CHAPTER 10. NATIONAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS

TABLE O F CONTENTS

10.1 I NTRODUCTION

......................................................................................................... 10­1

10.2 B ASE CASE AND STANDARDS CASE EFFICACY FORECASTS, LAMP

STOCK, AND LIGHT OUTPUT

.............................................................................................. 10­1

10.2.1 G eneral Service Fluorescent Lamps

.................................................................. 10­3

10.2.1.1 B ase and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions

.............................. 10­3

10.2.1.2 I nstalled Lamp Stock

........................................................................ 10­9

10.2.1.3 A verage Lamp Efficacy and Ballast Factor in the Stock................ 10­14

10.2.1.4 L ight Output.................................................................................... 10­20

10.2.2 I ncandescent Reflector Lamps

......................................................................... 10­24

10.2.2.1 B ase and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions

............................ 10­24

10.2.2.2 I nstalled Lamp Stock

...................................................................... 10­25

10.2.2.3 A verage Lamp Efficacy of the Stock.............................................. 10­27

10.2.2.4 L ight Output.................................................................................... 10­29

10.3 NA TIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS

............................................................................. 10­31

10.3.1 Na tional Energy Savings Definition

................................................................ 10­31

10.3.2 Na tional Energy Savings Inputs....................................................................... 10­32

10.3.2.1 U nit Energy Consumption (UEC)................................................... 10­32

10.3.2.2 L amp Stock

..................................................................................... 10­32

10.3.2.3 S ite­to­Source Conversion Factors

................................................. 10­32

10.3.2.4 I nteractions with Heating, Ventilation, and Air­Conditioning

(HVAC) Systems

............................................................................................. 10­33

10.3.2.5 R ebound Rate.................................................................................. 10­34

10.4 NET PRESENT VALUE

............................................................................................. 10­34

10.4.1 Ne t Present Value Definition

........................................................................... 10­34

10.4.2 Ne t Present Value Inputs

................................................................................. 10­35

10.4.2.1 To tal Annual Installed Cost Increases

............................................ 10­36

10.4.2.2 To tal Annual Operating Cost Savings

............................................ 10­36

10.4.2.3 D iscount Factor

............................................................................... 10­36

10.5 NA TIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND NET PRESENT VALUE RESULTS........ 10­37

10.5.1 Na tional Energy Savings and Net Present Value Input Summary................... 10­37

10.5.2 B ase Case Energy Consumption...................................................................... 10­38

10.5.3 Na tional Energy Savings Results..................................................................... 10­40

10.5.3.1 G eneral Service Fluorescent Lamps

............................................... 10­40

10.5.3.2 I ncandescent Reflector Lamps

........................................................ 10­42

10.5.4 A nnual Costs and Savings

............................................................................... 10­43

10.5.5 Ne t Present Value Results................................................................................ 10­45

10.5.5.1 G eneral Service Fluorescent Lamps

............................................... 10­45

10.5.5.2 I ncandescent Reflector Lamps

........................................................ 10­47

LIST O F TABLES

10­iTable 10.2.1 Four­Foot Medium Bipin Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy

Distributions (Shift Scenario)

........................................................................................ 10­4

Table 10.2.2 Four­Foot Medium Bipin Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy

Distributions (Roll­up Scenario).................................................................................... 10­5

Table 10.2.3 Eight­Foot Single Pin Slimline Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy

Distributions (Shift Scenario)

........................................................................................ 10­6

Table 10.2.4 Eight­Foot Single Pin Slimline Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy

Distributions (Roll­up Scenario).................................................................................... 10­7

Table 10.2.5 Eight­Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Base Case and Standards

Case Efficacy Distributions (Shift Scenario)

................................................................. 10­8

Table 10.2.6 Eight­Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Base Case and Standards

Case Efficacy Distributions (Roll­up Scenario)

............................................................ 10­9

Table 10.2.7 Commercial Incandescent Reflector Lamps: Base Case and Standards Case

Efficacy Distributions in 2012, 2042

........................................................................... 10­25

Table 10.2.8 Residential Incandescent Reflector Lamps: Base Case and Standards Case

Efficacy Distributions from 2012 to 2042

................................................................... 10­25

Table 10.3.1 National Energy Saving Inputs

.............................................................. 10­32

Table 10.3.2 Site­to­Source Conversion Factors

.................................................. 10­33

Table 10.4.1 Net Present Value Inputs

....................................................................... 10­35

Table 10.5.1 National Energy Saving and Net Present Value Inputs

......................... 10­38

Table 10.5.2 Cumulative National Energy Savings for General Service Fluorescent

Lamps Under the Shift Scenario (2012­2042) (quads)

................................................ 10­41

Table 10.5.3 Cumulative National Energy Savings for General Service Fluorescent

Lamps Under the Roll­up Scenario (2012­2042) (quads)........................................... 10­42

Table 10.5.4 Cumulative National Energy Savings for Commercial IRL (2012­2042)

(quads).......................................................................................................................... 10­43

Table 10.5.5 Cumulative NPV Results for General Service Fluorescent Lamps Under the

Shift Scenario (Billion 2006$)

..................................................................................... 10­46

Table 10.5.6 Cumulative NPV Results for General Service Fluorescent Lamps Under the

Roll­up Scenario (Billion 2006$)................................................................................. 10­47

Table 10.5.7 Cumulative NPV Results for Commercial IRL (billion 2006$)

............ 10­47

LIST O F FIGURES

Figure 10.2.1 Four­Foot Medium Bipin Base Case Installed Lamp Stock................. 10­10

Figure 10.2.2 Four­Foot Medium Bipin Standards Case Installed Lamp Stock (CSL3

Shift Scenario)

............................................................................................................. 10­11

Figure 10.2.3 Eight­Foot Single Pin Slimline Base Case Installed Lamp Stock

........ 10­12

Figure 10.2.4 Eight­Foot Single Pin Slimline Standards Case Installed Lamp Stock

(CSL3 Shift Scenario).................................................................................................. 10­12

Figure 10.2.5 Eight­Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Base Case Installed

Lamp Stock

.................................................................................................................. 10­13

Figure 10.2.6 Eight­Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Standards Case

Installed Lamp Stock (CSL4 Shift Scenario)............................................................... 10­14

10­iiFigure 10.2.7 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, Four­Foot Medium Bipin Lamps (Shift

Scenario)

...................................................................................................................... 10­15

Figure 10.2.8 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, Four­Foot Medium Bipin Lamps (Rollup Scenario)

................................................................................................................. 10­16

Figure 10.2.9 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, Eight­Foot Single Pin Slimline Lamps

(Shift Scenario)

............................................................................................................ 10­17

Figure 10.2.10 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, Eight­Foot Single Pin Slimline Lamps

(Roll­up Scenario)........................................................................................................ 10­17

Figure 10.2.11 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, Eight­Foot Recessed Double Contact

High Output Lamps (Shift Scenario)

........................................................................... 10­19

Figure 10.2.12 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, Eight­Foot Recessed Double Contact

High Output Lamps (Roll­up Scenario)....................................................................... 10­19

Figure 10.2.13 Average Ballast Factor and Efficacy of Lamp Stock, Four­Foot T8

Lamps (CSL3, Shift Scenario)

..................................................................................... 10­20

Figure 10.2.14 Lumens Serviced by GSFL in the Commercial Sector (Shift Scenario)10­

22

Figure 10.2.15 Lumens Serviced by GSFL in the Commercial Sector (Roll­up Scenario)

............................................................................................................................... ....... 10­22

Figure 10.2.16 Lumens Serviced by GSFL in the Industrial Sector (Shift Scenario) 10­23

Figure 10.2.17 Lumens Serviced by GSFL in the Industrial Sector (Roll­up Scenario) 10­

24

Figure 10.2.18 Commercial IRL Base Case and Standards Case Installed Lamp Stock

(Main Shipment Scenario)

........................................................................................... 10­26

Figure 10.2.19 Residential IRL Base­Case and Standards­Case Installed Lamp Stock

(Main Shipment Scenario)

........................................................................................... 10­27

Figure 10.2.20 Average Efficacy of the Commercial IRL Stock (Main Shipment

Scenario)

...................................................................................................................... 10­28

Figure 10.2.21 Average Efficacy of the Residential IRL Stock (Main Shipment Scenario)

............................................................................................................................... ....... 10­29

Figure 10.2.22 Commercial IRL Lumens Serviced

..................................................... 10­30

Figure 10.2.23 Residential IRL Lumens Serviced....................................................... 10­30

Figure 10.5.1 Base Case National Energy Consumption, General Service Fluorescent

Lamps (quads of source energy)

.................................................................................. 10­39

Figure 10.5.2 Base Case National Energy Consumption, Incandescent Reflector Lamps

(quads of source energy)

.............................................................................................. 10­40

Figure 10.5.3 Four­Foot Medium Bipin National Undiscounted Annual Total Installed

Cost Increases and Operating Cost Savings for CSL3 (Shift Scenario)

...................... 10­44

Figure 10.5.4 National Annual Total Installed Cost Increases and Operating Cost Savings

for IRL at CSL2

........................................................................................................... 10­44

10­iiiCHAPTER 10. NATIONAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS

10.1 INTRODUCTION

This c hapter describes the method for estimating the national impacts of candidate

standard levels (CSLs) for residential products or commercial and industrial equipment.

In the national impact analysis (NIA), the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) assesses the

cumulative national energy savings (NES) and the cumulative national economic impacts

of CSLs. DOE measures energy savings as the cumulative quads of energy a CSL is

expected to save the Nation. DOE measures economic impacts as the net present value

(NPV) in dollars of total customer costs and savings expected to result from a CSL. The

analysis period over which DOE calculates the NPV and NIA is from 2012 to 2042.

Results of the NIA described in this chapter include (1) national energy consumption and

savings, (2) monetary value of energy savings to the Nation as a result of standards, (3)

increased total installed costs to the Nation as a result of standards, and (4) the NPV of

energy savings (the difference between the present monetary values of energy savings

and increased total installed costs).

DOE d etermines both the NPV and NES for each CSL and each representative

product class it selects in the engineering analysis (Chapter 5). In this rulemaking, DOE

considers up to five CSLs for each of the GSFL representative product classes and up to

three CSLs for the IRL representative product classes.

DOE performs a ll NIA calculations using Microsoft Excel® spreadsheets,

available for download at

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/incandescent_lamp

s.html. A ppendix 10A provides instructions for using the spreadsheet. NIA results for

alternate shipment scenarios are available in Appendix 10B.

