Big RESULTS

BigGer Potential

CFL Market Profile | March 2009

U.S. Department of Energy
Table of Contents

Executive Summary 1

Shipments and Market Share 2

Sales Channels 3

Market Competition and Variety 4

Media Attention 4

National Socket Saturation 5

National Household Saturation 6

Household Placement 7

Energy Savings 8

ENERGY STAR® Criteria 9

Consumer Perception 10

Energy Efficiency Program Sponsor Activities 10

CFL Promotions 12

Strategy for ENERGY STAR CFLs 13
Executive Summary

This document presents key market facts that ENERGY STAR partners will find helpful in developing 

CFL programs. A summary is presented below, with additional details contained within the body of 

this market profile.

The market for CFLs* has grown tremendously, with dramatic increases in shipments1 and 

market share in the past three years. CFL availability, number of varieties, and quality have 

continued to improve, while prices have continued to fall. With the new ENERGY STAR Criteria V4.0 

that took effect December 2, 2008, and upcoming standards on lamp efficiency from the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), CFLs appear poised to capture even more of 

the lighting market.

Despite recent market growth, CFL household saturation is still low throughout the United 

States, even in regions with successful and long-standing energy efficiency programs. While 

the commercial and industrial sectors were early adopters of CFLs, vast potential remains in the 

residential sector. It contains 90 percent of CFL-appropriate sockets, but has only 11 percent CFL 

saturation. Thirty percent of households still own no CFLs, and 64 percent of households that own 

CFLs have five or fewer. Overall, there is still plenty of room for the CFL market to grow.

CFLs remain by far the quickest, cheapest, and easiest technology that utilities can use to 

improve energy efficiency and generate energy savings. Compared to other energy saving 

products, CFLs are inexpensive, and offer competitive energy savings and shorter payback periods, 

making them an easy way to achieve energy savings. Decreasing sales prices and increasing 

electricity rates have made CFLs more than eight times more cost effective than in 1990.

CFLs are a significant, and often primary, source of Demand Side Management (DSM) program 

energy savings. CFL programs have contributed more than 60 percent of energy savings of the 

most established energy efficiency program sponsors (EEPS), and 20−97 percent of savings for 

newer programs. Regional differences in CFL promotions are apparent, with the greatest spending in 

California and the Northeast. California leads the way, with $88 million projected for 2008, accounting 

for over half of reported national CFL program spending.

The success of the ENERGY STAR CFL program comes from the creativity and collaboration of 

ENERGY STAR manufacturer, retailer and energy efficiency program sponsor (EEPS) partners.

These entities have worked diligently to improve the quality of CFLs and consumer perception of the 

product. DOE will continue to work with these partners to continue to increase CFL market share and 

realize the remaining savings potential for CFLs.

*

This market profile is focused on the general market for medium screw-based CFLs, which DOE considers to provide a reasonable 

assessment of the market for ENERGY STAR qualified CFLs. The market for pin-based CFLs is not covered because comprehensive 

data for these types of CFLs are not readily available. 
Shipments and Market Share

CFL shipments have grown tremendously in three years, from 21 million lamps 

in 2000 to 397 million lamps in 2007. This increase represents a compound 

annual growth rate of 52 percent.2 CFLs have captured an increasing share 

of the market for medium screw-based lamps, growing from 1 percent to 23 

percent between 2000 and 2007, or about 3 percentage points a year.3 Despite 

increased interest in and demand for energy savings, current data indicates that 

CFL shipments fell in 2008, suggesting that additional support may be needed to 

help sustain the market.

The future market for incandescent lamps is also uncertain. Because each 

CFL effectively replaces at least five incandescent lamps over its lifetime, 

incandescent lamp sales have already begun to decline substantially and will 

continue to fall. In addition, EISA will increase efficiency standards for all lamps 

over the next six years. While incandescent lamps may improve in efficiency 

during this time, current ENERGY STAR qualified CFLs already meet the new 

energy efficiency standards, and the market will likely continue to shift to CFLs.

