**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

**PUBLIC MEETING ON FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLASTS**  U.S. Department of Energy Room 1E-245 1000 Independence Avenue, Southwest Washington, D.C. Wednesday, February 6, 2008 9:00 a.m. Participants

LINDA GRAVES Department of Energy

RON LEWIS Department of Energy DOUG BROOKMAN, Facilitator

MICHAEL SCHOLAND Navigant Consulting

BOB EHRHARDT Philips Lighting and Electronics NEMA Ballast Chair

CHERYL ENGLISH Acuity Brands Lighting

ED THOMAS GE Lighting

HOWARD WOLFMAN

PRISCILLA RICHARDS NYSERDA

ANDREW DeLASKI Appliance Standards Awareness Project

MIKE RIVEST Navigant Consulting

CONAN O'ROURKE Lighting Research Center**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 Participants : (Continued)

MARK REA Lighting Research Center

JEFF PLASKON GE Lighting

ERIC STAS Department of Energy

MICHAEL McCABE Department of Energy

DIANA BURK Navigant Consulting

FRANCES WOOD On Location**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  3 A G E N D A

AGENDA ITEM : PAGE : Welcome 5 Linda Graves Introductions 6 Agenda Review 6 Doug Brookman Opening Remarks 11

Bob Ehrhardt Philips Lighting and Electronics Regulatory History and Scope of Coverage 12 Mike Scholand

Test Procedure 67 Conan O'Rourke Energy Conservation Standard Overview 78 Mike Scholand ANOPR Analysis: Market and Technology Assessment and 84 Screening Analysis

Conan O'Rourke Engineering Analysis 120

Conan O'Rourke Afternoon Session ANOPR Analysis: (Continued) Product Price Determination 135 Diana Burk**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  4 A G E N D A

AGENDA ITEM : PAGE : ANOPR Analysis: (Continued) Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis 145 Mike Scholand Energy Use and End-Use Load Characterization 149 Diana Burk Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis 153 Diana Burk Shipments Analysis 170 Diana Burk National Impact Analysis 179 Diana Burk NOPR Analysis: Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis and 194 Manufacturer Impact Analysis Mike Scholand Utility Impact Analysis, Employment 201 Impact Analysis, and Environmental Assessment Frances Wood Regulatory Impact Analysis 209 Mike Scholand

Other Issues and Comments 210 Closing Remarks Doug Brookman 212 Linda Graves 213 Ron Lewis 214**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  5 P R O C E E D I N G S 1

9:07 a.m. 2 Welcome 3 Linda Graves 4 MS. GRAVES: Good morning, and welcome to the 5 Department of Energy. We are so pleased that you could 6 come. We very much value your input. We rely on it. 7 We applaud it. The purpose of this meeting is to go 8 through the analytical assumptions and methodologies 9 that will drive the final outcome of the standards for 10 ballasts. Now, in the course of doing that we will, at 11 some point, touch briefly on test procedures, which are 12 such an inherent part of this rulemaking. 13 I'm Linda Graves. I am the team lead for the 14 Lighting rulemakings. I rely heavily on a very dynamic 15 team of very well qualified engineers and other 16 analysts, as well as my boss, Ron Lewis, who is also 17 here, and input from general counsel and policy. 18 Before I turn it over to Doug, our 19 facilitator, I just want to make sure that -- there was 20 one handout that we didn't have when some of you first 21 arrived. We had problems with printing. That's the 22 one that's about the issues. So I just hope everyone 23 has that. If you don't, if you could get it from the 24 front door there. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  6 And with that, I'm going to turn the meeting 1 over to our esteemed facilitator, Doug Brookman, who 2 always does a great job for us making sure that 3 everyone is heard and we have a good discussion of the 4 issues. Thank you. 5 Introductions 6 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you very much. Good 7 morning, everybody. Thanks for being here on time so 8 we can get an early start on this. I think everybody 9 has a copy of the agenda. Before I do an agenda 10 review, it's our custom to give everybody a chance to 11 introduce him- or herself, so I'd like to do that. If 12 you'd say your name and your organizational 13 affiliation. I'll start with Priscilla. 14 This will not show up in the recorded record 15 of the meeting because, unless everybody sticks their 16 face right in the microphones, which I'm not sure is 17 necessary, we'll be getting names as we go along. 18 (Introductions off mic.) 19 Agenda Review 20 Doug Brookman 21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. I think each of 22 you has a copy of the agenda. I'm going to run through 23 this briefly. If you'd take a peek at it. We are now 24 finishing the first substantive block, Introductions 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  7 and Agenda Review. Following this agenda review, 1 there's an opportunity for each of you, any of you that 2 wish to do so, to make brief statements for the record 3 about key issues that you'd like to bring to the fore 4 here at the front end of this meeting. 5 The format for this meeting, as you can see 6 from your handout materials, is there's a great deal of 7 documentation. Somewhere around about over 100 slides 8 that detail how this framework for the rulemaking lays 9 out overtime. But if anybody wishes to cue a key issue 10 from your perspective at the front end, that would be 11 the time to do it, following this agenda review. 12 Following the opening remarks, we're going to 13 have a brief orientation to the regulatory history and 14 the scope of coverage. Following that, the test 15 procedure and energy conservation standard overview. 16 We'll take a break mid-morning, around about 10:30. 17 Then we'll move into the analyses that are 18 involved in the ANOPR. Starting round about 10:45, 19 market and technology assessment and the screening 20 analysis; 11:30-ish, engineering analysis and product 21 price determination. 22 We'll take a break for lunch. Everybody is 23 on their own for lunch. We'll have more specific 24 instructions for those of you that are new to this 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  8 about where to go for lunch when we get there. 1 Following lunch, preliminary and manufacturer 2 impact analysis. Following that, energy use and end3 use load characterization, life-cycle cost and payback 4 period analysis, and shipments analysis, national 5 impact analysis, and life-cycle cost sub-group 6 analysis. We'll take a break mid afternoon. We'll 7 talk about manufacturer impact analysis, utility impact 8 analysis, employment impact analysis, environmental 9 assessment, and regulatory impact analysis, a whole lot 10 of analyses as you can see. 11 And then, at the end of the day, we'll be 12 providing, again, another opportunity for people to 13 raise other issues and make comments as they feel they 14 might need to to get their points across. We'll 15 entertain any closing remarks. We'll adjourn today 16 somewhere round about four or 4:30, I anticipate. You 17 never know; we might get through it quicker than that. 18 We try not to waste anybody's time. 19 So that's the overview on the agenda. 20 Questions or comments here at the outset? 21 (No response.) 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Let me ask for a show of 23 hands. How many of you are brand new to this kind of a 24 proceeding? 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  9 (Show of hands.) 1 MR. BROOKMAN: So, a number of you. Did you 2 raise your hand, Kyle? 3 (Laughter.) 4 MR. BROOKMAN: I thought you did. Don't do 5 that. 6 (Laughter.) 7 MR. BROOKMAN: He's already throwing a curve 8 at us. Okay. 9 I'm glad to have you here. I'm going to ask 10 for your consideration to observe what have emerged as 11 norms over the span of all these years. I'm going to 12 ask simply that you please speak one at a time. Please 13 say your name for the record. 14 This is a recorded session. These 15 microphones I was told are vintage 1960, so you need to 16 pull them right into your face in order for your 17 comments to be included in the record, and DOE has a 18 desire to have all of your comments fully and clearly 19 captured in the record. So please make the effort to 20 get the microphone right up close. 21 I'm going to ask that you please keep the 22 focus here. Turn your cell phones on silent mode or 23 turn them off or something. If you need to have a 24 sidebar conversation with someone that's going to last 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 0 more than about 20 seconds, we'll understand. You can 1 take it out of the room. That won't offend anybody if 2 you have to do that. 3 I'm going to be queuing people as best I can 4 by name to speak, and I'm also wishing to encourage 5 follow-on comments as we go along. So if I drop you 6 out of the queue, don't let me get away with it. Just 7 cue me to queue you again, okay? 8 And those are what I would suggest as norms 9 for today's meeting. We try to keep this as informal 10 and friendly as possible as we go along, and that 11 benefits the Department in getting the information they 12 wish to receive. Questions or comments here before we 13 proceed? 14 (No response.) 15 MR. BROOKMAN: I see we have one more person 16 who joined us that didn't get a chance to introduce 17 herself. Would you say your name and organizational 18 affiliation? 19 MS. THORNE AMANN: Sure. Jennifer Thorne 20 Amann, ACEEE. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you for joining us. 22 Okay. So I think that's all of the stuff at 23 the outset. There are some housekeeping specifics 24 we'll get to as we go to the break, but as it stands 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 1 now, let's proceed. 1 MR. SCHOLAND: Hi, everybody. My name is 2 Mike Scholand from Navigant Consulting. Doug, 3 unfortunately, did not have anybody advancing his 4 slides for him while he was speaking, so I'm just going 5 to move through his slides. 6 Are there any -- did Doug already ask this? - 7 - stakeholders with opening comments? 8 MR. BROOKMAN: I didn't know whether you 9 wanted to make a brief opening statement before I did 10 this or not. 11 MR. SCHOLAND: No, we don't. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Then let's -- okay. So this 13 would be the occasion -- right now would be the 14 opportunity for anybody that wished to flag key issues 15 and key concerns here at the outset. Please. And your 16 name for the record. 17 Opening Remarks 18 Bob Ehrhardt 19 Philips Lighting and Electronics 20 MR. EHRHARDT: This is Bob Ehrhardt, Philips 21 Lighting and Electronics. I'm the NEMA ballast chair. 22 NEMA is very interested, willing, and anxious to help 23 work with the DOE on new rulemaking. We wish to bring 24 to the DOE's attention, though, that we may need to 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 2 change some of the methodology in the rulemaking, and 1 we'll bring up some further comments later on as far as 2 the precision of current metrics used for ballast 3 quantification, namely BEF. NEMA will be making some 4 comments on alternative quantification methodology 5 moving forward, and we look forward to supporting the 6 DOE in this action. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you very much. Other 8 opening remarks? I think some of you may have 9 identified that you wished to do so, but if you 10 shouldn't -- if you didn't do that, you can still make 11 opening remarks if you'd like to. 12 (No response.) 13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So then, let's proceed. 14 Regulatory History and Scope of Coverage 15 Mike Scholand 16 (PowerPoint presentation.) 17 MR. SCHOLAND: Thank you, Doug. So I guess 18 we want to start just by highlighting for you the 19 purpose of today's framework document so we all know at 20 the end of the day if it was a successful meeting. The 21 purpose today is to present the procedural and 22 analytical approaches the Department intends to use 23 when evaluating energy conservation standards for 24 fluorescent lamp ballasts. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 3 The intent of this meeting is to provide a 1 public forum for discussion of the rulemaking issues. 2 As Linda mentioned earlier, this meeting is being 3 recorded by a court reporter. There will be a 4 transcript, and that transcript will become part of the 5 docket, the official record, for this rulemaking 6 process. So everything you say will be recorded as a 7 comment to the Department in today's proceedings. 8 The Department wishes to encourage 9 stakeholders to submit data, information, written 10 comments, to follow up and to provide information. 11 That helps to make sure the analysis runs smoothly and 12 is truly reflective of the market. 13 And finally, to inform stakeholders and to 14 facilitate the rulemaking process in general. 15 As you've probably seen, if you've had a 16 chance to look through the framework document that DOE 17 published on its website in January, there's a series 18 of issue boxes that are contained in the document where 19 DOE has called out specific areas that it's looking for 20 public comment on. It's not to say those are the only 21 issues you should comment on, but those are the areas 22 where DOE wants to make sure it does get feedback. You 23 should feel free to comment on any aspect of the 24 rulemaking and any issue that's mentioned in the 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 4 framework document. 1 We have, in presenting these slides, included 2 those issue boxes throughout the presentation in the 3 sections that they appear, and I understand there's 4 also a handout at the door which summarizes all the 5 issues for comment on one document. So make sure you 6 reply to everything. 7 And just a heads up. As you can appreciate, 8 when we were putting the slides together we thought of 9 a few more issues that the Department is interested in. 10 So the slides will have some issue boxes that aren't 11 numbered, but there are other issues that came up in 12 the last couple of weeks and we thought would be 13 helpful to put out in the meeting as well. 14 On this slide and in the Federal Register 15 notice and in the framework document, as many places as 16 the Department can publish it, are all the information 17 for how to submit comments. There is an e-mail 18 address, BallastRulemaking@ee.doe.gov. You can also 19 send postal or courier. The comment period closes on 20 March 7th, basically a month from today. 21 So I'll just jump into the regulatory 22 history. I'm glad to hear that there are a few people 23 who are new to this process because I was afraid these 24 slides would be very tedious for people who are 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 5 familiar with the process. 1 But the Energy Conservation Program here at 2 the Department was established by EPCA, the Energy 3 Policy and Conservation Act, back in 1975. The product 4 we're discussing today, fluorescent lamp ballasts, was 5 added in the National Appliance Energy Conservation 6 amendments of 1988. There were several assignments 7 that were given by Congress to the Department in that 8 notice, in that Act. They prescribed test procedures 9 for ballasts. Those were codified by DOE in 1989. 10 There were standards prescribed that became effective 11 in the years 1990 and 1991. There were ballast 12 efficacy factor standards. Those were codified in 13 1989. It also directed DOE to review and amend those 14 standards that they had prescribed. 15 DOE completed that rulemaking in the year 16 2000. I'll discuss that on the last bullet here. Then 17 there was direction from Congress to do a second cycle 18 to review and amend the BEF values, or the standards 19 for ballasts, and that's what we're talking about 20 today, the second of the two revisions. 21 So as I mentioned, the fluorescent lamp 22 ballast energy conservation standard was published by 23 DOE on September 19th, 2000. I'm sure many of you are 24 aware of it because it applies to you. This was a 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 6 consensus standard agreed between NEMA and efficiency 1 advocates, and DOE adopted that standard and published 2 it in the Federal Register. 3 Then there was a further standard that was 4 applied to fluorescent lamp ballasts that are designed 5 to operate certain energy-saver lamps, the reduced 6 wattage versions, for example, instead of the F40-T12, 7 the F34-T12 ballast. Those were promulgated in the 8 Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 2005, and so you 9 see those standards are becoming applicable I think in 10 2010 to 2012. I'm not sure exactly. 11 Then, finally, the Energy Independence and 12 Security Act, which just passed a couple of months ago, 13 has a few other assignments for the Department on 14 ballasts. One is to direct the Department to amend the 15 fluorescent lamp ballast test procedure to incorporate 16 standby mode and off mode. So we have a slide and some 17 issues that we want to discuss on that with the 18 Department soliciting comment. 19 Also, the Department is directed to 20 incorporate standby mode and off mode in its analysis 21 for the Energy Conservation Standard because the final 22 rule date for this rulemaking occurs after July 1st of 23 2010. So any final rule published after that date, the 24 Department needs to take into consideration the standby 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 7 mode and off mode. So there are questions for you in 1 the framework document, and the Department would 2 appreciate comments on those issues to help the 3 analysis along. 4 Finally, there are some definitions in a 5 section related to metal halide fixtures for ballast 6 and electronic ballast. I should also mention that 7 NAECA of 1988, which established the original 8 standards, defined fluorescent lamp ballast, so there's 9 a few definitions. 10 And then a final point about the ENERGY 11 Independence and Security Act of 2007. It removed the 12 requirement for the Department to hold an advance 13 notice of proposed rulemaking. We'll talk about that a 14 little more this morning, but essentially it's one of 15 the stages that the Department goes through with the 16 public hearing, a Federal Register notice, and draft 17 documentation for people to review. In an effort to 18 recognize the burden and the timeline and the number of 19 products, this requirement was removed from the statute 20 for this product, for products that are incorporated in 21 Part 430 of the Code of Federal Regulations. So that's 22 just something to be aware of. 23 As I mentioned, the definitions that are sort 24 of pertinent to this product are on Slide 12. We have 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 8 fluorescent lamp ballast defined by NAECA: a device 1 used to start and operate fluorescent lamps by 2 providing a starting voltage and current and limiting 3 the current during normal operation. And then the 4 additional two definitions that were in the metal 5 halide lamp fixture section of EISA 2007, ballast and 6 electronic ballast. We just put those there for your 7 information. 8 By the way, feel free to stop me if you have 9 any questions at any point. I'm not -- I actually 10 appreciate feedback, so it helps to -- 11 MS. ENGLISH: Mike, I have a question about - 12