The f ollowing sections describe in detail the methodology and inputs for the NIA.

Several NIA inputs, including per­unit costs, per­unit energy consumption, and national

shipments, are discussed in other analyses. In describing the inputs to the NIA, this

chapter references those analyses and presents new information on installed stock.

Section 10.2 discusses DOE’s forecast for the shipments of lamps by efficacy, the

installed stock of lamps, and the mix of efficacies and light output of that stock. The

section outlines the forecasts per category of lamp (i.e., GSFL and IRL). Section 10.3

discusses DOE’s calculation of national energy consumption in the base and standards

cases, and the resulting NES between these cases. Section 10.4 discusses the NPV

calculation. Section 10.5 presents the NES and NPV results by lamp category.

10.2 BASE C ASE AND STANDARDS CASE EFFICACY FORECASTS, LAMP

STOCK, AND LIGHT OUTPUT

Key a spects of DOE’s estimates of NES and NPV are the characteristics of

shipments (equipment costs and operating costs) and stock (energy consumption). This

10­1section describes characteristics of stock and shipments as they relate to the NES and

NPV.

For e xample, the projected distribution of lamp efficacies shipped and lamp

efficacies in stock are key factors in determining the NPV. Two inputs to the NPV are

the per­unit total installed cost and per­unit annual operating cost. The per­unit total

installed cost often depends on the efficacy of lamps shipped. Therefore, when higher

efficacy lamps are shipped, higher installed costs are often incurred. Section 8.2.2 of

Chapter 8 describes how per­unit total installed costs vary as a function of efficacy for

each lamp.

The a verage efficacy of the stock is equally important in determining NES and

NPV. Per­unit annual energy consumption is a key input into the NPV (as an input into

the per­unit operating cost) and NES. The per­unit annual energy consumption is a

function of lamp power (and ballast factor (BF) in the case of GSFL) in the installed

stock.

The e ngineering analysis (Chapter 5) discusses the relationship between lamp

power and efficacy. Because consumers select wattages when purchasing lamps, per­unit

energy consumption for a particular standards case purchase is not necessarily less than

per­unit energy consumption for the corresponding base case purchase. Certain standards

case scenarios (shift for GSFL and the main shipment scenario for IRL) model primarily

energy­saving consumer purchase decisions with standards. The energy use

characterization (Chapter 6 and Appendix 6A) describes how the per­unit energy

consumption varies as a function of efficacy for each lamp or lamp­and­ballast design.

The total installed stock of lamps is another important input into the NES and NPV to

determine total annual energy consumption.

Sections 1 0.3.2 and 10.4.2 discuss inputs to calculation of the NES and NPV.

Another i mportant impact on the Nation is total light output. Some consumers

may choose a higher or lower lumen output lamp or lamp system with energy

conservation standards. This added or decreased utility is important to note when

examining the NES and NPV. For GSFL, the light output in the standards case can differ

from light output in the base case for two reasons: 1) installation of higher efficacy

lamps (with wattages that are not reduced relative to the base case lamp) on pre­existing

ballasts; and 2) replacement of lamp­and­ballast systems that were installed before 2012

with systems that, on average, emit more (or fewer) lumens per system. As Chapter 9,

the shipments analysis, discusses, the lamp­and­ballast systems that are installed to meet

the growth in light output of new construction do not contribute to differences in light

output between the base and standards cases. For IRL, light output in the standards case

can differ from light output in the base case because standards­compliant lamps may not

have exactly the same lumen output as base case lamps.

The f ollowing sections detail the forecasted efficacies, installed lamp stocks, and

lumen outputs in the base and standards cases.

10­210.2.1 General S ervice Fluorescent Lamps

10.2.1.1 Base a nd Standards Case Efficacy Distributions

As t he end­user price of lamps varies with lamp efficacy, the base and standards

case forecasted efficacy distributions of shipments affect the average total installed cost

per unit. Generally, as the efficacy of a GSFL lamp design increases, the total installed

cost increases as well. For GSFL, DOE first presented the market share matrices in the

base and standards cases in Chapter 9 in sections 9.3 and 9.4, respectively. These market

share matrices characterize the shipments of lamps or lamp­and­ballast systems for each

system type. The forecasted efficacy distributions of shipments for GSFL depend

directly on these matrices and total shipments of a particular lamp type in each year of the

analysis period.

Table 1 0.2.1 through Table 10.2.6 show the base and standards case efficacy

distributions for 4­foot medium bipin lamp shipments, 8­foot single pin slimline lamp

shipments, and 8­foot recessed double contact high output (HO) lamps. The tables

illustrate the percentage market share of shipments of lamps of different efficacies, where

the efficacies correspond to particular CSLs. For example, in Table 10.2.1, CSL1

corresponds to efficacies of 82.4 lm/W to 85.0 lm/W.

The t able also illustrates how this mix of efficacy changes over time. All tables

illustrate three points in time: 2012, 2020, and 2030. The tables show that in the base

case, consumers may purchase lamps with efficacy higher than the baseline, and in the

standards cases, consumers may purchase lamps of efficacies greater than the CSL

specifies.

There a re two tables per lamp type, reflecting the efficacy mixes in the roll­up

scenario and in the shift scenario. Chapter 9 discusses these scenarios in further detail.

Because consumers in the shift scenario make purchase decisions based more on the

energy savings of a particular lamp or lamp­and­ballast design, the shift scenario often

presents a more aggressive forecasted efficacy distribution. However, both efficacy and

ballast factor affect energy consumption, and therefore total energy savings may be

greater than the efficacy distributions represent.

Table 1 0.2.1 and Table 10.2.2 show the base case and standards case efficacy

distributions in the shift and roll­up scenarios for 4­foot medium bipin lamps (both T8

and T12 diameters). As Chapter 9 shows, approximately 80 percent of the 4­foot

medium bipin lamp shipments in 2012 are T8 lamps, while 20 percent of shipments are

T12. This is reflected in the efficacy distributions: In 2012, large portions of shipments

appear at the lowest efficacy T12 CSL (baseline) and the lowest efficacy T8 CSL (CSL

2). As Chapter 9 discusses, 4­foot T12 medium bipin shipments continue to decline after

2012, and are completely phased out by 2022. This is reflected in the efficacy

distributions: in 2030, there are no shipments of baseline and CSL 1 lamps (the lowest

CSL for T8 lamps is CSL 2). The efficacy distributions also incorporate the effects of

higher efficacy T8 lamps being shipped in the later years of the analysis period than those

T8 lamps shipped in the earlier years of the analysis period. The standards case efficacy

10­3distributions show similar trends as the base case. However, as a result of the standards

at each standard level, various candidate standard level lamps are unavailable, and

therefore percentage shipments are zero.

Table 1 0.2.1 Four-Foot Medium Bipin Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy

Distributions (Shift Scenario)

Candidate Proportions o f All Four-Foot Lamps Shipped (%)

Standards C ase

Year Standard

L evel E fficacy

(lm/W) Base Case Shift S cenario

1 2 3 4 5

Baseline <82.4 1 1.6

­ ­ ­ ­ ­

1 82.4-85.0 4 .6 1 3.5

­ ­ ­ ­

2 85.0-90.0 37.0 3 8.0 5 0.0

­ ­ ­

2012 3 90.0-92.3 2 4.7 2 5.4 2 6.0 4 9.6

­ ­

4 92.3-95.4 1 1.9 1 2.4 1 2.9 2 8.3 6 3.4

­

5 >95.4 1 0.3 1 0.8 1 1.1 2 2.1 3 6.6 100.0

Total

- 1 00.0 1 00.0 1 00.0 1 00.0 1 00.0 100.0

Baseline <82.4 2.0

­ ­ ­ ­ ­

1 82.4-85.0 0.8 1.1

­ ­ ­ ­

2 85.0-90.0 36.0 36.5 37.1

­ ­ ­ 2020 3 90.0-92.3 24.6 25.0 25.2 38.2

­ ­

4 92.3-95.4 18.3 18.7 18.9 32.9 58.6

­

5 >95.4 18.3 18.7 18.8 29.0 41.4 100.0

Total

- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Baseline <82.4 0.0

­ ­ ­ ­ ­

1 82.4-85.0 0.0 0.0

­ ­ ­ ­

2 85.0-90.0 24.4 24.4 24.4

­ ­ ­ 2030 3 90.0-92.3 17.6 17.6 17.6 28.0

­ ­

4 92.3-95.4 27.0 27.0 27.0 35.8 63.8

­

5 >95.4 31.0 31.0 31.0 36.2 36.2 100.0

Total

- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

10­4Table 10.2.2 Four-Foot Medium Bipin Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy

Distributions (Roll-up Scenario)

Proportions of All Four-Foot Lamps Shipped (%)

Standards C ase

Year Candidate

S tandard Level E fficacy

(lm/W) Base Case Roll-up S cenario

1 2 3 4 5

Baseline <82.4 1 1.6

­ ­ ­ ­ ­

1 82.4-85.0 4 .6 1 3.5

­ ­ ­ ­

2 85.0-90.0 3 7.0 3 8.0 5 0.0

­ ­ ­

2012 3 90.0-92.3 2 4.7 2 5.4 2 6.0 7 5.3

­ ­

4 92.3-95.4 1 1.9 1 2.4 1 2.9 1 3.2 8 7.0

­

5 >95.4 1 0.3 1 0.8 1 1.1 1 1.5 1 3.0 100.0

Total

- 1 00.0 1 00.0 1 00.0 1 00.0 1 00.0 100.0

Baseline <82.4 2.0

­ ­ ­ ­ ­

1 82.4-85.0 0.8 1.1

­ ­ ­ ­

2 85.0-90.0 36.0 36.5 37.1

­ ­ ­ 2020 3 90.0-92.3 24.6 25.0 25.2 62.2

­ ­

4 92.3-95.4 18.3 18.7 18.9 18.9 81.3

­

5 >95.4 18.3 18.7 18.8 18.9 18.7 100.0

Total

- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Baseline <82.4 0.0

­ ­ ­ ­ ­

1 82.4-85.0 0.0 0.0

­ ­ ­ ­

2 85.0-90.0 24.4 24.4 24.4

­ ­ ­ 2030 3 90.0-92.3 17.6 17.6 17.6 42.0

­ ­

4 92.3-95.4 27.0 27.0 27.0 27.0 69.0

­

5 >95.4 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 31.0 100.0

Total

- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Table 10.2.3 and Table 10.2.4 show the base case and standards­case efficacy

distributions in the shift and roll­up scenarios for 8­foot single pin slimline lamps (both

T8 and T12 diameters). As Chapter 9 shows, in the base case, approximately one­third of

the 8­foot single pin slimline lamp shipments are T8 lamps in 2012, while two­thirds of

shipments are T12. This is reflected in the efficacy distributions: in 2012, large portions

of shipments appear at the lowest efficacy T12 CSL (baseline) and the lowest efficacy T8

CSL (CSL 3). In addition, as Chapter 9 discusses, 4­foot T12 medium bipin shipments

continue to decline after 2012, and are completely phased out by 2022. This is reflected

in the efficacy distributions: in 2030, there are no shipments of baseline, CSL 1, or CSL 2

lamps. (The lowest CSL for T8 lamps is CSL 3.) In addition, the efficacy distributions

incorporate the effects of higher efficacy T8 lamps being shipped in the later years of the

analysis period. The standards­case efficacy distributions show similar trends as the base

case. However, as a result of the standards at each standard level, various candidate

standard level lamps are unavailable, and therefore percentage shipments are zero.

