U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR GENERAL SERVICE

FLUORESCENT LAMPS, INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS AND

GENERAL SERVICE INCANDESCENT LAMPS

+ + + + +

PUBLIC MEETING

+ + + + +

THURSDAY,

JUNE 15, 2006

+ + + + +

1

The above-entitled matter convened at 9:00

a.m., pursuant to notice, in Room 1E-245 of the U.S.

Department of Energy Forrestal Building, 1000

Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C., Douglas

Brockman, Facilitator, presiding.

PRESENT:

DOUGLAS BROOKMAN Facilitator

BRYAN BERRINGER Department of Energy

TOM DePRIEST Department of Energy

LINDA GRAVES Department of Energy

JESSICA HARRISON Navigant Consulting, Inc.

RONALD LEWIS Department of Energy

MICHAEL McCABE Department of Energy

MAUREEN MURPHY Department of Energy

CONAN O'ROURKE Lighting Research Center

FRANCINE PINTO Department of Energy

JIM RABA Department of Energy

JIM RANNELS Department of Energy

MIKE RIVEST Navigant Consulting, Inc.

MICHAEL SCHOLAND Navigant Consulting, Inc.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
STAKEHOLDERS PRESENT:

KATIE ACKERLY American Council for an Energy

Efficient Economy

2

ANDREW DELASKI Appliance Standards Awareness

Project

THOMAS ECKMAN Northwest Power Planning

Council

GARY FERNSTROM Pacific Gas and Electric

Company

EDWARD GRAY National Electrical

Manufacturers Association

NEMA)

JOSEPH G. HOWLEY -GE Consumer and Industrial

Lighting

STEVE NADEL American Council for an Energy Efficient

Economy

KYLE PITSOR NEMA

MARK REA Lighting Research Center, Rensselaer

Polytechnic Institute

STEVEN ROSENSTOCK Edison Electric Institute

PETRA M. SMELTZER NEMA

BROOKE STAUFFER National Electrical Contractors

Association (NECA)

ALEX STRAUB The Alliance to Save Energy

DANIEL L. WHITTEN Inside Energy

DALE WORK Philips Lighting

EDWARD M. YANDEK GE Consumer and Industrial

Lighting

(202) 23411433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S

AGENDA ITEM PAGE

3

WELCOME 3

INTRODUCTIONS, AGENDA REVIEW 8

RULEMAKING OVERVIEW 16

Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR)

ANALYSES:

MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT 53

SCREENING ANALYSIS AND ENGINEERING

ANALYSIS

56

MARKUPS

SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS AND NATIONAL IMPACT

130

ANALYSIS 152

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) ANALYSES:

REVISIONS TO ANOPR ANALYSES AND LCC

SUBGROUP ANALYSIS 199

MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS 220

UTILITY IMPACT ANALYSIS 234

FINAL RULE 245

OTHER ISSUES AND COMMENTS 246

ADJOURN 250

(202) 234-4433

HEAL. R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

(9:07 a.m.)

MR. Brookman: We're going to start ladies

and gentlemen. We expect a few more people will be

joining us, but let's start.

Let me introduce Linda Graves.

MS. GRAVES: Good morning. Welcome to the

Department of Energy public meeting on fluorescent and

incandescent lamps.

Thank you for joining us.

My name is Linda Graves, Department of

Energy. I am the project manager for the lighting

team which is preparing this rulemaking.

We have a small but highly qualified team

of engineers and lighting specialists on this team.

My team members are from Navigant

Consulting and the Lighting Research Center of

Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute.

Joining us today from the Department of

Energy is Ron Lewis, supervisor of the regulatory

standards team. And I think we will also be joined

later by representatives from the office of General

Counsel and Policy and International Affairs Office.

I've asked Ron Lewis to say a few words on

the current context of the Department's efforts to

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

expedite our rulemaking.

WELCOME

MR. LEWIS: Thank you, Linda.

I don't really need a mike for this

intimate group here, I guess, but the transcriber

needs it.

So good morning. Welcome. [We]appreciate

you taking the time to be here.

We have submitted a report to Congress on

January 31st of this year that represented a very

aggressive five-year plan for doing rulemakings, and

getting those published and finished in that five-year

period of time.

And since we submitted that on January

31st, this is our third public meeting, kickoff

meeting, of a rulemaking.

So I don't know if in the history of the

program, [if it] has ever kicked off so many things so

quickly. But each of these rules, or several of these

rules, have multiple products bundled together. And

we've held three of these meetings in a short period

of time.

So it should be an indication that it

wasn't just paperwork and a report, but we are

actually executing a plan and starting up a whole lot

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6

of activities. It's really a frenzy here trying to

get everything done.

So this is important to us, and the tone

of that report to Congress and the schedule and plan

that we laid out during the year represents a sixfold

increase in the pace of getting rulemakings done from

what has been the history of the office.

And in doing that, in trying to get it all done,

these framework document meetings, kickoff meetings,

become very important to have understandings, to

understand your concerns, and so you understand our

needs, that in order to do things in the timely manner

that everybody is asking us to do these in, we need

your cooperation.

And because of the sequencing of doing all

the analysis where you have to have many things done

to feed into the next steps, timing is very important

for getting input.

The opportunities to go backwards, to

reevaluate, to start from scratch again and still make

our committed dates present real challenges.

So we're very hopeful that in going over

our thoughts here and asking you to give us your

input, and in showing you what we know and expressing

to you areas where we could use a little help, that

(202) 234-4433

(VEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7

you would be supporting us in this commitment to get

things done very quickly, and keep going forward; that

those reversals going backward to redo things are just

very painful and disruptive to the time.

If you haven't found a copy of that report

to Congress, it's on our website. And it's Chapter 7

that's got the plan and the schedule for all the

activities, if you'll take a look at it, you'll find

this activity in there, the lighting rulemaking. And

prior to that and the chapters before that, we

actually talk about some of the techniques and

efficiency measures we're taking to move things along

in a sense of urgency that people are urging us to

have.

So thank you, and if you have any

questions, if you have things that you don't

understand, we have plenty of time during the day.

It's a full day with an awful lot of slides to go

through, but it's very important that that we have

understanding.

So if there is something in a slide where

you need clarification, ask now, because we'd rather

get things on the table now and move forward.

So thanks again for your time, and we'll

be talking with you throughout the day.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
8

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Thanks, Linda.

MS. GRAVES: Thank you, Ron.

Our primary presenters today will be

Jessica Harrison, Michael Scholand and Mike Rivest of

the Navigant Consulting, Inc., and Conan O'Rourke of

the Lighting Research Center.

Our meeting facilitator is Doug Brookman

who will keep us on track and help us get through a

very ambitious agenda.

Doug will cover an overview of the process

for conducting today's meeting, and some housekeeping

items. -

I will now turn the meeting over to Doug.

INTRODUCTION, AGENDA REVIEW AND OPENING REMARKS

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

Good morning, everybody. Doug Brookman,

Public Solutions, Baltimore. Nice to see many of you

again.

How many of you have participated in these

energy efficiency standard setting processes

previously?

So most of you. A few of you have not, so

I'll go light on the housekeeping items.

The restrooms are down the hallway here at

both ends. And there's a coffee shop down below; when

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

9

we get to the coffee break I'll let you know about

that more specifically.

The general format for the meeting today,

as Ron referenced, is that the Department with the

help of contractors and other supporters have created

a significant amount of background material for you

which you have now received in your packets.

All the slides that are going to be

presented are in a big fat packet that looks like

this. Also included there is Appendix A, the EPCA

directives; the actual Federal Register notice of the

proposed rule; and a detailed rulemaking framework

document.

I think that's all that's in the packet.

It's a lot of information. As Ron said, this is an

opportunity today for all of you to participate

significantly and get your questions answered, get

your thoughts and ideas on the record, and to make a

difference for your constituency, your industry, with

respect to this rulemaking.

So the Department appreciates you being

here and participating fully.

I think all of you have a copy of the

agenda. I'm just going to run through this briefly.

(202) 234-4433

As I said, this is considered a framework

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

10

meeting where all the different kinds - many of - all

of the many different kinds of analyses and tools that

the Department will use in considering fluorescent

lamps and reflector lamps and general service

incandescent lamps are considered.

In a moment I'm going to give everybody a

chance to introduce him or herself. We're going to go

from there to having an overview of the analytic

methodology and products and product definitions.

Round about 9:35 to 11:00 the slides will

dwell on market and technology assessment.

We'll take a break mid-morning, around

about 11:00 o'clock. Following that there is going to

be a discussion on screening analysis and engineering

analysis.

We'll break for lunch midday. Following

that, immediately following lunch, we'll have markups

for equipment price determination; energy use and end

use load characterizations, life-cycle cost, and

payback analysis.

Some of this is really quite technical, so

the Department would really benefit from your comments

on these items.

Around about 2:00 o'clock shipment

25II analysis and national impact analysis.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11

We'll break mid-afternoon. We'll go from

there to revisions, to ANOPR analyses, and LCC

subgroup analysis; manufacturer impact analysis; and

then utility impact analysis and employment impact

analysis, environmental assessment, and regulatory

impact analysis.

And we at the end of the day will provide

an opportunity for people to raise any other issues

that they wish to raise, or any other questions they

wish to put on the table, and make closing remarks as

necessary, and we intend to adjourn today at 5:00

o'clock. That's our goal.

Let me encourage you - I am going to be

asking everybody to raise your hands, find a way to

get my attention so I can cue people to speak and then

also encourage discussion as the day goes on.

I'm going to ask simply that you observe

the norms that have observed over the span of time

doing these workshops. Please speak one at a time.

Please say your name for the record. Please listen as

an ally. Keep the focus here. If you have a cell

phone, please put it on vibrate. If you need to have

a sidebar conversation, you can take it out of the

room so you don't distract everybody else that's in

the room.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

12

I'm going to ask you that you share the

air time. This is not the time to read a five-page

statement into the record. You can submit that, and

it will be included in the record.

And I'm going to be queing people to speak

by name, and I also wish to encourage as much dynamic

discussion as possible. So that's how we generally

hope to conduct this session.

Questions, comments at the outset before I

ask people to introduce themselves?

Let's do introductions. If you would say

your name and your organizational affiliation. If I

start with you it'll give everybody a chance.

MR. YANDEK: My name is Ed Yandek. I'm

with GE Lighting.

MR. HOWLEY: Joe Howley, manager of

industry relations for GE Lighting.

MR. PITSOR: Kyle Pitsor with NEMA

[National Electrical Manufacturers Association] staff.

MR. WORK: Dale Work, government relations,

Philips.

MR. FERNSTROM: Gary Fernstrom, Pacific Gas

& Electric Company. I'm the appliance standards

project manager for California and the federal

251 government.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, Edison

Electric Institute.

MR. DELASKI: Andrew Delaski, Appliance

Standards Awareness Project.

MR. GRAY: Ed Gray, National Electrical

Manufacturers Association.

MR. BROOKMAN: Could I - yes, go out into

the -

MR. WHITTEN: Dan Whitten, Inside Energy.

MR. BERRINGER: Bryan Derringer, the

Department of Energy.

MS. ACKERLY: Katie Ackerly, ACEEE.

MR. RABA: Jim Raba, the Department of

Energy.

energy.

Energy.

MS. MURPHY: Maureen Murphy, Department of

MR. RANNELS: Jim Rannels, Department of

MS. SMELTZER: Petra Smeltzer, NEMA.

(Simultaneous voices)

MS. EDWARDS-JONES: Brenda Edwards-Jones

for the Department of Energy.

MS. HARRISON: Jessica Harrison, Navigant

Consulting.

(202) 234-4433

MR. SCHOLAND: Michael Scholand, Navigant

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
14

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Consulting.

MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest, Navigant

Consulting.

MR. O'ROURKE: Conan O'Rourke, Lighting

Research Center.

MS. STRAUB: Alex Straub, Alliance to Save

Energy.

MR. REA : Mark Rea, Lighting Research

Center.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman, Northwest Power

Planning Counsel.

MS. PINTO: Francine Pinto, office of

general counsel, DOE.

MR. LEWIS: Ron Lewis, DOE.

MR. BROOKMAN: So thank you, everybody.

Everybody had a chance to introduce him or

herself? I do expect a few more people will be

joining us as we go along.

This document here will be the - will

track the slides that will be projected up on the

screen. You will note as you go through these, the

Department has placed in here specific questions that

they would like to have you address that will

251) influence their ability to do this rulemaking

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

effectively and efficiently.

So I do hope that you will refer to these

materials. If anybody gets lost during this ton of

information, let us know, start waving your hands, and

we'll make sure that we try and address that.

As I understand it, we have one or two

individuals that would like to make opening remarks.

I see that Kyle Pitsor is here with us.

Kyle, do you wish to make an opening

remark?

MR. PITSOR: Thank you, Doug.

We've submitted a written statement for

the record. I would just like to note that on behalf

of the member companies in the NEMA Lamp Product

Group, we're pleased to be here today for this kickoff

informal meeting to start this process to put the

standards program back on track.

NEMA has been a strong supporter of a

robust national program for energy efficiency

standards, test procedures, and information

disclosure, and we look forward to working with the

Department and all the stakeholders to move this

process forward.

We've had a chance to review the document

that was issued two weeks ago, and we'll be prepared

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

to give some preliminary comments during the

proceedings today, both individually as well as some

collective NEMA comments, and then look forward to

supplying more written comments for the record.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thanks very

much.

Does anybody else wish to make an opening

remark?

Okay, thank you. Then let me turn it back

then to Linda Graves.

RULEMAKING OVERVIEW; ANALYTICAL METHODOLOGY; PRODUCT

DEFINITIONS

MS. GRAVES: Thank you, Doug.

Today's framework meeting marks the

beginning of the energy conservation standards

development process for fluorescent and incandescent

lamps.

In particular, we will be evaluating

general service fluorescent lamps, incandescent

reflector lamps, and general service incandescent

lamps, which include both incandescent reflector and

nonreflector lamps.

We will be discussing the definitions of

lamps further on in the presentation.

Today's public meeting is an informal way

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17

to present the assumptions, methodologies, and

analyses the Department intends to use throughout this

rulemaking.

Neither the public meeting nor framework

document are intended to be a definitive statement

with respect to any issue to be determined in the

rulemaking.

Moreover, we invite your comments today,

and especially written comments, to help guide our

analysis.

Here's some background. In general the

Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended,

provides the Department the authority to regulate

fluorescent and incandescent lamps.

Amendments to the Energy Policy and

Conservation Act contained in the Energy Policy Act of

1992, establish energy conservation standards for

residential, commercial and industrial general service

fluorescent lamps, and incandescent reflector lamps.

It also requires the Department to conduct

two cycles of rulemakings for determining whether

these standards should be amended.

In addition the Energy Policy and

Conservation Act requires the Department to initiate a

rulemaking to determine if the standards in effect for

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

18

fluorescent and incandescent lamps should be amended

so that they would be applicable to additional general

service fluorescent and general service incandescent

lamps.

The Energy Policy Act also defines terms

applicable to these lamps which in turn determines the

Department's scope of authority for this rulemaking.

On May 31st, the Department published in

the Federal Register a notice of today's public

meeting, and the availability of the framework

document which you may review on our website.

I hope you have had a chance to see that,

and have copies. If you didn't bring it with you, we

do have a few complimentary copies with Sheila at the

back table.

The legal background for this rulemaking

is covered in detail in the Federal Register notice

and the framework documents, so I'm not going to go

into that here.

We have also provided you with the

verbatim text of the relevant language from the

statute and from the Code of Federal Regulations. A

compilation of this language is contained in the

appendices section of the framework document, and this

is one of the handouts you received at the door and

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

(202) 234-4433

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
19

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

may be useful to refer to at some point.

As noted earlier, this rulemaking bundles

three products. This rulemaking addresses two of the

Energy Policy Conservation Act's backlog requirements.

DOE will review and possibly amend the

existing standards for general service fluorescent and

incandescent reflector lamps. DOE will also conduct a

determination for regulating additional general

service fluorescent and general service incandescent

lamps.

DOE will be announcing the Secretary's

decision on whether to include additional lamps in the

scope of this. That will be contained in the advance

notice of proposed rulemaking.

Now this is summarized in the chart here

on the screen. Please note that the determination on

other types of incandescent reflector lamps does

include general service incandescent reflector lamps.

We will be clarifying lamp definitions

further on in the presentation. For now I would just

point out that our use of the term, quote, general

service incandescent lamps, unquote, here refers to

nonreflector lamps.

I want to do a very quick rulemaking

overview. There are typically four stages in any

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

20

Department of Energy standards rulemaking. Each will

include a Federal Register notice to place information

in the public view.

The Department invites both oral and

written comments. The public comment period for this

stage, the framework document stage, [this] public

comment period ends June 29th.

For the advance notice of proposed

rulemaking we have a 75-day comment period, and also

for the notice of proposed rulemaking, we have a 75-

day comment period.

Also we may directly consult with

stakeholders to clarify an issue or request

information during the entire rulemaking process.

We encourage you to participate fully in

today's public meeting, and each of the public

meetings and during the comment periods.

Today we will be addressing the energy

efficiency standards rulemaking process and the

framework document.

Okay, just quickly, these next set of

slides show the analyses that are the underpinning for

each of the main stages of the rulemaking. And so if

you see below here, we've got the flowchart of the

different analyses that we conduct, and will publish

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
21

1 with the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking.

2 I'm not going to walk you through this,

3 because we'll be walking through each of these today,

4 and the presenter will explain how they all relate

5 together.

6 So here they are for the notice of

7 proposed rulemaking, which then leads to the final

8 rule.

9 Okay, here's the schedule. And as Ron

10 has indicated, we're following a very tight three-year

11 schedule. So next year in November we will publish

12 the advanced notice of proposed rulemaking. The

13 following year in October will be the notice of

14 proposed rulemaking. We expect our final rule to be

15 published in June, 2009.

16 Then there's a three-year period after we

17 publish a final rule before a rule goes into effect.

18 So we expect this rule to go into effect in June of

19 2012.

20 Regarding test procedures, the Department

21 established test procedures for fluorescent and

22 incandescent lamps on May 29th, 1997. These are now

23 in the Code of Federal Regulat i ons.

24 The test procedures use the most current

25 industry standards available at that time, and

(202) 234-4433

(VEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
22

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

incorporated these into the CFR by reference.

This includes industry standards

established by ANSI, IESNA, and CIE, to measure lamp

efficacy and color rendering index.

If you refer to appendix D of the

framework document that is included in your appendices

handout, you can see the list of industry standards

that were incorporated; it's quite a long list.

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act

defines lamp efficacy as the lumen output of a lamp

divided by its wattage expressed in lumens per watt.

Lamp efficacy takes into account the

utility of producing light in the visible range.

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act

defines color rendering index, or CRI, as the degree

of color shift objects undergo when illuminated by a

light source as compared with the color of those same

objects when illuminated by a reference source of

comparable color temperature - what a mouthful.

Each reference in the Code of Federal

Regulations cites a particular year of publication for

the industry standard to use. The test procedures

provide detailed measurement instructions for

measuring the lamp performance of all lamps covered by

this rulemaking: general service fluorescent lamps,

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

incandescent reflector lamps, and general service

incandescent lamps.

The Department does not intend to update

the test procedures for these lamps as part of this

rulemaking.

Now I'm going to hand off the presentation

to Jessica Harrison and Conan O'Rourke who will walk

us through the product definitions.

You may want to have your copy of the

appendices handy as we go through the definitions.

Thank you.

MR. O'ROURKE: Good morning. Thank you,

Linda.

The next couple of slides I'm going to go

over the definitions for fluorescent lamps, and then

Jessica will handle discussing the definitions for

incandescent lamps.

So I first wanted to start off with what

the definition in EPCA for a fluorescent lamp is: a

low pressure mercury electric discharge source,

fluorescing that transforms energy into light.

And it's broken into four separate

categories. It describes four feet medium bi-pin

lamps with straight shape greater than or equal to 28

watts, it describes medium bi-pin U-shaped lamps

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
24

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

greater than or equal to 28 watts.

For the next (*** 9:32:34) category there

is recessed double contact rapid start; high output

lamp, with a nominal current level of 800 milliamps;

and the last category is single pin instant start

lamp, also known as slimline, it's greater or equal to

52 watts.

Figure 2 right here is hiding the last

part of this. It actually says C78.3. So if you want

to write that'-in your handouts.

But the importance of this is your last

two categories, the definition is related to a dated

standard. It's talking about the lamps that are in

C78.1 and .3 in 1991. So you'll see in a moment how

that impacts coverage of our products.

So how does this impact coverage of

products? Well, these categories are a subset of all

fluorescent lamps. And these are the only ones we're

talking about are straight shaped, 48-inch medium bipin, we considered these lamps on the market. Some

examples, 32 watt T8, 34 watt T-12s, 40 watt T-10s.

These are lamps that are in the current ANSI standard.

For the 8-foot lamps it's only these four

lamp types, because these are the only ones that meet

the definitions that were in the 1991 standard. The

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

95 watt 800 milliamp T-12, the 113 watt T-12, and also

the 60 and 75-watt instant-start lamps.

For the U-shaped and straight shape lamps

since they are not tied to a dated standard it would

include all products that are currently available on

the market, and in the current ANSI standards.

Moving on next to further breaking down

the definition of general service fluorescent, it's

described as a fluorescent lamp which is used to

satisfy the majority of the fluorescent applications

but does not include the following list of eight

conditions: it is not designed to be promoted for lamp

growth; it is not designed for cold weather

applications; it's a colored fluorescent lamp, and by

colored they mean the CRI - that is, a colored lamp

would be a CRI less than 45 or if it had a correlated

color temperature less than 2,500 K or greater than

6,600 K.

If it's impact resistant. If it's a

reflectorized or aperture lamp. If it's designed to

be used for reprographic equipment, or if primarily

used to produce ultraviolet light. And the most

limiting one is if it has a color rendering index

greater than or equal to 82.

(202) 234-4433

So just to give an illustration of how

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

this would impact the coverage, I'm taking just one

example here for the 32 watt, under straight shape,

and I'm going to show you how those exemptions would

impact coverage.

And this is just meant to be an

illustration of how this would happen. The numbers

aren't necessarily that important.

So far we've looked at the products that

are on the market, and we've identified 2,300

fluorescent lamps, lamp models, currently from 14

manufacturers:

This one, we're just talking about 224 T-8

32-watt lamps that are available, and I'll just give

you the numbers. There were none that were marketed

for plant growth or cold temperature that we could

tell. One of them was considered color due to a high

color temperature above 6,600. There were 11 impact

resistant models, and 104 models have a CRI of greater

than or equal to 82. Forty one models didn't have

enough information from the product literature to be

able to tell if it was covered or not. So if we're

able to get that information, we could determine if

there would be more than this 67 models that we would

consider to be covered.

So hopefully this gives some idea of how

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
27

1

2

3

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

these definitions impact this rulemaking.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Yes, Steve Rosenstock,

EEI. Just looking at that chart of page 18, slide 18,

so just looking at this and looking at the

definitions, I'll say the T-5 fluorescent lamps, the

2-foot kind of U-shape T-5 lamps are not covered by

this rulemaking?

MR. O'ROURKE: Correct, due to the base

type. It doesn't have a medium bi-pin.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Right, it's a four pin.

Thank you.

MR. FERNSTROM: Gary Fernstrom, Pacific Gas

& Electric Company.

Conan, it's been my observation that the

color temperature of lamps used generally in

commercial lighting applications have been improving

over time.

So those lamps with a CRI greater than or

equal to 82 would not be covered?

MR. O'ROURKE: That is correct.

MR. PITSOR: Kyle Pitsor with NEMA.

Following up on Gary's question, the definition here

refers to lamps with a color rendering equal or

greater not being suitable for nongeneral lighting

applications as defined 10 or 12 years ago.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

And since that time there has been a high

volume increase in those lamps, and for going into

general lighting applications. And so we think this

is an area that at least should be addressed relative

to this rulemaking given the Department's broader

authority under EPCA to address adding products for

coverage. And we will be prepared to send up some

comments as part of this proceeding to suggest how

that should be expanded.

MR. BROOKMAN: And can you summarize for us

now just briefly? Or do you want to wait for a

written statement?

MR. FERNSTROM: Well, if I could make a

comment about that. Gary Fernstrom from PG&E.

We're finding that a large number of lamps

in general service have CRIs equal to or greater than

82. Therefore if we want the regulation to be

meaningful in anyway it ought to cover this category

of lamps.

I agree with Kyle.

MR. PITSOR: We'll be submitting some

recommendations as to how that should be modified.

Because there are, as Gary indicated, products that

are in general lighting that are greater than 82 that

as the market has changed over the last 12 - 15 years,

(202) 234.4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
29

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

that this rulemaking should address.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Kyle.

Do you wish to comment?

MR. YANDEK: My name is Ed Yandek with GE

Lighting.

I would like to comment on the standards

incorporated by reference, because I think it's been

mentioned that this is probably a good time to make

that comment.

One of my roles is also chairman of the

American National Standards Lighting group standards

program with the responsibility for most of the

standards that have been incorporated by reference in

terms of ANSI definitions.

I'm also heavily involved in the other

standards as well.

While we would agree with the Department

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

that there is no significant need to consider a change

in test procedures, because the state of the art then

is pretty much the state of the art today, we do think

there is an issue with continuing to reference

obsolete withdrawn, reaffirmed, revised, and

consolidated standards.

So one of the things we would like to do

is work with the Department as part of this rulemaking

(202) 234-4433

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

to resolve that issue and come up with a better

process for the future, because we are required

periodically to revise these standards. And in many

cases the content will not change, but the revisions,

the annotations change. And in some cases then it is

very burdensome for people to try and obtain obsolete

versions of these standards that have been withdrawn

or are no longer publicly available.

Just to give you a feel of the 11

standards that were incorporated by reference in the

initial final rule, three have been consolidated and

superseded; one has been withdraw; five have been

superseded; and only two are still current in terms of

their available reference.

So I realize the issue is, we don't want

to get into a change of the definitions, and we can

work to make sure that doesn't happen. But we ought

to try and update the references, and then figure a

way so that periodically in a nonburdensome way we can

do this going forward.

MR. BROOKMAN: And Ed, you heard at the

outset, both Ron Lewis and Linda Graves talk about how

the Department has a real interest in making this go

quickly, on kind of an expedited schedule.

Do you think what you are proposing will

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
31

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

slow them down?

MR. YANDEK: Not at all. We have done an

analysis on it, and I think in working with whoever

they would indicate, be it one of the consultants, we

can handle this very quickly.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So these

comments are very helpful.

And final comments before I turn it back

to Conan.

Steve Nadel.

MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel, ACAAA. First,

somewhat of a question and a comment. On slide 20,

you show the unknown ones as being screened out.

Aren't those truly really unknown, and some will be

screened out and some won't be, because they only get

screened out if you have evidence they fall into one

of those categories?

MR. O'ROURKE: This would come under the

state of compliance, and this process is not going to

determine these models are in and these models are

out. This has to happen on a manufacturer by

manufacturer basis.

So this is just an example of the

information that is out there, and what we can gather

at this time. And we'll use some of this information

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

32

through these analyses in this rulemaking process.

