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.comSTAKEHOLDERS 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.comC-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.com4

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.com1 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.com1 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 

### (VEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 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 REPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com8

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.com1

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.com1

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.com1

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.com1

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.com1

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 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com14

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.com15

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.com1

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 RHODEISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1

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.com1

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.com19

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.com1

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.com21

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 i 23 ons.

in the Code of Federal Regulat 24 The test procedures use the most current 25 industry standards available at that time, and

(202) 234-4433 

### (VEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com22

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.com2

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.com24

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'retalking 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.com1

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 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 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 REPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com27

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.com1

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.com29

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.com2

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.com31

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.com1

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.com1

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 REPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1

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.com1 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.com1 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.com37

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.com1

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.com1

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.com40

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.com41

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.com1

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.com1

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.com44

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.com1

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.com1

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.com1

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 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1

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.com1 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.com1

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 reflectivelamps 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.com1

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.com1

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.com1

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.com1

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, 

### ythe 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.com1

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 RHODEISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.com1

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 

### (VEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com57

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 aboutalready - 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.com1

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.com1 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 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1

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.com1

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.com1

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.com63

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.com64

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.com1

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.com1

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.com1

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 iseasier 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.com68

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.com1

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.



### (VEALR. 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.com1

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

NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 2344433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com2

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.com72

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.com73

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.com1

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.com1

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.com76

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.com77

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 

### (VEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1

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.com1

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.com1

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 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1

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. Andwe'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 productclasses 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.com1

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.com83 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.com84 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.com85

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.com86

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 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1

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.com1

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.com1

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.com1 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.com1 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.com1

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.com1

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 REPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1

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.com1

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



### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com96 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.com97

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.com98

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.com1

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.com1

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.com101

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 d

o ay. 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.com102

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.com1

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.com104

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.com105

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.com106

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.com1

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.com1

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.com109

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.com110

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.com1

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 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com112

1 So that might address some of your 2 concerns. 3 Kind of moving - 4 M. BROOKMAN: No, I want to stay with 

### thi J h d 5 

### s. oe, go a ea . 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.com113 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 

### (VEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com114 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.com115

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.com2

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.com117

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 RHODEISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1

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.com2

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 REPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1

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.com1

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.com122

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 amultidimensional 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.com123

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Otherwise it's a strict

i 2 subst 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 ibl

poss 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.com124

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.com1

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.com1

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.com127

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.com128

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.com1

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.com1

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.com1

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.com1

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.com133

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.com2

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. It certainly would be ideal if products 25

(202) 234-4433 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 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.com1 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 

### (VEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com137

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.com1

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 REPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.neaIrgross.com139

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 i t i d propr e ary gn.

es 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 ther data sources.

o 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.com140

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.com141

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.com1

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.com143

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 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1

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.com145

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.com1

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.com147 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.com148

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.com1

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.com150

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 6 thi

ill b l ki 1 ng s room.

w e oc 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? ht A-il i 23 r g . 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.com1

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.com152

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 areI 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.com2

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 

### (VEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1

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.com1

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.com1

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 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com157

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 

### (VEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 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.com159

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.com160

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.com161 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 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com162

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.com1

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.com1

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.com1 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 thisrulemaking, 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.com1

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 REPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com167

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.com1 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.com1

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.com1

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.com1

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.com1

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.com173

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.com1

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 onefactor 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.com175

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 informationon 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.com176

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 acomment. 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.com177

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.com1

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.com1 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.com1

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.com1

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 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com182

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 REPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com183

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.com184 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.com185

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'tremember 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.com186

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.com187

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 lifewas 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.com188

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.com1

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.com190

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.com1

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.com192

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.com1

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.com1

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.com1

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 REPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1

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.com197

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.com198

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.com199

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.com1

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.com1

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.com1 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.com1

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.com1

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.com205

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.com1

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.com1

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.com1

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.com1

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.com1

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.com211 

### 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.com212

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.com1

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.com214 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.com215

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.com1

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.com217

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.com1

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.com219

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.com1

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.com1

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.com1

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.com1

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.com224

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.com225 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.com226

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.com227

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.com228

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.com1

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 REPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com230

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.com1

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.com1

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.com233

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.com234

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.com1 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.com1

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.com237

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.com1 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.com239

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.com1

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.com1

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.com1 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.com243 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. So those are some examples of what's been 25

(202) 234-4433 

### NEAL R. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1

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.com1

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.com1

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.com1

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 

### (VEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com248

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.com249

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.com250 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 

### NEALR. GROSS COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com