10­5Table 10.2.3 Eight-Foot Single Pin Slimline Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy

Distributions (Shift Scenario)

Proportions of All Eight- F oot Slimline Lamps

Year Candidate

S tandard Level E fficacy

(lm/W) Shipped (%)

B ase

Case Standards Case

Shift Scenario

1 2 3 4 5

Baseline <87.3 2 1.2

­ ­ ­ ­ ­

1 87.3-92.0 2 7.1 4 5.3

­ ­ ­ ­

2 92.0-94.8 1 2.6 1 1.8 5 3.1

­ ­ ­

2012 3 94.8-98.2 2 0.2 2 1.6 2 3.2 7 3.6

­ ­

4 98.2-101.5 1 6.3 1 8.2 2 0.3 2 2.6 0 .0

­

5 >101.5 2 .7 3 .0 3 .4 3 .8 1 00.0 100.0

Total

- 1 00.0 1 00.0 1 00.0 1 00.0 1 00.0 100.0

Baseline <87.3 6.5

­ ­ ­ ­ ­

1 87.3-92.0 8.3 6.3

­ ­ ­ ­

2 92.0-94.8 3.8 1.6 2.8

­ ­ ­ 2020 3 94.8-98.2 32.8 36.3 38.0 39.4

­ ­

4 98.2-101.5 34.8 39.8 42.2 43.1 0.0

­

5 >101.5 13.8 15.9 17.0 17.4 100.0 100.0

Total

- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Baseline <87.3 0.0

­ ­ ­ ­ ­

1 87.3-92.0 0.0 0.0

­ ­ ­ ­

2 92.0-94.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

­ ­ ­ 2030 3 94.8-98.2 29.6 29.6 29.6 29.6

­ ­

4 98.2-101.5 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 0.0

­

5 >101.5 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 100.0 100.0

Total

- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

10­6Table 10.2.4 Eight-Foot Single Pin Slimline Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy

Distributions (Roll-up Scenario)

Proportions of All Eight-Foot Slimline Lamps

Year Candidate

S tandard Level Efficacy

( lm/W) Shipped ( % )

Base

C ase Standards C ase

Roll-up Scenario

1 2 3 4 5

Baseline <87.3 21.2

­ ­ ­ ­ ­

1 87.3-92.0 27.1 45.3

­ ­ ­ ­

2 92.0-94.8 12.6 11.8 53.1

­ ­ ­

2012 3 94.8-98.2 20.2 21.6 23.2 73.6

­ ­

4 98.2-101.5 16.3 18.2 20.3 22.6 92.0

­

5 >101.5 2.7 3.0 3.4 3.8 8.0 100.0

Total

- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

Baseline <87.3 6.5

­ ­ ­ ­ ­

1 87.3-92.0 8.3 6.3

­ ­ ­ ­

2020 2 92.0-94.8 3.8 1.6 2.8

­ ­ ­

3 94.8-98.2 32.8 36.3 38.0 39.4

­ ­

4 98.2-101.5 34.8 39.8 42.2 43.1 82.2

­

5 >101.5 13.8 15.9 17.0 17.4 17.8 100.0

Total

- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

Baseline <87.3 0.0

­ ­ ­ ­ ­

1 87.3-92.0 0.0 0.0

­ ­ ­ ­

2030 2 92.0-94.8 0.0 0.0 0.0

­ ­ ­

3 94.8-98.2 29.6 29.6 29.6 29.6

­ ­

4 98.2-101.5 35.4 35.4 35.4 35.4 65.0

­

5 >101.5 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 35.0 100.0

Total

- 100 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100

Table 10.2.5 and Table 10.2.6 show the base­case and standards­case efficacy

distributions in the shift and roll­up scenarios for 8­foot recessed soluble contact high

output lamps (both T8 and T12 diameters). As Chapter 9 shows, DOE projects that all 8­

foot recessed double contact high output shipments will have a T12 diameter in the base

case. This is reflected in the efficacy distributions: because CSL 3 is the highest efficacy

T12 lamp in the base case in 2012, 2020, and 2030, shipments at CSL 4 and CSL 5 are

zero. The efficacy distributions also incorporate the effects of higher efficacy T12 lamps

being shipped in the later years of the analysis period.

The s tandards case efficacy distributions at CSL 1, CSL 2, and CSL 3 show

similar trends as the base case. However, because of the standards at each standard level,

various candidate standard level lamps are unavailable, and therefore percentage

shipments are zero. At CSL 4 and CSL 5, no T12 lamp is available and all systems are

retrofitted to T8 diameters. Therefore, standards case shipments at CSL 4 and CSL 5

represent only T8 shipments.

10­7Table 10.2.5 Eight-Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Base Case and

Standards Case Efficacy Distributions (Shift Scenario)

Proportions of All Eight-Foot High-Output L amps

Year Candidate

S tandard Level E fficacy

(lm/W) Shipped (% )

B ase

Case Standards Case

Shift Scenario

1 2 3 4 5

Baseline <83.2 54.0

­ ­ ­ ­ ­

1 83.2-86.1 21.0 19.6

­ ­ ­ ­

2 86.1-87.6 7.0 63.4 81.6

­ ­ ­

2012 3 87.6-91.9 18.0 17.0 18.4 100.0

­ ­

4 91.9-95.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 5.0

­

5 >95.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 7 5.0 1 00.0

Total

- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 00.0 1 00.0

Baseline <83.2 43.6

­ ­ ­ ­ ­

1 83.2-86.1 22.1 14.8

­ ­ ­ ­

2 86.1-87.6 10.7 70.1 77.3

­ ­ ­ 2020 3 87.6-91.9 23.6 15.1 22.7 100.0

­ ­

4 91.9-95.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0

­

5 >95.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.0 100.0

Total

- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Baseline <83.2 30.6

­ ­ ­ ­ ­

1 83.2-86.1 23.4 15.8

­ ­ ­ ­

2 86.1-87.6 15.4 66.4 74.0

­ ­ ­ 2030 3 87.6-91.9 30.6 17.8 26.0 100.0

­ ­

4 91.9-95.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 25.0

­

5 >95.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 75.0 100.0

Total

- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

10­8Table 10.2.6 Eight-Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Base Case and

Standards Case Efficacy Distributions (Roll-up Scenario)

Proportions of All Eight-Foot High- O utput

Year Candidate

S tandard Level E fficacy

(lm/W) Lamps Shipped (% )

B ase

Case Standards Case

Roll up Scenario

1 2 3 4 5

Baseline <83.2 54.0

­ ­ ­ ­ ­

1 83.2-86.1 21.0 21.0

­ ­ ­ ­

2 86.1-87.6 7.0 61.0 79.2

­ ­ ­

2012 3 87.6-91.9 18.0 18.0 20.8 100.0

­ ­

4 91.9-95.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5 5.0

­

5 >95.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 4 5.0 1 00.0

Total

- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 1 00.0 1 00.0

Baseline <83.2 43.6

­ ­ ­ ­ ­

1 83.2-86.1 22.1 22.1

­ ­ ­ ­

2 86.1-87.6 10.7 54.3 61.6

­ ­ ­ 2020 3 87.6-91.9 23.6 23.6 38.4 100.0

­ ­

4 91.9-95.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.0

­

5 >95.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.0 100.0

Total

- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Baseline <83.2 30.6

­ ­ ­ ­ ­

1 83.2-86.1 23.4 23.4

­ ­ ­ ­

2 86.1-87.6 15.4 46.0 53.6

­ ­ ­ 2030 3 87.6-91.9 30.6 30.6 46.4 100.0

­ ­

4 91.9-95.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 55.0

­

5 >95.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 45.0 100.0

Total

- 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

10.2.1.2 Installed L amp Stock

The l amp stock in a given year is the total number of lamps shipped that year and

in prior years that are still operating. The NES model keeps track of the lamp­and­ballast

pairs in GSFL shipped each year. Lamps are retired when 1) they reach the end of their

lifetime, 2) the ballast on which they are installed reaches the end of its life, or 3) the

ballast on which they are installed is retrofitted. From this information and the shipments

forecasts presented in Chapter 9, DOE established the installed lamp stock profile for 4­

foot medium bipin, 8­foot single pin slimline, and 8­foot recessed double contact lamps.

Figure 10.2.1 through Figure 10.2.6 show these lamp stocks in the base and standards

case for CSL3 under the shift scenario.

Figure 1 0.2.1 presents the installed stock of 4­foot medium bipin lamps in the

base case. DOE expects that the installed stock of T12 lamps will reach zero by 2022 due

to phasing out of T12 magnetic ballasts in 2010 by the 2000 Ballast Rulemaking. By

2022, all T12 ballasts will be retired from the stock and replaced with T8 systems. The

total installed stock of 4­foot medium bipin lamps is expected to experience a steady

increase as DOE projects that most of the new construction in the commercial sector will

utilize these lamps. Figure 10.2.2 shows that at CSL 3, a similar trend occurs, but at an

10­9accelerated rate due to the standards­induced retrofits of T12 systems, discussed in

Chapter 9.