It's just meant to be here for illustrative purposes.

MR. NADEL: I understand. But do you agree

with me that the unknown ones, some will wind up being

in, some will be out.

MR. O'ROURKE: Correct.

MR. NADEL: But they're not all screened

out?

MR. O'ROURKE: Correct.

MR. BROOKMAN: Illustrative. So I think

that then points to allowing him to continue with the

presentation.

MR. O'ROURKE: I just want to make a quick

comment to Gary Fernstrom and to Kyle about the CRI.

CRIs of greater than 82 tend to be more

efficacious anyway. So it'd only be at a higher level

than the ones that would be considered under this

rulemaking. Just as a general comment.

MR. FERNSTROM: Thank you; that's good

news.

MR. O'ROURKE: I guess this brings us to

slide 21 for item one. We handled some of this

already, Doug. I don't know if there is any more we

want to talk about.

2511 MR. BROOKMAN: So then the Department

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

welcomes comment on the scope of the rulemaking under

the statutory requirements to consider additional

general service fluorescent lamps. And we've begun on

this.

Any additional comments? Gary? No.

Kyle? Okay. Andrew Delaski.

MR. DELASKI: Andrew Delaski, Appliance

Standards Awareness Project.

I've got a question about the process the

Department is using for determining the scope.

I think you have to limit it at the outset

that the intention is to determine the scope in the

ANOPR, to publish in the ANOPR your determination of

additional products that will be covered through

rulemaking.

Is that correct?

MS. GRAVES: That's correct.

MR. BROOKMAN: So Linda, for the record,

speak close to the microphone there, please.

MS. GRAVES: Yes, if you go back to the

slide where the categories that we are to consider

whether or not additional should be - where we should

- whether or not we should expand it - applies to the

general service incandescent lamps.

MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew?

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

34

MR. DELASKI: Okay, but also for general

service fluorescent lamps. The determination stands

to apply to other types as well. So there is the

authority to expand the scope for the fluorescents as

well.

MR. O'ROURKE: In fluorescent the

definition is so defined, it's a very small amount of

products; it's extremely defined to a very narrow

range. There is not much else in those products.

In the incandescent it's wide open.

MR. DELASKI: Right. But in either case my

question is more a process question as opposed to -

the question is, what is the opportunity for

stakeholders to have input in the Department's process

before you come out with what I suppose is a final

determination in the ANOPR stage.

But the ANOPR we think was being early in

the rulemaking process. You still have to have a

proposal after that. But in this case the scope is a

very important aspect of the decision, yet we're

looking at what is essentially a final type decision

at the ANOPR phase.

Can someone address that?

MR. DePRIEST: Tom DePriest, office of

2511 general counsel, DOE. No, I would disagree. The

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

35

ANOPR is the preliminary stage, but as you know from

other previous rulemakings, what we put in the ANOPR

is out there for comment and input from stakeholders.

If we announce - we will make some sort of

determination at that time because that is the time to

do it about the scope of the rulemaking. But if we

miss something, or if we've blown it in some way, we

rely on your folks to let us know, and then as you

know, the notice of proposed rulemaking is somewhat

more refined and focused, and then you know we tweak

things at the end for the final rule.

So the ANOPR is merely the first step. I

would not say that that shuts all the doors for any

more discussion about the scope of the rulemaking.

MR. DELASKI: Well, that's good to hear,

and that's been an expectation for most - through all

the rulemaking. This is somewhat different, because

there is this question of a determination of coverage.

So what I'm hearing you say, Tom, is that that

determination is not final in the ANOPR phase; that

the Department could determine after the ANOPR phase,

based on comment, that you're going to change the

scope.

MR. DePRIEST: Right. I mean witness the

slide 20 I guess, the previous slide. The 41 models

(202) 234-4433

NEAP R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

unknown. Obviously we would hope that in the course

of this rulemaking we will be getting additional

information about a lot of these products that we are

not able to obtain at this very, very preliminary

stage.

The framework document is just sort of our

first - you know, we've looked at it for the first

time, and this is how the lighting world looks to us

right now, but we're going to explore it over the next

three years with the stakeholders, and refine our view

and our understanding, and that will be reflected in

the ongoing rulemaking process as we proceed to the

ANOPR, the NOPR and the final rule.

MR. DELASKI: Okay. I guess my observation

is that it's going to be a challenge for the

Department. because your analysis depends on what's

in and what's out of the rulemaking. If something is

determined to be out of the rulemaking, and then you

get a comment saying it should be in, then there is

going to be backfilling to do which addresses your

issue of the schedule.

So getting this issue of the scope of the

rulemaking down early I think is - I'm glad to hear it

will be open throughout the process, but it's going to

be important to get it right early.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
37

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis.

MR. LEWIS: Ron Lewis, DOE.

I guess that's why general counsel is here

is to give a specific response to things from a legal

basis.

From the operational basis of trying to

change the pace at which we get these things done and

get them actually done, the starting point of this is

very difficult, some of the people in this room

actually were involved in the negotiations and the

work on EPACT '92 that had the specific lamp stuff,

and know what happened afterwards after a lot of work

was done on it.

We're starting out with a statute that is

very specific. And asking to - we're being asked to

revisit that statute and look at it.

The things that are in that statute that

we're starting - and we included deliberately in the

packet, the language that is there, that it's not by

accident that the slides are in the presentation is

the way that it is based on the statutes as they're

written, and the language that's in the packet.

What your input is, I would hope that if

you have strong feelings and input that you would give

it now; that we need to get the best input we can now

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neairgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

38

to minimize that going backwards, and even if the

ANOPR and NOPR process are refinements before a final

rule is published, trying to get the things on the

table, and trying to deal with them early on is very

important to us, so we don't want anybody holding

back.

If you've got some - when you read what

the statute says, and you look at what we've done on

the presentation here, and what we've done in the

document , we're interested in your true response to

those, to be helpful as we move forward, and we'll be

working frequently with the general counsel on that.

So the comments are well received, and we

really appreciate it. And I encourage you to where

you've got those feelings and you've got the thoughts,

to submit them early on, so we can keep moving

forward, and not deliberately self inflict a wound of

having to go back and redo things.

So thank you, Andrew.

MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Nadel.

MR. NADEL: Yes.

Regarding the scope I wanted to make a

broader comment, and expanding on what Kyle and Gary

said.

2511 As I see the intent of the law, it's to

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

39

cover the major types of general service lamps.

These evolve over time. We've already talked about

the CRI greater than 82.

I'd also recommend including within the

scope the T5 as well as the T8 lamps, saying that

those should go to the ANOPR stage for screening. We

may decide that they're too much of a niche product;

there's not energy savings available. But to decide

on very narrow legal criteria that it's more than 10

years old, that they're excluded, doesn't make sense.

I think there should be a consideration of these

general service lamps going forward.

And I fully expect that some ultimately

will not be regulated, but it will be based on energy

saving criteria, not on extremely narrow legalistic

criteria.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

So Conan.

MR. O'ROURKE: Thank you very much. I'll

turn it over to Jessica for incandescent lights.

MS. HARRISON: Hi, I'm Jessica Harrison.

I'm going to talk a bit about incandescent lamps.

So just as you note here on this slide the

incandescent lamp definition includes both reflector

and nonreflector lamps. I'm going to discuss the

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
40

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

definition of reflector lamps in a slide to come, so

we'll just focus on incandescent right now.

The definitions again provide DOE with

authority to cover a subset of incandescent lamps that

are available in the market.

Note that the first bullet specifies

particular wattages, bases and voltage ranges. With

regard to bases, EPCA specifies E26 medium screw

bases, and DOE is proposing to look at the medium

screw base definition that was in EPACT 2005.

This includes four medium screw-based

types, single contact, double contact, skirted and

extended skirt.

So now looking at the definition of

reflector lamp. So again we have some additional

detail apart from voltage and base.

There are some notable exclusions on this

slide. DOE has defined several of these terms in the

1997 final rule which you'll find in your handout in

the appendix. And I'm going to get into some of the

particular definitions for reflector lamps.

So you see we have a definition for

colored incandescent lamps; then you have a definition

for rough or vibration surfaces, and they are quite

particular and detailed. Again they are available in

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
41

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

the appendix that we've handed out.

And with regard to ER and BR lamps, you'll

note the definition for ER lamps exempts all ER lamps.

However BR talks about certain diameters and

wattages. And again these are available in the

appendix, the full definition is there.

We realize that any change in standards on

incandescent reflector lamps might impact the usage of

ER/BR lamps, so we're going to open this up for

discussion with Doug facilitating here.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

So the Department welcomes your comments.

As you can see on the slide there, on how a more

stringent standard for incandescent reflector lamps

might impact the market share of ER and BR lamps.

Kyle Pitsor.

MR. PITSOR: Well, I think as the

Department noted in its framework document, there has

been a shift over the last 12 years since the 1992 act

in terms of the shipments of these lamps that have

increased, some lamps that were exempted in the ER/BR

categories.

And as the Department used its authority

previously to place a wattage cap of 65 watts on these

2511 products, we also think the Department should use that

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neairgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

42

authority relative to this rulemaking and consider

narrowing that exemption, a narrowing of an exemption

that has been appropriated by the state of California,

by the state of Massachusetts, by Rhode Island, by

Washington State, and is under consideration in New

York State.

It's a consensus narrowing that has been

endorsed by NEMA and the American Council for an

Energy Efficient Economy. And we will propose to

submit that for the purposes of this proceeding for

Department consideration.

Thank you.

MR. BROOKMAN: Gary.

MR. FERNSTROM: Gary Fernstrom, PG&E. We

agree with Kyle.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. We appreciate, I

appreciate and the Department appreciate, affirmative

comments, signals about where our agreements occur.

Steve.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock.

Just for the other stakeholders, just what

does the narrowing incorporate? What's the new - what

does it say, if you can summarize it, just to give

other people references.

MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Nadel.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

43

MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel. I'm going to

somewhat oversimplify.

But it limits the exemption to typically

products 50 watts and less and for many but not all

categories also 65 watts.

What it means is, the 85, 120, all these

higher wattage ER and BR would no longer be allowed.

And I'm oversimplifying. I'm sure I'm

getting some slight nuances wrong, but that is the

general intent.

Joe, do you have more in your memory than

I do?

MR. DELASKI: That's good for this venue.

But if anybody wants to see it, one can look at Title

XX in California law or any of those other states that

Kyle mentioned; it's part of the statute or

regulations in those states.

MR. BROOKMAN: So that last comment was

from Andrew Delaski.

Joe is all set. Yes, Mike, find a

microphone. Mike Rivest.

MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest, Navigant

Consulting. I guess what's not clear to me is what it

is in DOE's authority to do and not to do. Some of

25 II these recommendations made may not be within the

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
44

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

confinements. Am I misunderstanding?

MR. BROOKMAN: Gary?

MR. FERNSTROM: Gary Fernstrom, PG&E.

Well, I guess it doesn't matter to us, because if it's

outside of DOE's authority we'll feel perfectly free

to advocate for state standards, and industry has

indicated they would prefer to have uniform national

standards, so it would seem to me that it would

behoove DOE to try and get it within its authority, if

it isn't, in -order to cover these ER and BR products.

MR. BROOKMAN: Kyle Pitsor.

MR. PITSOR: Just to supplement, I guess,

when DOE has used its authority that Congress has

given it in 42 US Code 6292-19 to regulate the wattage

of ER lamps, ER lamps previously, and it's that broad

authority that the Department would consider to use

its flexibility, especially when it's provided with a

consensus proposal that has such wide support from all

stakeholders.

MR. BROOKMAN: Steve.

MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel. Just to clarify a

little further, I think DOE has two forms of

discretion here. One, at the moment we're talking

about ER and BR lamps, which are not defined in the

law, and DOE has defined that through regulation.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

45

What Kyle is suggesting is that we revise

that definition to effectively exclude a narrower

range of products.

DOE has set a definition; they can change

the definition. That one seems pretty

straightforward.

We're also suggesting, and some of this

relates back to fluorescent, that DOE has the

authority to regulate additional types of fluorescent,

general service, reflector, incandescent, whatever

type of lamp it is, in the law, and that gives DOE the

authority.

When you have the law's definitions and

the law's ability to expand coverage, the question is,

does one trump the other effectively? Can you expand

the coverage beyond those very narrow definitions?

We at ACEEE would believe that DOE does

have that authority. I guess the alternative would be

to go back to Congress and change it, or as Gary

pointed out, the states would do it.

We're trying to come up with a way to have

a clean process where everything gets considered at

one place, and we hope DOE can find a way to go along

with that.

251 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

46

MS. HARRISON: Okay, I'll move on to the

definition of general service incandescent lamps.

This is another term critical to the rulemaking.

And you see that they have the same

voltage and base specification that was similar to the

incandescent lamp definition.

Additionally, there are terms that are

exempted for particular applications.

The majority of these terms remain

undefined. Given that the definition determines

coverage of standards, DOE's interested in providing

clarification where it's needed.

One definition, for example, where there

is a lot of product on the market, and the definition

may be somewhat ambiguous, is the definition of

decorative or showcase service lamps.

So I'm going to provide sort of a visual

summary - oh, sorry, stop here on some discussion on

the clarification of terms for general service

incandescent lamps.

Doug?

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. So, yes, Gary?

MR. FERNSTROM: Gary Fernstrom, PG&E. I

guess it doesn't make so much difference to us what

products are exempted for specialty purposes.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

47

Where it begins to become an issue is when

products intended for specialty purposes find their

way into the market in prevalence.

So I would encourage the use of exemptions

for products that are indeed specialty products and

have relatively small market share. But if some of

these deemed-to-be specialty products, like the old ER

and BR lamps find their way into the mass market, then

they shouldn't be exempted; they should be covered by

the regulation.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

Other comments on these exemption

categories in the statutory definitions?

Steve Rosenstock, and then to Steve Nadel.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Again, just for comment

for local purposes following up on Gary there, it

might be interesting if possible as part of the study

to see if there is any sort of substitution effect

going on out there; for example, if for some reason

the consumer can't find a general service

incandescent, using a compact fluorescent lamp still

might fit into a general service lamp or overhead

fixture.

Again, it might be of interest to see what

2511 happens if, like Gary was saying, some of these

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

48

specialty lamps, which are kind of in general

circulation, -are used as a substitution effect based

on prices.

MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Nadel?

MR. NADEL: Yes, is this the place to make

additional comment about reflector lamps besides ER

and BR, or do you want to cover that later?

MS. HARRISON: We can go into that now.

MR. NADEL: Okay, I'm waiting for the

appropriate point.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

MR. NADEL: The other comment I'd have with

reflector lamps is, the current coverage is for lamps

2.75 inches and greater.

A number of the states have started

regulating lamps 2.25 inches and greater; in other

words they are now including the R-20, BR-20, et

cetera, which were excluded.

I'd recommend that these are widely used;

that there is now a model in terms of what the states

are doing; and that DOE expand the coverage to include

the 2.25 and 2.75 inch lamps.

(202) 234-4433

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

Ron Lewis?

MR. LEWIS: Ron Lewis, DOE.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

49

There have been several requests or

comments so far this morning to expand things in areas

where the statute has specific language or definitions

have been given for products.

If in your comments that any of you give,

public comments that you submit, if you have some of

those, and you can tie that to the areas where you

think DOE has the authority, if you tie that to the

areas that you think the legal rationale why DOE can

do this, it would be helpful to know your perspective,

and your logic and rationale in that way.

So if you can provide that, I would

encourage it.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

Other comments on the exemption

categories?

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

MS. HARRISON: Okay. So now I'll give you

sort of a visual summary. This slide varies somewhat

from the one you have in your packet. The one in your

packet is probably more accurate. So I'll talk to

this, but view your packet here.

You'll see here that the term,

incandescent lamp, is generally made up of two types

of lamps, reflector lamps and non-reflector lamps, and

the general service incandescent lamps are a

(202) 234-4433

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

50

subcategory of either of these distinctions, reflector

and non-reflector.

I addition you'll note that we have

wattage ranges specified for each definition. For

reflector lamps we have low wattage and high wattage,

so 40 to 205 watts for low wattage, and for high

wattage, above 205 watts.

For non-reflector lamps, the Statue gives

a definition of 30 to 199 watts, but when we look at

general service incandescent lamps, again, I'd refer

to your packet rather than the slide, we have another

set of wattage ranges, and those are for reflective

lamps that follow the same wattage ranges as the nongeneral service incandescent wattage ranges, and for

non-reflective lamps we have a low wattage, from 30 to

199, and for high wattage that's above 199.

So for the purposes of this rulemaking,

we'll be looking at reflector lamps, existing

standards that are for low wattage. So 40 to 205

watts.

In addition we'll be looking at - this is

where the determination comes in - for additional

general service incandescent lamps. And we'll be

looking at both reflector lamps, high wattage

reflector lamps that meet the definition of general

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

51

service lamps, and we'll be looking at non-reflector

lamps that meet the definition of general service

incandescent lamps.

I hope that was clear. We can talk about

that in the next discussion point if there is any

clarification you guys need for that.

So finally because there is currently no

standards for non-reflector general service

incandescent lamps, it's useful to review the bulb

types and diameters that EPCA's definition covers.

We have here an illustrative set. It's

not an exhaustive list. And ultimately DOE has to

determine which if any of the lamp shapes it's going

to set standards for if it makes a positive

determination.

A couple of these lamps may not be covered

because of general service incandescent lamp

applications, and just another thing to note here, we

believe that A line lamps constitute the majority of

the market when we're talking about general service

incandescent lamps.

And with that I will leave it for

discussion.

MR. BROOKMAN: So specific comments on the

issue of product coverage; specifically the

(202) 2344433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

52

requirement to consider additional general service

incandescent lamps.

Yes, Steve Rosenstock.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock.

Yeah, again, looking at this chart on page

29, especially about residential application, you

know, obviously the A19 and G lamps are probably going

to be the most - in a lot of cases, and then of course

the reflector lamps.

Are you going to try to look at market

share as part of the determination?

MS. HARRISON: Yes. Shipment information

would be really helpful here.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Okay.

MS. HARRISON: Okay.

MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments on product

coverage? No. Okay.

MR. SCHOLAND: I am Mike Scholand from

Navigant Consulting, and I'm going to take us for a

few slides here starting with slide 31 through ANOPR

analyses.

As Linda Graves mentioned earlier this

morning, there are eight analyses that are conducted

for the ANOPR, which I believe is scheduled in the

2511 regulatory agenda for November of 2007.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

53

The first one we 're going to talk about

here is the market and technology assessment.

MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

So the purpose of the market - well,

sorry, the market technology assessment is one of the

sort of foundational analyses of an energy

conservation standard. It gives the Department a

context for the rulemaking it's undertaking.

That said, the purpose of this analysis is

to characterize the market, including the

manufacturers, the key players, to assess the

technology, identifying measures that improve the

efficacy of lamps.

So these objectives are achieved by,

number one, preparing a manufacturer's database to

understand those entities operating in the United

States, and studying the characteristics of those

manufacturers.

Second, to prepare an estimate of national

shipments of the various lamp types; that is to say,

the volume of units sold by all companies operating in

the U.S. market on aggregate.

Third, identifying technologies and

measures that can improve the efficacy of the covered

lamps.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

54

And finally, four, generating a current

picture of the regulatory and nonregulatory

initiatives that are intended to transform the market,

such as state regulatory action and voluntary programs

like Energy Star.

So overall the market and technology

assessment characterizes - will characterize the

fluorescent and incandescent lamp market, industry and

provide information that is used throughout the

rulemaking.

There are, in addition to this, two

critical outputs from the market and tech which I'll

talk about on this slide. The flow diagram shows two

outputs from the market and tech: product classes and

baseline mode-is.

Product classes are how the Department

groups together similar products for regulatory

purposes. They're created by the type of energy used,

which for lighting obviously is electricity, and B, y

the capacity of the product for any other performancerelated feature that justifies different standard

levels such as features affecting consumer utility.

The Department generally sets one

efficiency standard for each product class. In some

cases, similarity between product classes may mean

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

55

that certain representative product classes can be

selected for analysis, and then standard levels

identified for the representative product classes can

be scaled to other product classes that weren't

analyzed.

My colleagues, Conan O'Rourke and Jessica

Harrison, will be talking about those for fluorescent

and incandescent lamps respectively later this

morning.

And then the other item, the other box,

baseline models, are essentially reference points

against which the Department can measure changes

resulting from energy conservation standards.

The baseline model is selected as a

representative unit for analysis in the engineering

analysis and the life-cycle cost assessment, and is

selected from a representative product class.

The baseline model represents the

characteristics of the least efficient, or the most

typical equipment for that product class. And where a

standard exists, such as fluorescent lamps or

incandescent reflector lamps, the baseline model is

selected at the standard level.

Finally I want to talk briefly about

technology options and design options, which are going

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

56

in the vertical direction, into the screening analysis

and engineering analysis which we'll be talking about

later this morning.

The technology options are basically all

the ways you can make a lamp more energy efficient,

and they can include tangible things that are

commercially available, and they can include

theoretical things that don't yet exist.

The screening analysis will screen out -

there's four criteria which Conan will be talking

about after this talk - screen out certain technology

options that are not feasible for analysis. And so

those technology options that are approved by the

screening analysis become design options that are then

considered in the engineering analysis.

But it all originates back in the market

and technology assessment. So that gives you a sense

for the importance of this analysis.

So Conan?

MR. O'ROURKE: Thank you, Mike.

I'm going to go over the four classes for

fluorescent lamps, and Jessica will follow up by doing

product classes for incandescent lamps.

So I'll first start off with the existing

product classes, set up on the EPACT 1992 for

(202) 234-4433

(VEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
57

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

fluorescent lamps.

There are 8 product classes, and we're

looking based on those definitions we talked about

already - four foot bi-pin, two foot U-shaped, eightfoot slim line, and eight-foot high output lamps.

They each have a dividing range where the

product classes are separated. So for the four foot

and two foot lamps, we have greater than 35 watts or

less than 35 watts.

The greater than has a minimum CRI

requirement of 69, whereas the less than has a minimum

of 45.

For the two four-foot product classes, the

LPW requirement is the same: 75 lumens per watt, and

for the two-foot shape, it's 68 and 64 lumens per

watt.

For all of the eight-foot products it's

all set at 80 lumens per watt as a minimum.

But since the market has evolved, as

you've indicated earlier in the discussion, there are

more diverse products in the market now. So we took

an attempt to look at lamp diameter as a further

separation for product class.

In this case we separated it into greater

than T8 or less than or equal to T8, and this gets at

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

58

the sense of utility in the sense that this is a

lamp filling out replacements when we do the analysis.

And many ballasts do not operate both T8 and T12

lamps, so we look at those two as separate criteria.

But I also used a range of greater than or

less than to help if any new products come on the

market. They may be at a different diameter, and

could operate on those types of ballasts. So we

didn't call off the specific shapes in this product

class.

For the less than equal to T8 we used the

existing separation for product classes at 35 for both

of these two-foot and four-foot shapes. And later on

I'll ask for your comment on that as well.

For the eight-foot again, the T12 is the

only lamps in the 1991 standard that meets the

definition, s'o we did not develop any more product

classes in those two product categories.

MR. BROOKMAN: So then I'm going to back up

the 34 in a moment, but not quite now.

As we see in slide 37, comment on the

modified product classes that the Department is

considering for general service fluorescent lamps, on

the two slides that Conan just went over.

(202) 234-4433

MR. PITSOR: Kyle Pitsor with NEMA.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

59

Relative to this table of proposed modification, we

see that the proposal seems reasonable to us.

However, in the case of some of the T8 categories, we

do propose to submit some comments and review the

wattage for the minimum CRIs that are proposed there

for the new categories.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, yes Gary?

MR. FERNSTROM: Gary Fernstrom, PG&E. As

Steve Nadel mentioned earlier, it might be useful to

also consider T5 lamps.

MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Nadel.

MR. NADEL: And this is also a place to

potentially include 8-foot T8s.

MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments on these two

slides, and the comment that is on page 35 or 36.

I'd like to ask you to flip back one slide

if you would to 34. Following Mike Scholand's

overview on the purpose and method and the

relationship of the analysis, that flowchart there,

the Department as it notes in the box would welcome

information on shipments, manufacturing costs,

distribution channels, and estimates in market shares

for lamps considered in this rulemaking, and they have

a particular interest in how the data is aggregated or

25I disaggregated I should say.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

60

So any additional comments as it relates

to that question, and labeled item five on page 34 of

the slides?

Kyle Pitsor.

MR. PITSOR: Kyle Pitsor with NEMA. We'll

be submitting some market trend information for that,

for these commercial and the industrial side,

residential and commercial, I mean, residential and

commercial market trends for these different groups.

MR. BROOKMAN: Will it be possible for you

to disaggregate along the lines of the product classes

that are featured here?

MR. PITSOR: We'll have to assess the

possibility of that.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

MR. PITSOR: We'll be looking at current

collective information which obviously is not broken

out in this categorization.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, Ron Lewis?

MR. LEWIS: If there is a way, realizing

that the data that's already been collected, if it

wasn't in those groupings, you can't accurately

portray things, but if you could - if there is a

simple manner, to take a rough estimate even on the

data that you've gotten, not that's a guidance of the

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neairgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

61

potential fit to the new form, even though it wasn't

collected in that way, anything that you could give us

as further insights to the data that you've actually

got would be helpful, and not to go back and have to

redo everything with great precision and cause a lot

of confusion and work for people.

But if there was a way to give us a good

indicator in a simplified manner based on the data

that you have, anything you could provide in a timely

basis would be really helpful.

MR. BROOKMAN: So let me ask everybody to

go to slide 37 if you would. And we already received

one comment on CRI distinctions. So any additional

comments specifically on CRI and wattage for existing

product classes.

Joe.

MR. HOWLEY: Let me just reiterate - this

is Joe Howley from GE - to reiterate what Kyle said,

the new T8 categories that the wattage limits may not

be appropriate.

They simply took the T12 wattage limits

and applied it to the T8 category. We haven't done a

lot of analysis on this yet. But just first looking

at this, it seems like it may be inappropriate.

(202) 234-4433

For instance I don't know how many T8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

62

lamps are actually designed - four-foot T8 lamps -

over 35 watts. There may not be any, although I did

see a slide with a 44 watt lamp?

MR. O'ROURKE: We found two that were above

- two 36 watt lamps.

MR. HOWLEY: Okay. They're unusual lamps.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

Okay, back to Conan.

MR. O'ROURKE: Next I'm going to discuss

about representative product classes based on these

product class discussions. And the intent here is to

try to minimize the analysis, and extend where

appropriate analysis from one product class to another

product class.

So what we've chosen here, out of these,

given the four-foot linear lamp greater than T8, we

have a wattage distinction of 35 watts, so the intent

was to try to pick one of them and extend it to the

other product class related to that type of lamp.

So this slide gives us some examples of a

baseline type of lamp, and not an actual model of a

lamp; that will have to be later selected that will

meet the minimum criteria if there is one, fluorescent

lamp, we have for the minimum criteria, either for the

45 CRI or the efficacy requirement, the 75 lumens per

(202) 234.4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
63

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

watt.