- 13 MR. BROOKMAN: Please say your name for the 14 record. 15 MS. ENGLISH: Sorry. Cheryl English, Acuity 16 Brands Lighting. I have a question about the Energy 17 Independence Security Act and the removal of the ANOPR. 18 But it looks like on our schedule there are plans to 19 do an ANOPR. 20 MR. SCHOLAND: Ron, would you like to make a 21 comment about that? 22 MR. LEWIS: Ron Lewis, DOE. That's a new 23 provision saying it's not required to do an ANOPR. 24 There are advantages -- some advantages by maybe not 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 9 doing one. There are also exchanges of information and 1 interactions with stakeholders that happen during that 2 that have been very valuable. So it's a new provision, 3 and it didn't mandate that we don't do ANOPRs. We're 4 still looking at it and trying to see how we accomplish 5 it. 6 So right now we're still putting that in the 7 schedule and trying to find the best way to still get 8 the benefit but decrease the slow-down or any negatives 9 associated with that. So it's still a question mark, 10 but we want to maintain that interaction and get the 11 input and the comments from stakeholders. So we're 12 trying to find how best to do that. 13 MR. BROOKMAN: As the day goes along, there's 14 going to be more opportunity to comment on this in 15 greater length. 16 MR. SCHOLAND: Actually, one thing before I 17 leave the definitions slide. The definition of 18 fluorescent lamp ballast is important here because -- 19 I'll get to it in two slides from here -- the 20 Department is directed to consider additional 21 fluorescent lamp ballasts for coverage and for 22 potential energy conservation standards. So this 23 definition matters because the statute is telling the 24 Department to consider other -- or, additional 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 0 fluorescent lamp ballasts. 1 So, what are the standards today? The 2 standards essentially are for 120-volt and 277-volt 3 fluorescent lamp ballasts that operate one and two 4 four-foot medium bi-pin lamps. Those are both the 34- 5 watt and the 40-watt T12s. Two eight-foot single-pin 6 slim-line lamps, both the 60-watt and the 75-watt. So 7 those would be ballasts that operate fixtures with two 8 lamps. And then finally, ballasts that operate two 9 eight-foot recessed double-contact high-output lamps. 10 That would be the 95-watt T12 and the 110-watt T12. 11 And then there's a series of exclusions. If 12 the ballast dims to less than 50 percent of the maximum 13 output it's excluded. Ballasts designed for use with 14 two high-output eight-foot T12 lamps at ambient 15 temperatures of less than 20 degrees Fahrenheit and for 16 use in an outdoor sign, and also -- this is something - 17 - I'm not sure if this was an editorial issue with 18 EPACT 2005, but F96 T12 HO energy savers used at 19 ambient temperatures of plus 20 degrees Fahrenheit and 20 labeled for use with an outdoor sign. So I don't know 21 if the intention was that that should have been a 22 negative 20 or not, but it is definitely plus. 23 Power factor of less than 0.9 and designed 24 and labeled for residential building applications and 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 1 replacement ballasts as defined in -- replacement 1 ballasts have a specific definition in the -- and that 2 exclusion for replacement ballasts expires on June 30th 3 of 2010. From that point on, replacement ballasts 4 would be covered products subject to the standards in 5 place. 6 So let's talk a little bit about additional 7 fluorescent lamp ballasts. As I mentioned earlier, the 8 Department is acting under a paragraph in the statute, 9 which we've reproduced on this slide, which essentially 10 directs the Department to consider amending the 11 standards in effect for fluorescent lamp ballasts. But 12 also, what we've underlined here, "including whether 13 such standards should be amended so that they would be 14 applicable to additional fluorescent lamp ballasts." 15 So this rulemaking proceeding is looking at 16 two things. It's looking at the standards and it's 17 also looking at coverage for additional lamps. 18 Ultimately, at the end of the day, the Department would 19 be setting standards on both, if there are any 20 additional -- I keep saying "lamps." If there are any 21 additional ballasts, it would be setting standards on 22 both the newly covered ones and the existing ones. 23 Just going into a little more detail on the 24 additional lamp ballasts, in the framework document the 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 2 Department discusses considering extending coverage to 1 ballasts that operate all of the fluorescent lamps that 2 are currently covered and regulated under EPCA. So 3 that would mean all -- the four-foot medium bi-pins 4 rated at greater than 28 watts, the two-foot medium bi5 pin U-shaped lamps rated at greater than or equal to 28 6 watts, and so on. 7 So the thought here is that -- if I just jump 8 ahead to the next slide because I think this presents 9 it a little more clearly. If you look at the standards 10 map between fluorescent lamps and fluorescent lamp 11 ballasts, the blue boxes in this slide represent where 12 the Department is covering ballasts that operate those 13 lamps, and the yellow boxes represent lamps where the 14 Department covers them as lamps but doesn't necessarily 15 cover the ballasts that operate those lamps. 16 The one box there that's pretty significant 17 is the 32-watt T8, obviously. 18 Okay. So I guess I'll just stop here on this 19 Slide 17. The Department invites comment on the scope 20 of this rulemaking, which implements the statutory 21 requirement we just looked at, and to consider 22 additional fluorescent lamp ballasts. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: Is it Bob? 24 MR. EHRHARDT: Yes. Bob Ehrhardt again, 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 3 Philips Lighting and Electronics, NEMA Ballast chair. 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Why don't you go back to the 2 previous slide? 3