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5InstalledLampStock(billions) 4ft T12

4ft T8

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Year

Figure 10.2.1 Four-Foot Medium Bipin Base Case Installed Lamp Stock

10­100.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5InstalledLampStock(billions) 4ft T12

4ft T8

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Year

Figure 10.2.2 Four-Foot Medium Bipin Standards Case Installed Lamp Stock

(CSL3 Shift Scenario)

Figure 1 0.2.3 presents the installed stock of 8­foot single pin slimline lamps in the

base case. Similar to the 4­foot medium bipin stock, DOE expects that the installed stock

of T12 lamps will reach zero by 2022 due to phasing out of T12 magnetic ballasts in

2010 by the 2000 Ballast Rulemaking. By 2022, all T12 ballasts will be retired from the

stock and replaced with T8 systems. Figure 10.2.4 shows a similar trend at CSL 3, but at

an accelerated rate due to the standards­induced retrofits of T12 systems. As Chapter 9

notes, DOE expects that the trend of substituting 4­foot medium bipin GSFL for 8­foot

single pin slimline will continue. Because, on average, four 4­foot medium bipin lamps

will replace two 8­foot single pin slimline lamps, DOE expects that the installed stock of

lamps in 2042 (meeting the initial 2011 8­foot single pin slimline lumen demand) will be

much greater than in 2012. This increase of total stock quickens under the

implementation of energy conservation standards.

10­110 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180InstalledLampStock(millions) 4ftT8

8ft T12

8ft T8

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Year

Figure 10.2.3 Eight-Foot Single Pin Slimline Base Case Installed Lamp Stock

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180InstalledLampStock(millions) 4ft T8

8ft T12

8ft T8

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Year

Figure 10.2.4 Eight-Foot Single Pin Slimline Standards Case Installed Lamp Stock

(CSL3 Shift Scenario)

10­12Figure 10.2.5 presents the installed stock of 8­foot recessed double contact high

output lamps in the base case. DOE expects that the installed stock of lamps (composed

entirely of T12 lamps) will remain relatively constant through the analysis period, as

historical shipments indicate. However, Figure 10.2.6 shows that at CSL 4, because no

T12 lamps are standards­compliant, these systems are retrofitted and replaced with 8­foot

T8 recessed double contact high output systems as the installed T12 lamps reach the end

of their life.

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0InstalledLampStock(millions)

8ft T8 HO

8ft T12 HO

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Year

Figure 10.2.5 Eight-Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Base Case Installed

Lamp Stock

10­130.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0InstalledLampStock(millions) 8ft T8 HO

8ft T12 HO

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Year

Figure 10.2.6 Eight-Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Standards Case

Installed Lamp Stock (CSL4 Shift Scenario)

10.2.1.3 Average L amp Efficacy and Ballast Factor in the Stock

As d iscussed earlier, the average lamp efficacy of the stock is an important input

to both the NPV and NES calculations. The average efficacy of the stock is an indication

of the energy consumption. Figure 10.2.7 through Figure 10.2.12 present the average

efficacy forecasts of GSFL stock in the base case and standards case for both the shift and

roll­up scenarios.

As F igure 10.2.7 and Figure 10.2.8 illustrate, the average efficacy of 4­foot

medium bipin lamps gradually increases in the base case. This is due to two separate

trends: 1) the phase­out of T12 ballasts by 2022 and replacement with T8 systems, and 2)

the installation of higher efficacy T8 lamps later in the analysis period. As T12 lamps are

generally less efficacious than their T8 counterparts, the market shift toward T8 lampand­ballast systems causes an overall increase in efficacies of shipped fluorescent lamps.

As CSL 1 only affects T12 lamps, the efficacy forecasts depict a higher average efficacy

of the lamp stock until all T12 ballast are retired in 2022. Beyond 2022, the standards

case average efficacy forecasts are identical to that of the base case. As Figure 10.2.7

shows, the average efficacy of lamps increases at CSL 3 and CSL 4 in the shift scenario

until 2017, and then experiences a slight decrease until 2026. This increase is due to the

installation of very high efficacy, reduced­wattage lamps on higher ballast factor ballasts

installed before 2012. DOE expects that consumers will choose these reduced wattage

lamps in order to maintain their existing light output. As these ballasts retire, the average

efficacy decreases. DOE expects that some consumers who purchase new ballasts may

10­14choose lower ballast factors and therefore will not necessarily migrate to the very high

efficacy, reduced­wattage lamps. As Figure 10.2.8 shows, the roll­up scenario does not

incorporate this phenomenon because reduced­wattage lamps are generally not purchased

in this scenario. In general, the shift scenario presents a more aggressive average efficacy

forecast than the roll­up scenario.AverageLampEfficacy(lpw) 98

96

94

92

90

88

86

84

82 Base Case

CSL1

CSL2

CSL3

CSL4

CSL5

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Year

Figure 10.2.7 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, Four-Foot Medium Bipin Lamps

(Shift Scenario)

10­1598AverageLampEfficacy(lpw) 96

94

92

90

88

86

84

82

2 011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041 CSL1

CSL2

CSL3

CSL4

CSL5

Base Case

Year

Figure 10.2.8 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, Four-Foot Medium Bipin Lamps

(Roll-up Scenario)

As F igure 10.2.9 and Figure 10.2.10 illustrate, the average efficacy forecast of 8­

foot single pin slimline lamps gradual increases in the base case. Similar to 4­foot

medium bipin lamps, this is due to two separate trends: 1) the phaseout of T12 ballasts by

2022 and replacement with T8 systems, and 2) the installation of higher efficacy T8

lamps later in the analysis period. As T12 lamps are generally less efficacious than their

T8 counterparts, the market shift toward T8 lamp­and­ballast systems causes an overall

increase in efficacies of shipped fluorescent lamps. As CSL 1, CSL 2, and CSL 3 only

affect T12 lamps, the efficacy forecasts depict a higher average efficacy of the lamp stock

until all T12 ballast are retired in 2022. Beyond 2022, the standards case average

efficacy forecasts are identical to that of the base case. However, at CSL 4 and CSL 5,

the average efficacy of lamps is higher than that of the base case throughout the entire

analysis period. In general, the shift scenario presents a more aggressive average efficacy

forecast than the roll­up scenario.

10­1610­17 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100 102 104 106

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

YearAverage Lamp Efficacy (lpw)

Base Case

CSL1

CSL2

CSL3

CSL4

CSL5

Figure 10.2.9  Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, Eight-Foot Single Pin Slimline

Lamps (Shift Scenario)

84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98 100 102 104

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

YearAverage Lamp Efficacy (lpw)

Base Case

CSL1

CSL2

CSL3

CSL4

CSL5

Figure 10.2.10  Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, Eight-Foot Single Pin Slimline

Lamps (Roll-up Scenario)As Figure 10.2.11 and Figure 10.2.12 illustrate, the average efficacy forecast of 8­

foot recessed double contact lamps gradual increases in the base case due to the

installation of higher efficacy lamps later in the analysis period. Because DOE estimates

that all lamps installed before 2012 will be retired within two years of standards

implementation (the estimated service lifetime of these lamps in the industrial sector), the

average efficacy sharply increases in the standards case until 2013. In addition to both

the shift and roll­up scenarios, the average efficacy forecasts show a large increase at

CSL 4 due to the retrofitting of all T12 systems to T8 systems. As T12 lamps are

generally less efficacious than their T8 counterparts, the market shift toward T8 lampand­ballast systems causes an overall increase in efficacies of shipped fluorescent lamps.

In general, the shift scenario presents a more aggressive average efficacy forecast than

the roll­up scenario.

10­1876 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98AverageLampEfficacy(lpw)

Base Case

CSL1

CSL2

CSL3

CSL4

CSL5

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Year

Figure 10.2.11 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, Eight-Foot Recessed Double

Contact High Output Lamps (Shift Scenario)

76 78 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98AverageLampEfficacy(lpw)

Base Case

CSL1

CSL2

CSL3

CSL4

CSL5

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Year

Figure 10.2.12 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, Eight-Foot Recessed Double

Contact High Output Lamps (Roll-up Scenario)

10­19As the engineering analysis (Chapter 5) discusses, BF partly determines the

energy consumption of a lamp­and­ballast system. DOE tracks the average BF of the

installed ballast stock to monitor the energy consumption of installed systems. DOE

assumes that in the standards case, many consumers will purchase a lower BF ballast

when purchasing a higher efficacy lamp. Changing the BF maintains light output. As a

result, the average BF of the market will likely also change with implementation of

energy conservation standards for GSFL.

Figure 1 0.2.13 provides an example of how the BF in the ballast stock is projected

to change over time at CSL3 for 4­foot T8 medium bipin lamps. The corresponding

trajectory of the average lamp efficacy is plotted to demonstrate the relationship between

ballast factor and average efficacy. As seen in the figure, a sharp decline in ballast factor

is expected until 2024. The higher BF ballasts represent those ballasts that were installed

prior to 2012 and operate lower efficacy lamps. However, after 2024, all of these ballasts

have reached their end of life. DOE expects that they will be replaced with lower BF

ballasts operating higher efficacy lamps, thereby maintaining light output.

0.88

Average Total BF

Average Efficacy 94

0.87 93AverageBallastfactor 0.86

0.85

0.84

0.83

0.82

0.81 92

9 1

90

89Efficacy(lpw)

88 0.80

0.79 87

2 011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Year

Figure 10.2.13 Average Ballast Factor and Efficacy of Lamp Stock,

Four-Foot T8 Lamps (CSL3, Shift Scenario)

10.2.1.4 Light O utput

Changes i n efficacy can often lead to changes in light output. For GSFL, the light

output in the standards case can differ from that in the base case. These differences are

caused by 1) installation of higher efficacy lamps (with wattages that are not reduced

relative to the base case lamp) on ballast installed before standards, and 2) replacement of

10­20lamp­and­ballast systems that were installed before 2012 with systems that, on average,

emit more (or fewer) lumens per system. As Chapter 9 discusses, the lamp­and­ballast

systems that are installed to meet the growth in light output of the stock (i.e., new

construction) do not contribute to differences in light output between the base and

standards cases.

The g raphs of light output for GSFL in the commercial (4­foot medium bipin

lamp systems and 8­foot single pin slimline lamp) and industrial (8­foot recessed double

contact HO lamp) systems are presented in Figure 10.2.14 through Figure 10.2.17 for the

base case and all standards cases in the roll­up and shift scenarios.

As F igure 10.2.14 and Figure 10.2.15 show, total lumen output of 4­foot medium

bipin lamps and 8­foot single pin slimline lamps in the commercial sector is expected to

increase steadily due to new construction. Because lumen outputs of the base case and

standards case systems are relatively well matched in both the shift and roll­up scenarios,

only small variances occur in lumen output between the base case and standards case.