For the less than or equal to T8, we are

looking at the 32 watt T8 lamp. For the two-foot Ushaped greater than T8, we're looking at 40-watt T12.

And for the less than or equal to T8, we're looking

at the 31 watt.

And for the slimline 8-foot we're looking

at the 75 watt for the analysis, and for the high

output T8 we're looking at the 95 watt as the

representative for the class.

So I guess we have later on this

discussion we have a point for comment. But it's a

number of slides removed. So if you would like to

give some comment at this point it might be

appropriate.

MR. BROOKMAN: On product classes and other

comments related to slide 38. Joe?

MR. HOWLEY: Yes, on the baseline product,

for the second category, we would note that there is

no color determinant there, you may want to add the

color designator.

We'd certainly expect you to be using the

cool white lamp as the baseline lamp for the 34 watt

48 T12 RS, and on the - in fact on the entire

category, the four-foot linear category, we may make

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
64

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

the argument that you should use the F40 cool white

energy saver lamp, the 34-watt lamp, as the base lamp

for the whole category. Because people either look at

replacing lamps within that fixture, or they look at

simple retrofits of the lamp in the ballast. But

still the baseline for that two by four technology,

two by four picture technology, is still the F40 cool

white.

And we would suggest that should be used

as the baseline for all four of those categories.

And similar the next four categories all

should be a cool white energy saver T12 lamp. And

finally for the 8-foot slimline, the 8-foot high

output, they also should be energy saver versions as

you have noted there, but should be using the cool

white versions of those as well, so it's consistent

throughout all baseline products that we're talking

about energy saving cool light T12 technology that

still represents the baseline as you represented it,

the least efficient technology available in those

categories tends to be the energy saver cool white

kind of technology.

MR. O'ROURKE: Just an additional comment

on using the one product class, one representative

baseline for all four. There is a difference in

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

65

utility. It's not just a lamp to lamp replacement.

There's more involved, so that will be something

you'll have to consider as part of the process.

MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest.

MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest, Navigant

Consulting.

Just to go back on how the analysis is

conducted, so that I can sort of chime in on the

implications of what you're suggesting as the baseline

lamp, by aggregating together the 34 and the T8 32,

what that could do is, by putting together those two

product categories, it means there would be only one

standard level set for both of those categories. And

if the economics showed that the efficacy can be moved

to that level of a T8 for example, then it may become

impossible for a T12 technology to reach that level.

So the implication of collapsing those two

together could be the elimination of the T12 lamp.

So that's why, thinking through -

MR. HOWLEY: Well, we're still suggesting

there be four categories, so you can still have four

different lumen per watt levels in those four

categories. We're just suggesting the same baseline

may be used.

25 II MR. RIVEST: When you say baseline, do you

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

66

- are you talking about the lumens per watt, or are

you talking -

MR. HOWLEY: The actual lamp.

MR. RIVEST: The actual lamp.

MR. O'ROURKE: That way we would do the

analysis based on one type and extend it to all the

other three types.

MR. BROOKMAN: So let's just clarify for

the record. This exchange has been between Joe, Mike

and now Conan chiming in, and then let's receive other

comments. Steve Nadel first.

MR. NADEL: I think we're confusing several

different concepts.

There's one, what are the product

categories for which standards would be set. And what

I'm hearing here is, no one I believe is suggesting

collapsing them so that there is one standard across

categories. But people can correct that.

Two there is the question about what is

the baseline for analysis purposes in terms of

estimating energy savings. It's not a separate

category, but how do you estimate energy savings,

because there can be switching between categories.

And if I understood correctly, Joe was

saying that they are thinking of suggesting that the

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

67

energy saver, T12, be the baseline for calculating

energy savings. So we have those two concepts mixed

up.

The third concept we're talking about is

across these different categories, to what extent can

you do an analysis in one category and then apply it

to the other category, and that's one where I wanted

to make a comment on.

I worry that if you just analyze one of

the T12 categories, either the energy saver or the not

energy saver, it may not accurately apply across a

category. There are some differences in fill gas and

so on. It may work out okay, but if you get down the

road, you may have problems. I wonder whether it is

easier to analyze both the energy saver and the nonenergy saver, and later if the analysis shows that

they are similar, collapse them rather than do the

analysis, and get into trouble and have to do a lot of

backtracking.

MR. EROOKMAN: Steve and then Gary.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, Edison

Electric Institute.

I think at one point what will help is

also is providing information about - there is the

baseline lamps, and then you've got to think about

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
68

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

obviously the baseline ballast and the baseline

fixture, because, especially for the energy savings

analysis, and which type of - again, market shipments,

obviously, that is crucial, is the baseline balanced

and electronics balanced, as of the energy efficiency

rules, as of either the DOE ballast rulemaking of 2000

or EPACT 2005.

And then of course you have the fixture

analysis. Is the baseline fixture a three-lamp

fixture these days, or is it still four lamp, or is a

two lamp, or is a whole combination?

I- m thinking kind of past - but in terms

of the energy savings analysis, which I know you'll

get to later, in terms of energy savings, that's going

to have a big impact as well.

MR. BROOKMAN: Gary.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: I have several comments.

Let me comment on Steve's comment first.

Certainly in lighting, when we talk about

efficiency, we want to take into consideration the

light source, the lamp, the fixture, the lighting

system, all of these things contribute to both the

quality and the illumination that you get out of the

lighting system.

However, I think you need to take one

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

69

thing at a time. So this is a good discussion about

the lamps.

Secondly, with respect to baseline, we use

the term baseline in California to measure our energy

savings from, and we usually select a baseline that is

representative of typical practice, or what California

state standards, or by default, federal standards

which preempt the California choice, require.

And we're talking, unless I'm mistaken

here, about federal standards that would go into

effect six years from now. So I wonder whether using

these minimally efficient 34-watt energy saver lamps

really constitutes the correct baseline.

I would expect that six years from now

that most of the nation are going to be using as

typical practice some sort of enhanced lamp.

So we might want

consideration to what we'd use as the baseline in

terms of when we think the standard is going to go

into effect.

(VEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

to give some

And lastly the California Department of

General Services just adopted I guess procurement

guideline isn't the proper word, but a contract for

purchase of lamps for California state facilities

through the general contract. And it eliminates the

(202) 234-4433

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

70

choice of standard cool white lamps from that

contract.

So that lamp is no longer available

through the state contract for California state

facilities, and therefore, I'd argue, it certainly

isn't typical practice.

MR. BROOKMAN: So would you suggest for the

Department's consideration what you think the level

should be six years hence?

MR. ROSENSTOCK: I don't know. We'll

provide some - I don't know at this time. We'll

provide some recommendation in our comments.

BYzt I generally disagree with Joe, because

I think taking the product that he recommended now is

not going to be representative of typical practice six

years from now, and I don't think it's representative

of typical practice in California now.

MR. BROOKMAN: Joe.

MR. HOWLEY: I'll just make a comment that

this is not a California standard; this is a national

standard. And we still sell an awful lot of cool

white energy saving lamps throughout the United

States, even though there are small pockets that are

pushing toward the more efficient technologies.

The whole point of this is to take people

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

71

to the baseline product being used throughout the

country and moving them forward.

The regulation that will go into place six

years from now is meant to essentially eliminate the

baseline product, or it might have that effect.

So certainly you'd have to look at this

from a national basis , not from one state basis, and

you'd have to look at from a national basis if you

want to move up that baseline, what is that baseline?

What is that least efficient technology that is most

commonly used?

And that clearly is the cool white

phosphor today represents the baseline that we'd

perhaps be wanting to move up from in six years on a

national basis.

MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest.

MR. RIVEST: I guess to carry on a bit the

conversation that Steve had, that we are in fact

clutching onto two separate issues here.

This is the engineering analysis, and in

the engineering analysis, you set up a competition if

you will. You're setting - we're establishing in this

construct that T12s are a separate product category

than the T8s. And we're saying that both have a

distinct utility - in this case replacement into

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
72

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

existing sockets - that needs to be maintained.

And then we're going to try and look at,

what is the starting point of the T12 technology? And

what is the cost of improving marginally the

efficiency of that T12 lamp?

Then we're going to look at the T8 lamp

and we're going to do that same cost efficiency

improvement relationship.

Later we will establish what the energy

savings are for the country, and then when we

calculate those energy savings, then we'll take into

consideration the fact that maybe 40 percent of the

lamps sold are T12s, which will be marginally

improved, and then the rest, 60 percent, are T8s,

which will also be marginally improved.

So we're going to take into account the

market share we anticipate, and the fact in the year

of the standard for casting that out 20 - 30 years, so

that the energy calculations and the base, I guess the

base case here, as opposed to the baseline, will be

considered.

So I think we're all actually in

agreement, but the concepts are a little mangled. And

this very conversation we will have later when we talk

25 II about the national energy savings, which comes this

(202) 234-4433

HEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neairgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
73

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

afternoon.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thanks Mike.

Yes, Gary?

MR. FERNSTROM: Yes, I think that's an

important clarification, how we use the term, baseline

or base case, with respect to figuring cost

effectiveness and so on versus how we consider energy

savings.

And while I don't have any market

information, I guess that Joe is absolutely correct

nationally; the cool white product probably is most

prevalent across the country now. However, I'm not

sure it's going to be six years from now.

MR. BROOKMAN: Please, your name for the

record.

MR. FERNSTROM: Oh, Gary Fernstrom, PG&E.

MR. BROOKMAN: The gentleman behind you.

MR. GRAY: Yes, Ed Gray. I think a comment

needs to be made about state purchase standards. I

mean clearly in a regulatory arena, states are allowed

to purchase products that are above national

standards. That's clearly provided for, so I don't

think that except maybe in shipment data or some place

25 II like that it's terribly relevant.

(202) 234.4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

74

We have for example been working with

states on their purchase specifications, and I'm

thinking of New York State for example, and urge them

to buy things like, for example, Energy Star products

or something dike that.

That's not the same thing as saying what

the national standard should be for a particular

product.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

So additional comments on this stream of

comments?

Okay.

MR. O'ROURKE : I'll turn it over to Jessica

then.

NTS. HARRISON: Okay, so you'll see here

that EPACT 1992 established six product classes for

low-wattage reflector lamps. And they break those

product classes according to watt.

We're considering using the same product

classes in this rulemaking. However, we're interested

in comment from you whether these lamps would be

better classified in different wattage ranges. So

we'll open that for comment in a bit.

Also in the framework document we noted

J

that we were considering separate product classes for

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

75

spot versus flood lamps. Subsequent analysis has

shown that there really isn't much of a difference in

efficacy, so we are probably not going to go that

route.

MR. BROOKMAN: So comments related to these

product classes, and also the wattage ranges that are

listed there.

Yes, Kyle Pitsor?

MR. PITSOR: Kyle Pitsor with NEMA. In

reviewing this NEMA feels that these product classes

seem reasonable and should be maintained for the

purposes of the proceeding.

And also relative to the issue of the spot

flood issue, we concur that we do not see this being a

proposed related feature that justified setting

different distinctions between these categories.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

Yes, Steve Nadel?

MR. NADEL: I agree with what Kyle said.

MR. BROOKMAN: It's helpful to the

Department, and I'm not fooling, when different

stakeholders say, yes, we agree.

So Gary.

MR. FERNSTROM: Gary Fernstrom, PG&E. I'd

like to agree too.

(202) 2341433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
76

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

(Laughter)

MR. BROOKMAN: And you all get your gold

stars later.

Steve.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Just to cause a little bit

of icing, I'l} agree too.

(Laughter)

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. You see what you've

done?

Okay, Jessica, we're now on slide 41.

MS. HARRISON: All right. This again gets

to the issues of representative product classes, which

we're proposing to do for incandescent reflector lamps

as well.

In addition we'll need to select baseline

models like we discussed for the fluorescent lamps.

Here we've numbered for your clarification

the product classes, which might make it easier to

discuss.

We've chosen two representative product

classes, for two reasons. One is that we believe

they're sort of not at either extreme, and you can

find 75 watt reflector lamp, which is common in the

market, and 150 watt reflector lamp, which is also we

believe common in the market.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
77

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

In addition we're trying to make a

distinction and acknowledge that there are residential

reflector lamps as well as commercial reflector lamps,

so we've tried to take that into account here as well.

In addition for the baseline models we're

proposing to go with PAR lamps. We haven't fully

defined these baseline models here, but this is"just a

start at it, and we'd appreciate your comment on how

to fill in the rest of the features for what a

baseline model should be.

MR. BROOKMAN: You want to talk about

baseline models now?

MS. HARRISON: Yes, let's have a

discussion.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, looking at the data on

page 41, comments on baseline models. Yes, Steve

Rosenstock.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock. Yeah, I

guess especially on the commercial side, it would -

the key is what is the market penetration of the

Halogen energy saver PAR and reflector lamps? That

might be the key in terms of some of your baseline.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

MS. HARRISON: I should say I think

shipment data here is also pretty useful for us.

(202) 234-4433

(VEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

78

MR. PITSOR: Kyle Pitsor. When initially

we reviewed this, we weren't certain that the proposed

categories 15 and 16 were necessarily the appropriate

classes.

However, one of the questions we had was

whether these were blown PAR products that were being

proposed here. And we thought that this requires

further study on our part.

MS. HARRISON: This is a straw man on which

we want comment on. So if you have a particular

comment on blown PAR product versus regular product,

let us know.

MR. BROOKMAN: Gary, go ahead.

MR. FERNSTROM: Pardon my ignorance, but

what is the difference between regular and blown PAR?

MS. HARRISON: Should I let Kyle answer

that?

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

MR. BROOKMAN: Joe. Yes.

MR. HOWLEY: A blown PAR 38 lamp is a less

expensive soft glass version that is basically molded

into the shape of a real PAR lamp which has a hard

glass cover sealed to the reflector, as opposed to one

piece of glass that is kind of blown into the same

shape, that is a less expensive version.

But they are very commonly available in

(202) 234-4433

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

79

the consumer channels right now, both in a 75-watt and

in a 150-watt which we're just now realizing - we're

trying to figure this out yesterday - we're realizing

that may be what you were thinking of in terms of

setting the baseline, which also may not be a bad

baseline to set in terms of the least efficient type

of PAR technology currently sold out there in a

consumer channel.

But we wanted to analyze this a little bit

more to try to understand the effects of having those

as the baseline. They may be appropriate baselines,

but we'll analyze it more and provide comment.

MR. BROOKMAN: Do you wish to comment

further? Steve?

MR. NADEL: Yes, Steve Nadel. In line with

the comment I made on fluorescent, I wonder whether

you are collapsing the categories too much for

analysis purposes, and that you can't necessarily

generalize from say a 75 watt to some of the other

categories.

Since there are only six of these

categories, it strikes me it'd be better to analyze

each of these categories, rather than to assume you

can generalize from one to the other. You get into

blown PAR versus PAR issues; you get into equivalent

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

80

lighting output issues. And it just may not scale

well.

I think just like the standards that are

currently law, those are based on an analysis of

products in each of the categories. And it's not

necessarily uniform progression. It has to do with

products that are in the market. So I think it would

be more reasonable to look at each of these

categories, rather than trying to potentially overly

simplify.

MS. HARRISON: I would just add a comment

to that that we've started to look and see if there

are any trends between the - we've sort of focused on

PAR right now. We've notice that there is a trend for

PAR lamps of a particular filament across wattages.

But as to your point about additional bulb shades, we

haven't been able to look at that yet.

But we would appreciate comment on that if

you are able to submit it.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, so then moving on.

MS. HARRISON: Okay, so this gets to

general service incandescent lamp product classes.

Here again we have two types of lamps:

non-reflector lamps and high-wattage reflector lamps.

And just to note again that the Secretary's

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

81

determination will be announced in the ANOPR. And

we're discussing setting product classes for nonreflector lamps according to wattage or lumen output.

Lumen output allows us to look at utility,

not just energy consumption, but wattage is what is

consistent with what has been done with the other

products.

We also want to take into account,

regardless of what criteria we choose to develop

product classes, we want to look at utility features.

So for example, lamp coating, frosted versus clear;

any design voltages, rough service applications, we'd

appreciate comment on that.

For high-wattage reflector lamps we're

proposing to choose wattage as a criteria for product

classes to be consistent with what was done for lowwattage reflector lamps, and again, here we'll need to

consider what is an appropriate wattage range, and

would appreciate comments on those issues.

So if you want to facilitate?

MR. BROOKMAN: So then several issues there

for comment.

Gary?

MR. FERNSTROM: On the issue of lamp

coatings, we think that whatever efficiency or

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

82

efficacy standards DOE comes up with ought to be

uniform across lamps with different coatings, adjusted

for the absorption or reduction in light of the

particular coating.

So we would expect the clear standard

lamp, the frosted lamp, the enhanced spectrum lamp, to

all have the same efficacy normalized for the effect

of the coating.

Am I being clear?

MR. BROOKMAN: I thought that was clear.

Kyle?

MR. PITSOR: Kyle Pitsor with NEMA, in

terms of the product classes for what I'll call A-line

lamps to simplify, we want to focus on the high volume

categories. I think we suggest that coatings and

wattages be appropriate criteria in terms of features

being considered for those classifications.

We do not see high-wattage being included.

At this point we would not see any issues with

respect to coating - I'm sorry, we did not see needing

to include three-way at this point as a separate

product class.

MR. HOWLEY: Three-way is a very low volume

type of product, and by its very nature is an energy

saving product.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
83

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

MR. BROOKMAN: That was Joe Howley. Thank

you.

Gary.

MR. FERNSTROM: Okay, so I have another

thought with respect to design voltage. I see at our

home store such as the Home Depot and Lowe's

contractor packs of incandescent lamps being sold that

are designed for 130 volts. And by installing a 130-

volt lamp in a home of course you get long life, but

you get less than I think desired efficacy as well.

So I would want to be careful around the

design voltage criteria.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other comments,

particularly as related to the wattage ranges and lamp

design voltages and lumen ranges?

MS. HARRISON: Could I just ask for

clarification on when you say be careful about design

voltage, what functionally that means?

MR. BROOKMAN: Gary again.

MR. FERNSTROM: I would like whatever

standards DOE develops not to in effect create a

loophole that would encourage or allow the sale of

130-volt lamps are reduced efficacy on account of the

higher design voltage such that they're installed in a

2511 lot of homes by contractors.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
84

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

MS. HARRISON: So our next slide gets to

the point of selecting not just product classes but

baseline models. And we're still determining both.

We understand that the A-line lamp

wattages sold today dominate the A-line lamp market,

60 watt, 75 watt, and 100 watt. This kind of

information along with other input you can provide

will help us in selecting product classes and baseline

models.

Again, here we're hoping if we can to be

able to choose a representative product class to

extrapolate the analysis to other product classes

where possible. So we appreciate input on that.

Again we're going to be considering highwattage reflector lamps, and we welcome input on any

baseline models for analysis there.

I think this is a slide we sort of talked

about these points.

MR.. BROOKMAN: I want to give everybody a

chance to make additional comments on the questions

you see there on slide 45, particularly comment, on

the scaling of findings from representative product

classes and other product classes that are not

analyzed, and also, a comment on baseline models.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
85

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

Gary?

MR. FERNSTROM: So a comment on

incandescent non-reflector lamps. We think the 40 and

150 watt category should be considered as well.

MR. BROOKMAN: And could you provide a

basis for that for the record?

MR. FERNSTROM: The basis is that while

they're certainly not as prevalent in their sales as

the 60, 75 and 100, they have significant sales, and

the 150 watt lamps tend to be used more by the elderly

that would like more light with their failing eyes,

and you know, they, I think as a class, are ones that

are faced with difficulty paying their utility bills

and would benefit from higher efficiency lighting

products.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

Kyle?

MR. PITSOR: One of the questions that was

raised by high-wattage incandescent reflector lamps,

investigating that, our assessment of that is that

that is a fairly niche product, and at this time we

would not suggest that be included as a separate

category.

MS. HARRISON: Okay.

25 II With that I'll pass it on to discuss

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
86

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

analysis for the ANOPR.

MR. BROOKMAN: We're in a position to take

a break, so let's take a break.

My watch and the clock back there says

it's 10:50. So let's take 15 minutes. Try and resume

at 11:05. And thanks for a very good session.

There is a coffee shop, for those of you

who don't know, one floor below us on the opposite

side of the hall. So you can take the elevator down.

There are stairs at the end here.

(Whereupon at" 10:51 a.m. the proceeding in the aboveentitled matter went off the

record to return on the record at 11:09 a.m.)

MR. BROOKMAN: Let's get started. Please

take your seats.

Okay, so then, we've made good progress

already this morning, and now we're moving on to

screening analysis which on my copy is slide 46, and

Michael Scholand.

MR. SCHOLAND: Great. Hi, everyone. Mike

Scholand here from Navigant. It's - we're on slide

46, as Doug just said. And we're going to talk about

the screening analysis. We just have a few slides on

this requirement, this analysis.

(202) 234-4433

The purpose of the screening analysis is

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

87

to screen out any technology options that should not

be considered further in the rulemaking. So to do

this the Department applies four screening criteria

which are shown here in the blue boxes: technological

feasibility; practicability to manufacture, install

and service; impacts on lamp utility or availability

to consumers; and finally health and safety of

technologies.

So I'll briefly walk through these

criteria on the technological feasibility. This

criterion screens out any technology options that are

not incorporated into commercial products or working

prototypes. That's the screening criteria.

Practicability to manufacture, install and

service screens out any technology options if it is

determined that mass production of that technology in

commercial products, and reliable installation and

servicing of that technology, could not be achieved on

the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at

the time of the effective date of the standard.

Okay, third criteria, the adverse impacts

on utility or availability to consumers, this

criterion screens out any technology options which are

determined to have significant adverse impact on the

utility of the product to significant subgroups of

(VEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

88

consumers, or results in the unavailability of any

covered product type with performance characteristics,

including reliability, features, size, capacities and

volumes, that are substantially the same as products

generally available in the U.S. at that time.

And finally health and safety criterion

screens out any technology options that are determined

to have significant adverse impacts on health or

safety.

MR. BROOKMAN: I'd like to just pause

right there. Because I note that in the slides those

definitions were not listed on the slides, so if there

are questions about what Mike Scholand was just

describing there we should have them now.

Yes, please.

MR. GRAY: Ed Gray from NEMA.

Could you go over technological

feasibility again, what you define that as?

MR. SCHOLAND: Sure. Technological

feasibility screens out any technology options that

are not incorporated into commercial products, or are

in working prototypes.

So for example, on the one I brought up

when we did our dry run yesterday on filaments, for

incandescent lamps, there is something called resonant

(202) 234-4433

(VEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

89

cavity emitters, where you change the shape of the

filament and the surface of the filament so it emits

more in the visible spectrum and less in the infrared.

That's theoretically possible. It's been

modeled in computer models. It has not been done.

They have not managed to make a working prototype as

far as I'm aware. I could be wrong about that.

So that would be a reason for screening

out that technology option under the screening

criteria. There is no working prototype of that

technology option.

MR. GRAY: So if there is a working

prototype it is to be considered; is that what you are

saying?

MR. SCHOLAND: It can be considered, yes.

MR. BROOKMAN: Are there any other

questions, or any - yes.

MR. YANDEK: Quick one. Where can I get

the official definitions?

MR. SCHOLAND: They're in - actually it's

part of the process improvement rule. So it's in the

CFR.

MR. LEWIS: Can we separate - Ron Lewis -

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, that was Ed, that

was Ron. Keep going.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

(202) 2344433

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

90

MR. LEWIS: Can we separate that out and

email it back to everybody as a help?

MR. SCHOLAND: Definitely. I believe it's

also in our framework document. Am I wrong about

that?

MR. LEWIS: Why don't we email that to

everyone that is here.

MR. SCHOLAND: A verbatim extract from the

CFR, sure.

MR. LEWIS: The definitions that support

these four elements.

MR. BROOKMAN: Technological feasibility,

practicability to manufacture, install, service,

impacts on lamp ability or availability to consumers,

health or safety of technology; those elements on

slide 47, so we'll email those out.

Yes, please.

MR. FERNSTROM: So I find it amusing that

we're screening some things out. We certainly would

not attempt to impose something that we think is

impracticable.

For example I think we ought to screen out

propane as a lamp fill gas.

MR. BROOKMAN: Right, okay.

Kyle Pitsor?

HEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

91

MR. PITSOR: As we're discussing the

screening analysis, there was a previous discussion of

a framework document on design options. Are we going

to be discussing that separately later?

MR. SCHOLAND: That's happening right now,

in fact .

around.

MR. PITSOR: Right after this?

MR. SCHOLAND: Right after this.

MR. PITSOR: The document is the other way

the issue of the screening analysis,

there was a question raised in the framework document

on whether the Department should allow lamp life to

vary or to increase or to decrease efficiency?

MR. SCHOLAND: Right.

MR. PITSOR: Is this the appropriate time

to discuss that?

MR. SCHOLAND: We'll talk about with

Conan's slides. So the very next slide.

MR. PITSOR: Okay, very next slide, sorry.

MR. SCHOLAND: But it also affects the

life-cycle cost and the engineering analysis, so we'll

touch on that issue a few times, Kyle.

(202) 234-4433

MR. BROOKMAN: Linda Graves.

MS. GRAVES: Yes, I'd just mention that if

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

92

you turn to the framework document on page 24, there's

the description of the four screening analysis

criteria. You can either download the framework

document from our website or we have complimentary

copies here.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, Conan over to you.

MR. O'ROURKE: Thank you, Mike.

On slides 48 and 49, we're just going

through what would be considered some of the potential

technology options that may become design options via

the screening process.

So for general service fluorescent lamps

we're talking about improvements in electrode coatings

and materials; improvements in the glass, or coatings

on the glass; changes in fill gas; and also phosphor

type materials.

For incandescent reflector, talk about

high temperature; light sources, you can shift

electrode temperature to make more visible part of the

emission compared to the infrared; changes in the

filament materials and coatings, as well as the

reflector materials and coatings; as well as the lamp

fill gases.

Example, so the fill gas may be halogens,

25xenon or krypton.

(202) 234-4433

HEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

93

For nonreflector, some of the same ones as

for reflector lamps with the exception we didn't talk

about reflector materials in this case.

Some of the ones to consider would be the

halogen, or the IR coatings that would help reflect

some of that energy back onto the electrode there for

raising the temperature and giving a higher ignition.

Item nine will help gather some input on

some of these issues.

MR. BROOKMAN: So comments on these

preliminary design options for each of the three lamp

types, if we could just take them one by one, and

other technologies and design features.

Steven Rosentock.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Well, I don't know if I'm

going in order. But just for the general

incandescent.

MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Just for the general

incandescent, you might want to put in I'll say design

voltage just because especially for the incandescent

because, based on personal experience, I have seen a

lot in commercial facilities a lot of 130 volt

incandescent lamps in commercial areas. If they would

choose that technology.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

94

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. State your name for

the record, please.

MR. WORK: My name is Dale Work with

Philips. I have two comments.

F-first, I don't have strong feelings on the

130 volt issue that's been raised twice, only to say

if someone buys a 130 volt lamp and uses it at 120

volts they use less energy. That wasn't said before.