MR. SCHOLAND: Sure. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: I like that slide. 5 MR. EHRHARDT: NEMA does recognize that the 6 market is moving away from T12 lamps and the market is 7 becoming predominantly T8. NEMA understands the DOE's 8 interest in expanding the scope of the ballast 9 rulemaking. As we go further, though, NEMA will be 10 bringing up issues in defining standards for T8 lamps, 11 namely that in previous rulemakings, the metric of BEF, 12 there was quite a range of efficiency levels and BEF 13 was a precise enough metric to delineate between 14 electromagnetic and electronic ballasts, for instance. 15 As we move into T8s, the T8 market currently 16 has a much tighter range of system efficacies, and the 17 range of system efficacies available on the market 18 today for T8 systems is quite similar to the amount of 19 error one can have when using BEF measurements. And so 20 NEMA wishes to bring this to the attention of the DOE. 21 NEMA has recognized this issue. NEMA has a 22 study underway to develop a new metric, hopefully 23 correlated to historical BEF measurements. We're 24 looking at ballast efficiency, especially for T8 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 4 ballasts, and we are doing round-robin testing with our 1 NEMA companies and with outside laboratories to try to 2 develop a correlation to BEF. Such a metric of ballast 3 efficiency can have a much tighter tolerance on it, on 4 the order of 1 or 2 percent, compared with perhaps as 5 much as 5 percent error on BEF measurements. 6 So moving forward, NEMA wishes to have the 7 DOE take into consideration the delineation that it 8 will need to do and the ability to verify compliance 9 moving forward with the regulations. NEMA will support 10 the DOE in this effort. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Ron Lewis. 12 MR. LEWIS: In response to that, I generally 13 only chime in to urge people to give their input early. 14 One of the huge challenges for us if we are 15 introducing a new metric or looking at a new means of 16 doing things is, even quicker than doing the standard, 17 the test procedure to be able to account for that and 18 how we would help people to show that they're in 19 compliance. 20 So the timeliness of getting that for both 21 the test procedure, which is done before the standard, 22 and then the standard. So I'm just going to urge you 23 that if you've got some work underway to get that to us 24 real soon. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 5 MR. EHRHARDT: Yes, NEMA does have a test 1 procedure defined, and we are in the process of 2 verifying that test procedure. The ballasts have -- 3 are out now. We are doing round-robin testing. 4 There's a group of ballasts from multiple manufacturers 5 that have started testing already. Mr. Ed Thomas can 6 maybe comment on the schedule, but we expect to have, 7 by -- in third quarter we expect to have our study 8 completed. But Ed can maybe comment further. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed Thomas? 10 MR. THOMAS: Thank you. Ed Thomas, GE 11 Lighting. Yes, we -- as Bob mentioned, we do have a 12 testing protocol in place. We are doing comparative 13 measurements at different labs, different manufacturer 14 sites, using all the manufacturers' ballasts, the major 15 manufacturers' ballasts. We are also going to 16 incorporate independent test labs to verify our 17 measurements and also attempt to come up with a 18 correlation or a transfer function between the existing 19 metric of ballast efficacy factor and the new metric of 20 ballast efficiency. 21 Since this is a ballast rulemaking 22 discussion, ballast efficiency relates to the 23 electrical efficiency of the ballast itself, removing 24 possible effects of lamp variation and also removing 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 6 effects of photometric measurement variation. We think 1 that electrical measurement can be a more accurate 2 means of grading the higher performance ballasts that 3 we now produce. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob, follow on. 5 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah, one more comment, and 6 that is that BEF is particularly let's say non-precise 7 for T8 lamps, and the T8 lamps are the last of the 60- 8 hertz referenced lamps. When you do a BEF measurement 9 with a T8 lamp, you are running it on a 60-hertz 10 reference circuit and then switching it to a high11 frequency electronic ballast. 12 That adds more error than when you have a 13 high-frequency reference and a high-frequency ballast 14 or a 60-hertz reference and a 60-hertz ballast. NEMA 15 can provide some early data to the DOE to show this 16 effect that we have seen a several percent error of the 17 same ballast going to different labs with different 18 lamps due to this high-frequency to low-frequency 19 transfer effect. 20 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Howard. 21 MR. WOLFMAN: Howard Wolfman. Just one quick 22 comment. I think as we start to provide this 23 information everybody is going to come to the 24 realization that ballast efficiency is much easier to 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 7 measure than BEF. Assuming that we're successful in 1 the work that we're doing in the round-robin, the 2 comparisons, et cetera, it will be very evident that 3 all you do is measure input and output power, which can 4 be done very precisely with laboratory instruments and 5 takes away the photometric variability. 6 So we're excited. We think this may be a 7 simpler way of having a metric. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Priscilla, did you 9 have a -- 10 MS. RICHARDS: Yeah. I guess -- 11 MR. BROOKMAN: Priscilla, say your name. 12 MS. RICHARDS: This is Priscilla Richards 13 from NYSERDA, and certainly, I don't understand a lot 14 of what's behind the ballast efficiency metric that 15 you're talking about. I do know that there's been some 16 work done on a relative system efficiency which 17 normalizes the BEF. One of the things that's 18 attractive to NYSERDA and people in the efficiency 19 community about that is the ability to compare 20 different ballasts across types. 21 So I would be curious, like dimming ballasts 22 versus programmed start versus instant start and the 23 relative efficiency. So I would be curious to know 24 with this new metric whether or not that kind of 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 8 comparison in terms of relative efficiency would be 1 able to be done. 2 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 3 MR. EHRHARDT: As a matter of fact, the task 4 group that is working on this just had a phone meeting 5 with Dr. Rubinstein, who is the originator of the RSE 6 metric. We do complement Dr. Rubenstein on developing 7 this metric. We do agree that it does help improve the 8 understanding. As the ballast efficiency metric that 9 we are developing can -- we are attempting to correlate 10 with BEF, it would also be correlated with the RSE. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 12 comments? This would be the place for anybody that has 13 additional comments at this point on scope of coverage. 14 I think this slide here is a really good queuing point 15 for that. Andrew DeLaski. 16 MR. DeLASKI: I do have a comment on that, 17 Doug, but I want to, first of all, just follow on to 18 the conversation about the test method. 19 MR. BROOKMAN: Please do. Yeah, please. 20 MR. DeLASKI: First of all, it sounds great. 21 Easier to measure, greater accuracy, comparability. 22 These are all things that we like in a test method. I 23 wanted just to ask Ron and the Department a question 24 about timing because, as you duly noted -- I'll just, 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 9 first of all, congratulate the Department for getting 1 this underway. This is an important rulemaking. 2 You're under a schedule under a consent 3 decree and court order to get this done by mid 2011. 4 When would a -- how does the Department stage potential 5 changes to a test method? I think the folks in this 6 room need to understand how a test method change would 7 be staged with completion of a rulemaking under -- 8 which doesn't have, really, any flexibility given the 9 demands of the court. 10 MR. SCHOLAND: Andrew, can I intercept that 11 question? Mike Scholand. That is Slide 18. In fact, 12 Ron, if this helps you talk to that response, we have 13 some chevrons to present how the test procedure might 14 be coincident and complete by the NOPR stage of the 15 Energy Conservation Standard so that the notice of 16 proposed rule, the Department could make its proposal 17 for the standard having a final rule on the test 18 procedure in place. 19 MR. BROOKMAN: Do you want him to forward to 20 that slide? 21 MR. LEWIS: Not yet. 22 MR. SCHOLAND: Not yet. Okay. 23 MR. LEWIS: Ron Lewis, DOE. I just -- thanks 24 for the reminder, in case we hadn't -- 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  3 0 MR. DeLASKI: I know you're aware, Ron. 1 (Laughter.) 2 MR. DeLASKI: I'm not sure everybody else is. 3 MR. LEWIS: Actually, when I leave for the 4 mid part of the day here, I have to go to do another 5 big meeting. It's not just because we've got so much 6 work that I can't afford to be sitting here. But the 7 schedule that we put in the original January 31st of 8 2006 Report to Congress that's posted on our website 9 had a table in there that showed the model for doing 10 standards rulemakings in three years. The target that 11 we still try to live to, if at all possible, is to have 12 the test procedure complete by the time we publish the 13 NOPR of the standard for the product. The time 14 difference between the NOPR and final rule for the 15 standard in the model is seven and a half months' time. 16 So it means that's three years less seven and 17 a half months to get the test procedure done. So the 18 end date for the ballast rulemaking is -- 19 MR. SCHOLAND: June of 2011. 20 MR. LEWIS: -- June of 2011. So we would 21 hope to have the test procedure final rule seven and a 22 half months before that. That's the target. 23 MR. SCHOLAND: That is. It's October 2010. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Those last comments from 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  3 1 Michael Scholand. Bob. 1 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah, just to help us 2 understand, if you need a final ruling seven months 3 earlier, when do you need a final proposal for a test 4 method? 5 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest. 6 MR. RIVEST: I think I understand the 7 question that Andrew was asking, which is because this 8 is a fundamental change to how we measure efficiency it 9 totally impacts our ability to do the analysis. So we 10 can't start with the data gathering, for example, to 11 create our cost efficiency curves until that metric has 12 been agreed to. And one of the challenges we would 13 have is that the publicly available data on the 14 existing product would be by the BEF metric. 15 So your effort to correlate existing BEFs 16 with the new descriptor would have to be -- we're 17 talking several months, not -- I think we've started 18 this rule actually more quickly than the 36 months 19 partly because the same analysis team is also working 20 on the lamps rulemaking. So that does give us this 21 early start. It does give us a little bit more time 22 for that initial data-gathering stage. But we don't 23 have a year. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Bob. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  3 2 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah. I guess my question is, 1 if NEMA and ANSI were to define a ballast -- a method 2 of measurement involving ballast efficiency to specify 3 a BEF, and if that was an industry-recognized standard, 4 would that allow the DOE to accept that method of 5 measurement and continue with their rulemaking with BEF 6 as the metric? 7 MR. SCHOLAND: Do you mean ballast efficiency 8