The market for CFLs has 

come a long way, with 

significant improvement 

in shipments, variety, and 

media attention in the past 

three years.

ENERGY STAR CFL Market Profile, Page 2

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

1,800

2,000

2010* 2009* 2008* 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Lamp Shipments (millions)

CFL Market Share

CFLs Incandescent Lamps CFL Market Share

CFL and Incandescent Lamp Shipments by Year

Note: *Projections

Source: D&R International, Ltd., 2009.
Sales Channels

CFL sales have occurred primarily through home improvement stores, mass 

merchants, and warehouse stores, which accounted for three-quarters of all CFL 

sales in 2006. Grocery stores and drug stores, which are the traditional channels 

for incandescent lamp sales, sell only a small share of CFLs. The reason for 

the difference in distribution channels is not entirely clear, but generally, home 

improvement stores, mass merchants, and warehouse stores:

•	 Have greater available shelf space.

•	 Can purchase in large volumes.

•	 Are better able to leverage pricing with suppliers.

•	 Offer multi-packaging.

•	 Sell higher-priced goods, making CFLs relatively inexpensive 

compared to other stock products.

ENERGY STAR CFL Market Profile, Page 3

Hardware Store

(12%)

Lighting Supply Store 

(1%)

Home Improvement

(40%) 

Other 

(3%)

Drug or Grocery Store 

(8%)

Warehouse 

Store

(11%)

Mass Merchant

(25%)

Source: Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, “Consumer Products Market Progress 

Evaluation Report 3,” 2007.

CFL Sales Channels in the Northwest 2006

In 2006, as part of its 

sustainability strategy, Walmart 

announced it was committed to 

selling 100 million CFLs in 2007. 

To achieve this goal, Walmart 

worked with its suppliers 

to increase volume, while 

significantly lowering costs 

and price points. In addition, 

Walmart expanded shelf space 

and selection, and improved 

the clarity and effectiveness of 

packaging and signage. Most 

importantly, it made CFLs the 

easiest choice for consumers 

by placing them in the most 

visible, central, and accessible 

shelf positions. The high-profile 

campaign generated significant 

media attention and helped 

transform the way retailers view 

CFLs. Walmart far exceeded its 

goal, selling 162 million CFLs 

in 2007–41 percent of all CFL 

shipments. Learn more at 

http://green.yahoo.com/18seconds/

Walmart Initiative
market competition 

and variety

The number of CFL manufacturers has 

increased five-fold since the ENERGY 

STAR CFL program began ten years 

ago. In 1999, five manufacturers 

offered 22 ENERGY STAR qualified 

CFL products; today, 93 manufacturers 

offer more than 3,340 ENERGY STAR 

qualified CFL products.4 Due to 

manufacturer innovation ENERGY 

STAR qualified models have expanded 

beyond simple spirals to reflector, 

a-shaped, tubed, globe, outdoor, 

dimmable, three-way, and 

candelabra options.

Media Attention

Improvements in product quality and 

growth in CFLs shipments have led 

to much greater press coverage. The 

number of magazine, journal and 

newspaper articles about CFLs has 

increased annually since 2002.

ENERGY STAR CFL Market Profile, Page 4

0

600

1,200

1800

2,400

3,000

3,600

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

CFL Models

Manufacturers

Manufacturers CFL Models

CFL Manufacturers and Models by Year

Sources: D&R International, Ltd., 2009.

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Articles

Shipments (millions)

Magazine and 

Journal Articles

Newspaper Articles CFL Shipments

Newspaper, Magazine and Journal Articles on CFLs, 2002-2007

Sources: Lexis Nexis, accessed September 9, 2008.
National Socket Saturation

Current CFL socket saturation is 17 percent across all sectors, with most 

remaining potential in the residential sector. Commercial and industrial 

businesses were early adopters of CFLs and are nearly saturated. Almost all 

remaining potential is in the residential market, which contains 90 percent 

of all potential sockets, 11 percent of which contain a CFL.

Despite dramatic growth in 

the CFL market, plenty of 

potential remains, especially 

in the residential sector.