But secondly I do have a comment on the

lamp fill gas for incandescent. And this came up

recently, it was a point of considerable contention in

California in our discussions there. So I wanted to

highlight it for the DOE's benefit here.

There was considerable disagreement

between different parties in California on the

benefits of krypton. Everyone acknowledges that

krypton can improve the efficiency, but there is a big

difference of opinion on how much it can improve it,

and what the economic ramifications of that area.

And the alert I would give you is that we

made lamps and tested them and got one result, and

another group in California referred to the

literature, 30-year old literature, including what

made it into the handbook of the IES and with a very

different value.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

95

So I would encourage the DOE as they do

this technology assessment here on this specific point

to actually make lamps and see what the truth and not

only rely on the literature.

You could save lots of discussion later.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

Yes, so Gary.

MR. FERNSTROM: So we would support that.

We were perplexed to find industry saying they had

made lamps that didn't perform as well as this 30-year

old literature would indicate they should.

So I think it's a great idea as part of

the process to know in reality what is achievable.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

Other comments? Yes.

MR. LEWIS: So the controversy was not over

the propane fill gas.

(Laughter)

MR. LEWIS: That sounded like an explosive

discussion.

(Laughter)

MR. FERNSTROM : No, but we definitely had

an explosive discussion.

(202) 2341433

(Laughter)

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, so any other

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
96

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

additional comments on these three parts with respect

to design options: general service, incandescent

reflector, and incandescent non-reflector lamps?

Yes, Kyle Pitsor.

MR. PITSOR: Kyle Pitsor, NEMA. In terms

of the specific ones that are bulletized here in the

framework document for the three product classes, we

feel that these probably represent the key design

options that are appropriate for evaluation.

We also note that looking at these design

options, there needs to be recognition that whatever

is evaluated needs to fit into existing infrastructure

in terms of how these designs might change the shape

or formation or technical performance of the products.

They need to be sure to fit into existing

infrastructure.

MR. BROOKMAN: Gary?

MR. FERNSTROM: What does that mean, Kyle?

MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Ed.

MR. YANDEK: Ed Yandek, GE Lighting, also a

past manager of fluorescent engineering. So we do

know something about the real definition of

engineering.

Some of these options that one could

2511 conceivably propose will take you away from being to

(202) 2341433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
97

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

operate the lamp on existing ballasts or existing

fixtures. So in the sense that we already have in

another ballast rulemaking that is changing the shape

of ballast, we have to take that into account, and we

cannot come up with arbitrary proposals, nor should we

waste our time looking at things that would not be

useable in the marketplace.

MR. FERNSTROM: Okay, I understand. So

your thinking about compatibility with existing

products in the market.

MR. YANDEK: And even products that will be

available throughout the period of the rulemaking.

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, okay. Additional

comments on design options for these three categories?

Steve Nadel?

MR. NADEL: Yes, under incandescent

reflector lamps it's unclear what year - whether you

are or are not including the capsule in halogen lamps,

and what could be done to improve those in terms of

coating, pressure, fill gases, et cetera. So I'd make

sure that at least for the reflector lamps that that

category of things is included.

(202) 234-4433

MR. BROOKMAN: Others?

Yes, please.

MR. REA: Mark Rea, Lighting Research

(VEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
98

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Center.

Could just a moment be taken to inquire

the tradeoff between efficacy and lamp life in

incandescent lamps, and why shorter lives might not be

chosen to improve efficacy?

MR. BROOKMAN: That will be the next slide

also. Let's-have them cue the discussion and then

we'll address that point.

So the question is whether the

Department's analysis should allow incandescent, both

reflector and general service incandescent lamps, life

to vary in order to increase efficacy.

So could you address that?

MR. PITSOR: Kyle Pitsor with NEMA. In

terms of the Department's question here is whether the

analysis should allow the lamp life to vary in order

to increase or decrease efficiency.

It's our suggestion that the lamp life be

allowed to vary in the analysis, at least in a two to

one ratio in terms of double life to half life as the

analysis is being taken.

MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rostenstock. Yes,

just as another point of reference in the EPACT,

Energy Policy Act of 2005 I believe for compact

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

99

fluorescent lamps it was mandated a minimum life of

6,000 hours for compact fluorescent lamps. But you

don't have to have that for incandescents, but I just

use as a point of reference. It has -- there have

been things like that done before. But I'm trying to

think, I think there was also CRI. There was like

lamp lumen depreciation for the compact fluorescent as

well, minimum depreciation as well.

But in this incandescent, really would

apply to incandescent just as a reference.

MR. BROOKMAN: Mark, earlier you looked

like you wanted to follow on. Did you get your

question answered sufficiently?

MR. REA: Mark Rea. It may only be of

academic interest. The industry has decided on that

optimism, and I was hoping to get some information on

how that compromise had been determined, and how long

it had been around, and is it something that is

involved with regard to consumer preferences and so

on. And I thought while we were here it might be

helpful to get sort of an historical perspective of

the analysis of what that compromise was chosen.

MR. BROOKMAN: Joe?

MR. HOWLEY: Joe Howley. I was trying to

understand your question. When you say compromise,

(202) 2344433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

100

are you talking about the current state of the art in

terms of incandescent lamps lasting on average 750 -

1,000 hours?

Well, obviously over the last 100 years

that incandescent lamps have been available, that has

turned out to be the best cost-life efficiency

tradeoff point in terms of - in considering

replacement, 'considering the value of the product,

considering the energy use of the product.

As you got into longer and longer lives,

of course, you had to buy the product less often, but

it was much less efficient, so your utility bill was

much higher for the same amount of light.

As you got into shorter and shorter lives,

you could make it more and more efficient, but then

you had to buy the product much more often.

And there were some analyses done, I

believe there is even an equation in the IES handbook

that you can look at today that basically trades off

all these things and finds that the lowest cost of

light - call it that - tends to be around the life

ratings that exist today when considering all aspects

of incandescent lighting.

(Off-mike remark)

(Laughter)

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
101

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Would you get to a

2 microphone so we can capture it.

3 MR. REA: Mark Rea. And I don't want to

4 belabor this point, but as social criteria begin to

5 change, that - and I believe it came in the 1940s,

6 that curve might not be necessarily appropriate

7 t o ay. d

8 And the question I'm asking is, is the

9 industry prepared to reassess that, and based upon

10 analysis, change that optimization I should have said

11 of all those factors?

12 I mean it's only physics. The questions

13 is, would the industry be willing to make such a lamp

14 that would be shorter life but higher efficacy based

15 on an analysis, obviously.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed Yandek.

17 MR. YANDEK: Yes. I understand what you're

18 saying, Mark. I think that's why we said we would be

19 open to considering for analytical purposes, a range

20 of life, and then the question as to whether there are

21 practical product contributions that would come out of

22 that, and whether we'd be willing to make them or not,

23 or whether they would be practical to make, or whether

24 they're practical to make or the investment would be

25 justified. That would have to follow such an

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
102

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

analysis.

But we do feel it's realistic to analyze

the life aspect of it.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock. Yeah,

there is also the competition factor. Incandescents

are more - as the price of compact fluorescent lights

go down, incandescents are in a way competing with

them. And the average life of a compact fluorescent

lamp is eight-i to ten thousand hours. To shorten the

life of any incandescent bulb to increase efficiency,

I don't know if that is going to really make sense,

especially if it aggravates consumers; light bulbs

last less longer than they used to.

It's an interesting aspect.

MR. BROOKMAN: Gary.

MR. FERNSTROM: I think Mark raises a great

point. Certainly government could work toward

mandating fewer hours and higher efficacy.

I don't know that it's so much a technical

question as a market question, and my observation is,

I see a long of extended-life lamps selling in the

marketplace which would tell me that's what consumers

want. So I would simply want to see the efficacy

normalized for life according to scientifically

understood norms.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

103

So if I buy a 2,000-hour lamp normalized

for the fact that it's going to last twice as long as

a 1,000-hour lamp, they're similarly efficacious.

I don't think we should be telling

consumers what to buy.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, let me note also on

slide 50, there is a second question there that I

don't think we've addressed yet. Reasonable amount of

variance for life in correlated color temperature for

general service fluorescents.

So thoughts and comments on that. Yes,

Steve Rosenstock.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Just one quick thought is

that the current standards make no mention of lamp

life whatsoever. The standards are lumens per watt or

whatever, or based on the wattage for either

fluorescent or incandescent.

So again it's a matter of - it might be

interesting for the analysis, but in terms of any sort

of official standard, I would urge maximum flexibility

not to push out efficient products.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

Yes, Ed.

MR. YANDEK: Yes, I think the issue with

25 11 life here is not so much that we would anticipate the

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
104

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Department to make any life standards, because there

is no authority to do so, but that there is a tradeoff

with life when one starts looking at options to

increase efficiency; you don't get it for free, and

therefore you might inadvertently have unintended

consequences in reducing lamp life considerably in

fluorescent in addition to incandescent.

So we just need to be careful when we do

these analyses that we carry that thought along.

Thank you.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

Yes. So I think we'll move on.

MR. O'ROURKE: Next Michael will start off

the discussion on engineering analysis.

MR. SCHOLAND: Thanks, Conan.

Mike Scholand again. So after we've

conducted the screening analysis and screened out

technology options that are not feasible, we have

design options that migrate into the engineering

analysis.

And slide 52, the purpose of the

engineering analysis is to characterize the

relationship between the manufacturer's selling price

and increasing lamp efficacy.

So you see our little plot on the lefthand

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
105

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

side there; as you go up in efficacy, as you move up

along the X axis, the projection is that the

manufacturer's selling price will increase.

In general this is the case, because the

manufacturer's cost of production is increasing as

they move along that curve.

So looking at the curve on the left just

for a minute, I want to point out some terms that have

been thrown at you this morning.

The curve starts at the lowest point, and

I'll use Conan's laser pointer here, right down here

at what is the baseline model. That is the start of

the curve.

And as you walk along the curve, you are

adding design options, design options, design options;

moving along and up in efficacy, and again, up in

manufacturer's selling price.

The highest point here, which the

Department refers to as the max tech, the maximum

technologically feasible level, and that is the

highest efficacy level for lamps that is considered in

the analysis.

Now I need to take a minute now to just

talk to you about an issue which we touched upon

25 II briefly this morning, and which is sort of a critical

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
106

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

underlying assumption of the engineering analysis.

As you all know it's possible to make a

lamp more efficient but still use the same amount of

power; the consumer will simply get more light. So we

- and if that's the case, then when the Department

does a life-cycle cost payback, it would find no

energy savings, but the lamps would be more expensive;

so it'd be an undefined life-cycle cost.

So the underlying assumption which the

Department is proposing in this framework document,

and we would-like feedback on, is to hold the lumen

output of the baseline lamp approximately constant

over the efficacy curve for those representative lamps

analyzed.

Okay, so as you go up in efficacy, you're

going to be moving down in watts, so that the light

output all along that curve is approximately the same;

if it's 1,000 lumens in the baseline lamp, it'll be

1,000 lumens at max tech. You'll be using X percent

less watts at max tech, but the light output would be

approximately constant.

Sure.

MR. BROOKMAN: Ed Yandek,

MR. YANDEK: I think that's generally

reasonable, but where we have to be really careful is

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

107

in the area of fluorescent and discharge, because as

you make changes that might increase efficacy, you are

not able to necessarily always recoup those in reduced

wattage.

And the reason we have a so-called 34 watt

energy saving lamp today was the result of the first

energy crisis, and did not go lower in wattage, was

because it would not work on ballast that we sell in

the United States of America.

So I would say yes with a big reservation

when it comes to fluorescents. It's not an automatic

free lunch in terms of transmitting efficacy into

wattage savings for discharge sources that run on

ballasts.

We could talk more about that from a

technical point at some point. But just a caveat.

MR. BROOKMAN: Gary.

MR. FERNSTROM: This kind of brings this

back to the baseline discussion we had earlier. And

if the analysis is going to be done with a presumption

that the lamp lumens don't change, and the baseline is

cool white, I think there are going to be a lot of

lamp system or lighting system designs in the United

States that were designed for illumination levels and

power densities for better lamps than that. And that

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

108

then could give us a misfit between products and

typical lighting system designs.

Are there any further thoughts on that?

Am I being clear with my comment?

MR. SCHOLAND: Yes, and that's the

importance of picking a baseline lamp that is

appropriate for a national standard.

And I think we do talk in a future slide

about other parameters, like color temperature,

correlated color CRI, and correlated color

temperature; these are other values that the

Department re-'cognizes would be varying, particularly

on the fluorescent side as you move to different

groups of phosphors.

So we're looking for input from

stakeholders. When we get to that slide we'll be

asking for specifically on how much these parameters

could be allowed to vary, what would be reasonable.

MR. FERNSTROM: Yes, I wasn't thinking so

much of the other attributes of lamps - CRI, color

temperature, and so on. I was just thinking the base

case for analysis as it relates to lighting power

density, watts per square foot, and the illumination

levels you get.

MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Mark Rea.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
109

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. REA: This actually came up after -

MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Mark.

MR. REA: Mark Rea. I'd like to get some

clarity specifically with regard to this fluorescent

issue.

Generally speaking - well, not generally

speaking, but specifically speaking to the so-called

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

high performance T8s, you get both, you get both

higher efficacy and higher lumens. And the issue is,

if you're going to do a substitution you may actually

be penalized for energy if you just simply take one

lamp out and put another one in.

If, on the other hand, you redesign to

take advantage of that efficacy, that obviously will

have an impact on the calculations you are going to

do, sort of the net effect. So there is a clear

bifurcation in the logic whether you're talking about

replacement lamps or a new system or a substantial

retrofit to do that.

So you would benefit from a high lumen,

high efficacy lamp if you do redesign, but you don't,

in fact it's going to cost you more energy, if in fact

it's just a lamp substitution.

So I'd kind of like to hear the consensus

here about whether you run a separate analysis or you

(202) 234-4433

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
110

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

presume that it's a retrofit lamp.

MR. BROOKMAN: Let's see, Ed, and then I'll

come back to you. Let's let this play out, and then

I'll come back to you.

MR. YANDEK: Ed Yandek. One comment.

Yeah, it can get very complicated. For example if you

go back not too long ago for some of us, the luminaire

of choice was a four lamp luminaire. It's no longer

true today.

One of the amazing savings that's come

from the electronic ballast was as a result of being

able to offer a single electronic ballast that could

operate threes lamps. And so the energy savings on a

luminaire basis dropped considerably, and we no longer

replace one for one with the four-lamp system.

Theoretically one could go to a higher -

as Mark indicates - a high wattage lamp. Let's just

take an extreme case, a single lamp and a single

fixture. That lamp could have extremely high wattage.

It might not even have the same efficacy, but you

could save a lot less connector load.

The problem is, now you have to rely on a

commercial change in the market for luminaires and

ballast that cannot be regulated as part of this

2511 rulemaking.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

111

So I think it's very complicated, but I

think all we can - we may want to look at potentially

what we might think could happen down the road, but

all we can control is a lamp-for-lamp replacement

based on the rulemaking; that's the only thing we can

be sure of.

And commercially we will continue to drive

to always do better than what is a minimum standard.

And I think that's what you have to keep thinking

about. This is a minimum standard. The industry has

always done - developed products that go way beyond

minimum standards and commercialized them.

MR. BROOKMAN: Steve, your comments in this

stream. Go ahead.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: In this stream, and

another comment.

DOE in their analysis usually tries to, in

terms of their national energy savings analysis, do it

over a 20 or 30 year period. They do try to break out

I'll say the retrofit market versus new construction.

So in this type of situation it might be

the kind - they might show kind of two analyses, like

that type of super T8 technology in a retrofit versus

super T8 technology in new construction, trying to

show the differences in terms of energy savings there.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
112

1 So that might address some of your

2 concerns.

3 Kind of moving -

4 M. BROOKMAN: No, I want to stay with

5 thi s. Joe, go ahead .

6 MR. HOWLEY: My comment was actually

7 similar to Steve's in that I believe we have to assume

8 both realities, because indeed both realities occur.

9 A certain percentage of the market is going to be new

10 construction; a certain percentage is retrofits, where

11 they could also play with the number of lamps per

12 fixture.

13 So in those two scenarios you can take

14 advantage of-'a new design to take advantage of the

15 higher efficiency, but then you also have to analyze

16 the portion that is simply going to be lamp for lamp

17 retrofit, and look at that percentage and see what

18 savings if any, and in this case perhaps none, you'd

19 get higher lumens and no wattage savings.

20 But you could differentiate three

21 different categories in your analysis: new

22 construction; major retrofit, and replacement lamps,

23 since that's how the country works today. The

24 analysis should be based on that scenario going

2511 forward for any lamp replacement.

(202) 2344433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
113

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Nadel.

MR. NADEL: Yes, I basically agree with

Joe. There is however one other class, where you can

replace the ballast in the lamp, use a lower ballast

factor lamp without necessarily putting in new

fixtures.

So you have to blend the various I'll say

retrofits that are more than lamp only, effectively.

MR. BROOKMAN: Gary.

MR. FERNSTROM: So I like Joe's comment.

We're talking about lamp to lamp comparisons, but it

needs to be in consideration of the fixture and system

that it's liable to go in, and we have three or four

different circumstances of replacement.

And I think the fixtures that the lamps

are liable to go into will probably be different six

years from now than they are now. We are going to see

more change in fixtures and buildings in that time.

Therefore the current base case if you

will, the types of fixtures we find in commercial

office lighting is going to be improved when this

regulation comes into effect.

MR. BROOKMAN: Now Steve.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: In case anyone had it for

2511 this, I wanted to go off on a little bit different

(202) 234-4433

(VEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
114

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, everybody - okay, Mike

Rivest.

MR. RIVEST: Going back to the ballast

rulemaking the analysis was in fact segmented in those

three sectors - new construction, retrofits and

replacement ballast. But ballast has a life of 15

years, magnetic or electronic, and lamps have a life

which is much shorter.

So I would expect that as a proportion of

total sales, replacement lamps are a much greater

proportion that replacement ballast, for example, and

I don't know what the number is, it might be 95

percent.

It's not that high?

MR . HOWLEY: This is Joe, it is a higher

proportion, but it's not that high.

MR. RIVEST: Okay, and this is - I'm sure

it's not the same for T12 as it is T8.

Where I'm going with this is, the analysis

that replaces lamp for lamp and tries to normalize for

light output would in effect let wattage vary.

An engineering analysis which would assume

that the wattage is constant but lumen output goes up

would also presume that those lamps would be used in

retrofits for example, and that the retrofit fixtures

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
115

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

would exist in the market that would benefit from this

increased lumen and would not therefore - you know,

the spacing between ceilings would be adjusted for the

greater lumen.

There are a lot of assumptions that would

have to go in that type of analysis, and I just

question the relative benefit of going down that path.

MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis.

MR. LEWIS: Some of this discussion is a

repeat of going back to EPACT '92, when talking about

the complications, and even, as you consider the fact

that the wattage being consumed in the efficiency are

some of the factors involving delivering useable light

for the people in the space, and quality light.

And things as far as glare, as far as

maintenance, as far as all kinds of other issues that

came into it. And I remember in EPACT '92 when we

were looking at the complications, the interaction of

lamps, ballast, and luminaires, only looking at

magnetic ballast, T12 lamps, and I think 2X4

luminaires, there were over 3 million permutations of

things that could be considered at that time, and it

had nothing to do with some of the aesthetic and

quality of light issues.

So I think we need to use some logic here.

(VEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

116

I think this is a great discussion, and we're

interested in input from everybody on factors that are

really important. But we're not going to solve every

problem in the lighting world with this rulemaking.

And in order to get it done in three years, looking at

where we can-make a substantial difference, where we

can do the maximum good on a lamp rulemaking, where we

can't mandate people to change out all the luminaires

and ballast and other things.

So I want you to be creative, and I think

this is a great conversation, and I'm hearing a lot of

experience here from people that have considered these

things.

But in the end we need to remember this is

a lamp rulemaking and we need to test it against a

little bit ofreality here as well.

So don't stop being creative, but as far

as what we can actually accomplish with this, I think

it's an important thing to keep in mind.

MR. BROOKMAN: Ed, follow on, Ed Yandek.

MR. YANDEK: Just one engineering factoid.

When it comes to incandescent sources, the wattage

consumed is directly and only controlled by the

incandescent lamp.

When it comes to fluorescent, the wattage

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
117

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

consumed is large determined by the ballast. So I can

make certain changes in a lamp, but as long as that

ballast is putting a certain level of current into the

lamp, since the lamp is a negative VI characteristics

device, I am not totally free to change the wattage

consumed.

So if you look at one of the great things

that has happened in the last decade to T8 for

example, and why we have lower wattage systems is

because of what Steve Nadel really said, what really

frankly changed was the ballast factors were dropped.

The ballast drives the lamp at a lower wattage, so

this is a lamp rulemaking, and we are constrained

within the boundaries of what lamps can do physically

and operate on existing ballasts for fluorescents.

MR. BROOKMAN: Gary.

MR. FERNSTROM: Yes, but you've made the

lamps a lot better for us. And that greater lamp

efficacy, higher CRI, longer life, has allowed the

ballast factor to drop.

So thanks for making the lamps better.

(Simultaneous voices)

MR. BROOKMAN: Steve, go ahead.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Just to go to a different

stream if that is okay.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

118

Just getting back to the analysis in terms

of, again, getting back to the incandescent, where you

are assuming constant lumen output regardless of

wattage, just from recollection here, there were many

energy saver incandescent lamps out there, the 67 watt

as opposed to the 75 watt. And as I recall they had

higher lumens per watt, but they still put out less

overall lumens.

So I would suggest some sort of

sensitivity analysis just because of what's been out

there on the market already, because you might assume

the same amount of lumens as a best case, but then

maybe out of sensitivity say, 10 percent less lumens,

just because it happened before, there might be that -

depending on how the rule comes out, there might still

be less lumens overall, it's a higher efficiency lamp

but less lumens overall. So I would suggest that

sensitivity for incandescents.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So Steve Nadel, and

I'm eager for us to keep moving on through these

slides.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

Steve.

MR. NADEL: To summarize where I think we

are on the fluorescents, I think there was general

agreement that there are three market segments - new

(202) 2344433

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

119

construction, retrofit, and lamp replacement; that

each of them should be weighted by the share of the

lamp sales market, so the biggest one is going to be

replacement, the other two are going to be smaller but

still significant.

And I think what this means for lamp

replacement is, some of the higher efficacy ones may

actually have higher wattage, and that would be part

of the analysis, and we'll do the weighted average and

see what makes sense on average across all of these

segments.

MR. BROOKMAN: I see several heads nodding

in agreement.

MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest, one dissenting

viewpoint.

(Laughter)

MR. RIVEST: We're the guys that have to do

this. But then there are people who provide us data

for that analysis.

(Laughter)

Now, in generating the cost efficiency

curve that you see here, there have to be - the only

variable we have there is efficacy, and then we have

price, the dependent variable there.

So we have to keep some things constant.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

120

We said we would keep lumen output constant, and that

would certainly serve the purpose of the replacement

lamp.

If we were to envision a world where

ballast becomes a variable, the luminaire becomes a

variable, and most importantly the lumen output

becomes a variable, so maybe in that case it would be

the lumens that are allowed to fluctuate and the watts

are held at 32 for example. That is a different cost

efficiency curve that would be required to do that

other sector analysis that you're proposing.

Now it will probably the same for

retrofits as it would be for - essentially for

different markets in terms of the turnover rates, in

terms of the physical - or maybe not. Retrofits are -

when you're talking retrofits, do you mean ballast and

lamp, or do you mean ballast lamp and luminaire?

NT.. HOWLEY : They are both types, but I

think again to simplify the analysis, you could

probably lump retrofits and new construction together

in terms of the ability, if you want to, to alter the

design, either with ballast factor, number of lamps

per fixture, fixture spacing, to accommodate the

increased lumens you might have.

So I think for your purposes you probably

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

121

do have essentially two different market analyses.

One where you just can replace the lamp, and another

one where you can alter the design to take advantage

of the higher lumens.

MR. RIVEST: And we would thus require two

curves, one holding watts constant and one holding

lumens constant.

MR. NADEL: However - this is Steve Nadel -

I think what we're all saying is that the curve you

show there will work for all cases but one. It will

work for the incandescent. It will work for the

incandescent reflector. It will work for fluorescent

when it is new construction or retrofit.

Only for the lamp replacement case do you

need to go with more of a stable watt. But where the

wattage can vary, where you are not adjusting for

efficacy, because that's how it works actually in the

field. You're going to have to relax that assumption

in this one case.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: I think, just to rephrase,

this curve is a curve which maintains lumen output and

varies watts. That would be applicable to

incandescent and to replacement fluorescents.

A curve which would maintain watts and

2511 increase lumens would be applicable to a new fixture

(202) 2341433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
122

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

market or a retrofit market.

Is that what you said?

MR. HOWLEY: Reverse those last two,

reverse them. The lumens would be kept constant in

the new construction for fluorescent, because you

design to the same light level; the watts would be

kept constant in replacement. In other words the

lumens could increase in a replacement scenario.

MR. RIVEST: How would we save energy?

MR. HOWLEY: Well, you wouldn't. But that

would be part of the analysis.

MR. RIVEST: Exactly. We're trying to

figure out what makes sense , across category, on

average.

MR. BROOKMAN: So go ahead, Ed, and then

I'm coming to you, Gary.

MR. YANDEK: You know this is really a

multidimensional curve. To think that this is a twodimension analysis is simplistic.

The way we're going to save energy is by

at some point going through this process for

fluorescent and deciding which lamp types we are no

longer going to allow.

It is not going to be strictly an

engineering-based analysis.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
123

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Otherwise it's a strict

2 subst i tute?

3 MR. YANDEK: We don't have the time to do

4 what we would normally propose doing if we are going

5 to do that many different analyses because we only

6 have three years.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

8 MR. YANDEK: We're going to make some

9 decisions along the way like we always do in a

10 rulemaking, and the more consensus we have, the faster

11 we ' ll make those.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary, I was going to let

13 Steve follow on briefly. I thought you had one more

14 thing you wanted to say there.

15 MR. FERNSTROM: Right. On this, I'm

16 sensing, Mike, this theoretical analysis that is based

17 on engineering analysis and what theoretically is

18 poss ibl e.

19 We have an awful lot of products on the

20 market, and you should look at that. Just to give an

21 example, on the lamp replacement analysis, let's talk

22 T8s, you have an option to go to a quote super G8

23 higher watts, higher lumens, higher efficacy. You

24 look at that, and that may or may not screen.

2511 You also have the options of going to some

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
124

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

lower wattage at lower lumens. You look at what's out

there, and decide, based on the cost relationship

which one makes the most sense. Just like you have

32-30, 28, and I think there's even some 25 and 26

watt T8s out there.

Look at what's on the market. That will

give you the range of products, and let the economics

fall where they will.

MR. BROOKMAN: Gary is next in the queue,

and then I wait to queue Mike Scholand.

Go ahead, Gary.

MR. FERNSTROM: My issue has been

addressed; thank you.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thank you for

your inhibition.

MR. SCHOLAND: Doug, I will yield to my

boss, Mike Rivest, momentarily.