Figure 10.2.16 and Figure 10.2.17 depict the lumen output in the industrial sector from 8­

foot recessed double contact high output lamps. Because DOE does not model new

construction in this sector, the base case lumen output is relatively flat. The small

negative slope is a result of higher efficiency systems (with a slightly lower lumen output

per system) being installed later in the analysis period. In the standards cases, a large

change in lumen output occurs until 2013, when standards­compliant lamps have

replaced all base­case lamps installed prior to 2012.

10­2110­22 4.00E+12 5.00E+12 6.00E+12 7.00E+12 8.00E+12 9.00E+12 1.00E+13

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042

YearLumens Serviced (lm)

Base Case

CSL1

CSL2

CSL3

CSL4

CSL5

Figure 10.2.14  Lumens Serviced by GSFL in the Commercial Sector

(Shift Scenario)

4.00E+12 5.00E+12 6.00E+12 7.00E+12 8.00E+12 9.00E+12 1.00E+13

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042

YearLumens Serviced (lm)

Base Case

CSL1

CSL2

CSL3

CSL4

CSL5

Figure 10.2.15  Lumens Serviced by GSFL in the Commercial Sector

(Roll-up Scenario)4.50E+11

4.40E+11LumensServiced(lm) 4.30E+11

4.20E+11

4.10E+11

4.00E+11

3.90E+11

3.80E+11

3.70E+11

3.60E+11

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042 Base Case

CSL1

CSL2

CSL3

CSL4

CSL5

Year

Figure 10.2.16 Lumens Serviced by GSFL in the Industrial Sector (Shift Scenario)

10­234.50E+11LumensServiced(lm) 4.40E+11

4.30E+11

4.20E+11

4.10E+11

4.00E+11

3.90E+11

3.80E+11

3.70E+11

2 012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042 Base Case

CSL1

CSL2

CSL3

CSL4

CSL5

Year

Figure 10.2.17 Lumens Serviced by GSFL in the Industrial Sector (Roll-up

Scenario)

10.2.2 Incandescent R eflector Lamps

10.2.2.1 Base a nd Standards Case Efficacy Distributions

Sections 9 .3.2 and 9.4.2 of Chapter 9 present the IRL market share matrices for

the base and standards cases in the main shipment scenario, respectively. These matrices

characterize the stock of IRL in the base and standards cases. As the shipments analysis

discusses, DOE establishes forecasted shipments throughout the analysis period by using

the service lifetime of lamps.

Table 1 0.2.7 presents the base case and standards case efficacy distributions of

commercial IRL shipped in 2012 and 2042 in the main shipment scenario. In general,

base­case shipments of halogen IRL decrease while shipments of HIR increase over the

analysis period. At CSL1, improved halogen IRL are shipped in place of halogen IRL, as

these lower efficacy lamps are no longer standards compliant. In addition, over the

analysis period, HIR technologies continue to increase in market­share while the

improved halogen shipments decrease. All shipments at CSL2 are HIR IRL, and all

shipments at CSL3 are improved HIR IRL.

Table 1 0.2.8 presents the base case and standards case efficacy distribution of

residential IRL shipped from 2012 to 2042. In the standards case, the least efficacious

standards­compliant option is the only IRL shipped. As discussed in Chapter 9, the

10­24shipments analysis, in both the base case and standards case, the efficacy distributions

remain constant over the analysis period.

Appendix 1 0B presents results for the two sensitivity scenarios: the “65 Watt BR

lamp substitution” and “10­percent lumen increase.” Base case and standards shipments

remain constant over time.

Table 1 0.2.7 Commercial Incandescent Reflector Lamps: Base Case and Standards

Case Efficacy Distributions in 2012, 2042

Year Candidate

S tandard

Level Design O ption Proportions o f Commercial IRL Shipped (%)

Base C ase Standards C ase

1 2 3

Baseline Halogen 8 2

­ ­ ­

1 Improved H alogen 0 7 8

­ ­

2012 2 HIR 1 8 2 2 1 00

­

3 Improved H IR 0 0 0 1 00

Total

- 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00

Baseline Halogen 54

­ ­ ­

1 Improved H alogen 0 50

­ ­

2042 2 HIR 46 50 100

­

3 Improved H IR 0 0 0 100

Total

- 100 100 100 100

Table 10.2.8 Residential Incandescent Reflector Lamps: Base Case and Standards

Case Efficacy Distributions from 2012 to 2042

Year Candidate

S tandard Design Proportions o f Residential IRL Shipped (%)

Base C ase Standards C ase

Level Option

1 2 3

Baseline Halogen 1 00

­ ­ ­

2012 1 Improved

H alogen 0 1 00

­ ­

to 2 HIR 0 0 1 00

­

2042 3 Improved

H IR 0 0 0 1 00

Total

- 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00

10.2.2.2 Installed L amp Stock

The l amp stock in a given year is the total number of lamps shipped in prior years

that survive in the given year. Figure 10.2.18 displays the commercial IRL base case and

standards case installed lamp stock in the main shipment scenario analyzed. As Chapter

9 discusses, the growth rate in the commercial reflector lamp stock is 1.6 percent per

year. In the NIA, DOE assumes that 50 percent of the commercial IRL base and

standards case stock shifts to reflector CFL and other emerging technologies in 2042.

This shift, occurring gradually over the analysis period, reduces the potential impact of an

IRL energy conservation standard.

10­250 20 40 60 80 100 120 140InstalledLampStock(millions) IRL Reflector CFL and Other Emerging Technologies

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042

Year

Figure 10.2.18 Commercial IRL Base Case and Standards Case Installed Lamp

Stock (Main Shipment Scenario)

Figure 1 0.2.19 displays the installed lamp stock of residential IRL in the base case

and the standards case for the main shipment scenario. As Chapter 9 discusses, the

growth rate in the residential IRL stock is 1.3 percent per year. Similar to the commercial

sector. DOE assumes that 50 percent of the residential IRL base and standards case stock

shifts to reflector CFL and other emerging technologies in 2042. Appendix 10B presents

the results for the 65 Watt BR lamp substitution and 10­percent lumen increase

sensitivity scenarios.

10­260 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 500InstalledLampStock(millions) Reflector CFL and Other Emerging Technologies

IRL

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Year

Figure 10.2.19 Residential IRL Base-Case and Standards-Case Installed Lamp

Stock (Main Shipment Scenario)

10.2.2.3 Average L amp Efficacy of the Stock

Calculation o f the NES and NPV depends on the estimate of the average efficacy

in the lamp stock. The following figures present the average efficacy of the commercial

and residential IRL stock for each CSL in the main shipment scenario. The average

efficacy numbers do not include stock moving to reflector CFL or other emerging

technologies over time. Appendix 10B presents results for the “65 Watt BR lamp

Substitution” and “10­percent lumen increase” standards­case shipment sensitivity

scenarios.

Figure 1 0.2.20 presents the base case and standards case efficacy distribution of

the commercial IRL stock from 2012 to 2042 in the main shipment scenario. In general,

the average efficacy of the commercial IRL stock increases with increasing CSLs.

Because base­case shipments of halogen IRL decrease while shipments of HIR increase

over the analysis period, the average efficacy of the base case stock rises over the

analysis period. The average efficacy of the IRL stock also rises at CSL1 due to the

increase in HIR lamp shipments and decrease in improved halogen lamp shipments. The

average efficacy at CSL2 and CSL3 are relatively constant because only HIR IRL are

shipped at CSL2, while only improved HIR IRL are shipped at CSL3.

10­270 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20AverageEfficacy(lm/W)

Base­Case Efficacy Forecast

CSL1

CSL2

CSL3

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

Year

Figure 10.2.20 Average Efficacy of the Commercial IRL Stock (Main Shipment

Scenario)

Figure 1 0.2.21 presents the base case and standards case efficacy distribution of

the residential IRL stock from 2012 to 2042 under the main scenario. Similar to the

commercial IRL stock, the average efficacy of the residential IRL stock increases with

increasing CSLs. However, in the residential sector, there is a sharp increase in efficacy

at each CSL until 2014 as lower­efficacy lamps installed prior to 2012 are retired from

the stock. By 2014, standards­compliant lamps saturate the installed base. Because the

technology mix of the lamps shipped remains constant over time in both the base case

and standards cases, the corresponding efficacy forecast are constant as well. This sharp

increase is not apparent in the commercial IRL stock because the higher operating hours

result in all lamps installed prior to 2012 reach their end of life within the first year of

service.

10­2820

18AverageEfficacy(lm/W) 16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0 Base Case Efficacy Forecast

CSL1

CSL2

CSL3

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

Year

Figure 10.2.21 Average Efficacy of the Residential IRL Stock (Main Shipment

Scenario)

10.2.2.4 Light O utput

Changes i n efficacy can lead to changes in light output. For IRL, the average

light output numbers do not include stock moving to reflector CFL or other emerging

technologies. Because of the shift away from IRL to reflector CFL and other emerging

technologies in the base and standards cases, there is a decline in the lumens serviced by

IRL. Also, because the total stock is the same in the base and standards case, the

difference in lumen trajectories in the standards cases is caused by the difference in the

average mean lumen output of the installed stock.

Figure 1 0.2.22 and Figure 10.2.23 presents the lumens serviced in the base case

and standards case from 2012 to 2042 in the main shipment scenario by the commercial

and residential IRL stocks, respectively. The decline in the number of sockets occupied

by IRL causes a decline in the lumens those lamps service. In general, the difference in

lumens serviced between the base and standards case is minimal because consumers in

the commercial market choose to purchase standards­compliant lamps whose mean

lumen output is approximately the same as the average mean lumen output of base case

lamps. Appendix 10B presents lumen output results for the 65 Watt BR lamp

substitution and 10 percent lumen increase sensitivity scenarios.

10­290.0E+00 1.0E+10 2.0E+10 3.0E+10 4.0E+10 5.0E+10 6.0E+10 7.0E+10 8.0E+10 9.0E+10LumensServiced(lm)

Base­Case Lumen Forecast

CSL1

CSL2

CSL3

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

Year

Figure 10.2.22 Commercial IRL Lumens Serviced

0.0E+00 5.0E+10 1.0E+11 1.5E+11 2.0E+11 2.5E+11 3.0E+11 3.5E+11LumensServiced(lm)

Base­Case Lumen Forecast

CSL1

CSL2

CSL3

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

Year

Figure 10.2.23 Residential IRL Lumens Serviced

10­3010.3 NATIONAL E NERGY SAVINGS

10.3.1 National E nergy Savings Definition

DOE c alculates annual national energy savings as the difference between the base

case (without new standards) and the standards case (with new standards). Positive

values of NES correspond to net energy savings following standards implementation.