or BEF? 9 MR. EHRHARDT: Well, no, I understand that 10 all your historical data, and today our catalogue data, 11 everything is in the form of BEF. The issue with BEF 12 is verification and precision of verification. We all 13 know that we may want to use one lamp instead of 14 another because it gives us a difference in BEF 15

measurement. 16 If ANSI were to put in its C82.11, for 17 instance, method of measurement a method of measurement 18 that involved ballast input power and ballast output 19 power with a correlation to BEF, would the Department 20 of Energy consider that as an effective method of 21 measurement for BEF even though it was actually 22 measuring ballast efficiency? 23 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest. 24 MR. RIVEST: It still entails a change in 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  3 3 descriptor. So you're using the same letters, BEF -- 1 MR. EHRHARDT: No, no. It would still be 2 ballast efficiency factor. It would still be -- 3 MR. RIVEST: Right. 4 MR. EHRHARDT: -- relative light output. We 5 would be describing relative light output over input 6 power, and actually, probably the better correlation is 7 the relative system efficiency -- is that RSE? That's 8 probably the better descriptor. It's the most closely 9 correlatable to the metric we're developing. 10 So you would still describe the -- we would 11 still be coming up with a description of relative light 12 output in terms of input power, but we wouldn't be 13 measuring light output. We would have a correlation 14 agreed to by the lamp manufacturers or lamp power with 15 respect to light output, and then we would be only 16 measuring output power from the ballast. It would be a 17 more precise measurement. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis. 19 MR. LEWIS: We're not going to be giving 20 definitive closure to this right now. What we can and 21 will accept at this point -- I was trying to address 22 the timeliness of what are our obligations time-wise 23 for completion. The process to date with the 24 tremendous ramp-up of number of rulemakings that we 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  3 4 have to do and the question earlier about doing ANOPRs, 1 getting the -- exposing through this framework document 2 DOE’s needs, discussing the logic and the flow of how 3 things -- the process works so people understand it. 4 We have got a spotted history here of people 5 who are of best thought and efforts trying to get us 6 information that sometimes comes in very late and makes 7 it very difficult for us to make up that time. 8 Sometimes when we first see the material it's 9 aggregated in a different way than it's really usable. 10 I think part of Mike Rivest's comments there, in doing 11 the analysis to support this, in looking at impacts, in 12 correlating to historical bases, tests, and standards, 13 we have to show the impacts of potential increases in 14 standards, what the impacts and additional energy 15 savings would be. 16 So we have to be able to have a real handle 17 and a confidence factor on any new methodologies and 18 connect. So there are a lot of decisions that have to 19 be made, including the Legal Department and Policy and 20 other people that chime in on these things. It's not 21 just a pure technical play. 22 But the difficulty we have and part of the 23 reason that we're -- even though we're authorized we're 24 trying to find a way of still getting the benefit of 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  3 5 the ANOPR step is because we need to get that started 1 early and get the input and get any of those thoughts 2 and get the details and make sure that we're getting 3 the information in a form that's usable to do what 4 we're required to do by Congress. 5 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 6 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah. The reason NEMA is 7 making such a point of this so early is because if BEF 8 with existing methodology is going to be the metric, we 9 may very well be arguing that it is inappropriate to 10 develop T8 energy standards because the difference in 11 the efficiency and the efficacy of T8 lighting systems 12 from the best to the worst is on the order of 5 to 10 13 percent. The error in a BEF measurement is on the 14 order of 5 percent. 15 So we would argue that in order to have 16 meaningful verification of a standard of a rule you 17 will need a metric where you can delineate between the 18 products on the market. If you're looking at T8 19 instant start systems, the premium systems versus the 20 standard systems, there is, like I say, on the order of 21 a 5 percent difference in the efficiency of those two 22 systems. That's within the error of a BEF measurement. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest. 24 MR. RIVEST: I'm just trying to understand 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  3 6 the mechanism here. So if I were to select a ballast 1 from your product catalogue and it currently has a BEF 2 rating associated with it, the goal would be to have a 3 separate test procedure which would measure the 4 efficiency of that ballast and would have guidance, a 5 table or an equation, that would translate that 6 efficiency back into BEF. 7 What level of accuracy would we have with 8 that same ballast using the equation, using the same 9 ballast as in your catalogue? 10 MR. EHRHARDT: Well, here's the thing. I 11 would say that if we're using ballast efficiency as the 12 method of measurement, then whether we measured the 13 ballast or UL measured the ballast, or CSA or ETL, the 14 difference in the measurement and the difference in the 15 correlated BEF would be within 1, at most 2 percent 16 between the different measurements from the different 17 facilities. 18 If we were actually measuring BEF and sent it 19 from our facility to UL, to CSA, to ETL, you could see 20 as much as a 5 percent difference. And we do have -- I 21 believe Ed has some documented evidence of this, where 22 the very same ballast going to different test labs 23 using different lamps can have a 5 percent difference 24 in the reported measured BEF. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  3 7 So it's our goal to work with the lamp 1 companies to come to an agreed upon nominal BEF, if you 2 will, for a given ballast. So that's the purpose of 3 our round-robin testing. We're sending the same 4 ballasts to multiple test labs. We will be getting BEF 5 measurements for those ballasts from multiple test labs 6 and then we will attempt to have an agreed-upon 7 correlation between the ballast efficiencies of those 8 multiple ballasts from multiple manufacturers to a BEF 9 that then is agreed upon so that when you do report a 10 number it will be much more reproducible and much 11 better verified. 12 MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest. What would then be 13 the benefit of going back to the BEF? Why not just 14 stay with the new metric? 15 MR. EHRHARDT: The only benefit I would say 16 would be that it's consistent with your existing 17 rulemaking and consistency for the market, say if 18 they're used to using terms of BEF. In principle, we 19 think the ballast efficiency -- of course for ballasts, 20 that's what we have control over, although we do have 21 some control over the lamp efficacy as well with 22 filament heating. 23 But for instant start in particular, which is 24 the dominant system in the marketplace right now, 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  3 8 ballast efficiency is the best descriptor for the 1 performance of the ballast. When you start getting 2 into filament heating and rapid-start, program-start 3 systems, et cetera, then you need to take into account 4 filament effects. 5 Personally, I have some ideas that I want to 6 propose to our group on including filament losses as 7 well. I would like to, in a second step, develop a 8 correlation to include filament losses in our 9 conversion between BE and BEF. But certainly for the 10 dominant product type on the market today, ballast 11 efficiency is the best descriptor. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: It is Conan, right? 13 MR. O'ROURKE: Conan O'Rourke with the 14 Lighting Research Center. I'd like to follow up on 15 Bob's comment. Could you please comment where the 16 source of the error is? Is it on the light output side 17 or on the power side? And would you say that error is 18 more systematic error or some random type of error? 19 MR. EHRHARDT: To the best of our -- well, we 20 know that there is some error associated with just 21 doing a light output measurement in itself. There is 22 also an error between lamps. And again, I attribute 23 this -- and I don't have a statistically significant 24 test to refer to, but I attribute this to the fact that 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  3 9 your T8 system is being run on a reference ballast at 1 60 hertz, at 60 hertz with some filament heating. And 2 then you switch it over to a high-frequency ballast. 3 Well, lamps pick up efficacy as you run them 4 at high frequency, but no one has documented that it is 5 a precise conversion. Not all lamps are going to 6 convert exactly from -- are not going to gain the same 7 level of efficacy moving from 60 hertz to high 8 frequency. 9 Filaments also enter into it because you're 10 going from a filament heated to an instant start, non11 heated filament situation. So you've got some areas of 12 difference in the lamps themselves. If you use 13 multiple manufacturers, you will get different BEFs. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis. 15 MR. LEWIS: Is your intention or thought at 16 this point that you would continue to list BEFs as the 17 metric as consumer choice information in the 18 catalogues? 19 MR. EHRHARDT: Well, that would be a 20 commercial decision. I would expect that we're not 21 going to immediately switch from one metric to another. 22 We don't want to confuse the marketplace. But it is 23 something that over time could perhaps be phased out. 24 MR. LEWIS: My concern here is we have to 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  4 0 both -- the whole mission intention of a new standard 1 is to look forward at things to come. So as you've got 2 thoughts about things that should be, now is the time 3 to get those in. Let's consider those. 4 We also need to look backwards on how this 5 compares to what's been done in the past and show some 6 incremental impacts that happen. So it's good to have 7 that conversion, that down conversion, especially if 8 it's coming from more precision and as it converts 9 backwards. That seems to be a better methodology. So 10 that would be helpful. 11 But it would also be useful as we're looking 12 at impacts on consumers and consideration that if you 13 are changing the metric, if you're leaving the old 14 metric, how that impacts the consumer in clarity and 15 being able to choose, et cetera. That would be 16 important for us to understand what your thoughts are 17 as well because it's a technical analysis that's done. 18 But how it would play out, all the implications, would 19 be useful for us to better understand as well. 20 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest. 21 MR. RIVEST: One last consideration. A lot 22 of these discussion points and questions had the BEF 23 metric in mind. Clearly, one discussion that's going 24 to be very important is the product class discussion. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  4 1 So really, we'll have to be able to think in terms of 1 the existing metric and how the product classes might 2 look different under this new metric and this new 3 testing. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 5 MR. RIVEST: And we'll get there soon. 6 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. Go ahead. 7 MR. EHRHARDT: Just as a comment, NEMA has 8 already initiated use of this metric in our NEMA 9 Premium Ballast Program, where we do have an 10 alternative verification procedure using ballast 11 efficiency. So we do specify and we do have different 12 classes of product in that we have instant start and we 13 have programmed start. Instant start and programmed 14 start have different BEF numbers but then they have the 15 same -- for verification, the same ballast efficiency. 16 It's not clear that that would be what we 17 would be finally proposing to the DOE, but there is an 18 example of how the industry is already looking to this 19 new metric. 20 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest, I want to clarify 21 one thing. I thought you were saying that if they 22 changed the descriptor or the metric that it needs to 23 be essentially endorsed before DOE can use that new 24 metric reliably. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  4 2 MR. RIVEST: Well, it's true that the attempt 1 is to have the final rule by the NOPR. But because all 2 the analysis is contingent on this metric, we would 3 have to have maybe not a final rule but a strong 4 consensus before. 5 MR. BROOKMAN: So that someone like NEMA or 6