I had a new slide I want to show the group

here.

Mme. RIVEST: Steve, I appreciate that you

guys are going to negotiate. I hope so every night.

But I can't take that for granted.

For example in the situation where there

are lamps on the market that are 30 watts that are

socket compatible with 32s, okay, there's an example

(VEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

125

where there is an attempt to maintain lumen output,

and reduce watts, and thus generate true energy

savings.

And that is sort of the framework that I

have in mind for the engineering analysis for lamps.

So that's going back to what do we keep constant, in

my mind we keep the lumens constant and you let the

watts vary.

And that's in fact the way the market is

going. There are 30 watts, and I have seen 28 watts -

MR. SCHOLAND: Mike, can you look at the

screen?

This slide is for four - foot T8 lamps.

These are products that are in the catalogs.

Conan mentioned the database they' ve been

putting together at LRC, and we have watts plotted

along the X axis, efficacy on they Y axis. And you

can see, there is approximately a 2,700 lumen line.

If you hold that constant, that's this line.

If you go down in watts, you're going up

in efficacy. But any lamp occurring on this line will

produce exactly 2,700 lumens. That's what holding the

lumen output approximately constant from the baseline

model means.

25 So there are models here today, the 30

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

126

watts and 28, watts, T8 four-foots, which are medium

bi-pin, and I may be mistaken, but I understand they

could operate on the ballast they are currently

operating the lamps over here in the 32 column, or

some of them can, but maybe not all of them.

MR. BROOKMAN: Did you finish, Mike?

MR. RIVEST: I think he bailed me out

pretty good.

(Laughter)

MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock first.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock. Yes,

again, this is great information to have, but like the

people from GE said, in the analysis if the, I'll say

the fixture wattage doesn't change when you replace

the lamps, you have increased the light output. I

think you need to highlight that, that it's part of

the analysis.

Again, I don't know what the cost of the

various lamps are, but you have not saved any energy.

MR. BROOKMAN: Ed Yandek.

MR. YANDEK: Yes, I look forward to a more

detailed engineering discussion on this, because while

this curve is true, the implication that you can take

the 28 watt lamp and use it in all available ballasts

and without application restrictions today would not

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
127

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

be true.

So ultimately we have to look at, are we

going to allow these lamps to be part of energy

management systems; are they going to be allowed to be

dimmed without application restrictions? Well, I

would certainly hope so, and as you go down to the end

of that curve, what you really find out is that these

are kind of somewhat niche applications that are

pushing the wattage about as low as you can go, with

restrictions on applications for today's ballast.

So while the products may exist, I don't

think you can conclude that that means that you can

automatically say that is where all lamps could or

should be for the future.

So we do have to do a lot more discussion

on the engineering part of this.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, Mark.

MR. REA: This is Mark Rea.

To operationalize your comment about

dimming an application, don't you mean the lamp life

is compromised? You mean you are talking about

flickering, you are talking about end darkening, and

all the other issues? Okay.

MR. BROOKMAN: I want to press on through

the rest of these slides. It's getting on towards

(202) 2344433

(VEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
128

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

lunch, and we have quite a bit more to cover, so let's

do that.

On to 53. Mike Scholand.

MR. SCHOLAND: This is my last slide. I'll

be handing over to Conan after this.

The Department is proposing a four step

methodology to conduct the engineering analysis. It

will be a hybrid of the efficiency level approach,

whereas the Department conducts interviews with

manufacturers on the engineering cost efficiency

curve, and supplemented by a design option approach

which would -look at those values, look at publicly

available literature and other sources to qualify the

data provided by industry.

I'll just walk briefly through the four

steps.

The first step would be to determine the

efficacy levels for gathering data on the cost of

production.

Second step: Collect manufacturer design

options and cost data broken down by direct and

indirect costs. These would be supplemented with

interviews with the manufacturers to enhance our

understanding of the improvements and associated

costs.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

129

We would then take all that information

and on the aggregate, not for any one manufacturer but

on the aggregate, prepare engineering analysis curves,

which we were talking about on the previous slide as

the manufacturer's selling price and efficacy, and we

would then supplement that with our qualification of

data that we can get from public sources to determine

that that cost efficiency curve is approximately

correct, and then finally document the analysis and

provide the data which then feeds into life-cycle

cost, manufacturer impact analysis, and the employment

impact analyses.

MR. BROOKMAN: Questions on these

methodologies or this methodology?

Okay, thank you.

Steve Nadel.

MR. NADEL: Steve Nadel.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

As people who've been to other of these

workshops know, we think it's very important that any

data you do collect from manufacturers do get cross

checked with other sources.

In this case I think you do have very good

source available in that the large states have these

standard prices that they negotiate with

manufacturers, so it gives you prices on a wide range

(202) 234-4433

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

130

of products with low but not zero markups. So if you

can get some information on the markups involved, you

can get some pretty good publicly available

information, particularly California and New York have

some very large and comprehensive effectively sets of

prices in large quantities.

MR. O'ROURKE: Okay, next, as Mike showed

previously in slide 52, we're talking about

manufacturer selling price. In order to evaluate

that, we're looking at manufacturer production costs;

markups; and getting at the selling price.

So the first part just talking about

production casts, we're looking at direct material,

direct labor costs, factory overhead and depreciation

as part of this.

And this information will come from

interviews with manufacturers, in helping to use that

information to develop this cost efficiency curves.

And then trying to qualify that through

independent measures. So some of these products that

are more efficacious are already on the market today,

and we can use that price information to help figure

out how we could go up along that curve for cost

versus efficiency.

(202) 234-4433

So again the three parts that Mike talked

NEAP R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neairgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

131

about, just starting with the baseline product, the

base manufacturing interviews, getting the information

to help us establish how much additional cost does it

take to get to this higher efficacy.

For this type of product it's not just

like putting in a more efficient motor or fan. There

are a lot of implications on the manufacture and

processing of these products, and it's not as simple

putting one new component in it just improves

everything. It has to be a process; manufacturing has

to be included.

And then last step is trying to qualify

some of those data points to see if these curves are

realistic, either based on independent data we can

gather.

Next we'll talk about the manufacturer

interviewing guidelines. Some of these points we've

already talked about today. For instance these

improvements in efficacy, how much can or should the

Department allow a life to be compromised or improved?

Same is true with light output; within

what percent? If we're talking equivalent light

output, maybe that's an ideal, but is 10 percent lower

light output okay, or is 20 percent? What is these X

and Y values for these allowances for the percentages?

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

132

And the fact about having to be able to

operate on the existing ballast, and we've already had

some of that discussion today.

And the max tech which Mike talked about

earlier on the upper end of this curve, this top

maximum technology, if cost were no object. Where

could you go, and how high would that efficacy limit

be.

MR. BROOKMAN: Comments. You can see item

13, there is quite a bit of content there. And maybe

we should look at item 15 first at the bottom of page

57.

I thought having noted the complexity that

there was general agreement about the Department's

intention to normalize around lumen output, but

generally - that people are comfortable with that.

So I want to skip that, move back to item

13, get your detailed comments on the content there on

item 13.

MR. LEWIS: The items are from the

framework document for the presentation.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. That's helpful

clarification. That was Ron Lewis by the way.

MR. HOWLEY: This is Joe Howley.

2511 I'd just like to make one comment on your

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
133

1

2

3

4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

proposed analysis.

You're trying to use a process to come up

with what you think might be the manufacturer's

selling price. And in my mind, that's probably not

the most efficient way of doing it.

The manufacturing selling price is

actually the one thing that is probably the most

easily known by either talking to distributors or

looking at state contracts or other types of publicly

available information.

And it seemed to me it'd be easier to

start with that known data point for the various

technologies, and if you want, work backwards if you

want to by assuming markups.

Markups are going to go to volume, so the

higher volume lamps are going to have lower markups;

the lower volume lamps are going to have higher

markups. If you want to try to get back to what you

think is the manufacturer cost to make that lamp.

Because that data is probably going to be

the most difficult to get, and probably the least

likely to be provided by manufacturers, because it's

viewed as fairly proprietary from an individual

company.

25 11 But the pricing is known. It's not that

(202) 23413433

(VEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

134

hard to get the pricing from publicly available

sources.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

Yes, Gary.

MR. FERNSTROM: Thank you.

Joe, isn't the pricing in the lighting

market value-based, so I think everything you say is

true about working backwards from known public

contract prices and so on.

But reflected in that pricing I don't

think is the cost of the technology necessary; I think

it's the value of the features to the consumer. And

energy efficiency is just one of the features that has

value.

'I'iae color of the light, the life of the

lamp, all those other things have value. So if we're

trying to sort out the cost of the technology as it

relates to energy efficiency, we need to be careful

not to get that confounded and confused with the value

to consumers of these other attributes that don't

result in efficiency.

MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest.

MR. RIVEST: I'm trying to read between the

lines here.

25 It certainly would be ideal if products

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

135

that are more efficient for all product categories

were readily available and pricing was established, so

that we could probably skip this whole engineering

piece and go straight to the life-cycle costs, which

is the next discussion.

And of course we're going to - part of the

concept of trying to, quote, validate the data

supplied from the engineering is to get that market

information.

Now what I think I'm hearing is that it's

possible that we may not receive cost information on

the industry level. And I would like to keep an open

mind to possibly having interviews, one-on-one

interviews, potentially cite this as conference calls,

where some of this proprietary type discussion can be

held, so that we can anchor these retail prices into

technology understanding, basic physics that are

ongoing, so that concerns such as the one expressed

might be addressed.

Would that be covered in your comments?

MR. PITSOR: This is Kyle Pitsor with NEMA.

We're going to be working to facilitate that process.

We don't collect any of this kind of information

today. This is all proprietary information in terms

of the NEMA effort, and the individual company data on

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

136

these collective data on manufacturing costs; much

less this kind of information at this level of detail.

MR. RIVEST: Okay, this is the third

framework document meeting we're having. And other

industries behave and provide information in different

ways, and certainly this information is highly

concentrated, and that makes getting data even more

complex.

And looking back to the analysis that was

done for ballast, I think it was done based on retail

pricing. So there would be a history here with NEMA

of going that route.

MR. BROOKMAN: So let me note, that was

Kyle Pitsor, followed by Mike Rivest.

Steve, though, you are next in the queue.

MR. NADEL: Okay, two comments on this.

One, I think Joe Howley had a good point,

where if you start with some of this publicly

available data, massage it, then take you up on your

offer to meet with the companies one on one with a

confidentiality agreement to see if you can get some

additional enlightenment so you can do your analysis

and come out with some aggregate if you will that

hides any proprietary data, that may be your best way

to get at the information you want at the least, I'll

(202) 234-4433

(VEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
137

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

say, time and cost to everybody involved; that's one

comment.

Second comment is, you talk about, gee, we

have to group this into five levels. That can work

well for certain other products where, you know, it's

a continuum and you can do everything. In these cases

there are a certain number of products out there, and

I think you should have some flexibility. In some

cases it may be less than five; in some it may be

more. Look at what the natural breakpoints are in the

market, for reflector lamps you have probably a slight

improvement by dealing with filaments and fill gas or

something, and halogen, you have halogen IR.

Maybe it's only three, whereas for some

others it may be more. So work with the market; don't

have a cookie-cutter approach in how do we somehow

squeeze a fit.

MR. SCHOLAND: Doug, could I just do a

follow on to that?

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes.

MR. SCHOLAND: One of the ways we are

talking about life as a variable is, you could

increase the efficacy of those same reflector lamps

and shorten the life.

So Steve, it is possible at least in that

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

138

technology that you might have a little more

variability around the efficacy, and that's something

we want to discuss.

It may not be a lamp you can pick up and

buy in 2006, but if the standard were to come into

place manufacturers may produce one that hits the

1,000-hour target and is efficacious.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

I'm going to ask us to move on at this

point.

MR. O'ROURKE: Okay, next we're going to

talk about a markup, manufacturer markup section.

I just wanted to comment that we did

address this when we talked about manufacturer

production cost. It's retail price data as an

approach to try to go from here to production cost.

So that was one of the ways we were considering.

For manufacturer markups, trying to get

from publicly available information such as SEC 10K

reports, annual reports from manufacturers, and also

investment type reports, trying to get that

information about the revenues.

I think we've talked about some of these

issues, but 14 and 16.

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, I think we addressed

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
139

1 some of these.

2 I want to see if there are any additional

3 comments . I thought we took a pretty good run at both

4 of those.

5 Now on to slide 60.

6 MR. O'ROURKE : Slide 60 again was

7 propri et ary des ign.

8 MR. BROOKMAN : Steve Nadel has done.

9 MR. O'ROURKE: Oh, sorry.

10 MR. BROOKMAN : Yes, Steve.

11 MR. NADEL : Just one thing. To the extent

12 you're going to rely on SEC filings and whatnot,

13 remember that this is a highly - the major players in

14 this industry have many business lines. So you should

15 be not expecting to get too much information , because

16 you're going to be coaxing out medical equipment, and

17 lighting applying to it, et cetera.

18 So you may have to emphasize some of those

19 other dat a sources.

20 MR. BROOKMAN : Thank you, Steve.

21 Okay.

22 MR. FERNSTROM: For my friends at Philips,

23 I've got a Philips toothbrush.

24 (Laughter)

25 MR. BROOKMAN : That was Gary ' s comment.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
140

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Okay, moving on.

MR. LEWIS: To Steve Nadel's point, coaxing

that information out of lOKs is not less challenging

that balancing all those other technical issues we've

talked about as far as ballast, lumen output, and

visibility.

MR. BROOKMAN: So you think coaxing out the

toothbrush analogy is useful here? Okay.

MR. LEWIS: And we do want to rate propane

as a fill gas. So.

(Laughter)

MR. O'ROURKE: For proprietary designs,

we're evaluating all possible design options that are

commercially available, and in working prototypes as

Mike mentioned before.

The proprietary designs will be considered

if there is not just one way to get to that level. If

there is only one way then that would be excluded

during this process.

On other outside regulatory changes, also

for instance if fluorescent lamps, changes that happen

with mercury has an impact, that would be considered

an outside regulatory change as well.

MR. BROOKMAN: So then item 17 focuses on

proprietary designs, and how that then relates to cost

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
141

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

data.

Yes, Kyle Pitsor?

MR. PITSOR: I guess the only general

comment we'd make at this point in terms of item 17 is

that we feel it would be highly inappropriate to

regulate the creation of proprietary designs, since

there is no basis to determine the cost. And hence we

don't see that being particularly useful.

MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments on item 17?

Eighteen, outside issues that the

Department should consider in its analysis of general

service fluorescents, incandescent reflector lamps,

and additional general service incandescent lamps.

(Off-mike voice)

MR. BROOKMAN: No additional comments here?

Yes, Kyle Pitsor.

MR. PITSOR: In terms of examples you

mentioned any mercury-related regulations.

MR. O'Rourke: Yes, that would be

considered a type of outside regulatory - just as an

example.

CFC phase-out was another one for another

rulemaking prJocess on refrigerators where changes in

CFC regulation had an impact on the rulemaking

process.

(202) 2344433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

142

Mr. Brockman: So then finally item 21 at

the bottom of slide 61, comment upon other engineering

issues that would impact the engineering analysis.

We've already begun some of this. Let's

see if there are any others. I'm looking particularly

to the industry folks for their thoughts if there are

any additions at this time.

Okay, so I think we're in good shape.

Si at that, then, it's now 12:15, let's go

to lunch.

Yes, before we go to lunch, Ed Yandek.

MR. YANDEK: Yes, one question.

Just maybe one general question for Linda.

I look back at the timeline when we want

to publish the ANOPR. Having been through several of

these before, I know you need at least a couple of

days to prepare the ANOPR.

Realistically backing up when you go into

what I would'-'call the serious writing mode, at which

point you don't want to see a lot of changes with the

ANOPR, when would you anticipate that point would be?

Because then that's our realistic window of work that

we have to get done for the ANOPR.

So how much time do you need? Is it a

month? Is it two weeks? Is it six months?

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
143

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis.

MR. LEWIS: I think the statement this

morning about time being of essence, and rather than

looking at what's the last window of opportunity, we

have in - I think it's page 52 of our report to

Congress - a model of all the analyses, and the time

that it takes to do those analyses, and they feed

sequentially one into another. You have to complete

one in order to start the next one.

And there's a model that I think would be

very helpful guidance for you. We have comment

periods that have a definitive start and finish, that

we need to collect as much as we can to move forward

to make these dates.

So we need to look at how do we get things

done f ront end, and looking at that model of all the

things that have to be done, we have a whole lot of

people that have commented on the performance of the

office on getting rulemakings gone, and we have some

commitments to get things done by a certain time, and

we need to find ways to get it done on time.

So I'd rather not take that approach of

what is the last opportunity in order to get those

couple of days, and if you would refer to that and

take a look at it, that might be helpful to look at

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

144

when some information might be more useful than

others, or if we had to something ahead of something

else, it would give you some guidance of where we

would need that information.

MR. BROOKMAN: That was page?

MR. LEWIS: Fifty two, I believe.

MR. BROOKMAN: Fifty two.

Tom DePriest.

MR. DePRIEST: This is Tom DePriest, Office

of General Coi nsel, DOE.

To put what Ron said in just a slightly

different slant, with the report to Congress and the

litigation that you all are aware of with regard to

our timing of rulemakings, to the extent that you are

relying on previous rulemakings and timelines, that

would be erroneous.

Those are no longer operative, and one of

the things, in order to make the report to Congress

and to come up with an aggressive timeline to do

rulemakings, -one of the things that we've had to

condense is the interaction with stakeholders.

So as Ron said, we have a very defined

time for interaction. We're in it for this particular

rulemaking right now, but when the door closes on

comments, that's it, and we'll move on to the next

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
145

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

stage, and you'll hear from us with the ANOPR.

There used to be a lot more back and

forth, and to and fro. We would put things up on the

Internet, have web broadcasts. We simply can't do

that. People are too busy; there are too many

commitments; too much on our schedule.

So we will be moving forward aggressively

with the close of the comment period to the next

stage.

MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis.

MR. LEWIS: If I could clarify Tom's

clarification of what I said.

(Laughter)

I think in trying to give you some

direction and guidance of how quickly we need data,

we've got to have that conversation with you. If that

was your question.

So we can talk about it, but those

windows, and I think enough said, you heard the

message. We had very little flexibility on the end

point, and we need to find a way of getting there and

have a certainty of getting there.

MR. YANDEK: My comment is just predicated

on just sensing that, and realizing that we need to

find a way to,,truncate or shorten some of these open-

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

146

ended analyses, and the sooner we can do some of that

the better.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, Andrew Delaski.

MR. DELASKI: This is another question

relevant to this morning, the first part of this

morning, about the Department's authority to cover

products not currently covered, to broaden the scope

of coverage.

This morning we talked about the timeline

for those decisions. My other question is, what are

the criteria Jthe Department will use for determining

whether or not a given set of products currently

outside the scope of the existing standards might be

brought into coverage?

MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis.

MR. LEWIS: Those discussions and internal

deliberations of how we're going to come to closure,

and what the legal authority is, this morning I asked

where people were suggesting that we consider other

products that weren't shown in this presentation today

in the framework document, that if you have specific

areas and portions of the law that you feel direct us

to do things, there are going to be a lot of

deliberations of how we can expand what our authority

is in taking into consideration the comments that we

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
147

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

receive from everybody.

So I can't tell you what the outcome is

going to be, or even all the criteria, but we want -

this first kickoff of getting started, hearing the

comments and hearing the perspectives of everybody, is

the starting point.

So there are a lot of discussions going

forward, and I can't tell you what that final

screening is, because I don't have all the

interpretations internally yet.

So we truthfully want to hear your

thoughts and your perspective, and where you think

that authority comes, and to the extent that I think

everybody has been wonderful in expressing their

viewpoint of what they would like us to do, that's all

input; it's all on the public record now. And we want

to have that to test it against what we can and cannot

do.

So I appreciate your question. I just

think we don't have an answer for you right now.

MR. DELASKI: And just to follow up, Ron,

so there is also the question of the general service

A-line, just call them `A-line.' But as the slide

that was put up earlier, there are a lot of lamps that

25I fall under that category.

(202) 234.4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
148

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

So would your answer be the same for

those?

MR. LEWIS: In making a determination, an

official determination, of what products, you've

followed the standards program for a long time in the

determination process of collecting and deliberating,

it being just the starting point of, is there. enough

evidence? Should we do something? Is there a

compelling reason, and do we have the authority to do

things?

I don't think we're going to deviate a lot

from what's happened in the past of considering all

the factors, and looking at the authority that we

have, and what's reasonable.

And I think the history - there are some

areas where the history is lacking where we should

have done better timewise especially.

But I think there are a lot of times where

the deliberation of what we've analyzed, and the

considerations that the - I think have been generally

pretty well done. I haven't heard a lot of push back

on those.

So if you have suggestions from your

historic engagement and interaction with if you

2511 have some recommendations and specifics that you want

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

149

us to make sure that we consider, please do it; now is

the time to do it.

So I don't mean to be vague, but there is

a whole lot to be decided, and a whole lot of people

who are involved in that.

So this is the kickoff. This is the

gathering place of trying to get our arms around all

the factors; make sure we're heard your perspective.

And we've got a whole lot of talking around here

before I could more crisply define things for you.

And I apologize for being a little bit

vague, but we've been through the process for a long

time, and know that sometimes the front end is vague;

it's trying to get a sense ourselves of what all the

issues are, and these kinds of venues.

There are once in awhile surprises that

come in that we hadn't considered where we need to add

on, to tack on, and it was something that we were just

not aware of.

So good question; mediocre answer.

MR. BROOKMAN: So I suggest that we take

lunch. It's now almost 12:30. We fortunately are

almost exactly halfway through the material we intend

to cover today.

I'm going to suggest we return at 1:30 to

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
150

1 resume. Don't go off campus. Stay here in the

2 building. If you leave here you may not get back.

3 And please, everybody wear your badge or

4 whatever credential you have, or you may be escorted

5 by someone with a gun.

6 And I just want to thank everybody for the

7 really the positive spirit of engagement and

8 collaboration that happened this morning. We really

9 made tremendous progress. It really helps the

10 Department.

11 And we'll see you back here at 1:30.

12 There will be a troop of people going downstairs and

13 over across t16 the larger cafeteria if you want to tag

14 along.

15 And Brenda Edwards-Jones has the key. She

1 6 will be l ocking thi s room.

17 (Whereupon at 12:29 p.m. the proceeding in the above18 entitled matter went off the

19 record to return on the record

20 at 1:37 p.m.)

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Jessica.

22 MS. HARRISON: We're starting now?

23 A-il right .

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, so let's start back

25 up. And we made really good progress in the morning.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

151

I hope you all got some lunch because we have a lot

to do this afternoon.

And Melissa, are you up? Pardon me,

Jessica, what was I thinking? I apologize.

(Laughter)

MS. HARRISON: Take two.

All right, so here we're getting into the

analyses for the ANOPR, the Advanced Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking. And I'm going to talk a bit

about markups for equipment price determination, and

then we'll get into energy use and end-use load

characterization which feed into life-cycle cost and

payback period analyses.

Mike Scholand will be discussing the

shipments analysis and national impact analysis.

So here we have the markup analysis. And

the purpose here is to develop price markups from the

manufacturer after we've determined the manufacturer's

selling price, to the consumer or end-user.

An example of what the markups will

include are distribution costs like shipping costs and

handling costs. And we're going to need to establish

consumer prices for both baseline lamps and for lamps

of higher efficacies that we're analyzing.

Each time the equipment passes hands,

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
152

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

we're going to look at the markup that goes through

there. The channels are different, and so the first

thing we need to do is identify what the distribution

channels are

I put up here three sort of straw men;

they are not detailed, but we'll need to work on

detailing them.

The first is a manufacturer to a

distributor to a contractor to the consumer. And the

contractor here would often help with installation.

Distribution channel two goes straight

from the manufacturer to the distributor to the

consumer. So skipping the contractor.

And the third is going from the

manufacturer straight to the consumer, and this talks

about national accounts, I believe what Steve Nadel

was talking about with state procurement.

And one point to note here is that we'll

have to identify, because we're doing three different

products that are residential, commercial and

industrial, we'll want to identify which distribution

chains are relevant to which products, and also

understand the shipments for each distribution chain

just to understand the market structure.

(202) 234-4433

So those are the main points to cover on

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

153

the markups here for the distribution channel, which

is separate from the markups we talked about before.

MR. BROOKMAN: So you can see there on 64

the Department has really benefited in the past from

everybody's comments on the different distribution

chains, who the key stakeholders are, typical markups

and total markup.

And let's start with that first to the

extent it could be described here.

MR. HOWLEY: This is Joe from GE. Those

are the three primary distribution channels; I would

agree. The consumer channel obviously it would be

easy enough to get pricing data by surveying consumer

accounts for those types of products.

Primarily A-line, incandescent reflector

through there, a much smaller amount of linear

fluorescent, but some linear fluorescent goes through

there.

Your first channel was more characteristic

of the distribution channel. You have the contractor

in there, but the contractor probably only comes into

play when you're doing retrofits or new construction;

otherwise it goes right to the consumer right from the

distributor, electrical wholesaler, right to a

commercial or industrial account. You can buy it

(202) 234-4433

(VEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

154

right from the distributor, but you could also get

pricing from distributors, major distributors fairly

easily.

The last channel, channel three, is

actually a =very, very small channel. Almost

everything goes through some kind of distribution,

just because of the nature of our products. Millions

of customers; millions of products get shipped through

there, so it almost all goes through distribution

channels.

But to the extent that exists probably

primarily these kind of state contracts or things like

that; but it is a very small segment. You could

almost ignore it.

Mt. HARRISON: Would it be possible to get

the information about shipments through distribution

channels? That helps with our LCC inputs of prices

for consumers.

MR. HOWLEY: We could probably give you

some high level data. We'll have to discuss this

through NEMA, and NEMA does collect statistical

information on these channels, and we could probably

get some high-low data for these product types.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

MS. HARRISON: Okay, so moving on, I want

(202) 234.4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

155

to talk about the energy use, and end-use load

characterization.

This is an input into the life-cycle cost

and payback period analyses. It helps us derive

operating costs.

We'd like to understand the energy

consumption for each of our lamp types detailed by

sector. So to develop energy use we're going to use

lamp wattages and operating hours.

For fluorescent lamps we can adjust lamp

wattage by the ballast it's operating on, based on an

average ballast factor for each of the sectors.

We can take into account variability in

operating hours by developing a distribution of

numbers.

Also I'll discuss HVAC interactions in a

couple of slides to come.

So this just looks at some of the inputs

for wattage which is fairly straightforward. We will

potentially have manufacturing information which we

can verify by product catalogs.

For operating hours we're looking to

develop a distribution of values. We're open to

feedback on what sources we should use.

This here is a copy of, a graph of data

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

156

that we found in the ballast rulemaking, and we're

also looking to the Lighting Market Characterization

Report, Volume 1, from 2002, which has sources of

information for operating hours by sector; so we can

look at all three sectors there.

We welcome input on what other sources of

information you guys might have.