ENERGY STAR CFL Market Profile, Page 5

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

Residential Commercial Industrial

Total Lamp Sockets: 4.7 Billion

Total CFLs Installed: 0.8 Billion

Lamps (billions)

Incandescent CFL

CFL and Incandescent Lamps by Sector, 2008

Note: Installed medium screw-based lamps only.

Sources: D&R International, Ltd., 2009.

When measuring sector 

penetration, ENERGY STAR refers 

to socket saturation, which is the 

ratio of installed CFLs to potential 

sockets where a CFL could be 

placed. Potential sockets exclude 

pin-based sockets, candelabra 

sockets, tube fluorescent fixtures, 

and appliance sockets (stove, 

refrigerator, etc).

What Is Socket Saturation?
National Household

Saturation

Despite growing sales volumes, CFL 

socket saturation in the residential 

sector remains low. As noted above, 

CFLs are currently installed in only 

about 11 percent of available sockets 

in homes, or 4.39 CFLs per household. 

In addition, 30 percent of households 

have not installed any CFLs, and twothirds of those households with CFLs 

have installed five or fewer.5

CFL socket saturation is higher in 

states and regions that have invested 

most heavily in CFL promotions. 

These include California, the 

Pacific Northwest, Wisconsin, 

and New England.

ENERGY STAR CFL Market Profile, Page 6

Seventy-five percent of 

U.S. homes still have five 

or fewer CFLs installed.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

0 1-5 6-10 11-15 16-20 21+

CFLs Installed

Estimated National Distribution of Household CFL Ownership, 2008

Sources: D&R International, Ltd., 2009. Estimate based on initial baseline distribution from 

on-site audit data provided by RLW Analytics and gathered for the California Lighting 

and Appliance Saturation Study 2005, and on historic CFL import data from the U.S. 

Department of Commerce.

2.5 6.1

U.S. Average

4.4

3 3.5 4 4.5

CFL Residential Saturation by State

Source: Michael Reid, E Source, “Who’s Buying CFLs? Who’s Not Buying Them? Findings from 

a Large-Scale, Nationwide Survey,” 2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency 

in Buildings. Results based on self-reported survey data.
Household Placement

CFLs are most often installed in bedrooms, bathrooms, living rooms, kitchens 

and porches. The simplest explanation for this is that consumers are likely 

installing CFLs as incandescent lamps burn out, although messages from 

program sponsors, manufacturers, retailers, and ENERGY STAR to install 

CFLs in the most frequently used fixtures may also be influencing placement.

ENERGY STAR CFL Market Profile, Page 7

California Audit Data 2005 DOE National Estimate 2008

Room

Distribution of 

CFL Installations 

(%)*

Number of 

Potential Medium 

Screw Based 

Sockets

Number of CFLs 

Installed

CFL Saturation 

Rate (%)*

Bedroom 24 2.92 1.04 36

Bathroom 19 4.45 0.84 19

Kitchen 11 3.16 0.50 16

Living Room 13 4.61 0.57 12

Porch 5 1.69 0.20 12

Hall 8 4.34 0.36 8

Garage 3 1.79 0.12 7

Laundry Room 2 1.09 0.07 6

Family Room 6 4.58 0.24 5

Office 4 3.16 0.15 5

Closet 2 1.95 0.07 4

Dining Room 4 5.39 0.19 4

Other 1 4.20 0.04 1

Whole House 100 37.50 4.39 12

Estimated CFL Household Saturation by Room

Source: Distribution and sockets: California Lighting and Appliance Saturation Study 2005. 

CFLs installed and Saturation: D&R International, Ltd., 2009.

*Sum of distribution values exceeds 100% due to rounding.

Where Should CFLs Be 

Used to Achieve the 

Greatest Energy Savings?