ANSI -- 7 MR. RIVEST: Because the analysis is 8 essentially complete by the ANOPR. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob, go ahead. 10 MR. EHRHARDT: I'm sorry. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: No, we just want to keep 12 getting these names on the record. Bob. 13 MR. EHRHARDT: Okay. I'm sorry. I think Ed 14 is chairing our taskforce on the ballast efficiency. I 15 think at our next meeting perhaps we can discuss 16 getting some early test results to the Department of 17 Energy. I think my company would be willing to 18 document some of the issues with ballast BEF, for 19 instance, to make the issue clearer for the DOE. I 20 think we can -- I think we would be able -- the 21 industry could pull together at least what I term 22 anecdotal evidence showing issues with BEF and 23 reproducibility of ballast efficiency and well forward 24 of us having a final decision on our metric. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  4 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed, go ahead. 1 MR. THOMAS: Yeah. Just to build on Bob's 2 comment -- Ed Thomas -- at GE we do have some anecdotal 3 data to go along with that as well. That was one of 4 the motivators that prompted me to initiate this new 5 metric of ballast efficiency. We have found that, as 6 was mentioned, you can get variations in your BEF 7 depending upon whose lab you use and whose lamps you 8 use. In the competitive industry that we have, it 9 delivers a snapshot in time which may not be fully 10 representative of the entire product line of 11 performance that the end user will get from a given 12 product. 13 Speaking as an electrical engineer, I don't 14 have tremendous control over the lamp, the lamp-making 15 processes, lamp variation, nor do I have control over 16 the photometric measurement process or variations 17 associated. But I do have control over the design of 18 my electronic ballasts, and that metric, ballast 19 efficiency, would ensure that my design is meeting the 20 criteria without undue effect of the lamp and of the 21 other measurement systems associated with it. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis. 23 MR. LEWIS: A couple things here. One is, as 24 Mike Rivest was saying, to do the analysis that we have 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  4 4 to do we need to have a thorough understanding of the 1 implications of the new metric. So if you've got some 2 touch points that we can correlate and start on to 3 understand the differences and how to relate it, 4 especially as we try to, early on, establish product 5 classes to see if it has impact on the product classes, 6 that's a major decision and could be an obstacle to our 7 moving forward if there's a lot of confusion. 8 So we need to get -- if there's anything that 9 you can give us that helps to clarify, even if it's not 10 complete and comprehensive, it would be appreciated at 11 this point as you continue to pursue populating your 12 data. 13 The second thing is, I think I've heard a 14 couple times now a bleak kind of remark of the lamp 15 people haven't really bought in on this yet. Part of 16 our interest would be how is this going to play out. 17 Are we going to get input from lamp manufacturers, or 18 resistance, or is there something behind this that may 19 be controversial beyond adding precision. 20 We applaud your attempt to do that, and 21 that's good. But it seems like this is still being 22 developed within NEMA or within the ballast section. 23 Is it something that is going to be resisted or that 24 the legacy and residual BEF metric that the lamp people 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  4 5 would be looking for, that be maintained for some 1

reason? 2 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 3 MR. EHRHARDT: My only comment is that in 4 NEMA the ballast section has shared our efforts with 5 the lamp manufacturers and certainly, in many of our 6 cases, GE and Philips and OSI particularly. We are 7 both lamp and ballast companies. We are not developing 8 this totally independent of the lamp industry. They 9 are aware of our efforts, and I am not aware of any 10 resistance to this. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Cheryl, did you want to 12 comment? Please. Please do. 13 MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English, Acuity Brands. 14 To kind of address some of the things that Ron and 15 Mike have talked about on the consumer impact, my 16 impression -- I guess we need to define who the 17 consumer is. But we are regulating a component of an 18 end-use product, which is the luminaire. My impression 19 of an end-user, lighting designer, architect, 20 electrical engineer is that I don't think I've ever 21 seen a spec with BEF on it. The BEF has primarily been 22 used by the manufacturers of luminaires to purchase 23 efficiency products that meet the regulations. 24 So I personally don't see a consumer issue, 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  4 6 although I appreciate that you're going to have to 1 study that impact. It's very possible that NEMA could 2 help you do some profiling of the lighting design 3 community to evaluate how much they know about BEF 4 today, because I think most of them don't even really 5 understand it. So a shift probably wouldn't create 6 that much impact on designers. It would impact the 7 manufacturers of the luminaires. 8 And then with regard to the NEMA Premium, the 9 ballast standard is not finalized. It hasn't been 10 fully vetted within the Lighting Division. The lamp 11 and ballast companies have been discussing this. The 12 luminaire companies are still waiting to see the draft. 13 I don't expect any controversy there, so we could 14 potentially fast-track it. But it's not done. I want 15 to make sure we're clear that it's not done. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Conan. 17 MR. O'ROURKE: Yeah, Conan O'Rourke, Lighting 18 Research Center. One of the points -- BEF may not be 19 used but ballast factor is commonly used to try and 20 estimate what the light output of the system would be 21 using particular lamps and ballasts. I think that's 22 the point of the BEF -- where the problem is, is in the 23 ballast factor measurement itself. That's what's 24 causing the source of the problem. So that part does 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  4 7 provide some utility, and the consumer part, we'll have 1 to figure out how that matters. 2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So I want to return to 3 provide another opportunity for comments on scope of 4 coverage and also product classes at this point, 5 perhaps globally rather than very specifically. 6 Andrew, did you have an additional comment on 7 scope of coverage? 8 MR. DeLASKI: Yeah. I may have a closing 9 comment on this test method, which you may come back to 10 later today. But I think to the extent that the 11 Department can work with NEMA to fast-track a process 12 to sort through these issues. 13 I certainly hear the goals of reducing 14 testing costs and getting greater accuracy as being 15 important goals for the program that will ultimately 16 lead to, as Bob has pointed out, the potential for 17 greater energy savings. I think that's one that 18 deserves some close attention from the consultant team 19 now to see if we can't get it sorted out in the time 20 frame that you described, Mike, which was a matter of 21 months, as opposed to -- at least it's only 22 theoretically a matter of a couple of years. In 23 practice, it's a matter of a couple of months, a few 24 months, whatever I heard Mike say. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  4 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Bob. Follow on. 1 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah. I'm not exactly sure of 2 the scope of the work by the consultants, but if they 3 are doing light output measurements and verification of 4 ballast performance, we would invite them to 5 participate in our study, I would think. If that would 6 help fast-track things. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you for that comment. 8 Ed, a comment? 9 MR. THOMAS: Yeah, I would certainly agree 10 with that. We would like as many eyes on this program 11 as we think we could get. The more people -- 12 interested parties that are looking at this and 13 understanding the issues with the existing measurement 14 system and the positive aspects of the new measurement 15 system, and maybe more importantly, a transfer function 16 between the measurement systems so that we don't 17 confuse the industry. 18 We basically want to bring a new, more 19 accurate metric, and we want to explain to the industry 20 why we're doing this and what the benefit of the new 21 metric would be, particularly related to high 22 performance electronic ballasts. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Andrew, 24 scope of coverage? 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  4 9 MR. DeLASKI: Yeah. And the other comment 1 I'd make -- sorry to keep bringing us back to this, 2 Doug. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: No, no. 4 MR. DeLASKI: The other comment I'd make is 5 that to the extent that there are independent, outside6 the-industry experts that you can bring into your group 7 who can give those of us, like myself, who are not 8 lighting experts per se, or ballast experts -- 9 certainly not -- confidence that this is something that 10 has the support. 11 I heard the discussion with the luminaire 12 manufacturers and the bulb manufacturers. That's going 13 to happen -- that that's all happening at the same time 14 I think gives the community at large better confidence 15 that what is being fast-tracked is one that has the 16 support of a broad cross section of stakeholders. 17 I know you watch each other very closely as 18 competitors, but to the extent that there is outside 19 experts as well brought in the process early, so much 20 the better. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Howard. 22 MR. WOLFMAN: I think that's an excellent 23 idea. We just, real quickly, need to set up the 24 mechanism for having outside experts who would like to 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  5 0 participate let us know, as well as our seeking out 1 outside experts. The easiest way to do is have anybody 2 contact Ed Thomas and say, hey, I'd like to 3 participate. Then we can add you to the group. Does 4 that make sense to our NEMA folks? 5 MR. BROOKMAN: So, Ed, you would be our point 6 of contact for anybody that wishes to participate. Ed 7 Thomas. 8 MR. THOMAS: Yes, I can do that. Again, it 9 comes under the NEMA committees and it's the Taskforce 10 for Ballast Efficiency. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: Do you want to give your e12 mail address now, or do you want to do it later? 13 MR. THOMAS: I can state it right now. It's 14 pretty straightforward. The e-mail address is Edward, 15 E-D-W-A-R-D, .Thomas, T-H-O-M-A-S, @GE.com. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Ron Lewis. 17 MR. LEWIS: If we ever get back to Mike 18 Scholand -- 19 MR. BROOKMAN: He's a very patient guy. 20 MR. LEWIS: -- and if we ever give him an 21 opportunity to continue with his slides, one of the 22 very next slides is going to start to talk about the 23 test procedure and one of the EISA requirements that 24 has to do with standby power. One of the things that I 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  5 1 just want to mention is the very easiest thing for us 1 to do is if you had this all completed as an industry 2 standard and it was all put to bed and you had all the 3 details incorporated in that and we can incorporate by 4 reference. That's one of the considerations. 5 And, make sure that we're in synchronization 6 with each other, that we're hearing issues, we're 7 hearing factors that you think are important or worth 8 consideration. 9 In the past there have been times where NEMA 10 has had standards and that's gone forward to become an 11 ANSI standard, or other trade associations with other 12 appliances where we've incorporated by reference to 13 make sure that there wasn't any confusion out in the 14 field that they were the same thing. 15 So if you were talking about timelines and 16 fast-tracking and the capabilities, it would be 17 important for you to take a look at the reality factor 18 of how long would it take you to get a NEMA standard 19 through all of NEMA. Not just within the ballast 20 section but to get published as NEMA standard, and then 21 even beyond that, the anticipation if it were to become 22 an ANSI standard, and give us a reflection on that. 23 That would be useful for us to know as we're either 24 developing or -- we have to be developing, but so we 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  5 2 don't lose time or have some big obstacle. But it 1 would be good to know that in case that would be one of 2 the alternate paths we could take. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Howard, do you 4 have a comment? 5 MR. WOLFMAN: I just need to get a quick 6 clarification so we can get what I'll call our sailing 7 orders lined up correctly. Assuming we complete the 8 work we're doing and we wish to develop this into a 9 NEMA standard, because that's the fast track, faster 10 than the ANSI process, and I'll pull a number out of 11 the air right now. Probably take 60 to 90 days once we 12 have our work done to get a NEMA standard out there 13 because there's a process within NEMA that has to be 14 followed. 15 If we have a NEMA standard, can you refer to 16 that by reference? 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis. 18 MR. LEWIS: I think we'll have to get back to 19 you on that. We have referred to other trade 20 association standards incorporated by reference in the 21 past on occasion. There are a lot of issues here at 22 stake, so it's not that we have complete clarity on 23 this. There's a metric change potentially. There are 24 a lot of implications, so we would have to look long 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  5 3 and hard at this. But I'm just saying that's a 1 possibility. 2 So keep that in your thought as you're 3 looking at timelines and fast track that. That has 4 happened in the past. If that would be part of your 5 desire to have that, that you would have to be working 6 to that pace to be able to accomplish that. And I 7 don't rule it out. We would have to talk with general 8 counsel and take a look at what needs are and also get 9 a little bit better feeling of what this means of a 10 metric change and how that would play out. 11 So we have to move forward, and again, that 12 urgency of getting some data to start to look into it 13 would be helpful. But then as we progress, we'll know 14 more as we get down the road and be able to make big 15 decisions a little bit further down the road. We don't 16 see every step along the way right now. It's still 17 being evolved. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Howard. 19 MR. WOLFMAN: What would be the methodology 20 that we can use working together to help you get the 21 information you need to make that decision as rapidly 22 as possible? Should we get a little task group 23 together offline from this meeting to work together to 24 this end? 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  5 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis. 1 MR. LEWIS: That's a great idea. 2 (Laughter.) 3 MR. LEWIS: We have an official process. 4 This is the official -- this meeting today is the 5 official kickoff of this rulemaking. So we start to 6 get into limitations as we have a rulemaking underway 7 of all the dialogues and making sure all parties and 8 stakeholders have input and visibility to what's going 9