So when we get to HVAC interactions,

obviously we recognize that lighting can contribute to

heat load. We looked at what the ballast rulemaking

did to address this issue. In 1999 an LBNL study

determined that there was a national aggregate savings

from HVAC interactions.

Of course building stock was an important

factor in determining what the size of those savings

were. They ended up settling on a multiplier of 6.25

percent. We are proposing to update this number

according to changes in building stock, from when the

analysis was done.

Generally we're expecting though it would

range from 5 to 10 percent based on the analysis that

they did previously.

They incorporated the HVAC interaction

only in the national energy savings analysis; they did

not incorporate it into the NPV calculation, nor did

(202) 2344433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
157

1

2

3

4

5

6

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

they include it in the LCC calculation.

And part of that has to do with the

difficulty in being able to track the amount of

information you need to incorporate into both of these

analyses. The LCC looks at the consumer level, and in

order to be able to incorporate it into the LCC you'd

need information about customers regionally by sector;

you'd have to know the fuel that was used for the HVAC

systems, and how those developed over time. And

because we're looking at a second order effect, we're

thinking that to include it into the NES with a

multiplier the way the lamp ballast rulemaking would

be consistent with what was done in the past, it would

make for a more simple rule, and we'd still be able to

take into account HVAC analysis.

We look forward to your feedback on that.

And with that I think we can open it to some

discussion.

MR. BROOKMAN: So yes, and then

particularly item 19 as you see there, recommendations

on sources of data that would provide end use

operating profiles for each of the lamp types.

Steve Rosenstock.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, Edison

Electric Institute.

(202) 234-4433

(VEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

158

There are a lot of publicly available

datasets, plus there are many end use studies, either

through EPRI or utilities or like NYSERDA or

California Energy Commission; there are a lot of

studies on end use lighting, commercial especially is

very straightforward.

I- would suggest for this especially, there

are a couple of things I want to say. Lighting

distribution for the fluorescent I think, as I recall,

again if someone else could help, I think this is

everything - residential, commercial and industrial,

they just tried to basically lump together. As I

recall they tried to, just for the rulemaking, they

did try to lump it altogether for this type of

distribution. If I'm wrong, please correct me.

But in terms of the fluorescent lamps, it

still might be a good approach to try to - there is

especially with fluorescent what's called 80 - 90

percent commercial-industrial versus 10 percent

residential. So this type of distribution looks to be

reasonable. You might want to update it for increased

amount of lighting controls for commercial buildings.

That might actually lower the amount of operating

hours.

251 On the incandescent side it's totally

(202) 2341433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
159

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

different. You know, primarily residential I would

guess, and especially in hours of operation much more

towards the left, and especially the talk about energy

and demand, and just from the utility perspective, we

use things like diversity factors. Twenty fixtures in

a home, but only two might be on at a normal time, so

that's like a 10 percent diversity factor, 10 percent

usage factor.

And then we have a thing called

coincidence, which coincidence with utility peak

demand. And again in the residential sector it can be

very low. Some utilities say coincident diversity

factor as well; in California that is the term used.

I think there is data out there to use,

and I would strongly suggest breaking out by

incandescent versus fluorescent, and then especially

tracking. But again, try to use - there is a lot of

publicly available data out there. We'll try to add

some other input type of thing, but especially that -

and in terms of HVAC interaction, especially, I would

again break out by type of technology, incandescent

versus fluorescent.

And again in terms of some of these HVAC

effects, again, there has been a trend of higher HVAC

efficiency, which means again there might be, just in

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
160

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

terms of the actual effect, it's lower because of the

HVAC equipment by itself has become much more

efficient over the last several due to codes or market

conditions, et cetera.

Thank you.

MR. BROOKMAN: Kyle.

MR. PITSOR: Kyle Pitsor. In terms of

available data, one of the important sources the

Department is already aware of because of the lighting

characterization studies that you have already funded

and that Navigant has done, you have an excellent

source for some of this information.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Tom Eckman.

MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman. Northwest Power

Conservation Council. I think there are a couple of -

there are a couple of studies in the residential

sector that have been done since the lighting

characterizat'±on study was done. I'm aware of one

fairly detailed study in California that actually

looked at lighting logging data, so they actually had

the number of hours by room type. So you could - I

think that might have been married with a lighting

characterization that this is the type of fixture that

was in that room, so you might be able to get whether

it was a flood light or -

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
161

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Tom?

MR. LEWIS: Do you remember who did that,

MR. ECKMAN: It's on the CALMAC website.

You guys can find it on the website. I can't remember

exactly when it was done, but I think it was done by

HMG I think, yeah. And that's probably as good as you

can get it in the residential anywhere in the country.

MS. HARRISON: Is that California data

only, or is national?

MR. ECKMAN: It's California data, but they

looked at - California extends over a long range of

latitude, so they looked at whether north to south

makes a difference in hours of operation; it turns out

not. So there are some interesting -

MR. ROSENSTOCK: I think the Florida Solar

Energy Center, they did a nice detailed study, and

they included lighting.

MR. ECKMAN: They included data logging.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Yeah, I think they did

some data logging.

MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock. Florida

Solar Energy) Center, I think I found one of their

studies on the web too that was kind of interesting.

(202) 234-4433

MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments on data

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
162

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

sources?

MR. ECKMAN: The interaction factor appears

for commercial and residential as well?

MS. HARRISON: I think we hadn't as this is

an initial assessment. We looked primarily at

commercial as being one that would - would have an

impact. If you have a comment on the residential

sectors -

MR. ECKMAN: Well, clearly there is one.

If you have lighting inside that's emitting heat as

well.

MS. HARRISON: So our view is national

aggregate impact.

MR. ECKMAN: I don't know what the number

would be, but it seems to me that given the

prevalence, increasing prevalence of air conditioning

in the system, it probably is a growing component, so

the data of air conditioning saturation in the future

are clearly different than they are historically. So

given we've got a growing penetration of that

equipment, interaction is probably changing over time

compared to what it used to be, and clearly the

interaction related to space heating fuel types is

going to be different, for electric cooling and

25I) dominant gas heating.

(202) 2344433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

163

So I think it's worth looking at. I don't

know what the magnitude would be.

MS. HARRISON: If there are any studies

that you can find that we could review, I think that

that would be helpful for us to understand how much

detail we'd need to look into that.

MR. ECKMAN: Well, if you look at winter

loads, at least in the northern tier, they are clearly

doing some lighting. So we're trading one fuel

probably against another one. Whether the light loads

are coincident with the air conditioning, probably a

good chance. But it's less in the summer, because

there's light in the summer. Which is why we're doing

daylight savings time two weeks early.

MR. BROOKMAN: Gary. No?

MR. HOWLEY: Joe from GE.

I think in terms of the residential HVAC

and incandescent lamps, it's going to have a very

minor effect. I guess I question whether that's worth

a whole lot of analysis.

I mean the standard is going to stand or

fall on its own weight. Analyzing heating and cooling

for a home may not have that big an effect, and I

question whether that is really a worthwhile exercise.

But that is up to the Department and the

MEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

164

consultants to decide.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. And looking at

item 20, particularly whether end use operating

profiles are different for each of the lamp types

covered in the rulemaking; we've begun to address

that, I think.

Any additional thoughts?

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock.

Yeah, use the weighted averages as they

break out by- sector; that's the key. And I would

guess, especially in commercial buildings, especially

the ones I'm most familiar with, the incandescents

tend to be in the lobby areas or the entry areas

whereas fluorescent being more in the office areas.

So there might be some different hours of operations.

And in commercial facilities the incandescents might

have actually longer operating hours than the

fluorescent.

But again a lot of that data is publicly

available. I't's just kind of by sector.

MS. HARRISON: So I'm going to move on to

the life-cycle cost and payback period analyses.

Again the results from the engineering and

markup analyses, which give us consumer price by

efficacy level, and the energy analysis, which gives

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

165

us consumer energy use for efficacy level both feed

into the life-cycle cost analysis.

So the purpose of the payback period

analysis, or the purpose is to assess the payback

period, and to basically understand the net life-cycle

cost impacts on differing efficacy standards levels

for fluorescent and incandescent lamps.

The LCC is focused on the consumers' cost

of owning and operating a lamp over its lifetime. It

consists of consumer lamp prices, which include lamp

price and any installation cost there would be, and

operating expenses, which are discounted to a

reference year.

You can see this is illustrated on the

bottom of our slide here with that flowchart.

So for transparency, we are going to put

the LCC analysis in Microsoft Excel, and allow

stakeholders to look at sensitivities with variable

inputs.

Ultimately we're going to express the LCC

as a difference between the baseline and other higher

efficacy standard levels, candidate standards levels.

Because we are focused on lamps in this

rulemaking, we are considering again only socket-tosocket replacements for the LCC analysis.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

166

So we're considering lamps that fit into

the same fixture. We plan to use Monte Carlo analysis

to help us understand or take into account

variability. We propose combining sectors and

applications into one spreadsheet, but we'll do that

with distributions with the Monte Carlo analysis.

Also we can correlate inputs as necessary.

For instance, if you have a certain sector that you

are going to be drawing price samples from.

We realize that we are going to have to

take into account different operating ballast.

However, we're talking about the primary impact here

being on operating life, which we can try to account

for in a weighted average of lamp life.

So this flow chart here, we didn't put

this in the framework document, and it's a lot to

cover in a short amount of time. So I'm not going to

go through every input here.

I just want to say that if you look at the

total installed costs we have inputs coming in from

the engineering analysis which give us price and

markups plus the sales tax to total installed cost.

Because we're looking at lamp-to-lamp replacements,

we're not going to consider costs installing ballasts

or anything like that. So it's simply lamp-to-lamp

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
167

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

analysis.

If you look at the operating costs, we

have some outputs here from the energy use analysis,

and we're going to combine that with electricity

prices to give us an annual electricity cost.

We're also going to look at replacement

labor where it's applicable, so for instance in the

commercial and industrial sectors where you have

varying lamp life by efficacy, we will need to take

into account replacement costs where necessary.

That'll help us get the operating costs,

and then we'll need to discount the annual operating

costs to get lifetime operating costs, and we are

going to need to develop discount rates to do that.

So I'm going to go into a couple of these

inputs in more detail on a couple of sites here.

So for energy prices we used these to

convert energy use into costs. We are proposing to

use a distribution of average electricity prices,

based on EIA Form 826, and we'll look at the

commercial, industrial and residential sectors.

We would use the Annual Energy Outlook to

help us develop projections for future prices.

And on the next slide I have just a sample

of some data that we had, were able to put together

(202) 2344433

(VEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

168

for the commercial sector electricity prices. This

was based on EIA Form 826.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Quick question. Steve

Rosenstock, EEI. Is this like for one particular

month, or is this an annualized value, just out of

curiosity?

MS. HARRISON: This is an annual value.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Okay, thank you.

MS. HARRISON: And then we will be able to

project that forward.

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Gary.

M. FERNSTROM: Gary Fernstrom, PG&E. I

guess I'd encourage you to in addition to using

average electricity prices, to do sort of a bounds

analysis.

So I think it'd be worthwhile to take a

look at the impact of the standards for the least

expensive electricity in the country and the most

expensive electricity; just sort of a range, in

addition to looking to the average. Because I think

the average can be misleading.

So if I understand that comment right, the

Monte Carlo analysis looks at all the prices?

MS. HARRISON: So we're doing average

electricity prices, but we're going to look at a range

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

169

of utility rates throughout the country. So we'll be

able to sample from some rates that are across the

U.S., and that will take into account the high and low

prices that you see for average rates.

MR. FERNSTROM: But I'm interested in how

the analysis is done once the price is determined, so

rather than doing an analysis with a single average

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

price, regardless of how we derive it, I'm interested

in looking at the results of the analysis, given the

high and low limits of prices as well.

MS. HARRISON: So the LCC analysis output

would be a distribution. So we're trying to sample

multiple consumer situations, and this is a

distribution that would be relevant to consumers for

the commercial sector, if that makes sense.

MR. FERNSTROM: Okay, thank you.

MS. HARRISON: Okay.

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Steve Nadel.

MR. NADEL: Yes, for these commercial

sector electricity prices, are you just averaging

things, and basically demand charges get spread over

all kWh sales, you're looking at demand charges

separately, the data I've looked at shows that

lighting on average tends to be peak year than the

average use and therefore probably do need to factor

(202) 234-4433

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

170

in demand charges separately rather than just a simple

average.

MR. BROOKMAN: I see Mike Rivest.

MR. RIVEST: It's Mike Rivest.

Actually, Steve, the ballast analysis

showed that lighting was - the marginal rates,

lighting was a little bit lower than the average

rates. So if you were to take the energy and power of

the lighting out of the utility bill, of the typical

consumer, what remains is peak year than what was

started with. That's why the marginal rate is in fact

a little lower.

it it was a number, something like two

percent? Is that right out of the ballast?

MR. BROOKMAN: So explain this.

MS. HARRISON: So the lamp ballast

rulemaking derived - they looked at marginal prices,

and they found that with lighting that it actually

turned out the marginal prices were generally lower

than the average prices, and that has to do with

lighting peak coincidence.

MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, follow on, Steve

Nadel.

MR. NADEL: Is this an analysis of marginal

2511 rates and effectively the tail block rates? Because

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

171

those have changed quite a bit since '99 is my

understanding. And does this analysis actually

include demand charges? I'm just - I don't recall the

ballast people looking at demand charges; that was a

reform that was added after the ballast role. The

first time I believe DOE covered it was the commercial

AC rulemaking.

MR. RIVEST: This is Mike Rivest. I was

there.

Actually if you look in the appendix to

the TSD per ballast, the analysis was conducting using

the Maisy database for consumer loads, and then run

through a bill calculator, and the delta cost

calculated that way.

And that was done just after - there was a

time period where there was an advisory committee that

recommended the use of marginal rates.

So it was in fact part of the ballast

rule.

charges?

(202) 234-4433

MR. RIVEST: And it did include the man

MR. NADEL: Yes.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, Steve Rosenstock.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock.

Yeah, again, just a matter of how you want

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

172

to break out the numbers. Because if you look at the

graph back here, the commercial sector prices, the

basic calculation EIA really uses is per utility per

distribution -company for a bounded rate - that's

another story in terms of demand charges.

It's basically revenues divided by sales.

All energy, energy and demand and taxes et cetera,

divided by the total KWH sales, that is your sets per

KWH for the commercial sector for that particular

company.

Breaking out demand is what kind of LBL

did. That was kind of the second level was that,

okay, they did the bill calculator, which did show

both the energy and the demand prices, and Mike said

they did the calculation to do that type of analysis

just to see what would happen on the margin where you

would be saving the energy.

So it's really a matter of which one do

you want to use. I'll say the bundled rate, or

really, the broken out energy and demand charges. In

the case of lighting you might get to the same answer.

Or it might just be a two percent difference.

With the incandescent lighting and

residential, that might be a different story,

2511 depending on the residential rates. But you know it

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
173

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

all depends on how in depth you want to do the actual

billing analysis.

MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest.

MR. RIVEST: Certainly my experience with

these rules has been that air-conditioning, commercial

air-conditioning, was the one where the marginal rates

were significantly different, significantly higher.

So here, I didn't do the analysis myself,

but I assume the results might be within the margin of

error.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Because there is yearround loading, existing, flat.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay?

MS. HARRISON: Okay, so the next slide just

gets to the replacement labor and lamp lifetime.

Again, replacement labor would apply only

to the commercial and industrial sectors, in the case

where an efficient lamp has a shorter lifetime than

the base case.

We can figure out replacement labor

through a function of labor rates and the duration to

replace the lamps.

In addition, lamp life is an important

input, and we'd like your thoughts on developing a

lamp life number.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

174

We also, in particular, for instance one

factor that affects lamp life is group versus spot relamping, and how do we take that into consideration.

In addition usage cycles or input voltages

can affect lamp life, so we'd appreciate your comment

on developing that number.

So open it up for discussion.

MR. BROOKMAN: So maybe we can start with

item 25, maintenance preparedness installation costs

for the three lamp types. Kyle?

MR. PITSOR: Kyle Pitsor with NEMA. In

terms of just in general comments, I guess, with

respect to incandescent area, you're really only again

talking about installation costs. There really aren't

any repair of maintenance with incandescent.

For fluorescent obviously it's primarily

going to be installation, but there'll be some

maintenance. And we would suggest as a source for

information there NALMCO, the National Association of

Lighting Maintenance Companies. They perform a lot of

the lighting maintenance contracts, and also are very

involved in the issue of group re-lamping, which does

take place in the fluorescent area, obviously not in

incandescent to any degree. But even in fluorescent

group re-lamping is a fairly small percentage of the

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
175

1 overall installation practice.

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

We would commend contact with HALMCO.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

Other comments on 25? Yes, Tom Eckman.

MR. ECKMAN: This is a question on going

back to your flowchart. One of the inputs in the

calculation of the energy savings is the ballast

factor. And given the new standards for ballast, and

that this was going to take place starting in 2012, it

seems to me that there probably, the weighted average

ballast factor that the stock sees out there in 2012

is different than it is today because of the turnover.

We're a long ways from when the ballast

rules are put into effect. And by 2012 we're going to

roll over a fair amount of the existing ballast

structure. So the ballast factors may need to be

reviewed in terms of what they are during that period

of time.

MR. BROOKMAN: Kyle, I was looking at the

second question in 25. Did you say NALMCO was the

name of the group?

MR. PITSOR: NALMCO.

MR. BROOKMAN: Would they have information

on re-lamping versus spot re-lamping? Group relamping versus spot re-lamping, have that information

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
176

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

as well?

MR. PITSOR: We think they would. They

represent a lot of the lighting maintenance companies

that do these contracts for group re-lamping for

commercial establishments.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, so then let's move to

item #26, comment on the lamp lifetimes for the three

lamp types.

And you can see the question there. For

the commercial and industrial sectors, should group

re-lamping be taken into consideration? And if so how

should the Department characterize the impact on lamp

lifetimes?

Joe?

MR. HOWLEY: Joe from GE. For lamp

lifetimes, wed d recommend you use catalog information.

It's pretty commonly available for all of these lamp

types.

In terms of group re-lamping, we made a

comment. Certainly you shouldn't consider group relamping analysis for any of the incandescent or

incandescent reflector lamps; it can be considered for

the fluorescent types.

The impact on lamp lifetimes , typically

the group lamp at about 70 percent of rate life, so in

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
177

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

that case you'd take about 70 percent of the lamp

lifetime.

Again you could get some further input

from NALMCO, but generally that is pretty typical in

terms of the group lamping cycle.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, Conan.

MR. O'ROURKE: This is Conan O'Rourke.

Just to comment on that, Joe, for fluorescent lamps,

things that will also contribute to lamp lifetime will

be time of use. In the catalog you can find 3-hour

data or 12-hour data, so deciding which one to use,

and also, what type of ballast may be used, whether

instant start versus rapid start you'd be rated for

each different application.

So that would have to factor into this on

what type of combination of systems we did the

analysis for.

MR. BROOKMAN : Thank you.

MR. SCHOLAND: Can I jump in on that, Joe?

Mike Scholand here.

Well, Conan just raises a point the team

has been discussing internally that the impact on life

- you mentioned catalog values is for example 20,000

hours - the impact on life of the two things he's just

mentioned, the type of ballast and the operating hours

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

178

in a given time period - like we looked at Jessica's

hours of distribution from the ballast rulemaking.

And between 3- and 4 , 0 0 0 hours a year, it's about 12

hours a day, the life is considerably longer.

Would that be something that NEMA would be

able to submit a comment on, or is it something that

really is kiid of in the noise, and the Department

really shouldn't worry about, and just use the catalog

values; some input on that would be helpful.

MR. BROOKMAN: Joe?

MR. HOWLEY: It is difficult to get at in

terms of exactly how people operate and use these

lamps.

Certainly many facilities operate in the

12 hours a day or longer. They come on in the

beginning, and they turn off. But we also see an

increasing use of occupancy sensors, which tend to

shorten lamp life; perhaps shorter than three hours

per start, maybe much shorter than three hours per

start. And then there are also some other rooms,

smaller rooms, private offices, where you have people

coming in and out, conference rooms, so you're getting

starts.

You may try to normalize it to the

operating hour data from your analysis from a couple

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

179

of years ago, and obviously the operating hours are

shorter; you can maybe use a shorter hours per start.

As they get longer you can use the longer one.

But I imagine the best you can do is come

up with some kind of weighting factor for part of the

market you analyze, the three-hour per start, the 12-

hour, but we wouldn't have real accurate data there,

because that gets to how a user physically uses this

which is really hard to track unless somebody is

monitoring the facility, tracking it.

So we don't have a lot of hard numbers on

how many are used; just trend data.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

Steve Rosenstock?

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock.

Yeah, again, there is end use data, people

do log and track what the actual operating hours. I

know about starting and stopping, especially with

motion sensors. They might track how much that sensor

is saving, you know, so that might give you a proxy

value. Then instead of 10 hours a day, it's eight

hours a day, so they save 20 percent for example.

And the other thing I would guess is, you

know, again, trying to use catalog values for I'll say

the high efficiency case, again, just to where

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

180

possible use published data, and then again, assume

again baseline case three hours per start; efficiency

case, three hours per start. And then the only

difference would be catalog, lifetime, hours of

operation, based on that data.

That might be the only difference, but it

should be doable.

MR. BROOKMAN : Okay.

Life-cycle cost analysis.

MS. HARRISON: So as discussed lamp life

might vary according to efficacy levels. This poses a

question on how to establish the timeline of analysis.

We've developed a couple of options here

which we can discuss, and we'd welcome your feedback

on these or other approaches.

The first is a variable time period that

is based on usage and on rated lamp life, which we've

just been discussing. We'd use an average lamp life,

and then select a value from the distribution of

operating hours by customers. This is just sort of

one freeze-frame analysis of a customer.

And because you are looking at different

customers in LCC analysis, the time period might vary.

So for example if you have a lamp life of

20,000 hours, and you have a customer who uses it

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

181

4,000 per year, this would give you a five-year time

period to analyze.

But if you have a customer with a shorter

or longer usage, then your time period is going to

vary.

Of course we keep the analysis period the

same from the base-case to the high-efficacy cases,

because we want to be able to compare the LCC outputs

for each of these cases.

The second option is a fixed usage-scaled

time period. And here we'd use the same input for the

lamp life, but we'd also use the single operating hour

value. This would be an average value that we'd

Q,

develop, and it would keep the analysis period

constant throughout the analysis.

In either case, however, we're probably

going to have to take into account the remaining value

of the lamp, once the time period has ended.

For instance, if one lamp has a different

life time than another, once the analysis period has

ended it may still have not burned out, and therefore

you need to account for the value that is remaining.

MR. BROOKMAN: So the Department is

presenting two alternatives there and asking for

comment on them?

(202) 234.4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
182

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MS. HARRISON: Or even if there is a

preference.

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Dale.

MR. WORK: Just for my reference I wonder

if you could tell me, I don't find this in the

framework document. What page is this?

MS. HARRISON: I'm sorry. This is more

detail that we provided in the framework document. So

I realize it'-s a lot of information to give right now,

but it's something that if you guys can provide input

on then we'll take it; otherwise it's something to

think about before the end of the comment period.

This is just looking at what the salvage

value calculation might look like. I won't go through

all the inputs here, but you can consider it when

you're going over the information.

So finally another key input is discount

rate, and because we have three sectors, commercial,

industrial and residential sectors, we're going to

need to develop discount rates that are appropriate

for each sector.

For the commercial and industrial sectors

we're looking to use the same approach that DOE has

used in the past, which is to use the weighted average

cost of capital. And looking at equity, developing a

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
183

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

number for equity based on the capital asset pricing

model.

For the residential sector we would use

the same approach that the furnaces and boilers

rulemaking took, which is to look at the finance cost

to purchase residential products. So it'd be looking

at things like credit card rates, second mortgage

rates, T-bills, bonds, et cetera.

So we'd appreciate your input on

developing discount rates for all of these sectors.

Again, it's short notice.

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, go ahead.

Tom Eckman. Discount rate is always a

very popular item; yes, always.

Tom.

MR. ECKMAN: I think I said this at the

last meeting as well. It seems to me that inspecting

- if there is a discount rate for these sectors, what

is weight of cost of capital, or finance rate, that it

shouldn't vary a lot over time.

Each rulemaking we go through and discover

another rate that may be plus or minus a percent, but

it strikes me that what we're trying to measure here

is long term Srost of capital to people.

And despite short term business trends in

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234.4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
184

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

interest rates, that shouldn't particularly - I don't

think that should vary structurally in the long term.

Maybe the Fed has figured out how to move

it around a lot. But mostly it's a short-term kind of

notice that we see that goes down to zero and back up

to five over an 18-month period. But that's not what

the long-term market does.

So I think focusing on what these look

like long term ought to be of interest here, because

some stabilization in that number through the

rulemaking would benefit us all. Because this

question keeps coming up. But I don't think

realistically you're going to change a lot.

MS. HARRISON: So just to clarify, you're

proposing using discount rates that have been

calculated for -

MR. ECKMAN: At prior rulemakings. Cost of

money does vary over time, but usually through

business cycles it stabilizes.

M HARRISON: Okay.

MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest.

MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest. I agree. The

way the weighted average cost of capital is calculated

is net inflation, and it uses the cap M, the capital

asset pricing model, which takes into account I think

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
185

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30-year time horizon.

So I think -

(Simultaneous voices)

MR. RIVEST: That's a little harder. I

haven't seen the Cap M.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, so yes, Steve

Rosenstock.

MR. ECKMAN: We discussed discount rates

before, so I would - from the things that I've seen

they're usually higher on the residential than the

commercial-industrial sector, just from studies that

I've seen from way back, just different studies.

I want to also get back in terms of the

salvage value, and I'm just kind of curious, in the

life-cycle costs, I guess I haven't really seen other

analyses that have been done before. And I understand

salvage value, especially with commercial industrial

equipment, that there is some just certain equipment

that an industrial or commercial customer can get back

for recycling purpose, they can get some money back.

But I'm trying to think, I just don't

remember it being used in other analyses for lifecycle cost calculations. Is this a new area?

Maybe I'm just kind of throwing that out,

because I don't remember salvage value being in other

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
186

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

life-cycle cost analyses.

MR. RIVEST: This is Mike Rivest.

I think this is probably the only rule in

my memory where the product lifetime is possibly

different between the base case and the higher

efficiency level.

So that's why when you have the same life

for all the design options, or all the efficiency

levels, the common length of time for the analysis is

the same.

Whereas here you might have a lamp for

20,000 hour, and the replacement would have, we talked

about a two-to-one ratio for example, so we might be

looking at a lamp with half that life.

So what happens is, the 20,000 hour life

is still only half used by the time they're replacing

the second lamp.

MR. ECKMAN: Got you, okay. Just because I

hadn't seen it before. Because I think there was some

discussion with ballast, magnetic ballast versus

electronic ballast, there was a difference in

lifetime. And we kind of said, well, we'll just use

the same life for both if I recall.

MR. RIVEST: I think it may have been

there, but it was never raised as an issue to this

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
187

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

level.