Room Hours of Use Per Day

Kitchen 3.0

Dining Room 2.5

Living Room 2.5

Porch 2.1

Bathroom 1.8

Office/Family 

Room 1.8

Garage 1.5

Hall 1.5

Bedroom 1.1

Weighted 

Average

1.9

Source: U.S. Department of Energy, 

U.S. Lighting Market Characterization,

Volume I: National Lighting Inventory 

and Energy Consumption Estimate, 2002.
Energy Savings

CFLs Deliver Large Savings for a 

Small Price, and are an Attractive 

First Step for Consumers 

Considering Energy-Efficiency 

Measures. With increasing energy 

prices, CFLs deliver impressive 

savings in both energy and dollars. 

Each CFL installed saves an average 

of 51 kilowatt hours, $5.41, and 

78 pounds of CO2 emissions per 

year.6 Compared to other energy 

efficiency improvements, CFLs require 

substantially less investment, have 

no installation costs, and pay for 

themselves much more quickly.

CFLs Deliver Huge National Savings.

In 2007, 397 million CFLs were shipped 

to the United States. Once installed, 

these lamps will save 20 billion 

kilowatt hours, $2 billion in energy 

costs, and 14 million metric tons of 

CO2 a year nationally, compared to 

using incandescent lamps. Over their 

lifespan, these CFLs will save the U.S. 

111 billion kilowatt hours, $11 billion 

in energy costs, and 80 million metric 

tons of COw emissions.

CFLs Represent a Potent Option for 

Addressing Climate Change. A recent 

independent study by McKinsey and 

Company on reducing greenhouse 

gas (GHG) emissions calculated that 

installing of efficient lighting products 

(with emphasis on CFLs) was one of 

the GHG reduction measures with the 

greatest potential, and the third most 

cost-effective of all measures. The 

study also estimated that adoption of 

CFLs and LEDs could deliver 8 percent 

of all potential GHG reductions.7

ENERGY STAR CFL Market Profile, Page 8

$0

$2

$4

$6

$8

$10

$12

$14

$16

$18

$20

1990 1995 2000 2005 2008

1990 

Payback Period: 

5 Years

2000

Payback Period: 

2 Years

2008 

Payback Period: 

7 Months

Price per CFL Annual Savings per CFL

Trend in CFL Prices and Annual Energy Cost Savings

Sources: Price per CFL from: Bradley Steele, Energy Federation Incorporated, “Lighting 

Measures–Delivering on Predicted Savings and Benefits,” 2007 ACEEE Symposium 

on Market Transformation.

 Annual Savings based on 3 hours of use daily, replacing one 60W incandescent 

lamp with a 13W CFL, and electricity prices from Energy Information 

Administration, Annual Energy Review, 2007, Table 8.10, and Energy Information 

Administration, “Short Term Energy Outlook,” January 2009, Table 2.

Product

Price Premium 

for ENERGY

STAR Qualified 

Unit ($)*

Annual Energy 

Cost Savings 

($)

Payback 

Period 

(Years)

Lifetime 

(Years)

Return on 

Investment 

(%)

CFL 2.50 5.41 0.5 7 1,400

Clothes 

Washer 210.00 51.03 4.1 11 268

Dishwasher 12.00 8.63 1.4 10 714

Refrigerator 30.00 8.10 3.7 12 324

Room Air 

Conditioner 50.00 7.26 6.9 9 130

Energy Cost Savings and Return-On-Investment for 

ENERGY STAR Products

*Note: The price premium for one CFL is compared to the price of one incandescent lamp.

Source: D&R International, Ltd., 2009. Based on ENERGY STAR Product Database, 2008; 

2007 Energy Pricing from Energy Information Administration, “Current and historical 

monthly retail sales, revenues, and average retail price by state and by sector 

(Form EIA-826).”
ENERGY STAR Criteria

The primary objective of the ENERGY STAR CFL Program has been to increase 

market penetration. To this, the program had to overcome many of the early 

market challenges faced by CFLs, specifically issues of performance and quality 

that led to consumer dissatisfaction and low adoption rates. Therefore, unlike 

other ENERGY STAR criteria, the criteria for CFLs have focused heavily on 

addressing quality and performance in addition to energy efficiency. As a result, 

consumers can now purchase an ENERGY STAR qualified CFL with confidence 

that it will perform well.