That is, national annual energy consumption (AEC) with standards is less than AEC in

the base case.

NES

= ( AEC

, − AEC ) × HVAC × RR E q. 10.1

t baset stdt

,

where

NES

t = national energy savings in year t

,

AEC

= annual national energy consumption each year (at the source) in

quadrillion British thermal units (quads),

HVAC= h eating, ventilation, air conditioning (HVAC) factor,

RR

= rebound rate,

t = year in the forecast (e.g., 2012 to 2042),

base

= base case, and

std

= standards case.

Cumulative e nergy savings are the sum over a defined time period from the

implementation of a standard forward (from 2012 to 2042) of the annual national energy

savings multiplied by the HVAC interaction factor and rebound rate.

NES

= 

# ∑ NES Eq. 10.2

cum t

t

where

NES

cum = cumulative national energy savings.

DOE c alculated the AEC (in any year) by multiplying the number or stock of

lamps by the product of the annual unit energy consumption and the site­to­source

conversion factor, shown by the following equation:

AEC

= 

# ∑ STOCK × UEC × src

_ conv

t Eq. 10.3

ld ld

ld

where

10­31STOCK ld = stock of lamps for a given lamp design or lamp­and­ballast design

surviving in the year for which DOE calculated AEC,

UEC ld = unit energy consumption (kWh per year), and

src_conv t = time­dependent conversion factor to convert from site energy (kWh)

to source energy (quads) (Btu/kWh).

10.3.2 National E nergy Savings Inputs

Table 10.3.1 lists the inputs for the determination of NES.

)

)

)

) Table 10.3.1 National Energy Saving Inputs

Input

Unit Energy Consumption, UEC

Lamp Stock by Design ( STOCKld

Site­to­Source Conversion Factor ( src_conv

Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning Factor ( HVAC

Rebound Rate ( RR

10.3.2.1 Unit E nergy Consumption (UEC)

DOE presented the per­unit UEC for each lamp (and lamp­and­ballast pair in the

case of GSFL) in the energy use characterization (Chapter 6). For the NES and NPV

calculations, DOE used an average number of annual operating hours for each sector and

lamp type in calculating the UEC of each lamp design.

10.3.2.2 Lamp S tock

For GSFL, the lamp stock in a given year is the total number of lamps shipped in

prior years that survive. The NES spreadsheet model keeps track of the lamps (and lampand­ballast pairs in the case of GSFL) shipped each year. DOE forecasts shipments for

the base case and all standards cases in Chapter 9. The shipments analysis for GSFL

incorporates two scenarios for the standards cases: 1) a shift scenario, and 2) a roll­up

scenario. The shift scenario results in higher energy savings than the roll­up scenario.

For I RL, the total lamp stock is also the total number of lamps shipped in prior

years that survive in a given year. DOE reduces this stock (assuming that the 2042 stock

of IRL is reduced by 50 percent) to account for a migration to reflector CFL and

emerging technologies. The shipments analysis also analyzes a 65 Watt BR lamp

substitutiton scenario, which models a shift from covered IRL to the 65 Watt BR lamp

exempted from energy conservation standards. The market share matrices, as presented

in Chapter 9 and Appendix 9A, provide for the breakdown of the stock by lamp design.

10.3.2.3 Site-to-Source C onversion Factors

The site­to­source conversion factor is the multiplicative factor DOE uses for

converting site­energy consumption into primary or source energy consumption. For

10­32electricity, the conversion factors vary over time due to projected changes in generation

sources (i.e., the power plant types projected to provide electricity to the country). For

the ANOPR, DOE calculated annual average site­to­source conversion factors using

Energy Information Administration’s AEO2007

. DOE divided the total energy used to

produce electricity in the United States by the total electricity delivered for each

forecasted year. Table 10.3.2 presents site­to­source factors. The average conversion

factors vary over time, due to projected changes in electricity generation sources.

Table 10.3.2 Site-to-Source Conversion Factors

Site-to-Source Site-to-Source

Conversion F actor Conversion F actor

Year Btu/kWh Year Btu/kWh

2012 10,680 2028 10,273

2013 10,646 2029 10,246

2014 10,632 2030 10,210

2015 10,602 2031 10,209

2016 10,584 2032 10,192

2017 10,582 2033 10,175

2018 10,568 2034 10,159

2019 10,544 2035 10,143

2020 10,516 2036 10,127

2021 10,493 2037 10,112

2022 10,467 2038 10,097

2023 10,448 2039 10,082

2024 10,414 2040 10,068

2025 10,368 2041 10,054

2026 10,328 2042 10,040

2027 10,303

Source: A EO 2007. Conversion factors beyond 2030 are extrapolated.

10.3.2.4 Interactions w ith Heating, Ventilation, and Air-Conditioning

(HVAC) Systems

DOE estimated increased national energy savings due to interactions with heating,

ventilating, and air­conditioning systems (HVAC) in the commercial and industrial

sectors. To account for HVAC energy savings, DOE used the analysis completed by the

2000 Fluorescent Ballast rulemaking, which calculates an HVAC interaction energy

savings of 6.25 percent of total energy savings. i This analysis incorporates changes in

both heating and cooling loads as a result of the standard. The ballast rule analysis

involved calculating the lighting HVAC interaction energy savings on buildings built

before 1989 (5 percent of total energy savings) and ones built from 1990 to 1995 (10

percent of total energy savings). The ballast analysis assumed that over the analysis

period, the building stock would move from the 5­percent HVAC factor toward the 10­

percent HVAC factor. With simple scaling methods, DOE used 6.25 percent as an

average interaction over the entire analysis period. Using this same methodology for

lamps, an analysis period from 2012 to 2042 would have a slightly higher HVAC energy

savings. However, the overall HVAC savings with lighting may also decrease relative to

the factor calculated by the 2000 ballast rule due to a trend toward more efficient heating

and cooling systems. Considering these competing factors, DOE used 6.25 percent of

total energy savings as the HVAC energy savings in the commercial sector for both

10­33GSFL and IRL and in the industrial sector for GSFL. DOE assumed negligible HVAC

interactions in the residential sector.

10.3.2.5 Rebound R ate

In its analysis, DOE considered the rebound effect 1 that occurs after installation of

energy­efficient lighting equipment. DOE examined a summary of the literature

regarding the rebound effect in relation to lighting equipment. 2 Based on four studies, the

summary estimated that for a 100­percent increase in energy efficiency, “take­back” or

rebound values for residential lighting are between 5 and 12 percent of energy

consumption savings. The summary estimated zero to 2­percent rebound values for

commercial and industrial lighting. Therefore, in the calculation of national energy

savings due to energy conservation standards on lighting, DOE used a rebound rate of 8.5

percent in the residential sector and 1 percent in the commercial and industrial sectors.

However, the summary of the literature reports that the results of rebound due to lighting

are inconclusive. Thus, DOE invites comments on both the inclusion and magnitude of

the rebound effect for purposes of analyzing the expected effects of this regulation.

The t ake­back in energy consumption associated with the rebound effect provides

consumers with increased value (e.g., increased lighting hours, since the increased

efficiency enables consumers to use their lighting equipment for longer periods of time).

The impact on consumers is therefore the sum of the change in the cost of owning the

lighting equipment (i.e., life­cycle cost) and the increased value of more lighting hours.

However, DOE is unable to monetize this increase in consumer value in the LCC

analysis. If it were able to monetize the increased value to consumers of the rebound

effect, this value would be at least as great as the value of the foregone energy savings.

For this analysis, DOE estimates that this value is equivalent to the monetary value of the

energy savings that would have occurred without the rebound effect. Therefore, the

economic impacts on consumers with or without the rebound effect, as measured in the

LCC and NPV analyses, are the same.

10.4 NET P RESENT VALUE

10.4.1 Net P resent Value Definition

The NPV is the value in the present of a time series of costs and savings. The

NPV is calculated as follows:

NPV

= PVS

− PVC Eq. 10.4

1 Under economic theory, “rebound effect” refers to the tendency of a consumer to respond to the cost

savings associated with more efficient equipment in a manner that actually leads to marginally greater

product usage, thereby diminishing some portion of anticipated benefits related to improved efficiency.

2 Greening, L.A., D.L. Greene, and C. Difiglio, “Energy efficiency and consumption—the rebound effect—

a survey,” 28 Energy Policy (2000), pp. 389–401.

10­34where

PVS

= present value of operating cost savings, and

PVC

= present value of increased total installed costs.

The P VS and PVC are determined according to the following expressions:

PVS

= 

# ∑ OCS × DF Eq. 10.5

t t

PVS

= 

# ∑ TIC × DF Eq. 10.6

t t

where

OCS

= total annual operating cost savings,

TIC

= total annual installed cost increases,

DF

= discount factor, and

t = year ( PVS and PVC are summed over 2012­2042).

DOE d etermined the contributions to PVC and PVS for each year from the

effective date of the standard, 2012, to 2042, discounted for the ANOPR analysis to 2007.

DOE applied residual values (positive cash flows) in 2042 in both the base and standards

cases to account for the remaining useful lives of the lamps (and ballasts) beyond 2042.

DOE chose this approach rather than estimating the operating cost savings beyond 2042

because the average lamp lifetimes in the base and standards cases often differ. For

example, a base­case halogen IRL may have lifetime of 2,500 hours while an improved

HIR IRL (shipped at CSL3) has a lifetime of 4,000 hours. DOE calculated costs and

savings as the difference between a standards case (i.e., with new standards) and a base

case (i.e., without new standards). DOE calculated a discount factor from the discount

rate and the number of years between the “present” (i.e., year to which the sum is being

discounted) and the year in which the costs and savings occur. DOE calculated the net

present value as the sum over time of the discounted net savings (which is equivalent to

the approach shown in Equations 10.4

– 10.6).

10.4.2 Net P resent Value Inputs

Table 10.4.1 summarizes the inputs to the NPV calculation.

Table 10.4.1 Net Present Value Inputs

Input

Total Annual Installed Cost Increases ( TICt )

Total Annual Operating Cost Savings ( OCSt )

Discount Factor

10­3510.4.2.1 Total A nnual Installed Cost Increases

DOE calculated the increase in total annual installed costs as the difference

between the total annual installed costs in the standards case minus those in the base case.