MR. ECKMAN: And I would just say again, if

this is going to go through again, I can see it, but

just for residential, I don't know how much -

typically they don't get money back for their unused

lamps, basically, in the residential sector.

MR. SCHOLAND: Can I just jump in for a

second?

Mike Scholand here from Navigant.

It's an accounting tool to enable you to

have a consistent period of analysis across the

efficacy levels that are being considered. And it

would only come into play where you had differences in

life.

If the life was the same , or close enough,

then the Department wouldn't be using it.

The only place it has been published

before by the Department was in a draft analysis on

high intensity discharge lamps, and that was in

December of 2004, but that was the extent of it.

For that product, because there were very

different life periods between baseline lamps and the

standard compliant, the Department used salvage value

calculation.

2511 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Nadel. I do want us

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
188

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

to move on rather rapidly to shipments analysis.

Co ahead.

MR. NADEL: I would just add this is a

common technique. The alternative is to do a 50-year

life, and you have different lamps being replaced at

different periods of time, and discounting it back to

the present, which I think you would agree makes

sense. But that is much more complicated. This is a

shortcut. But basically they have the same results.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. On to shipments

analysis then.

M3S. HARRISON: Great.

MR. SCHOLAND: Okay, Mike Scholand here

again, from Navigant.

The shipments analysis is feeds into the

national impact analysis, along with the output from

the life-cycle costs.

I'm on slide 81 for people following along

on the handouts.

The purpose of the shipments analysis is

to quantify changes in lamp shipments at the various

efficacy leve's.

Okay, so as you go up in efficacy, there

may be changes in lamp shipments. We want to capture

25 (I those in the shipments analysis.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

189

We'll do this by two things. One is to

establish a base case forecast, which is shipments

projected into the future in the absence of standards,

recovered products; and the second would be to

establish standard forecasts which rely on a

substitution analysis, which I'll be talking about in

the next slide.

The substitution analysis will attempt to

model consumer behavior in response to standards. So

as we discussed this morning in the definitions and

scope of coverage, there are lamps which can be

installed into these sockets, be they medium screw

base, or on the fluorescent side, medium bi-pin, which

are currently not subject to regulation.

The impact of these substitutions could be

to reduce energy savings; or they could increase

energy savings.

So for example if you considered a medium

screw based socket that is currently operating a 60-

watt incandescent lamp today, under a standard

scenario consumers may choose to install the more

efficacious lamp that has equivalent light output but

uses less watts.

They could choose to install the higher

wattage lamp, or even the same wattage lamp with more

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
190

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

light output.

CFL.

Or alternatively, they could switch to a

Each of these options would adjust the

energy savings from that standard. So you can see,

the substitution analysis is going to be critical in

the shipments forecast in terms of calculating the

energy savings and the national impact analysis.

So essentially the substitution analysis

replaces what's been used before, called the demand

elasticity model, which has been incorporated into the

Department's shipment analyses in the past.

Sts the working assumption of the

Department that's being proposed is that all the

sockets filled today in the base case scenario will be

filled in the future under the standards scenarios.

But in the standards scenarios perhaps some of those

sockets may be utilizing uncovered lamps, or

nonregulated lamps, again, which could be higher or

lower efficacies.

So in order to be considered for the

substitution analysis, lamps would have to have a

similar light output and a similar lamp shape, and

must be capable of operating in the base case socket.

(202) 2341433

Okay, next slide, 83. So let's talk about

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

191

fluorescent lamp shipments for a minute. For

projecting fluorescent lamps, there is limited public

information on lamp shipments, and the breakdown

between different lamp types and wattages within those

types.

So the shipment forecast is meant to cover

approximately 30 years, and the Department is

considering two possible approaches, and we invite

comments on these.

The first is to develop a shipment

projection based on historical shipments of lamps,

purely historical. And the second would be to develop

a projection based on modeling the installed base of

fluorescent ballasts nationally, and using the

operating hours from the energy used in your float

characterization to calculate the turnover and the

number of lamps being sold. So those are two possible

scenarios.

I prepared one slide on each of these, so

let's talk first about the historical shipments.

The historical shipments approach would be

based on shipment data from a trade association, NE

U.S. Census both ballast and lamp data, although lamp

data stops being collected in 1992; and also

considering distribution chains to estimate use by end

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
192

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

use sectors.

The Department will look at the trend for

T12 versus T8 lamps. Of course this analysis needs to

take into account both the ballast rulemaking of

September 2000, which is starting to take effect for

F40s, and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 which is

impacting the 34-watt T12s.

The forecast would include a high, medium

and low scenario to bound the shipments analysis,

getting to a point that was raised earlier about

bounding.

The advantage of this approach is its

simplicity and transparency for stakeholder review.

The next slide shows you the ballast

inventory model approach. This approach, the

Department would create an inventory model of

fluorescent ballasts and use the operating hour

assumptions, as I mentioned, from the end use load

characterization to predict shipments of fluorescent

lamps.

The ballast model would consider three

mechanisms by which ballasts are replaced: new

construction; replacement of failed ballasts; and

ballast upgrade slash retrofit projects.

2511 This approach would rely on data from the

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

193

U.S. Census, ballast shipment reports, and would

readily be available to account for new ballast

regulations. Once a standard takes effect you can

stop installing a certain type of ballast in your

inventory.

And if available lamp shipment data could

be used for model calibration purposes.

Finally once the installed base of ballast

is established and projected, lamp shipments are

calculated from the model based on operating hours.

MR. BROOKMAN: So comments, or I guess

preferences among these two approaches.

Joe.

MR. HOWLEY: We haven't looked at this

obviously; this was not in the original document we

received.

It just seems intuitively that what you're

calling historical data, which is looking at actual

shipment of lamps, would be more robust than looking

at the ballast inventory approach, just because you

have this huge installed base of ballast, which may or

may not match up very well with what's being shipped

today into the marketplace.

I think the ballast shipment data may give

you some clues into the new construction market and

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

194

the renovation market, but in terms of the installed

base, which is the biggest part, you're probably

better off looking at actual lamp shipments, versus

trying to model any kind of market from the ballast

flow, ballast sales.

That's just my kind of initial reaction

from looking at these two approaches.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, initial comments on

this? Steve Nadel?

MR. NADEL: It strikes me that you should

try to get that up for lamp shipments in recent years

and see if they follow a fairly consistent pattern, or

are they showing some not a smooth curve, but there's

been some either a steep up or a steep down. If

there's beenl a major change in recent years, we've

been moving to electronic ballast. We've gone from

four-lamp to three-lamp to two-lamp fixtures, et

cetera, then you may have to use the more or less

sophisticated approach.

But along as you have a more or less

smooth distribution in recent years, then yeah, doing

the historical would be far simpler.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

MR. SCHOLAND: Slide 86, incandescent lamp

shipments. Similar to fluorescent ballast, there is

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

195

limited public information available on incandescent

lamp shipments.

I guess because these lamps don't require

ballast for operation, it's not possible to arrive at

an estimate from the ballast model for example.

Therefore the Department is proposing to

development a shipment projection based on historical

data which could be attained from a trade association

that maintains that dataset. We also have the U.S.

Lighting Market Characterization, Volume One, which

has been mentioned already, which has an inventory of

lamps. Using operating hours you could calculate a

turnover.

And then also U.S. Census information

which again was last collected in '92, so it's a

little dated, but you could project forward perhaps

with floor space from the EIA or something.

So that's it for incandescent.

Doug.

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Steve Rosenstock.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, EEI. I

think the biggest - personally I think the biggest

factor is just going to be the shipments compact for

us, because that's one of the obvious - that's one of

the biggest substitutions.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

196

That's been pushed by many utilities,

agencies, Energy Star. I think that's one you have to

really - you kind of have to look at both I would say.

Because that is going to be the big factor,

especially as compact fluorescent lamps go down in

price, that'a going to have a huge impact I would

think over the next several years.

MR. SCHOLAND: Mike Scholand here again.

Very good point, Steve.

The shipment we're trying to forecast the

base case here. For the standards case, of course,

we're going to need data, and estimates from experts

who have knowledge of this. We're going to be looking

at programs.

But how consumers may react to the

standard, perhaps go to CFL, particularly if there are

incentive programs that are pushing that. That is one

of the 14 analyses, so that will be taken into

consideration.

So you will see the impact of CFLs in the

- if an Edison 26 socket is operating a CFL today,

it's not going to be in our shipments forecast,

because that is already efficacious. If they're using

an A-19, then yes, that would be in the base case. It

may or may not be in the energy savings case if they

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
197

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

switch out.

MR. BROOKMAN: Gary.

MR. FERNSTROM: Gary Fernstrom, PG&E. So

surely we're wanting to see the substitution of CFLs

for conventional incandescent lamps.

But there is always a snap-back where some

CFLs that have been in the socket are in fact again

replaced with incandescent lamps.

So on this issue of substitution, we need

to be thinking about both ways.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

MR. SCHOLAND: So slide 87 I talk about

data needs. The Department welcomes information to

support its shipments analysis in four areas:

historical shipments on fluorescent and incandescent

lamps by lamp type and wattage; breakdown of shipments

by end use sector; information on the distribution

channels for lamp types - this ties back to the

markups for equipment price determination adjusted cut

discussed earlier; and any comments on trends or

issues that may influence these projections such as

EPACT 2005 state regulatory actions; utility incentive

programs; and so on.

Okay. So slide 88, request for feedback.

MR. BROOKMAN: Comments on data needs and

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
198

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

approaches for estimating lamp shipments.

Joe.

MR. HOWLEY: This is Joe. Of the types you

were mentioning before, especially the incandescent

lamp shipments, I wouldn't recommend using 1992 data

and trying to project it. I think that would be very

difficult to ado, and you'd probably end up with the

wrong answer anyway.

But we'll evaluate this through NEMA, in

terms of we do track several categories of lamp

shipments. And I'm sure there's some data within

these categories we can provide that will give you at

least some accurate shipment data that is recent.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

MR. SCHOLAND: Just for the record NEMA has

provided the Department with some information on

reflector lamp shipments in 2003.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

So I'm wondering is there specific comment

on item 27, proposed accounting methodology for new

construction replacements and retrofits for each lamp

type covered in this ruling?

MR. SCHOLAND: That's more around the

ballast inventory model approach which perhaps is just

too far removed from the reality. There would be too

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
199

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

many assumptions in that to be accurate.

MR. BROOKMAN: Nobody likes that for lamp

shipments.

MR. SCHOLAND: Okay, so let me move on to

the national impact analysis, the last of the ANOPR

analyses.

So the national impacts analysis is one of

the key analyses of an energy conservation standard

rulemaking.

In this analysis the Department determines

two things: the national energy savings, and the

national consumer net present value, at each of the

candidate standard levels.

So the national impact analysis is

calculated from an annual time series of national

energy and national consumer economic impacts, and the

spreadsheet prepares these two estimates with outputs

from the shipments model, which we just talked about,

and the life-cycle cost assessment , which gives the

cost and energy use per lamp information.

The energy savings are summed together in

the base case and standards case for all the covered

lamps in the base case , and the difference is

calculated as the national energy savings reported in

25II quads of primary energy consumption.

(202) 234-4433

(VEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

200

And the consumer net present value

considers the change in equipment costs; that is, the

cost increases under the standards compliance lamps,

relative to the baseline, and any change in operating

and maintenance costs as well.

These values are considered over the

lifetime of the installed equipment, and are

discounted and reported back in current year dollars.

So finally, in other words, because the

standard is in effect over many years, the value of

future dollar savings are discounted back using

defined discount rates, to estimate the present value

of the national economic impact.

So let me show you, this is a simplified

flow diagram on slide 91 of the national energy

savings portion of the national impact analysis.

So the shipments analysis provides two

shipment scenarios, the base case and the standard

case projection.

Energy consumption is then calculated for

each of the years, in the analysis. And for this

product the standard is intended to take effect in

2012, so it's a 30-year time horizon, looking from

2012 to 2042.

And the cumulative energy is added up over

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

201

those two time periods of a base case and standards

case. And there would be multiple standards cases.

The differences taken, it's converted from

site to source, so you account for generation,

transmission and distribution losses.

And the result is the national energy

savings reported in primary energy consumption.

This is a simplified flow diagram of a NES

spreadsheet.

MR. BROOKMAN: I like that flow diagram.

MR. SCHOLAND: Its a lot easier than the

LCC flow diagram.

Any discussion on this? Yes, Steve

Rostenstock.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock.

Yes, just out of curiosity, with other

appliance standards, the period of analysis was 25

years I think in a lot of cases . And for this one

it's 30. I'm just kind of curious how that was

decided.

MR. SCHOLAND: Well, actually, it's draft

at this point. It's the guidance I had gotten from

Ron for this slide.

Ron, do you want to respond to that? Are

we locked into 30?

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

202

MR. LEWIS: Your input on that is welcome.

Trying to establish what makes sense and

keep some kind of consistent logic, we're trying to

find a norm to do things on. Usually we've looked at

products with a huge spectrum of lifetimes, like

transformers with 30 or 32 years, versus lamps versus

ballast versus other things, it's difficult to get a

rhythm that is consistent, but we want to have a

consistent logic of how we approach it.

So if you have something in that regard

we'd welcome it.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Well, again, I'm just

again, like with fluorescent lamp ballast - this is

Steve Rostenstock, sorry - I think it was 20 or 25

years, I can't remember, please forgive me what the

national energy savings analysis period was for

fluorescent lamp. I don't recall it being 30 years.

That's why I'm just kind of curious about it.

M'k. BROOKMAN: Michael McCabe I see.

MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe. Steve, you're

correct that the period has varied over the years

going back to the history, it was initially set to be

the lifetime of the product. So we had different

periods of analysis depending on the average lifetime

of the product.

(202) 2344433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

203

As Ron had said, as he started getting

some of these products with very wide ranges of

lifetime, that it becomes very confusing and when we

present regulatory impact analyses working with other

parts of the executive branch, we're looking to evolve

into a standard period which would help in the

presentation of the results, so that one would be able

to evaluate one program vis-a-vis another.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, yeah, I

appreciate that. This is just so - in this case it's

really interesting, because the incandescent lifetime

is 1,000 hours in many cases, versus fluorescent

lifetime is 20,000, and then you have the operating

life.

And then when you have things like

distributional transformers, their lives are typically

30 or 40 years actually in a lot of cases.

So I understand; I just - I hadn't seen 30

years before. That's why I figured I'd just ask about

it. I'm neutral; I just figured I'd ask.

MR. BROOKMAN: Gary.

MR. FERNSTROM: Okay, so I realize this is

Washington, and not Sacramento, but we have a list of

standard lives for energy efficiency measures that is

used throughout California for the purpose of defining

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

the term of these types of analyses.

204

And we evaluate measures over their

accepted commonly agreed to lives.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So you could provide

that to the Department?

MR. FERNSTROM: Absolutely.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

Joe.

MR. HOWLEY: Joe from GE.

This is just my initial thoughts on this

is, it seems like for a lighting system 30 years is a

long time for our lighting systems that probably

aren't going to last that long before somebody does

some type of upgrade to them.

It would seem like 20 years is perhaps

more logical, just because a lot of ballast lives are

based on about 20 years, electronic ballast lives.

And so you might argue that, well, perhaps maybe a

typical fluorescent system life is about 20 years, and

after that 20 years perhaps something will be upgraded

within that system. Certainly in retail accounts they

upgrade their lighting systems faster than that.

But in many other applications, just

because the technology has moved so fast, are upgraded

within a 20-year time period. And certainly when you

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
205

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

get down to incandescent or reflector lamps, 20 years

is a very long time for those technologies. But just

to keep it on an equal basis, perhaps that makes more

logical sense than trying to go out 30 years where a

lot of these lighting systems just won't last for 30

years.

MR. FERNSTROM: So Joe, I can't recall with

confidence, but I think our commercial lighting

measures are considered to be 15 years on account of

remodeling and just the life-cycle of commercial

office space. So maybe somewhere in between. I think

30 years is on the outside.

I have a question about how the economic

calculation is done. If the savings are estimated

year by year, are the annual savings then multiplied

by the marginal cost of electricity for that year, and

then those economic values present valued? Is that

how it works?

MR. SCHOLAND: I'll talk about that in the

next slide.

MR. FERNSTROM: Okay, thank you.

MR. BROOKMAN: Steve, go ahead.

MR. NADEL: I think it makes sense to have

a standard life across rulemaking. As someone who

25 II sometimes deals with senior policymakers, it's very

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

206

difficult to explain something, well, this product has

a five-year life; that one has a 40-year life. They

kind of get a gut feel, okay, how many quads are at

stake.

So I support the Department in using the

standard 30-year life. I believe all the current

rulemakings are using the 30-year life.

I would point out that these are all

discounted, so it's not like it has a major impact on

the economics. But just I think makes it much easier

to work with) the senior decision makers at OMB and

elsewhere to have a standard life.

MR. BROOKMAN: Dale.

MR. WORK: A comment and a question. This

is Dale from Philips, following on Steve a little bit.

While the economics may be discounted, the

energy savings are probably not discounted. You are

summing the energy savings for all of these years I

presume.

So anticipating maybe a future slide, my

question is, _c.o you have a quads number cutoff in mind

for what products will constitute regulated, because

that's very much tied to whether that's a 20-year or

30-year period. I believe.

Did my question make sense? If at the end

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

207

of the day we're going to look at a number of

scenarios and say, everything more than one quad is

worth regulating, that depends on whether you're

summing over five years or ten years or twenty years

or thirty years.

MR. LEWIS: This is Ron Lewis with DOE. We

don't have a set limit like that in the, prior

operations of priority setting in looking at what to

emphasize, and what to do. There were discussions in

that area.

Now we've got, as is shown in the report

to Congress, all these things that are required; all

these rulemakings we need to do; and it's a matter

that we're going to do them all, so that sort of basis

of ranking things, and where we're going to put our

emphasis for the next few years is not the same kind

of discussion any longer.

But in looking at cumulative impacts, as

far as looking at the benefit and the return on

taxpayers' money that we've spent, we've done good

things that the regulations were doing, have a

potential for a meaningful significant energy savings,

in trying to display that, it's been my understanding

that it's been the desire to have a number of years so

you show over a long period of time that this measure

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

208

that you're taking if it was in place in sort of a

comparative kind of basis that you could say that this

one was really a tremendous impact and doing things,

and other things were not so impactful.

It's not that we're going to rank things

on what we're going to do. But a lot of times, people

want to have a feeling for what really is a return on

the invested time and effort that the government has

put into these things.

MR. WORK: Point of clarification, Ron.

It's Dale again.

Does that mean, do I understand you right,

that you don't have a quad figure in mind for saying

you will regulate this and won't regulate this?

MR. LEWIS: That's absolutely correctly.

MR. WORK: So how will you decide when all

this is done?

MR. LEWIS: We have a number of things to

consider. There are criteria. There are things that

were statutory required to do that are clear cut.

There are other things that as we look at, we have to

look at theJ authority as we talked about earlier

today, and we have to look at what's going to be

impacted.

25 11 The one thing that I will say is maybe a

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

209

little bit different than it used to be is because

time is of essence, and we have so many things to do,

that we do not want to be investing a lot of resources

going after things that have minimal return; we don't

want to do a whole lot of analysis, or spend a lot of

time investigating things that on a first order look

would not have an impact, a major impact. -

So it's a return on the invested resources

for us. So there is not that cutoff point saying we

won't do anything below this level. But there is a

rationalization of, before we invest all the time to

do a lot of analysis, if something looks like it's not

going to be impactful, then why go to great precision

to come up with the same conclusion.

MR. BROOKMAN: Steve.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock.

In the past, especially the last few

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

years, DOE did put out a priority setting schedule,

and one of the factors they would always look at it

is, they would try to, at least as a first cut,

project energy savings based on energy efficient

technologies out there.

And like before EPACT, last year the top

three were distribution transformers; commercial air

conditioning and heating units; and residential

(202) 234-4433

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

210

furnaces and boilers. Based on a lot of different

criteria including lifetime and potential quad savings

based on the-s technology that they were looking at,

they would show kind of a range of quad savings over

the 20, 25, 30 years that they put out for each

product. Sometimes it would differ between 20 and 25

years.

That was a key criteria. Now EPACT 2005

has kind of changed things a lot.

MR. WORK: If I could follow up still,

what's going to happen at the end of the day here?

We're going to end up with a list of potential changes

in quad savings. Do we not have some idea of how

we're going to decide that going into it? Are we

going to negotiate that here in a master meeting at

the end?

MS. PINTO: This is Francine Pinto. There

are statutory criteria, and we weigh the benefits and

the burdens. And so there is some discretion. And

the policymakers do that.

MR. BROOKMAN: So several people wish to

comment. Steve and then Gary and then back to Tom.

MR. NADEL: Yes, the law basically

specifies that the standards are set at the maximum

energy savings that are technically feasible and

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
211

economically justified, and those are all defined.

2 So whether it saves 10 quads or half a

3 quad, you set those levels for each product class.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Gary.

5 MR. FERNSTROM: I have a question that goes

6 back to Steve's comment about measure of lives.

7 Is the issue with high level decision

8 makers that using different measure of lives gives

9 different signals about the quad savings, and

10 therefore the desirability of one thing relative to

11 another?

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Nadel?

13 MR. NADEL: Yes, to a large extent.

14 They've gotten used to a 30-year period, and is this a

15 one quad rule, a five quad rule, a half quad rule.

16 And if you vary the period, then they need some

17 conversion factors. And you know for people who are

18 dealing with this issue for one half hour, and then

19 the next half hour it's nuclear power, whatever.

20 MR. FERNSTROM: Okay, so how about doing

21 the economic analysis, based on what we estimate to be

22 the actual measure of life, and then normalize it for

23 a 20-year period or some consistent period. That way

24 all of the savings estimates will be the same, but the

25 analysis will be done on a realistic estimate of the

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
212

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

measure of life instead of a nonrealistic one.

MR. BROOKMAN: Tom Eckman, did you have a

comment?

MR. ECKMAN: I think we may be talking

about two parts of the analysis. The life-cycle cost

analysis is based on a measure of life. But the

national energy analysis is based on some fixed

reference numbers and years.

Those are two different - what Steve's

talking about is how do I communicate to the

policymakers, this standardized unit of savings.

Whereas the economic analysis is based on however we

decide to deal with the floating measure of life in

this case. J

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, so listening to what

you said, that's what I was hoping for.

MR. SCHOLAND: So let's move on then to the

next slide, a flow diagram on page 92. This is a

simplified flow diagram of a national consumer net

present value calculation spreadsheet.

MR. BROOKMAN: And for those of you who are

getting antsy, after this series of slides, perhaps

after this slide, we'll take a short break.

MR. SCHOLAND: Okay, that's an incentive to

2511 rocket through this one.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neairgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

213

As with the national energy savings

spreadsheet, the shipments analysis generates a base

case projection and a standards case project.

Then we calculate three boxes for each of

those projections: the energy cost - that would be the

energy consumed by the lamps; the maintenance cost,

and as Jessica mentioned maintenance cost only factors

into certain scenarios; commercial and industrial

applications where the lamp life is different in the

base case and standards case; and the equipment cost,

which is the purchase cost of the lamp installed.

Now you notice that the slide is looking -

the time periods are from 2012 to 20XX for energy and

maintenance, and 2012 to 2042 for the equipment. Our

time period of analysis again here is looking at 30

years, so the equipment is purchased between 2012 and

2042, but that equipment purchased in 2042 continues

to operate into the future.

So we want to capture those energy savings

and maintenance cost savings in our comparative

analysis when we look at the national consumer net

present value, because that is part of the analytical

period.

So those are 20XX, they're actually longer

than 2042. And that would vary by product class, the

(VEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
214

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

operating hours, and so forth.

So those cumulative operating cost savings

are totaled. Operating costs on one side, total

equipment costs on the other. They are discounted for

each one of those years, and then the difference is

taken for the consumer net present value calculation.

The discount rates used here are three

percent and seven percent real, and those are

specified by the office of Management and Budget.

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Gary.

MR. FERNSTROM: So a question about the

energy cost. Is it the actual estimated consumer cost

year by year? Or is it the marginal cost?

MR. SCHOLAND: It's the energy cost from

the life-cycle costs spreadsheet. So it's the energy

consumed. It's considering the average electricity

prices, the distribution, the money, and so on. You

take the outputs from the LCC and we plug them in

here.

MR. FERNSTROM: So then that's not a

marginal cost analysis?

MR. SCHOLAND: Mike, do you want to answer

that?

MR. FERNSTROM: Because you see the energy

saved comes from the most expensive electricity, not

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
215

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

the average.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock. Again,

it's going to depend on whether it's commercial versus

residential, and the season, in terms of the approach

is reasonable. They are trying to do the distribution

of all the electric rates, residential and commercial,

and then try to adjust it based on the EIA projections

for the electric rates going out 25 - 30 years.

EIA only goes out to 2020 or 2030 as I

recall, then they did their own projections after the

EIA analysis period. Then they discount it back, as

far as - I hope I characterized that right.

MR. RIVEST: That's correct.

MR. BROOKMAN: So Gary.

MR. FERNSTROM: Well, I think I understand

the issue. I'm still concerned that when we do these

cost analyses, we appropriately account for the

marginal consumer cost of electricity, because at

least where I come from the marginal cost is

significantly different than the average, because we

have a tiered rate structure, and when energy savings

are realized, they present a much higher value to

consumers than the average price of electricity.

MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Nadel.

MR. NADEL: What I'd point out here is that

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

216

what really drives this analysis is not so much

exactly what price they use as a current cost. What

really drives this is the annual energy outlook

projections about trends in the future.

At the moment EIA is projecting

substantial real declines in electricity prices in the

future. And so that's what really drives us.

I think those will be revised in the next

few years. They've already revised the oil and

natural gas prices. But that's probably a much bigger

issue than exactly how you determine the current

prices.

MR. FERNSTROM: Where does the EIA live?

I'd like to move there.

(Laughter)

M. SCHOLAND: Washington, D.C. Second

floor of this building.

Can I just chime in that EIA does have a

high and low projection price, and that is included in

the spreadsheet as a sensitivity.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay? So then additional

comments, we've already started on this, on the

spreadsheet models that are used for estimating

national impacts.

Let's take a short break. It's 2:55.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
217

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Let's come back in 10 minutes. We've got quite a bit

to cover. We're in good shape on time, but let's be

expeditious here.

So I would suggest we be back here at five

minutes after three, and we'll just keep plugging

along. We're making good progress.

(Whereupon at 2:57 p.m. the proceeding in the-aboveentitled matter went off the

record to return on the record

at 3:11 p.m.)

MR. BROOKMAN: Let's start back up.

MR. SCHOLAND: So to continue, we're on

slide 95. Here we go, slide 95. Almost done.

So one of the questions earlier, I think

Dale, you had asked the question about the standard

level being established, and I just want to reiterate

what Linda had said in the morning, which is this

process as an ANOPR, which is an opportunity for

comment. There is a NOPR where it's the proposed

rule; another opportunity for comment. And then a

third opportunity.

So - or actually a second opportunity. So

after the public meeting to discuss the results of the

ANOPR analysis, which again, is scheduled for

November, 2007, there may be revisions made to the

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

218

ANOPR analyses that are published at that time, so if

there is comments that we got the engineering wrong,

or life-cycle cost assumptions or something, we would

revise the ANOPR analyses.