Chronology of ENERGY STAR Criteria for CFLs

Version 1.0 (1999)

•	 Set baseline performance requirements for CFLs, including minimum 

efficacy (efficiency) requirements, minimum lifetime requirements, and 

color and light quality requirements.

•	 Set minimum warranty of one year.

Version 2.0 (2001)

•	 Revised lumen depreciation requirements to assure products did not 

dim too quickly.

•	 Added interim life- and rapid-cycle testing requirements to assure 

products would not fail too early.

•	 Added packaging guidelines to assure no false claims for equivalency.

Version 3.0 (2003)

•	 Changed warranty requirements to two years for residential 

applications.

•	 Added packaging guidelines for lifetime claims.

Version 4.0 (2008)

•	 Revised efficacy levels, lumen depreciation, and color requirements to 

push for more consistency among products.

•	 Added high-heat testing for reflector products to account for the 

increasing prevalence of recessed downlights.

•	 Expanded program to include candelabra-base products.

•	 Limited mercury content and added mercury disclosure labeling 

requirement.

•	 Formalized independent quality assurance testing program.

ENERGY STAR CFL Market Profile, Page 9

The Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007 (EISA) may 

significantly affect the future 

market for lamps. EISA does 

not ban incandescent lamps 

outright; specialty lamps, such as 

three-way and reflector lamps, 

are exempt from upcoming 

standards. However, most current 

incandescent lamp technology 

will not meet the efficiency 

requirements, which begin to 

phase in on January 1, 2012. 

Manufacturers have indicated that 

new incandescent lamps will be 

ready when the standards take 

effect, but it is unknown how 

the costs for new incandescent 

lamps will compare to CFLs. If 

prices for incandescent lamps 

remain sufficiently low, there 

may be a continued need for 

CFL promotions. If prices for 

incandescent lamps become level 

with CFL prices, no further CFL 

promotions may be needed.

Potential Impacts of EISA
Consumer Perception

For energy efficiency program sponsors, the ENERGY STAR label is as important 

for conveying product quality and building consumer confidence in CFLs as it 

is for conveying energy efficiency. By choosing ENERGY STAR qualified CFLs, 

consumers are assured a CFL will have fewer defects, fewer premature failures, 

extended life, and improved light quality.

Surveys from the Northwest show that consumer satisfaction with CFLs is 

growing, with average ratings for most lighting characteristics at around 4 on a 

scale of 1–5. A national survey conducted by ESource in 2007 indicates that more 

than three-quarters of consumers, regardless of age or gender, now perceive CFL 

light quality as equivalent to or better than that of incandescent lamps.

Consumer Satisfaction with 

CFLs in the Northwest, 2006

Rated 

Characteristic

Average Rating 

(on a scale of 1–5, 

5 = Very Satisfied)

Overall* 4.0

Appearance 4.0

Brightness 4.0

Color 4.0

Lifetime 4.5

*Originally rated on a scale of 1–10, 

adjusted to 1–5.

Source: Northwest Energy Efficiency 

Alliance, “ENERGY STAR Consumer 

Products Market Progress Evaluation 

Report 3”, July 2007.

Energy Efficiency Program Sponsor Activities

The success of the CFL market owes much to the sustained work of Energy 

Efficiency Program Sponsors (EEPS). Despite the tremendous potential for 

energy savings, CFLs might well have languished as niche specialty products, 

held back by a high price point and lack of consumer familiarity, if not for the 

investment and assistance of EEPS. These utilities, state agencies, and advocacy 

and non-profit have worked to promote CFLs as a cornerstone of energy 

efficiency. In many cases, CFL promotions by EEPS drove the market, allowing 

manufacturers and retailers to build consumer demand.

Rising concerns about energy supplies have led utilities to place more 

importance on energy efficiency as a resource, on par with coal, natural gas, or 

hydropower. With supply shocks, rising fuel costs, and difficulties in constructing 

new generation facilities, many utilities have begun aggressively pursuing 

demand side management as a quick, cost-effective alternative to increasing 

generation. Due to their relatively low purchase cost and high energy savings, 

CFL programs are a major component of most EEPS’ efficiency programs.