For each case, the total annual installed costs equal the product of the shipments and per

unit installed cost (summed over each lamp design or lamp­and­ballast design). The per

unit installed cost includes the lamp cost (and the ballast cost if applicable) and the

installation cost. To establish the per unit installed cost, DOE based installation costs on

nationally representative values for each lamp design or each lamp­and­ballast design. In

addition, DOE based lamp and ballast prices off of discounted blue­book prices (See the

LCC and PBP analysis descriptions in Chapter 8 for a further description of installation

costs and lamp and ballast prices). Though GSFL lamp designs often have slightly

varying lifetimes, as discussed in chapter 9, DOE used one representative lifetime for

each GSFL product class. Therefore, to ensure the accurate calculation of NPV, DOE

scaled the per unit installed costs of each lamp to account for this modification of lamp

lifetime.

10.4.2.2 Total A nnual Operating Cost Savings

As the LCC and PBP analysis (Chapter 8) describes, DOE calculates total annual

operating costs based on national average electricity prices. (The only component of

annual operating cost for lamps is the cost of electricity consumption.)

OCS

= 

# ∑ STOCK × UEC × priceyelectricit Eq. 10.7

ld ld

ld

DOE calculates total annual operating cost savings as the difference between total

annual operating costs in the base case minus those in the standards case. DOE uses an

average number of annual operating hours for each sector and lamp type in calculating

the UEC of each lamp design.

For G SFL, DOE uses national average commercial electricity prices, for 4­foot

medium bipin lamps and 8­foot single pin slimline lamps. DOE uses national average

industrial prices for the 8­foot recessed double contact HO lamps. For IRL, DOE uses

national­average commercial and residential prices for it analysis in the commercial and

residential sectors, respectively. DOE uses AEO 2007 to establish all electricity prices. ii

Chapter 8 provides the electricity price forecasts DOE uses to calculate the NPV.

10.4.2.3 Discount F actor

DOE multiplies monetary values in future years by the discount factor (DF) to

calculate the present value. The following equation describes how to calculate the

discount factor:

DF

= 1 

## ( 1 + r 

## ) ( t

− t

p ) Eq. 10.8

where

10­36r = discount rate,

t = year of the monetary value, and

t p = year in which the present value is being determined.

DOE e stimates national impacts with both a 3­percent and a 7­percent real

discount rate as the average real rate of return on private investment in the U.S. economy.

These discount rates are used in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)’s guidance to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory analysis (OMB

Circular A­4, September 17, 2003), and section E, “Identifying and Measuring Benefits

and Costs,” therein. iii DOE defined the present year as 2007 for the ANOPR analysis.

10.5 NATIONAL E NERGY SAVINGS AND NET PRESENT VALUE RESULTS

The NES spreadsheet model provides estimates of the NES and NPV due to

various CSLs. The inputs to the NES spreadsheet are discussed in sections 10.3.2,

National Energy Savings Inputs, and 10.4.2, Net Present Value Inputs. DOE generated

the NES and NPV results using Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, accessible at

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/incandescent_lamp

s.html. A ppendix 10A provides instructions for using the spreadsheets.

10.5.1 National E nergy Savings and Net Present Value Input Summary

Table 10.5.1 summarizes the inputs to the NES spreadsheet model. A brief

description of the data is given for each input.

10­37Table 10.5.1 National Energy Saving and Net Present Value Inputs

Input Data Data D escription

Shipments Annual s hipments from the GSFL and IRL, shipment models (see

TSD C hapter 9, Shipments Analysis).

Stock o f Lamps Established b ased on the 2011 lamp stock, the service life of lamps

and/or ballasts, and the annual shipments. The initial stock is based

on h istorical shipments and projected shipments from 2006 to 2011

(see T SD Chapter 9, Shipments Analysis).

Effective D ate of Standard 2012

Analysis P eriod 2012 t o 2042

Unit E nergy Consumption Established in the Energy­Use Characterization, TSD Chapter 6, by

(kWh/yr) lamp o r lamp­and­ballast design and sector.

Total I nstalled Cost Established in the Product Price Determination, TSD Chapter 7 and

the L CC Analysis, TSD Chapter 8, by lamp­and­ballast designs.

Electricity P rice Forecast 2007 E IA Annual Energy Outlook forecasts (to 2030) and

extrapolation f or beyond 2030 (see TSD Chapter 8).

Electricity S ite­to­Source Conversion v aries yearly and is generated by 2007 EIA Annual

Conversion Energy O utlook forecasts (to 2030) of electricity generation and

electricity­related lo sses. Conversion factors beyond 2030 are

extrapolated.

HVAC Interaction S avings 6.25% o f total energy savings in the commercial sector.

Rebound E ffect 1% o f total energy savings in the commercial sector

8.5% o f total energy savings in the residential sector

Discount R ate 3 a nd 7 percent real.

Present Y ear Future c osts and savings are discounted to the year 2007.

10.5.2 Base C ase Energy Consumption

Figure 10.5.1 and Figure 10.5.2 show the base case energy consumption

trajectories for the GSFL and IRL stocks, respectively. As Figure 10.5.1 shows, DOE

projects the energy consumption of 4­foot medium bipin lamps will grow due to new

construction and the replacement of some 8­foot single pin slimline systems with 4­foot

medium bipin systems. Because of this same replacement, DOE projects the energy

consumption of 8­foot single pin slimline systems will decrease. In addition, because the

stock of 8­foot recessed double contact high output lamps is kept relatively constant, the

energy consumption of these lamps in the base case does not vary greatly over the

analysis period. As illustrated in Figure 10.5.2, the energy consumption of the IRL stock

decreases over time in both the commercial and residential sectors due to the penetration

of reflector CFL and other emerging technologies.

10­384.0EnergyConsumptionSource(Quads)

3.5

3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0

0.5

0.0

2012 2 015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042 4­foot medium bipin

8­foot single pin slimline

8­foot recessed double contact

Year

Figure 10.5.1 Base Case National Energy Consumption, General Service

Fluorescent Lamps (quads of source energy)

10­390.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25EnergyConsumptionSource(Quads)

Commercial Sector

Residential Sector

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042

Year

Figure 10.5.2 Base Case National Energy Consumption, Incandescent Reflector

Lamps (quads of source energy)

10.5.3 National E nergy Savings Results

The following section provides NES results (including HVAC interactions and

rebound effects where applicable) for each CSL DOE considers for GSFL and IRL.

Results are cumulative to 2042 and are shown as primary energy savings in quads. For

GSFL, 4­foot medium bipin, 8­foot single pin slimline, and 8­foot recessed double

contact high output results are representative of the combination of the low CCT (less

than or equal to 4,500K) and the high CCT (greater than 4,500K) product classes. For

IRL, results in this chapter represent a combination of the standard­spectrum and

modified­spectrum product classes. The ANOPR does not present NIA results for 2­foot

U­shaped lamps. However, DOE does intend to estimate NES and NPV results for these

product classes in the NOPR.

10.5.3.1 General S ervice Fluorescent Lamps

Table 10.5.3 and Table 10.5.2 show the NES results under the shift scenario

(upper bound) and roll­up scenario (lower bound), respectively. The highest energy

savings result from CSL 5 for both scenarios and all lamp types. At CSL 1 and CSL 2

(and CSL 3 for the 8­foot recessed double contact HO model), all energy savings

originate from shifts to higher efficacy T12 lamps and, in the 4­foot medium bipin and 8­

foot single pin slimline models, early retrofits to more efficacious T8 systems. At these

CSLs, all T8 lamps are standards­compliant and, therefore, unaffected in both scenarios.

10­40At CSL 3, a large increase in energy savings can be observed, stemming from the savings

associated with the regulation of 4­foot T8 lamps (the majority of the stock). All T12

lamp systems are automatically retrofitted to T8 lamp systems because no T12 standardscompliant lamps are available as lamp designs at CSL 4 and CSL 5 for 8­foot single pin

slimline and 4­foot medium bipin lamps, or at CSL 4 and CSL 5 for 8­foot HO lamps.

Table 10.5.2 Cumulative National Energy Savings for General Service Fluorescent

Lamps Under the Shift Scenario (2012-2042) (quads)

Candidate NES

Q uads

Standard Product C lass Discounted a t Discounted a t Level ( CSL) Undiscounted 7% 3%

4­foot m edium bipin 0.27 0.14 0.20

1 8­foot s ingle pin slimline 0.05 0.03 0.04

8­foot r ecessed double contact HO 0.48 0.15 0.27

TOTAL 0.80 0.31 0.51

4­foot m edium bipin 0.45 0.24 0.34

2 8­foot s ingle pin slimline 0.09 0.05 0.06

8­foot r ecessed double contact HO 0.65 0.20 0.37

TOTAL 1.19 0.49 0.78

4­foot m edium bipin 6.79 1.98 3.81

3 8­foot s ingle pin slimline 0.13 0.07 0.10

8­foot r ecessed double contact HO 0.67 0.20 0.38

TOTAL 7.94 2.35 4.49

4­foot m edium bipin 8.17 2.54 4.72

4 8­foot s ingle pin slimline 0.41 0.15 0.25

8­foot r ecessed double contact HO 2.16 0.63 1.21

TOTAL 11.09 3.43 6.39

4­foot m edium bipin 12.69 3.62 7.05

5 8­foot s ingle pin slimline 0.41 0.16 0.26

8­foot r ecessed double contact HO 2.19 0.64 1.23

TOTAL 15.86 4.59 8.86

10­41Table 10.5.3 Cumulative National Energy Savings for General Service Fluorescent

Lamps Under the Roll-up Scenario (2012-2042) (quads)

NES

Quads

Candidate

Standard Product C lass

Level ( CSL) Undiscounted Discounted a t

7% Discounted a t

3%

4­foot m edium bipin 0.27 0.14 0.20

1 8­foot s ingle pin slimline 0.05 0.03 0.04

8­foot r ecessed double contact HO 0.35 0.12 0.21

TOTAL 0.67 0.28 0.45

4­foot m edium bipin 0.45 0.24 0.34

2 8­foot s ingle pin slimline 0.09 0.05 0.06

8­foot r ecessed double contact HO 0.61 0.19 0.35

TOTAL 1.15 0.48 0.76

4­foot m edium bipin 2.88 0.92 1.68

3 8­foot s ingle pin slimline 0.13 0.07 0.10

8­foot r ecessed double contact HO 0.63 0.19 0.36

TOTAL 3.79 1.23 2.23

4­foot m edium bipin 3.71 1.16 2.14

4 8­foot s ingle pin slimline 0.17 0.09 0.13

8­foot r ecessed double contact HO 1.89 0.55 1.06

TOTAL 5.92 1.85 3.42

4­foot m edium bipin 6.62 1.90 3.68

5 8­foot s ingle pin slimline 0.23 0.11 0.16

8­foot r ecessed double contact HO 2.05 0.60 1.15

TOTAL 9.26 2.72 5.20

10.5.3.2 Incandescent R eflector Lamps

Table 10.5.4 presents the national energy savings for IRL in the commercial and

residential sectors under the main shipment scenario. Appendix 10B presents results for

the 65 Watt BR lamp substitution and 10­percent lumen increase sensitivity scenarios.