And then we will now walk through each of

the remaining analyses you see here, starting with the

life-cycle cost and subgroup analysis. So the purpose

of the life-cycle cost subgroup analysis is to

determine the economic impacts of energy conservation

standards on consumer subgroups who may be

disproportionately impacted relative to the national

aggregate of consumers.

So to achieve this the Department will

refine its LCC analysis spread sheet to examine the

impacts on any defined subgroups of customers.

These subgroups have not been defined at

this time. ' However, the Department welcomes any

comments from stakeholders on what if any consumer

subgroups might be appropriate for consideration for

differential life-cycle cost impacts, both fluorescent

and incandescent impacts.

MR. BROOKMAN: The key words being

disproportionate impact here.

Yes, Gary.

MR. FERNSTROM: Okay, so a customer

(202) 234-4433

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
219

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

subgroup of great interest to us is low income.

MR. SCHOLAND: We had also heard a comment

earlier this morning about elderly as a possible

subgroup.

MR. BROOKMAN: Other groups?

Disproportionately impacted?

MR. SCHOLAND: Okay, with that we will move

on to the manufacturers' impact analysis. I'll turn

it over to Mike Rivest.

Mike, do you have your talking points, or

do you need them? You don't need them.

MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS

MR. RIVEST: Good afternoon.

This is a bit of a return for me, because

my first manufacturer's impact analysis based on the

process improvement methodology was the ballast

rulemaking, and in fact I had great experience working

with NEMA members. Particularly some of you I'm sure

might know Bob Wisbey over at Advance. And that was

in the transition phase. I think they had just been

acquired by Philips at the time.

And Bob was really helpful in creating if

you will, or developing the methodology with us of how

these manufacturer impact analyses would be

undertaken.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

220

And I had a chance through that

manufacturer impact with ballast visiting two

facilities that manufacture lamps, T12 installation

and a T8.

It was totally amazing and eye-opening to

see the glass pouring out of the furnace and going

what seemed like miles around the factory,- being

shaped. And what was striking was the capital

intensity of the industry, very highly automated,

particularly the T12 - the T8 production line.

And this - really what we're talking about

here is conducting an analysis that would examine how

these potential energy efficiency levels might modify

the production cost for each of these products.

And some product improvements would be

marginal, and others might be substantial. They might

lead as in the ballast rule to changing from one

technology t6 another, so from magnetic ballast to

electronic ballast that are entirely different

installations, sometimes in different countries, or

they might be very marginal, adding additional

capacity on to existing facilities for example.

So what I'll be describing is the process

that we go through in assessing the manufacturer's

impact, and since this is done with extensive industry

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

221

interaction, then it's important that I hear any

concerns you might have over the process.

The legislative requirements to conduct

the manufacturing impact are grounded in one of the

seven factors, which is to consider the impact on

consumers, and on the manufacturers of those products.

There's also within the process

improvement a very defined methodology that has been

laid out about how that process is to be carried

forward.

We also made a commitment - the Department

made a commitment in the 2006 report to Congress

that whereas before the manufacturing impact was

conducted entirely after the ANOPR, now there would be

an initial MIA, a more qualitative manufacturer's

impact analysis that would be part of the ANOPR

documentation that is published coincident with the

ANOPR.

So the purpose of the MIA is to assess the

impacts of standards on manufacturers. We also are

very interested in the impacts on subgroups of

manufacturers.

And I realize that the manufacturers

present here today are industry leaders, that the

industry is concentrated primarily in three large

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

222

manufacturers. But I understand I heard also today

that there are other players who might be smaller.

And in setting up the manufacturer's

impact, it's important that we take into account the

impact on the industry leaders, but also on smaller

niche type manufacturers that may have a

disproportionate impact compared to the large players.

The method that we use to assess the

impacts is really using two tools. One is the GRIM

model. And the GRIM model is, quite simply, a

discounted cash flow model that allows us to take a

set of investment figures and changes in manufacturing

costs, and then discount cash flows in a base case,

and under the different regulatory standard scenarios,

and assess the industry value, and the changing

industry value.

Qualitatively we get a lot better

understanding of the impacts by conducting onsite

^ffid sometimes if not possible, from the

interviews, and during those interviews we'll assess a

number of other more qualitative factors. We'll also

get substantiation on some of our inputs that we need

to run cash flow analysis.

So the output of this is net present value

as coming out of the GRIM. We also have subgroup

(VEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

223

impacts that can be quantitative and/or qualitative.

And if there are other impacts that are not captured

in a dollar number, those are also documented.

The way we - the manufacturer's impact is

Q,

really something that is of concern through the entire

rulemaking, and I've shown it here as consisting in

three phases.

Phase one is really preliminary. It

coincides to the period of analysis leading up to the

ANOPR. Here we do a lot of our background research,

trying to understand what products are out there, who

is manufacturing them.

And in developing our cost efficiency

relationships, we also come into relationship with the

manufacturers to understand what type of technology

changes they need to implement; what type of changes

they'll need to do in their production facilities for

example. And that is done part of the ANOPR analysis.

In the second phase which is just leading

to the - once we've completed the bulk of the analysis

for the NOPR, some of the analyses are critical to the

manufacturer's impact such as the substitution

analysis, the shipments analysis that we talked about

earlier.

Once those are completed, we develop a

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
224

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

GRIM model, a cash flow model. And we use that model

together with an interview guide to initiate a

dialogue with manufacturers.

So we'll sit down with the cash flow

model, and with a very detailed interview guide that

we will have shared in advance. And we would like to

have a conversation with the manufacturers to

understand the financial impacts on a cash basis, but

also qualitatively.

S- those interviews are conducted during

phase three. It's one of the last analyses conducted,

once we have the results of the life-cycle costs; the

results of the national energy savings analysis for

example.

So by that time we have a good sense of

what efficiency levels might seem cost justified, and

which might now, from a purely consumer point of view.

So I've described the industry profile,

and the phase one manufacturer interviews. It was our

thought that. we would be able to share during a

conversation with manufacturers some of our initial

inputs that are needed for the GRIM model, and also

that we assess qualitatively what are the concerns and

issues that are involved for manufacturers about the

rule.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
225

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

So typically during those interviews we'll

talk about shipment projections. So we will based on

our discussions today, try to develop preliminary

shipment numbers, hopefully based on data that would

have been supplied by industry or other sources.

We'd like to talk about your conversion

costs, what's involved in achieving a -higher

efficiency level in terms of your production

facilities, and how much capital would be necessary to

do that.

How might your product mix change? And

would that change of product mix change your

profitability?

Try to understand how the standard level

may change the playing field for the competitors, and

may have some competitive impacts. That might be

particularly important for some of the smaller

manufacturers.

And we'd also like to know what are the

other regulations that might be impacting the industry

that we need to consider not just the impact of the

standards per se, but any other investments that are

regulatory driven that you may have to make.

But a second part, so really the analysis

after the ANOPR, after we've conducted these

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
226

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

interviews, a:nd after you've had a chance to review

the results of the ANOPR, we construct a cash flow

model, and we put together an interview guide, and we

share those, and make those public, and schedule a

series of interviews with manufacturers to go over our

assumptions and our inputs.

That is a process that typically involves

members of many departments within the various

companies. So typically during the interviews we will

talk to project engineering, we'll talk to

manufacturing engineering, we'll talk to marketing,

we might talk to the financial people.

Because really the cash flow involves all

sorts of assumptions, and all sorts of forecasts that

impact every area of the company.

And these can take a matter of weeks to

set up. So as part of being proactive and being on

schedule, it's important that we think in terms of

when we can schedule those interviews.

And that applies not just to the

interviews afEer the ANOPR, but also to the interviews

we'd like to conduct before the ANOPR.

I realize that this is a - especially

depending on how we conduct the engineering analysis,

typically the engineering analysis involves exhaustive

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
227

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

data collection from manufacturers, with detailed cost

breakdowns for incremental product design; for

increment capital costs.

If those are not forthcoming as part of

the engineering analysis, then it'll be important that

still we get that type of information so we can

quantify the impacts on industry at certain standard

levels.

So whereas industry may not be supplying

this information, on an individual basis, we're hoping

that we can get a sense of the total industry

investments, say of transferring from one technology

to another, so that we can capture that, aggregate it

as needed, and then report it.

So I welcome your comments on the proposed

methodology.

MR. BROOKMAN: Has anybody in the room gone

through this process previously? These are all new?

Kyle, go right ahead.

MR. PITSOR: I was just going to say - this

is Kyle Pitsor with Nema - having gone through the

ballast experience 10, 15 - (laughter) -- I just

wanted to indicate that NEMA really facilitated the

process in terms of looking with our member companies

in the product group to set up interviews and

(202) 2344433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
228

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

coordinate as appropriate.

There are 15 member companies in the NEMA

product group, of course three principally large

numbers that are known in the industry, as well as

those three large companies, others that are smaller,

that are niche players either in general service,

fluorescent, incandescent, or in some cases, all three

of the products, so we'll be able to facilitate those

contacts.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

And Mike was just saying or implying the

earlier they het going on that the better it is.

MR. RIVEST: Right. I mean in terms of

establishing initial contacts, you know, perhaps some

of these companies who haven't participated in today's

discussions, you know we could initiate some

conversations with them, and at least let them know

we're coming, and ask them if they're willing to

participate.

MR. BROOKMAN: So your comment just

generally referenced some subgroups based on scale

mostly. ButJI didn't know whether there were any -

did you wish to differentiate that further at this

point, Kyle?

2511 MR. PITSOR: This is Kyle Pitsor with NEMA.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

229

Of the non-Big 3, as I say, we have some companies

that are in fluorescent as well as incandescent, as

well as some overly in one or the other of the

categories. And we can be more specific later as

appropriate.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, the final item on the

list up here, and we've already started to touch on

this, other regulations, or pending regulations, that

the Department should consider in considering

cumulative regulatory burden.

So additional thoughts on that? As I

said, we've already started to address that.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, I guess

ballast, the ballast regulations.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Kyle?

MR. PITSOR: I guess the framework document

lays out a series of some of the potential regulations

that are relevant here, seem appropriate in terms of

consideration.

I guess we'd also note that a number of

the companies face regulations in other countries.

Some of these products are made globally for sale

around the world. And so there are some regulatory

burdens and regulatory issues there that may play a

factor here that will want to provide information on.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
230

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

And there's also the issue of the testing

and reporting requirements under the regulation.

There is some discussion of converting that from paper

copy to electronic filings, and we were interested in

knowing maybe what the status of what that was with

the Department, because that obviously has an impact

today as well as down the road.

MR. BROOKMAN: Ron.

MR. LEWIS: Ron Lewis, DOE.

There was a major effort underway to

digitize all the government, and do things to the

extent possible electronically. And as you can

imagine, goin government-wide, a lot of complexities;

a lot of challenges in that.

So as it pertains to our off ice and test

procedures, et cetera, we were up until recent times

only receiving, to my knowledge, let's see, Bryan

Berringer and Michael McCabe, we were receiving hard

copies only.

I believe that some people have submitted

some electronic copies of their test procedures to us.

There was not a requirement yet. It's not imminent

in our face where we're going to say it's electronic

only.

2511 And in fact we've asked for legal purposes

(202) 2344433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

231

to have the hard copies follow with signatures on

there to make it official. The electronic version is

to expedite things, where people are submitting things

to us, and they wanted to run it by us, is certainly a

timely kind of thing. And if Michael or Bryan have

any other input I welcome it here.

MR. McCABE: Michael McCabe, I would-add to

that point as well as a previous point about

cumulatively regulatory burden.

The reporting we are working on

regulations for the EPACT 2005 products as well as the

EPACT 1992 products, and the electronic filing is

going to be part of that.

Were not looking at present at the

products that were covered prior to that, but it

certainly is - we will be considering that. And

since these lamps are EPACT 1992 products, most of

them are not covered, I think the proposed rule that's

coming out will be looking at that.

So the comment that - there is a

certification and enforcement rule for HVAC products

that was published if I recall - Tom or Francine, do

either of you remember when it was published? It's

been published in the last 30 - 45 days. I would

encourage you to take a look at that, and comment on

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

232

that subject, even though it might not be for lamps,

as far as that particular proposal, it is a generic

issue.

MR. BROOKMAN: Would you repeat the subject

title again?

MR. McCABE: It's supplemental notice of

proposed rulemaking for certification and enforcement

provisions for commercial heating, air conditioning

and water heating products.

MR. BROOKMAN: A simple title.

MR. McCABE: EPACT 1992.

On the cumulative regulatory burden,

another point to raise and make everybody aware of is

that with sort of the rules that we've issued in the

past, where we have - one of the points on regulatory

burden that is factored into the decision making

process is the effective date of some other agency's

rules that would have a variant on manufacturer's

investment and decisions.

For example, refrigerant phase outs for

both refrigerators and air conditioners that the

industry is going to have to phase out the refrigerant

at a particular time. So it made sense to time the

effective date of a new efficiency standard with a

2511 phase out that was going to be required by other

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
233

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

agencies.

So when we look at regulatory burdens,

we're looking not only at the cost of the other

regulatory burden, but also the timing of that

regulation, and whether or not we should considering

the timing of our regulation, and take into

consideration that timing with the timing of ours.

Questions?

MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steven Rosenstock, EEI.

Don't know if you've considered it with

other rulemakings, but in the past several years there

have been states that have done appliance regulations

on their own, and again, the timing has been

different. So I don't know if you want to add that to

your analysis. I know California has led the way.

They might have new regulations on incandescent lamps

as of 2008. And so there might be some of that. And

if they have different requirements for manufacturers,

et cetera.

So that might be another, if five states

have five regulations on the same products, that will

have an impact too.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

Please.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
234

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

MR. WORK: This is Dale again.

California has a regulation starting in

2006 for incandescent lamps.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay.

UTILITY IMPACT ANALYSIS

MR. SCHOLAND: Okay, thank you, Doug,

thanks Mike.

Utility Impact Analysis. There are four

analyses left to go through here. I'm on slide 107.

The purpose of the utility impact analysis is to

assess the overall impacts on domestic electricity

supplies that may result from the imposition of any

new energy conservation standard.

These are impacts like capacity

requirements,-'or effects on prices, and so basically

in order to assess its impact the Department proposes

to use the NEMS model, which stands for the National

Energy Modeling System, but it's a modified version

which is designed for the building technologies

program; it's called NEMS-BT.

This is software that is developed and

used by the DOE and the Energy Information

Administration, the EIA, where I believe Gary is going

to be working next; is that right?

2511 MR. FERNSTROM: Yes.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

235

MR. SCHOLAND: Second floor here in

Forrestal.

The NEMS modeling software provides a tool

to examine the impact on the utility industry. The

Department intends to use the energy savings

calculated from the NES spreadsheet as an input to

this analysis to reduce or decrease the electrical

loads from all sectors that experience energy savings.

And I just want to point out, this slide

here specifically mentions commercial building demand

module. We actually are also looking at residential

and industrial as well. So this is a slight error in

the slide.

The Department will be using a contractor,

some of you may have heard of, called On Location.

The intention is to use the contractor called On

Location. They were involved in developing the NEMS

model a decade or two ago.

Unfortunately, On Location couldn't be

here today to give this presentation. Otherwise

someone else would be standing here. They had a prior

commitment.

But they do have considerable experience

with the NEMS model. They are involved in running the

model for the GPRA analysis, for example. And they

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

236

have been involved as a subcontractor to some of the

national laboratories to do NEMS runs for this

analysis for other energy conservation standards and

rulemakings in the past.

MR. FERNSTROM: Are you trying to tell us

they couldn't-be on location?

(Laughter)

MR. SCHOLAND: They're on a different

location right now, somewhere a lot nicer. New

Hampshire to be precise.

The energy savings resulting from this

standard translate into a reduction in demand for

electricity over time, and this impact analysis

intended to quantify that impact.

1R. BROOKMAN: So Steve Rosenstock,

thoughts on the NEMS-BT tool, and other issues related

to it.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Thank you. Steve

Rosenstock.

Yes, thank you for that clarification

about the second bullet. Especially because of the

impact on obviously the residential and industrial

aspects as well.

Again for clarification it would be

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
237

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

helpful, I have not studied the NEMS-BT model in

depth. But especially when your energy savings

translated into demand reductions, it would be nice

for all stakeholders just to see some of the

calculations, if they can be, just the calculation

process, either simplified to say, okay, in the

residential sector we say that these energy savings

equal this demand savings because of this formula.

I just want to make sure that the values

look reasonable in terms of - because obviously, like

I said earlier today, the coincidence factor in terms

of energy savings, with the peak savings on the

utility system, could vary quite dramatically whether

you're talking commercial or industrial versus

residential.

And based on my views, based on what I've

seen, obviously the coincidence factor in the

residential sector is very low versus very high in the

commercial industrial sector.

MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments?

EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ANALYSIS

MR. SCHOLAND: Okay, move on to the

employment impact analysis. And again I have one

slide on this.

Higher efficiency standards are expected

(VEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

238

to create both direct and indirect employment impacts.

These impacts may be positive or negative, and the

purpose of the employment impacts analysis is to

assess that impact of new standards on the national

employment picture.

The analysis again captures both direct

and indirect. As Mike Rivest mentioned earlier: in the

manufacturers' impact analysis, direct employment

impacts are assessed and estimated within the

manufactures' impact analysis, and those are then an

input into this impact.

The indirect employment impacts are what

is calculated here, and the Department as two - I

guess two indirect employment impact types. One is

from shifting customer expenditures among goods and

services, the substitution effect; and the second is

changing equipment and energy costs, or the income

effect.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

And these are both captured, the method

the Department uses is the IMSET model, which was

developed by Pacific Northwest National Lab. It's an

input-output economic model basically that captures

and estimates the indirect employment impacts.

This is the methodology that is consistent

with other rulemakings in the past, and the model

(202) 2341433

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
239

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

that's used here. So any discussion or comments on

employment impacts analysis and the indirect impacts?

No? Okay, we'll move on to -

MR. ECKMAN: One question.

MR. BROOKMAN: Tom Eckman.

MR. ECKMAN: Is that direct employment only

in the manufacturer sector, or is that going to take

into account labor impacts that might be in the

retrofit, the lighting change outside, the lighting

cycle. Lifetimes change, you've got different labor

impacts at the facilities.

MR. SCHOLAND: That would be an indirect

effect. The installers, meaning additional installers

because the lifetimes are half as long. Am I wrong,

Mike?

MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest. I agree that it

is indirect. But it wouldn't necessarily be captured

in the IMSET model.

I think that we really had in mind the

manufacturing. I mean to the extent it's relevant it

seems like something doable, and not too difficult to

do.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, Gary.

MR. FERNSTROM: Gary Fernstrom, PG&E.

Well, one of the big issues that I observe always

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

240

comes up in these standards discussions is the effect

that the standard might have on the trade that deals

with the product.

So I think it's important we look not just

at the manufacturing labor impacts, but the potential

impacts in the trade.

I don't think for lighting equipment it's

that big an impact, but it certainly can be in other

areas of building construction.

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please.

MR. STAUFFER: Brooke Stauffer from New

Electrical Contractors Association. Yes, our studies

indicate that lighting accounts for about 25 percent

of the work of electrical contractors. So while I

don't necessarily have any concerns here, I would say

that any significant change to lighting technology has

the effect to somewhat affect employment in my

industry.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

Okay, additional comments on employment

impact analysis? Some of this is a little further

downstream, so it makes it harder to anticipate these

comments at this time.

Environmental assessment.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

241

MR. SCHOLAND: The purpose of the

environmental assessment is to estimate the national

environmental impacts from new energy conservation

standard for fluorescent and incandescent lamps. And

as has been done in previous rulemakings, the

Department plans to use the NEMS-BT model which I

mentioned earlier for its modeling analysis, which was

used in the utility impact analysis, as the basis of

calculating these emission reductions.

Essentially the output are quantities of

carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide reductions. There is

no physical calculation of sulfur oxide emission

reductions because of the cap and trade system.

The assumption is that emissions would

stay the same, but there could be some impact on the

trade price of sulfur credits.

And what else did I want to say about

this? Okay, the middle bullet there that mentions

direct environmental impacts from the reduction of

fossil fuel use at the building level, that would only

be for a building that had onsite generation, and I

don't think that is going to be a factor in our

analysis.

(202) 234-4433

So -

MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

242

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock. Yeah, I

just a couple of quick thoughts.

In terms of the building level for

buildings in northern climates where there's fossil

fuel heating, and lighting increases the amount of

heating needed in the building, there might be an

increase in fossil fuel use at the building level that

you might need to account for.

Again, that's at the building level.

Obviously, the generation is a different story.

In terms of the other environmental

impacts, again, because of the Clean Air Act, and now

Clean Air Interstate Rule and Clean Air Mercury Rule,

and also an increase in number of states with

renewable portfolio standards, there is a trend,

definite trend, that's happened over the last 20 - 30

years of less, especially SOX and NOX, per KWh

produced. And especially with RPS (Renewable

Portfolio Sta3^dard) that all affects you, too.

So there is a downward trend in many of

these that should be put into the analysis, and right

now for RPS it's 21 states and the District of

Columbia as a reference for you, and they do ramp up

quite a bit over the next several years in some

states.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
243

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

Additional thoughts on environmental

assessment?

Okay.

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS

MR. SCHOLAND: Okay, hearing none, the last

analysis in the NOPR phase is the regulatory impact

analysis, and the purpose of the regulatory impact

analysis is to explore the potential for nonregulatory

alternatives to new or higher efficiency standards.

So the Department intends to consider

likely effects of nonregulatory scenarios on product

energy use, consumer utility, and life-cycle costs in

this analysis. And it will base its assessment on the

actual inputs of any initiatives to date, but will

also consider information presented during the impact

of that existing initiative in the future.

So just to give you some examples of

scenarios of nonregulatory programs that might be

considered here: voluntary programs like Energy Star;

tax credit initiatives, say tax credits to

manufacturers for incentive to move to higher efficacy

levels; tax credits to consumers for purchasing those;

and so on.

25 So those are some examples of what's been

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

244

done in the past for the regulatory impact analysis.

And we don't have a box on this one, but

do we want to have any additional comments or

discussion on regulatory type analysis?

MR. BROOKMAN: Gary.

MR. FERNSTROM: Gary Fernstrom, PG&E.

We'll be sending in some thoughts on this. We've come

to the conclusion that our educational and rebate

efforts affect those in society that are inclined to

be innovators or early adopters of energy efficiency

measures, and the only way to get to the rest of the

population is through regulation.

So there is some thinking about who

responds to what method of encouragement.

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, thank you.

Additional thoughts on regulatory impact

analysis?

FINAL RULE

MR. SCHOLAND: I see none. So the final

rule, which is scheduled for June of 2009. The

Department will take comments on the NOPR, which we

just finished talking about, and conduct a review of

any analyses that need to be done. And once those are

revised, we'll set a standard level.

(202) 234-4433

And the DOE as you know works

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

245

collaboratively with the Department of Justice on this

for comments relating to competitive issues. So that

will also feed into that decision.

So that's all I have to say on this. And

over to Linda_,Graves to close.

MR. BROOKMAN: One more thing that I should

do before I turn it back to you, we traditionally

provide an opportunity at the end of a day like this

to provide everybody, anybody, a chance to make any

additional comments or raise any additional issues

that they think are appropriate at this time.

So if there is anything else that anybody

would like to get on the record or to comment about,

or if there is a gap in this exhaustive exploration

for example, now would be the time to raise it. And

just generally to hear from people briefly.

Gary, did you have a comment?

MR. FERNSTROM: Yes, so Gary Fernstrom,

PG&E.

I'd like to recognize what I think is a

strong spirit of cooperation in the group. This has

certainly been a very positive opportunity and

experience for me.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you very much. That's

kind of you.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

246

Other comments, before we turn it over to

Linda for the closing remarks?

Steve Rosenstock.

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock. Again,

I appreciated being here today, and I enjoyed the

feedback, and all the comments.

As a reference I do know that the

fluorescent lamp house was a negotiated rule, and I

don't know if there are any areas of possible

agreement or negotiation for these technologies,

especially on the fluorescent side to kind of coincide

with the new ballast regulations.

But I think there might be some areas

where certain, maybe not all of the lamp types, but

there might be certain subcategories where there

migh8t be some negotiations possible to streamline the

process.

So I would suggest that parties submit

ideas for possible negotiation if that would help

everybody - I'll say the regulatory certainty help

everybody out. Thank you.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

Additional comments? Yes, Kyle Pitsor.

MR. PITSOR: I will just say for NEMA we

appreciate all the work that went into organizing this

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

247

informal pickup meeting, all the work by DOE staff and

contractors in preparing all this information, and the

comments and discussion I thought was a very positive

way to kick this framework document off.

And obviously there's a lot of areas which

I think weJ have agreement among many of the

stakeholders, some of which represent some negotiated

compromises of this last year and opportunities moving

forward for further discussion among all the

stakeholders.

MR. BROOKMAN: Gary.

MR. FERNSTROM: I'd like to follow up by

similarly appreciating DOE's work. I think the

discussion was very well thought out and framed.

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

IJm going to hand out evaluation forms.

Please fill them out; we always do this.

And Linda Graves.

CLOSING REMARKS

MS. GRAVES: I want to sincerely thank all

of you for coming today and participating. I think we

did get an awful lot of really excellent input. It's

very helpful to us. You were great about helping us

go through that long laundry list of items that we

genuinely did want your input on, plus giving us other

(202) 234-4433

(VEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
248

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

insights that are very valuable.

All of your comments today do go into the

official record, straight into the transcript. Of

course, you also still have an opportunity to submit

written comments.

And if you noticed in the notice, it tells

you the official guidelines for how to submit

comments. There are several ways you can do it,

including snail mail. But the first one that's in the

rule mentions what we call the egov, and frankly we

don't have as much confidence in knowing for sure - I

don't have an easy way to check if every comment that

goes that route actually gets to my team.

So I would encourage you to use the second

option called the email option. This is not email to

Linda Graves; this is email to fluorescent and

incandescent lamps rulemaking. Oops, sorry, it's

right here on a slide; here we go. That email is what

we're talking about.

And if you send it there, every time I

come to work in the morning and open up my email, I've

got this special box that shows me anything that has

come in as a comment, and when it comes to that box,

it's going directly to the official docket.

So for sure you're in the docket if you

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
249

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

send it that way.

And I would also notice some of you

noticed that we sometimes changed the order of items.

The items in the presentation have the same number as

those item boxes in the framework document. So just

to help organize what issue you are talking about, if

it's relevant-4 you might mention the item number that

way. That would be really helpful to us.

And that's really all I have. Thank you

all very much for coming.

(Whereupon, at 3:54 p.m., the proceedings

were adjourned.)

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5
250

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the foregoing transcript

in the matter of: Lamps Public Meeting

Before: U.S. Department of Energy

Date: June 15, 2006

Place: Washington, DC

represents the full and complete proceedings of the

aforementioned matter, as reported and reduced to

typewriting.

Eric Mollen

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 04.5