ENERGY STAR CFL Market Profile, Page 10

Percentage of Respondents (%)

Perceived CFL Light 

Quality Versus 

Incandescent 

Light Quality

Age 18–34 Age 35–54 Age 55+ Men Women

Same or Better 82 79 76 79 82

Better 38 31 27 31 38

Same 44 48 49 48 44

Worse 13 17 21 17 13

Unsure 5 4 3 4 5

Perception of CFL Light Quality, Compared to Incandescent Lamp

Light Quality

Source: Michael Reid, E Source, “Who's Buying CFLs? Who's Not Buying Them? Findings from 

a Large-Scale, Nationwide Survey,” 2008 ACEEE Summer Study on Energy Efficiency 

in Buildings (Analysis based on survey of 34,750 U.S. households).
ENERGY STAR CFL Market Profile, Page 11

Nationwide, the number of CFL programs is increasing, as is the spending for 

them. California alone accounts for half of all disclosed national spending on 

CFL programs, with the remaining spending concentrated in the Northeast 

and the Midwest.

EEPS % of Total DSM Savings from CFL Programs

Baltimore Gas and Electric 97

NYSERDA 84

Wisconsin Focus on Energy 64

Pacific Gas and Electric 62

Gainsville Regional Utilities 28

Duke Energy 20

Contribution of CFLs to Measured DSM Program Savings

Source: D&R International, Ltd., 2008.

0.6

41

0.6

29

8

8

88

National Spending 2006-2008 2006 2007 2008

Total CFL Program Spending ($ million) 50 120 175

Total CFL Programs 24 67 71

Regional Spending 2008 ($ million)

CFL Program Spending

Note: Only reported spending is listed. Hawaii and Alaska did not report.

Source: D&R International, Ltd., 2009.
CFL Promotions

EEPS typically collaborate with manufacturers and retailers to promote CFLs to 

their customers. Many promotion programs are designed to offset some or all of 

the price premium for CFLs, allowing them to gain a foothold in the market. The 

four most common promotion programs are described in Table 5.

ENERGY STAR CFL Market Profile, Page 12

Incentive Method Description

Customer Coupons 

(mail-in or instant)

How it Works: Program sponsors provide coupons for customers to 

redeem when purchasing CFLs. The coupons may be instant (collected 

and redeemed by the retailer) or, less frequently, mail-in (collected by 

sponsor with rebates mailed back to the redeemer).

Advantages: Ensures purchasers are customers of the sponsoring 

utility. Offers EEPS an easy means for promoting the program. 

Ensures equal and fixed access for customers. Greater accuracy 

in tracking sales.

Disadvantages: High administrative costs from collecting and 

processing coupons and mailing individual payments.

Manufacturer 

Buy-Down

How it Works: Program sponsors pay CFL manufacturers to reduce the 

wholesale product price. The price discount is subsequently passed on 

to consumers as a lower retail price.

Advantages: Very little administrative burden. Discounted CFLs can be 

distributed to multiple retailers, giving consumers multiple purchase 

location options.

Disadvantages: Difficult to track specific sales. Free-ridership by noncustomers can occur in areas with overlapping utilities. Hard to ensure 

equal access among all customers. Can create a distorted perception 

of CFL prices.

Retailer Mark-Down How it Works: Program sponsors pay retailers to reduce retail price 

product. These programs are similar to Manufacturer Buy-Down 

programs, the difference being that the subsidized payment from the 

sponsor happens directly at the retail level.

Advantages: Very low administrative burden on the sponsor and 

retailer. Easier to track sales data.

Disadvantages: Similar disadvantages as those for Manufacturer BuyDown programs. Program limited to participating retailers, to which 

customers may not have access. Some national retail chains may not 

allow individual stores to offer in-store signage.