on. 10 So we need to utilize the benefit of 11 partnering and learning real-time as this evolves. At 12 the same time, we can't be exclusive or keeping other 13 people out of the play. So it's a balance on how we 14 can accomplish that. Certainly our desire would be to 15 learn as rapidly and work and be able to get decisions 16 as quick as we can. But we're regulated ourselves by 17 process and there are certain things we can do and we 18 can't do. We have to live within those constraints. 19 So to the best degree that we can, we'd love 20 to work with you. 21 MR. WOLFMAN: This is Howard again. What we 22 have come to the quick realization of this morning is 23 that time is of the essence in our getting our work 24 done. We understand that. I guess the ball is then 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  5 5 back in your court in terms of trying to figure out the 1 process, the open process, that we can use to work 2 together to better define these things. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 4 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah, I just have one further 5 comment, and that is that the technical coordinators 6 from both ANSI C82.11 and ANSI C82.11 Method of 7 Measurement are participants in this NEMA activity. So 8 this is not an independent NEMA activity. This is 9 something that is done with full cross-cooperation 10 between the ANSI groups and the NEMA groups. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: I thought Ron's comments went 12 to people who wouldn't be traditionally inside the 13 lighting -- the industry kind of stuff. 14 Ron, follow on. Then I'm coming to you. 15 MR. LEWIS: One possible route might be, if 16 we call a meeting like this a public meeting there are 17 certain protocols and things that we have to live with. 18 If you have a meeting that you call and you're 19 inviting guests along the way to participate, that may 20 be a way of accomplishing things where we're a guest 21 and we're giving you input as opposed to an official 22 DOE meeting. So it's a possible thought, not to do 23 anything that doesn't include all the thought. But 24 because of the sense of urgency here in some -- 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  5 6 MR. BROOKMAN: I apologize. I've forgotten 1