As seen in the table, CSL3 results in the highest energy savings for both the commercial

and residential sectors.

10­42Table 10.5.4 Cumulative National Energy Savings for Commercial IRL (2012-2042)

(quads)

Candidate

Standard Sector NES

q uads

Level Undiscounted Discounted a t 7% Discounted a t 3%

Commercial 0.48 0.15 0.28

1 Residential 0.60 0.18 0.34

TOTAL 1.08 0.33 0.62

Commercial 0.83 0.27 0.49

2 Residential 1.03 0.30 0.58

TOTAL 1.86 0.57 1.07

Commercial 1.13 0.36 0.66

3 Residential 1.27 0.37 0.71

TOTAL 2.40 0.73 1.37

10.5.4 Annual C osts and Savings

To illustrate the basic inputs to the NPV calculations, Figure 10.5.3 and Figure

10.5.4 present t he undiscounted annual total installed cost increases and annual operating

cost savings at the national level for CSL3 for GSFL in the shift scenario and for CSL2 in

the main shipment scenario. The figures also shows the net annual savings, which is the

difference between the savings and costs for each year. Both annual total installed cost

increases and annual operating costs savings accumulate from 2012 to 2042. A net

residual value is applied at the end of 2042 to account for the difference in the remaining

values of the base and standards case lamp (and ballast) stock. The NPV is the difference

between the cumulative annual discounted operating cost savings and the cumulative

annual discounted total installed cost increases (plus the inclusion of the discounted net

residual value).

Figure 1 0.5.3, representing CSL3 for the GSFL shift scenario, illustrates an initial

smaller annual operating cost savings compared to the increases in annual total installed

costs. Operating cost savings increase with time, as more standards­compliant lamps are

installed (and the initial ballast stock is replaced). Therefore, net annual savings

generally increase over time. As the red line depicts, the net annual savings drop below

zero during the middle of the analysis period and again at the end of the analysis period.

This is because there are lamp­and­ballast system retrofits at the start of the analysis

period in the standards case that result in recurring high incremental first costs.

10­43Net Residual Value: $3.539

­4.0 ­3.0 ­2.0 ­1.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.02012201420162018202020222024202620282030203220342036203820402042Billion$

Year

Equipment Cost Savings Operating Cost Savings Total Savings

Figure 10.5.3 Four-Foot Medium Bipin National Undiscounted Annual Total

Installed Cost Increases and Operating Cost Savings for CSL3 (Shift Scenario)

Figure 10.5.4 presents detailed results showing the breakdown of the NPV into

PVS (equation 10.5) and PVC (equation 10.6) for both commercial and residential IRL at

CSL2. In general, operating cost savings exceed increased equipment costs throughout

the analysis period.

­0.2 ­0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.52011201320152017201920212023202520272029203120332035203720392041Billion$ Operating Cost Savings

Equipment Cost Savings

Total NPV Undiscounted Net Residual Value (Billion $): 0.148

Year

Figure 10.5.4 National Annual Total Installed Cost Increases and Operating Cost

Savings for Residential IRL at CSL2

10­4410.5.5 Net P resent Value Results

The following section provides NPV results for the CSLs considered for GSFL

and IRL. For GSFL, 4­foot medium bipin, 8­foot single pin slimline, and 8­foot recessed

double contact high output results are representative of the combination of the low CCT

(less than or equal to 4,500K) and the high CCT (greater than 4,500K) product classes.

For IRL, results in this chapter represent a combination of the standard­spectrum and

modified­spectrum product classes. The ANOPR does not present NIA results for 2­foot

U­shaped lamps. However, DOE does intend to estimate NPV results for these product

classes in the NOPR.

NPV results a re cumulative and shown as the discounted value of these savings in

dollar terms. DOE uses national average electricity pricing and sector­specific point

values for operating hours in calculating UECs. Thus, the NPV results are discrete point

values rather than a distribution of values as in the LCC and PBP analyses.

The p resent value of increased total installed costs is the total installed cost

increase (i.e., the difference between the standards case and base case in given year),

discounted to the present, and summed over the time period in which DOE evaluates the

impact of standards (i.e., from the effective date of standards, 2012, to 2042).

Savings a re decreases in operating costs associated with higher efficacy lamps

purchased in the standards case compared to the base case. DOE calculated total annual

operating cost savings as the difference between total annual operating costs in the base

case minus those in the standards case. Equation 10.7 gives the total annual operating

costs in each case.

10.5.5.1 General S ervice Fluorescent Lamps

Table 10.5.5 and Table 10.5.6 show the NPV results under the roll­up and shift

scenarios, respectively, for GSFL based on 7­percent and 3­percent discount rates. DOE

based all results on electricity price forecasts from the AEO 2007 Reference Case. CSL

4, for 8­foot recessed double contact HO lamps and 8­foot single pin slimline lamps, and

CSL 5 for 4­foot medium bipin, achieve the highest NPV for the shift scenario. For the

roll­up scenario, CSL 5 achieves the highest NPV for all types of fluorescent lamps

analyzed. Also, for both scenarios and at all CSLs, the 4­foot medium bipin lamp results

in positive NPV because increasingly efficacious lamp­and­ballast designs generally have

higher LCC savings relative to each other and the base case lamp­and­ballast designs. At

CSL 4 and CSL 5 for 4­foot medium bipin, 8­foot single pin slimline lamps, and 8­foot

recessed double contact HO lamps, large and positive NPV generally result due to the

integration of more efficacious T8 design options into both commercial and industrial

lamp stocks. As 4­foot T8 medium bipin lamps are the majority of stock of all GSFL, an

increase in lamp efficacy and a decrease in energy consumption result in large operating

cost savings and, therefore, high NPV.

10­45Table 10.5.5 Cumulative NPV Results for General Service Fluorescent Lamps

Under the Shift Scenario (Billion 2006$)

Candidate

Standard

Level (CSL) Product C lass NPV

b illion 2006$

Discounted a t 7% Discounted a t 3%

4­foot m edium bipin 0.20 0.52

1 8­foot s ingle pin slimline ­0.03 0.02

8­foot r ecessed double contact HO 0.94 1.86

TOTAL 1.11 2.40

4­foot m edium bipin 0.24 0.74

2 8­foot s ingle pin slimline 0.01 0.11

8­foot r ecessed double contact HO 1.42 2.73

TOTAL 1.67 3.58

4­foot m edium bipin 9.33 19.92

3 8­foot s ingle pin slimline 0.13 0.31

8­foot r ecessed double contact HO 0.05 0.20

TOTAL 10.15 21.66

4­foot m edium bipin 13.75 27.03

4 8­foot s ingle pin slimline 0.69 1.52

8­foot r ecessed double contact HO 3.64 8.08

TOTAL 18.78 37.92

4­foot m edium bipin 20.37 42.62

5 8­foot s ingle pin slimline 0.68 1.51

8­foot r ecessed double contact HO 3.63 8.06

TOTAL 25.74 54.26

10­46Table 10.5.6 Cumulative NPV Results for General Service Fluorescent Lamps

Under the Roll-up Scenario (Billion 2006$)

Candidate

Standard

Level (CSL) Product C lass NPV

b illion 2006$

Discounted a t 7% Discounted a t 3%

4­foot m edium bipin 0.20 0.52

1 8­foot s ingle pin slimline ­0.03 0.02

8­foot r ecessed double contact HO 0.56 1.01

TOTAL 0.73 1.55

4­foot m edium bipin 0.24 0.74

2 8­foot s ingle pin slimline 0.01 0.11

8­foot r ecessed double contact HO 1.15 2.13

TOTAL 1.40 2.98

4­foot m edium bipin 2.60 6.15

3 8­foot s ingle pin slimline 0.13 0.31

8­foot r ecessed double contact HO 0.00 0.07

TOTAL 2.98 7.00

4­foot m edium bipin 5.37 10.63

4 8­foot s ingle pin slimline 0.07 0.26

8­foot r ecessed double contact HO 3.27 7.33

TOTAL 9.00 18.74

4­foot m edium bipin 8.19 17.29

5 8­foot s ingle pin slimline 0.24 0.66

8­foot r ecessed double contact HO 3.40 7.61

TOTAL 12.47 26.72

10.5.5.2 Incandescent R eflector Lamps

Table 10.5.7 presents the NPV for commercial and residential IRL in the main

shipment scenario. Appendix 10B presents results for the 65 Watt BR lamp and 10

percent lumen increase sensitivity scenarios. As Table 10.5.7 illustrates, the NPV for

both commercial and residential IRL is greatest at CSL3, consistent with trends in LCC

savings.

Table 10.5.7 Cumulative NPV Results for Commercial IRL (billion 2006$)

Candidate

Standard Sector NPV

b illion 2006$

Level Discounted a t 7% Discounted a t 3%

Commercial 0.82 1.53

1 Residential 1.20 2.47

TOTAL 2.02 4.00

Commercial 1.54 2.86

2 Residential 2.31 4.64

TOTAL 3.85 7.50

Commercial 2.88 5.40

3 Residential 3.34 6.76

TOTAL 6.22 12.16

10­47REFERENCES

i U.S. Department o f Energy—Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office of

Building Research and Standards. Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency

Standards for Consumer Products: Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Proposed Rule: Appendix

B. Marginal E nergy Prices and National Energy Savings

. January 2000. Washington,

D.C.

< http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/appendix_b.

pdf >.

ii U.S. Department o f Energy C Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy

Outlook 2007 with Projections to 2030

. February 2007. Washington, D.C.

< http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html >.

iii Office of Management and Budget. Circular A­4. September 2003. Washington, D.C.

< http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a­4.pdf >.

10­48