Direct Install How it Works: Program sponsor uses field staff to install CFLs in 

homes, usually low-income homes, or other targeted populations.

Advantages: Guarantees installation and savings. More easily 

targeted to sponsor’s preferences. Easy to track participation.

Disadvantages: Labor required for installations can be expensive. 

May mask the value of the CFLs because consumers did not 

purchase the lamps.

Social Marketing 

Distribution

How it Works: Program sponsor works with a volunteer network 

to distribute lamps to consumer homes. (e.g. One Change–Project 

Porchlight)

Advantages: High levels of installation. Low implementation costs. 

Motivates consumers to take additional energy efficiency actions.

Disadvantages: Typically requires a partner experienced in communitybased social marketing to set up and coordinate volunteer activities. 

Requires a large pool of volunteers to achieve high levels of distribution.

Common CFL Promotions

A joint effort of the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) and 

the U.S. Department of Defense 

(DOD), is the first national energy 

efficiency campaign to encourage 

servicemen and–women to save 

energy and money by replacing 

their incandescent lamps with 

ENERGY STAR qualified CFLs. 

In 2008, more than 395,000 

incandescent lamps have been 

replaced with ENERGY STAR 

qualified CFLs on 96 bases, saving 

111 million kWh and $12 million 

in energy costs over the lifetime 

of the lamps. Learn more at: 

www.energystar.gov/OCO

Energy Star

Operation Change Out — 

The Military Challenge
ENERGY STAR CFL Market Profile, Page 13

Strategy for energy star cfls

DOE will continue to support the ENERGY STAR program for CFLs to capture the 

enormous remaining potential for CFLs in homes. To this end, DOE will work 

with ENERGY STAR partners to:

•	 Increase ENERGY STAR qualified CFL market share to 30 percent by 

providing partners with useful marketing materials and tools for CFL 

promotion, with specific attention to specialty lamps.

•	 Strengthen consumer commitment to replacing incandescent lamps 

with CFLs by increasing consumer education efforts.

•	 Help partners use CFL promotions as a springboard to, or a foundation 

for, energy efficiency initiatives.

•	 Ensure a successful transition to version 4.0 of the ENERGY STAR 

CFL criteria.

•	 Launch the Third-Party Testing Program, and assist partners in adopting 

new test procedures, especially heat testing of reflector lamps.

•	 Streamline the qualification process to minimize delays, decrease 

administrative burdens, and strengthen partner relationships.

Endnotes

1

 As comprehensive sales data for 

CFLs is not available, DOE uses 

import shipment data from the U.S. 

Department of Commerce for CFLs as 

an approximate substitute.

2 U.S. Department of Commerce.

3 D&R International, Ltd., 2009.

4 D&R International, Ltd., 2009.

5 D&R International, Ltd., 2009. 

National estimate model based on 

initial baseline distribution from 

on-site audit data provided by RLW 

Analytics and gathered for the 

California Lighting and Appliance 

Saturation Study 2005, and historic 

CFL import data from the U.S. 

Department of Commerce. Studies 

conducted in California in 2005 and 

in the Seattle/Puget Sound in 2007 

found that 43 percent of all homes in 

California and 29 percent of all homes 

in Washington still had not installed 

CFLs. (RLW Analytics, California 

Lighting and Appliance Saturation 

Study 2005; EMI, Puget Sound Area 

Residential Compact Fluorescent 

Lighting Market Saturation Study,

November 20, 2007.)

6 Estimate based on average daily 

use of 3 hours, electricity price 

of $0.106/kWh, and 1.54 pounds 

of carbon dioxide emissions per 

kWh. Electricity price from Energy 

Information Administration, “Current 

and Historical Monthly Retail Sales, 

Revenues, and Average Retail Price 

by State and by Sector (Form EIA826)”; Carbon emissions from U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Climate Change Action Plan 2008.

7 McKinsey & Company, “Reducing 

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions: 

How Much at What Cost?” December 

2007. Percentages are based on a 

mid-range case.
www.energystar.gov | 1.888.STAR.YES (1.888.782.7937)