
    economies that use a significant amount of coal-fired generation in
    the electricity mix there is likely to be a significant overall
    reduction in mercury release to the environment from the use of
    CFLs. This is because the avoided power demand reduces coal-derived
    airborne mercury emissions by levels that significantly exceed the
    amount of mercury used in the lamp.

-   CFLs can be produced to have a light colour (referred to as the
    colour temperature) which matches that of GLS lamps but they can
    also be produced to emit light of a different colour temperature. To
    avoid confusion among consumers, many of whom will be seeking to
    have lamps with identical colour temperature characteristics to the
    GLS lamps they have always used, some additional effort may be
    required to communicate the colour temperature characteristics in a
    user-friendly way at the point of sale.

-   CFLs are not as well-suited to provide well directed beams of light
    as are certain types of incandescent lamps (most notably halogen
    reflector lamps) and hence are not adapted to provide some types of
    reflector lamp applications.

### Halogen lamps

Halogen lamps are a type of improved incandescent lamp which can have
higher energy efficiency than conventional GLS lamps but cannot attain
the levels of CFLs with today's technology. The most efficient halogen
lamps, which are just in the process of being commercialised on OECD
markets, have an efficiency that is roughly twice as high as for a
comparable GLS lamp. They have the same high colour rendering (i.e. a
CRI of 100) and last two to three times as long as a GLS (2000 to 3000
hours compared with 750-1500 hours for GLS lamps). With today's lamp
technology it is possible to produce halogen lamps that could substitute
for almost all conventional GLS applications and that would give
energy-savings of from 0 to 50% depending on the explicit halogen
technology used. It is expected that the most efficient varieties will
be significantly more expensive than GLS and even CFLs when first
entered on the market and that their price will decline as and when
their market volumes increase. It is not easy to estimate whether
halogen or CFL lamps would be the cheapest in a market where no
conventional GLS lamps were permitted to be sold, but it seems likely
that CFLs would be cheaper than the most efficient halogen lamps at
least in the short term.

### Light emitting diodes (LEDs)

Light emitting diodes are rapidly evolving but are not yet widely
available as substitutes for screw-based GLS lamps. Current lamps can be
produced with a higher efficacy than GLS lamps and with very long
lifespans (tens of thousands of hours) but the lamp costs are very high
and there appear to be ongoing problems with:

-   providing adequate amounts of light

-   providing light distribution in a manner which satisfies consumer
    needs

-   ensuring chromatic properties are sufficiently stable from batch to
    batch and that the light colour matches consumer requirements

-   adequately addressing heat dissipation

The pace of development of the technology is such that many, if not all,
of these issues may be overcome in the next few years but the outlook is
still somewhat uncertain.

### Ensuring and communicating the quality of compliant lamps

Some of the lamp characteristic issues raised above can be addressed by
taking steps to ensure the quality of high efficiency lamps sold in a
market is sufficiently high for most consumer needs to be met. This can
be done by setting and enforcing minimum lamp quality requirements and
by encouraging higher quality requirements be met through endorsement
schemes such as Energy Star. Where lamp quality characteristics may vary
but are not universally important to consumers the relevant information
could be made available through improved lamp labelling designed to
communicate pertinent factors in an accessible manner.

[^1]: On average a CFL uses a quarter of the energy of a GLS lamp for
    the equivalent light output and hence leads to very significant and
    cost effective energy savings. GLS and most CFLs have screw-base or
    bayonet-base caps but are collectively called "screw-based lamps".

[^2]: This is just their direct electricity use and does not take
    account of any additional energy that may be used or saved for space
    conditioning purposes as a result of the heat emitted by these
    lamps.

[^3]: These figures are IEA estimates derived from projections made in a
    global lighting model developed for the 2006 publication, *Light's
    Labour's Lost: Policies for Energy Efficient Lighting*, IEA, Paris.

[^4]: The IEA has estimated that Annex 1 Kyoto protocol signatory
    countries need to abate about 700Mt of CO2 in 2012 to satisfy their
    reduction commitments under the treaty. Reference: *Act Locally,
    Trade Globally*, IEA, Paris 2005.

[^5]: Note this does not preclude the possibility of more efficient
    incandescent lamps being commercialized in the future

[^6]: Light's Labour's Lost: Policies for Energy Efficient Lighting,
    IEA, Paris, 2006.
    http://www.iea.org/Textbase/publications/free_new_Desc.asp?PUBS_ID=1695

[^7]: About 1.1 million barrels of oil a day are used in road vehicles
    to power their lights and some 1.3 mb/d is used in liquid petroleum
    products, such as kerosene, to provide lighting in households
    without access to the electricity grid. Approximately 1/5^th^ of the
    world's population rely on fuel-based lighting in their homes.

[^8]: Ballasts are devices used by some types of lamps to regulate the
    input current and voltage so that the lamp operates properly.
    Ballasts consume power to operate and some types are more efficient
    than others.

[^9]: The Internal Rate of Return

[^10]: The "Plus 5" are Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa

[^11]: The major international lamp companies who jointly supply the
    majority of lamps currently sold in the economies of the OECD are:
    Philips, Osram-Sylvania and General Electric -- note in Europe Osram
    and Sylvania are separate companies whereas in North America they
    are a joint company.

[^12]: The efficacy of a lamp is the standard metric denoting its
    functional efficiency and is the amount of visible light it emits
    (expressed in lumens (lm)) divided by the power it consumes
    (expressed in watts (W)).

[^13]: Note that 20 lm/w is for 1200 lm (60w) lamp. The precise efficacy
    requirement is expected to be a curve based on lamp light output.
    Lamps required to meet this requirement would include IEC bulb
    designations A55-A60-PS60, M50 and M60 (& possibly others) designed
    to operate at \>220V and with screw-caps of E26, E27 or B22d. When
    comparing these proposals with those under consideration in the USA
    account needs to be taken of the difference in operating voltage.
    Due to physical laws incandescent lamps operating at higher voltages
    are less efficient than when operating at lower voltages.
    Incandescent lamps designed to operate at 220-240V electricity
    networks, such as in Europe and Australia, are roughly 15 to 20%
    less efficient than comparable products designed for 120V systems
    such as those used in North America.

[^14]: Source: *Australian Phase-out of Incandescent Lamps*,
    presentation by Shane Holt, Australian Greenhouse Gas Office,
    Government of Australia.

[^15]: The regular meeting of EU heads of state.

[^16]: Source: minutes of the *National Lighting Summit: Summary of the
    first consultation on the Government of Canada's proposed national
    performance standard for general service incandescent light bulbs*
    -- Toronto, June 27, 2007. Natural Resources Canada

[^17]: When comparing these proposals with those under consideration in
    the USA account needs to be taken of the difference in operating
    voltage. Due to physical laws incandescent lamps operating at higher
    voltages are less efficient than when operating at lower voltages.
    Incandescent lamps designed to operate at 220-240V electricity
    networks, such as in Europe and Australia, are roughly 15 to 20%
    less efficient than comparable products designed for 120V systems
    such as those used in North America.

[^18]: Commission Directive 98/11/EC, OJ L 71 10.3.1998, p. 1-8

[^19]: The average GLS lasts for 1000 hours and the average CFL for 6000
    hours, therefore the lamp sockets currently supplied by global sales
    of 12.5 billion GLS per annum could be supplied by sales of 2.1
    billion CFLs per annum once all GLS had been replaced by CFLs and a
    CFL replacement market were operational; however, during the
    transition period much higher volumes of CFLs could be required
    depending on how short the transition period were to be.