your name. 2 MR. REA: That's all right. I'm Mark Rea, 3 Lighting Research Center. There's a lot of discussion 4 here about the desire to have efficiency as a 5 replacement, but could you just state again, Bob, what 6 the consequences of it doesn't happen? Then what would 7 be NEMA's position? There's a lot to happen here. 8 It's very complicated. So what's the implication if it 9 doesn't happen? 10 MR. EHRHARDT: Again, Bob Ehrhardt. As I 11 stated, this is not the only rulemaking we're involved 12 in. We work with ACEEE on attempting cooperation, and 13 I'm regularly going out to Sacramento with the 14 California Energy Commission. 15 We understand the direction regulations are 16 going, and we have our internal regulations. We have 17 our specifications. We have our NEMA Premium Program, 18 for instance, that defines high-performance product, 19 high-efficiency product that we work with ACEEE and the 20 utilities as promoting energy savings through rebate 21 programs, et cetera. 22 What we are recognizing, particularly with 23 the T8 instant starts is that looking at components -- 24 and this is a general statement. Looking at components 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  5 7 we feel we're getting into diminishing returns. Moving 1 from 60 hertz to high frequency, you automatically got 2 approximately 10 percent efficiency just out of the 3 lamp, and the ballast could contribute further. With 4 lamp improvements you could realize 30 percent energy 5 savings by switching from T12 magnetic to T8 6 electronic. 7 When you're trying to delineate between one 8 electronic system and another, though, those 30 percent 9 savings are gone. We're now looking at and we're 10 debating back and forth 5 percent energy savings. 11 These are the typical numbers that we're looking at. 12 There are other discussions and I know DOE is 13 investigating. I'm part of the Commercial Lighting 14 Initiative where a systems approach is probably the 15 next big step in energy savings. As you look at 16 components, and we understand that you have a mandate 17 to continue to look at components. But as you look at 18 components, there is less and less energy to be saved, 19 and it's really the way these components work together 20 where the big energy savings are going to be. 21 That said, a metric that has, let's say, by 22 our estimates 5 percent error to it, can have 5 percent 23 error to it, is not a particularly effective metric 24 when you're trying to delineate a 5 percent energy 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  5 8 savings. That's why we recognize that if we're going 1 to start delineating these products we need a better 2 metric. 3 MR. REA: Okay. And actually, you asked the 4 overall impact. The overall impact is, we would be 5 asking you to build in -- we're going to ask you to 6 take into account the error of the measurement as you 7 write your regulations. So you may be writing a 8 regulation for a ballast to try to specify a premium 9 product, but to be able to truly allow the premium 10 products you may be having enough overlap that standard 11 products also fit. 12 So in order to get this 5 percent savings, 13 you need a better metric. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Your name, please. 15 MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon with GE Lighting. 16 Just to build on Bob's point, I was going to mention 17 the same thing as what Bob mentioned. But as well, I 18 think we'd have a harder time reaching industry 19 consensus because of that error measurement, the error 20 in measuring light output. 21 So I think a more precise measurement would 22 lead to faster industry consensus and maximizing the 23 potential of energy savings. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  5 9 MR. LEWIS: I'd like to introduce Mike 1 Scholand from Navigant Consulting. 2 (Laughter.) 3 MR. LEWIS: He's joined us now. 4 MR. SCHOLAND: Actually, Ron, I just wanted 5 to get a comment about the scope of coverage. The test 6 procedure is the next five slides, so -- 7 (Laughter.) 8 MR. BROOKMAN: So this discussion does 9 anticipate some of that, we presume. 10 MR. LEWIS: So perhaps for the first time 11 we're ahead of ourselves here. We've reached a 12 conclusion before we've introduced the issue. 13 MR. BROOKMAN: This is a detailed discussion. 14 Very, very helpful from the Department's point of 15 view. You're getting a sense about the pushes and 16 pulls, the pinches all along the way here. I 17 appreciate industry and other participants in the 18 room's efforts and ideas about how to find some way to 19 have a discussion as meaningful and press this forward. 20 So having introduced him, we know Michael 21 Scholand is a patient guy. He's got twins. Michael, 22 back to you. 23 MR. SCHOLAND: I wondered, could we get at 24 least Andrew DeLaski's comment on the scope of 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  6 0 coverage? Because, Andrew, you didn't actually say it. 1 You queued up a couple times, but -- 2 MR. DeLASKI: Right. If you want to go back 3 to that slide, Slide 16. 4 MR. SCHOLAND: Oh, 16. Got it. 5 MR. DeLASKI: There are a number of other 6 types of ballasts. At this stage, the Department -- 7 correct me if I'm wrong, but the purpose at this stage 8 is to determine what are the ballast types that you 9 will investigate, not what are the ballast types you 10 will regulate. Is that the right phrasing of the 11 question? 12 MR. SCHOLAND: That is correct, yes. It's 13 consideration -- 14 MR. DeLASKI: So this is not making a 15 predetermination what's going to be regulated. It's 16 what are we going to look at in our analysis to figure 17 out is there energy savings here, is it maybe cost 18 effective. It's really keying it up for -- you make 19 the cut later on at various stages whether or not 20 you're including various technology types. 21 MR. SCHOLAND: Ron, I'll just step in. If 22 you want to add something. The Department is doing 23 exactly this in the fluorescent lamp rulemaking, which 24 is at the ANOPR stage having a preliminary 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  6 1 determination of scope, at the NOPR stage having a 1 proposed determination of scope, and at the final rule 2 having a final determination of scope. 3 MR. DeLASKI: Okay. 4 MR. SCHOLAND: So there will be opportunities 5 for the public to look at what the Department is 6 considering, look at the analysis that underpins that 7 decision, and then make comments about that. And then 8 the Department may or may not change its mix of 9 products at the next stage. 10 MR. DeLASKI: Okay. 11 MR. SCHOLAND: But that's the intent there. 12 Ron, is that correct? 13 MR. LEWIS: Yeah. 14 MR. DeLASKI: Certainly, if that's the case, 15 I think that I would urge you to take a broader look. 16 I think that you've looked -- you've described it far 17 too narrowly as to what you look at. There are a lot 18 of ballasts on the market that are not described within 19 the scope there. 20 For instance, I certainly would urge you to 21 look at low power factor ballasts. Largely used in the 22 residential market, are certainly not as large a market 23 as the commercial market, but it is certainly an 24 important marketplace that should be looked at. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  6 2 I would urge you to look at dimming ballasts 1 as well. I would urge you to look at the low2 temperature ballasts. There are a lot of fluorescent 3 lights in signs outdoors that should be looked at. So 4 I think you can take a broader look at what is out in 5 the marketplace at this early stage of the rulemaking 6 for what merits investigation. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis. 8 MR. LEWIS: We always appreciate input, but I 9 suggest that you review, and maybe it's still on coming 10 slides. I think it's already been handled. There are 11 exemptions that were granted by Congress, things that 12 are -- that we can't look at that they've excluded from 13 play, and things such as cold weather ballasts and such 14 as dimming ballasts that dim below 50 percent, at 50 15 percent or below, and there are a lot of things that 16 are in there. 17 So we are somewhat constrained by that. So 18 there are potentially some other energy-saving 19 opportunities, and we're open for recommendations and 20 any specifics that people want to give us that are not 21 excluded by the statute. 22 We also don't want to -- we want to look for 23 energy savings, but we don't want to spend an 24 exhaustive effort looking at things that, at the end of 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  6 3 the line, we're chasing things that have very low 1 volume or are a very specialized application, that we 2 spend a lot of time trying to get data that's tough to 3 get or holding up the savings on the big stuff. So 4 it's a matter of how do we get -- make sure the 5 coverage and the scope covers everything that's 6 substantial and has a real true energy savings to it, 7 stay within the parameters that Congress has dictated 8 here with exclusions, and make sure we're doing our due 9 diligence to put this rule out as a quality rule. 10 MR. DeLASKI: Andrew DeLaski. In response, 11 I'll take a look at the law again, Ron, and I'm not 12 going to concede the point right now that you're 13 constrained from looking at other products. But I'll 14 look at the law again, but I don't want to concede that 15 point right here and now. 16 With respect to going after the big stuff, I 17 think we've learned our lesson in the lighting market 18 that often we go after the big stuff and the little 19 stuff becomes the big stuff. The shock resistant bulbs 20 in California right now. The EPACT correction, the 21 EPACT fix to the last ballast standard. We just now 22 are fixing the BR. Little stuff on reflector lamps. 23 So I think we have to be very careful in any 24 lighting rulemaking that, yeah, one screen is if it's 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  6 4 small today, you've got to ask is it going to be small 1 tomorrow. We have to be thinking about that in this 2 rulemaking as we go forward, that we're not leaving out 3 things that ultimately become the next F34 or the next 4 BR lamp that becomes a more common product that starts 5 bleeding into the major parts of the marketplace. And 6 some of these markets are important in and of 7 themselves as well. So we need to look at those 8 questions. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: So let's then move on. 10 Michael Scholand, keep us going here. 11 MR. SCHOLAND: All right. On Slide 18, this 12 was sort of a preliminary presentation of a possible 13 schedule scenario for the concurrent rulemaking we've 14 been discussing now. The top row that you see there, 15 starting with the framework document, that's today. It 16 was published in January. The workshop today. Comment 17 period closing on March 7th. 18 The ANOPR stage -- this is -- as Mike Rivest 19 correctly said, DOE is getting an early start on this 20 product because it wants to make sure it meets its 21 deadlines. So the ANOPR is due in just under two years 22 from now. That should published in November of 2009, 23 the NOPR following about 11 months later, and the final 24 rule seven and a half months after that. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  6 5 Built into that row of chevrons is the 1 determination of scope. As I had said to Andrew's 2 comment earlier, there would be a preliminary 3 consideration, a proposed determination of scope, and 4 then a final determination in each of those bins. 5 We've added a little chevron underneath that 6 one, which is a test procedure issue relating to 7 standby mode and off mode. The Department is directed 8 to have a final rule published by March 31st, 2009, 9 establishing revisions to its test procedure for 10 fluorescent lamp ballasts. It's specifically called 11 out in EISA 2007, on standby mode and off mode. So the 12 Department will be publishing a NOPR by July and having 13 a final rule in place for March of '09. 14 Conan O'Rourke is going to be taking over for 15 me in just a minute. Well, actually, Doug, we may want 16 to go to break since it's 10:30, and then after the 17 break Conan take over. He's going to talk about this 18 test procedure and then the bottom chevron, which is 19 what we've been discussing today for most of the 20 morning, the issue of the Test Procedure - DOE had 21 originally been looking at updates to the referenced 22 industry standards for ballasts, and then if the 23 Department were to expand its scope to cover, for 24 example, electronic ballasts, we might need to add test 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  6 6 procedures for testing electronic ballasts. 1 Now this is a new twist, the proposal that's 2 coming forward today, but the schedule that was 3 intended here is that the final rule for that test 4 procedure revision would be in place by the NOPR stage. 5 But as Mike and Ron have both emphasized, it's 6 critical that this be locked down much sooner than that 7 so that the ANOPR, which is due in November of next 8 year, to stay on track. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: Howard. 10 MR. WOLFMAN: Thank you. I'd like to get 11 just quick clarification of Slide 18 on the middle 12 section. 13

MR. SCHOLAND: Sure. 14 MR. WOLFMAN: Standby mode and off mode. 15 MR. SCHOLAND: Yeah. 16 MR. WOLFMAN: Is this the process for 17 determining only test procedures or would it cover the 18 existing products covered by the existing rule as well 19 by that date? 20 MR. SCHOLAND: This revision is to establish 21 revisions to the test procedure by that date. Then, in 22 the Energy Conservation Standard, which is the top row, 23 DOE must take into consideration in its new standards, 24 and those new standards, by the way, become effective 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  6 7 in 2014, okay. So the final rule date there is June 1 2011. The effective date is three years hence. Any 2 standby mode and off mode would apply at that time, as 3 I understand it. Eric, is that correct? Yeah. Okay. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Eric? Yes. Okay. Thank you. 5 Additional questions on Slide 18? 6 (No response.) 7 MR. BROOKMAN: It's 10:30. I noticed, 8 looking ahead, that we've only got two slides on 9 standby mode and off mode, so let's do those before we 10 go to break. Okay. So, thanks, Michael Scholand. 11 MR. SCHOLAND: Okay. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: So we'll be breaking round 13 about 10:45 or so. 14 Test Procedure 15 Conan O'Rourke 16 (PowerPoint presentation.) 17 MR. O'ROURKE: Thank you, Michael. Most of 18 our discussion this morning did have to do with the 19 final slide, so we'll cover it at least for the 20 interest of off mode and standby mode. 21 EISA 2007 defines off mode as a condition 22 where the product is connected to a main power source 23 but not providing any standby or active function. The 24 Department believes at this time that fluorescent 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  6 8 ballasts are not acting in this capacity when they're 1 in the off mode, they are usually connected to the 2 power source and therefore wouldn't be defined as off 3 mode for fluorescent ballast operation (sic.) 4 The comment with the standby mode. The 5 definition defines the standby mode as a condition in 6 which the product is connected to a main power source 7 and either facilitates an activation or a deactivation 8 of other functions, including active mode by remote 9 switch, internal sensor, or a timer, or offers a 10 continuous function, including information or status 11 displays or sensor-based functions. 12 The DOE understands that there are some 13 ballasts that are on the market today that do have some 14 communication capabilities and do have ability to 15 operated remotely, so the Department is looking for 16 comment on how the Department should consider test 17 procedures related to standby mode and off mode and how 18 they should consider that in their analyses. 19 Okay. That tees up Item 2. 20 MR. BROOKMAN: So, questions or comments on 21 these two slides, 20 and 21, standby mode and off mode 22 test procedures. Bob. 23 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah. NEMA's had discussion 24 on this, and as we understand standby mode or off mode 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  6 9 our comment would be that currently we're only aware of 1 dimming ballasts that we understand to be beyond the 2 scope of this rulemaking to include this feature. Not 3 to say that a fixed light output product could not have 4 this feature, but we're unaware of any products at this 5 time that have it. We are willing to cooperate, 6 though, in developing a test procedure for standby mode 7 and off mode. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on standby 9 mode and off mode test procedures? I see -- yes, 10 Andrew. 11 MR. DeLASKI: Just a comment that, in our 12 view, dimming ballasts are not beyond the scope of the 13 Department's purview. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. So then, 15 final comments on those before we go to break? 16 (No response.) 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's go to break. It's now, 18 by my watch, 10:33. Let's try and get back here and 19

start at 10:45. 20 (Brief recess.) 21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So we're beginning now. 22 Slide 23. Proceed, Conan. 23 MR. O'ROURKE: Okay. Thank you. To follow 24 up on our discussion this morning, the existing DOE 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  7 0 test procedures takes into consideration operation of 1 magnetic ballasts but not electronic ballasts, and the 2 Department of Energy is considering adding these 3 standards in place to cover the electronic ballasts. 4 In particular, we're looking at updating existing 5 procedures of 82.2, the 2002 edition, C82.1 to the 2004 6 edition, and adding a C82.11, 2002 edition. 7 As this whole discussion happened with 8 ballast deficiency versus ballast efficacy factors, 9 some issues that relate to ballast efficacy factor or 10 ballast factor itself are the methods stated in the 11 ANSI standards are slightly different for, or are 12 different for instant start ballasts than they are for 13 what the test procedure states. In particular, the 14 test procedure uses reference light output to compute 15 the ballast factor for rapid start and preheat systems, 16 and for instant start systems it actually uses lamp 17 power on the test ballast versus on the reference 18 ballast. 19 And also, ANSI doesn't cover lamps 20 necessarily of all categories, specifically the 30-watt 21 and 28-watt T8 lamps. So we're going to be looking for 22 comments how you measure ballast factor where there are 23 no lamps in the ANSI standards to actually determine 24 what reference lamps are. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  7 1 So the next slide for Items 3, 4, and 5 have 1 a number of parts. The first part is, DOE welcomes 2 comment on updating the current standards and adding 3 the standard for electronic ballasts. Doug, I don't 4 know if you want to handle these one at a time. 5 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's just take them one at a 6 time. 7 MR. O'ROURKE: Okay. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Bob. First, on Item 9 Number 3. 10 MR. EHRHARDT: Yes. NEMA, and I'll say ANSI, 11 acknowledge that there is some confusion resulting from 12 the test procedures for BEF measurement on electronic 13 ballasts between 82.11 pointing to 82.2, which is a 14 low-frequency standard. That is being corrected. 15 Documents are out for voting now, and in 2008 in very 16 short order there will be a new version of C82.11 with 17 a C82.11 annex method of measurement that should 18 clarify -- that will offer the proper methods of 19 measurement for BF and BEF measurement on electronic 20 ballasts. 21 MR. O'ROURKE: Okay. Thank you. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: So then, the way ANSI is 23 proceeding with this, it will accommodate the new 24 approach that you're considering? 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  7 2 MR. EHRHARDT: No, not the new approach. But 1 this is to clarify -- the 82.11 method of measurement 2 is long in coming. I will just say that. ANSI does 3 not always move quickly. I think it's what, Howard, 20 4 years this has been in the making? Sorry. 5 (Laughter.) 6 MR. EHRHARDT: In any case, there is a high7 frequency electronic ballast dedicated method of 8 measurement that has been developed. It is in its 9 final stages of publishing. It is out for edit and 10 review right now and in a matter of weeks will be 11 published. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 13 MR. EHRHARDT: And this should clarify the 14 issues that the DOE is raising. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 16 comments on Item Number 3? 17 MR. O'ROURKE: Just an additional comment, 18 Bob. Is there any updates to 82.2 and 82.1? Do those 19 stay as they are that you know of? 20 MR. EHRHARDT: Perhaps Howard Wolfman can 21

comment. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Howard. 23 MR. EHRHARDT: As I caught him with a 24 mouthful of peanuts. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  7 3 MR. WOLFMAN: Peanuts, right. Thank you. 1 This is Howard. I'd have to check my file, but 82.1 I 2 believe had some updates in it several years ago. 82.2 3 I believe was reaffirmed. So to the best of my 4 knowledge, there is no active program right now to 5 update those. As Bob pointed out, 82.2 was created in 6 the days when we only had magnetic ballasts. We did 7 not have electronic ballasts, and it does provide for 8 different ballast factor methodologies for instant 9 start and for rapid start. 10 Even though it does that, if you were to talk 11 to test labs, and Conan, maybe you can comment on this. 12 Where are you? Conan, where are you? 13 MR. O'ROURKE: I'm right up here. 14 MR. WOLFMAN: Oh, okay. Thanks. 15 MR. O’ROURKE: I'm in the dark. 16 MR. WOLFMAN: My understanding, my belief is 17 that ballast manufacturers and independent test 18 labs all use the same methodology for determining 19 ballast factor, be it an instant start or a rapid 20 start ballast. They do not use the power 21 measurements. They use the relative light output 22

measurements. 23 So if there's anybody around the table in 24 addition to Conan who can comment on the real world, am 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  7 4 I right or do you see a different approach? 1 MR. O'ROURKE: I would say that we would say 2 that we use light output as well. That would be 3 consistent with the DOE procedure. That kind of feeds 4 into the next discussion about ballast factor. Our 5 next item for comment with the two different methods is 6 what's published in the catalogue for instant start 7 ballasts, is that based on power measurements or based 8 on light output measurements. 9 MR. BROOKMAN: So that's Item Number 4. 10 Comment on that from anybody? 11 MR. EHRHARDT: This is Bob Ehrhardt again. 12 Certainly my company, and it's our understanding that 13 it's industry practice to use light output measurement 14 for ballast factor and BEF. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: Howard. 16 MR. WOLFMAN: This is Howard. I concur. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Concurrence 18 is useful to the Department of Energy. 19 MR. O'ROURKE: This comment is relevant only 20 to BEF discussion. It obviously doesn't play a role in 21 the ballast efficiency discussion as that plays out. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Final comments on Item Number 23

4? 24 (No response.) 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  7 5 MR. BROOKMAN: Item Number 5. Queue that, 1

Conan. 2 MR. O'ROURKE: Yes. The current standard 3 does not address programmed start ballast or modified 4 rapid start, so comments about how the method would be 5 done. Based on the discussions we just had, I would 6 say light output would be used for all methods of the 7 ballast types. Any further comment on that? 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Priscilla? 9 MS. RICHARDS: This is, yeah, Priscilla 10 Richards from NYSERDA. Only a comment that it 11 certainly would be useful to this idea of normalizing 12 BEF so you could compare across the different ballast 13 types in terms of what that efficiency rating is. It 14 would be very useful. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on Item 16 Number 5? 17 (No response.) 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Do you want to queue that 19 final box for us? 20 MR. O'ROURKE: Sure. The last box there is 21 an additional comment that's asking about, for the 22 purposes of measuring ballast factor and reference to 23 using the reference lamp, if there are lamps not in the 24 ANSI standards, how would you measure ballast 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  7 6 performance with those types of, say, the 28-watt or 1 30-watt T8 lamps? Some guidance on that would be 2 helpful. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Howard. 4 MR. WOLFMAN: Let me preface this by saying 5 I'm not a lamp person. You're correct; some of these 6 newer lamps do not yet have ANSI standards. So there's 7 an issue that each lamp company has its own standard 8 for it. Together they try to reach a consensus point 9 and develop an ANSI standard. Until that time it's a 10 gray area. There is some confusion and perhaps some 11 differences from company to company. Once there is an 12 ANSI standard for lamp and then you find the reference 13 lamp that should be within two and a half percent of 14 nominal values for the lamp parameters and use that – 15 after it has been seasoned for 100 hours, use that as 16 your reference lamp. 17 I think this may be another area where the 18 ballast efficiency metric would be very useful because 19 it doesn't rely upon the need for an ANSI standard for 20 a lamp. The ballast is designed to operate a new lamp. 21 Ballast efficiency allows it to be evaluated strictly 22 based on the efficiency of the ballast. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 24 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah, I concur, and I'll 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  7 7 elaborate a little bit on Howard's comment. I would 1 say that in principle the ballast efficiency metric 2 that we're developing would be applicable for all 3 ballasts of a given category, be it instant start or 4 programmed start, et cetera. Or can be, let's say. 5 And that while you can, I believe, have a BEF or a BF 6 measurement with a lamp, in my personal opinion, if you 7 took a manufacturer's reference operating conditions 8 and used that as a reference, you could do a relative 9

measurement. 10 But again, it's not clearly stated in a 11 standard and it's not possible for the DOE to reference 12 it. A test house would be taking some risk in making a 13 statement to the effect of BEF for a lamp that is not 14 in an ANSI standard. 15 Yes, it would be a benefit of a ballast 16 efficiency metric to be able to cover lamp types yet to 17 be developed. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Final comments on this 19 last box, how to test fluorescent lamp ballasts when 20 the operating lamps are not a part of ANSI C78.81. 21 Are you going to continue? 22 MR. O'ROURKE: No, I'm actually going to turn 23 it over to Mike Scholand, who will cover the Energy 24 Conservation Standards. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  7 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 1

2

3

4 Energy Conservation Standard Overview 5 Mike Scholand 6 (PowerPoint presentation.) 7 MR. SCHOLAND: Mike Scholand here. I don't 8 know if I'll be talking too much in the next session or 9 not. Just kidding. These are my slides. 10 Okay. So there were a few folk who put their 11 hands up this morning when Doug asked "Are you new to 12 the rulemaking process?" Really, Section 3 of this 13 presentation is to try and familiarize you with the 14 road that DOE is going to follow in the next three and 15 a half years on this product. 16 So I want to start by talking about what the 17 Department refers to as the EPCA factors. These are 18 seven factors that are in the Energy Policy and 19 Conservation Act that the Department takes into 20 consideration when establishing mandatory efficiency 21 requirements for products. The EPCA factors are listed 22 on the left side, and the DOE analyses that are 23 conducted are listed on the right. 24 So for example, the first factor is the 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  7 9 economic impact on consumers and manufacturers. DOE 1 considers a life-cycle cost analysis that looks at the 2 consumer cost, perhaps increase in first cost but 3 operating cost savings, and DOE also -- so that gives 4 them an indication of the impact on consumers. And the 5 Department also conducts a manufacturer's impact 6 analysis, which assesses the impact of those standards 7 on manufacturers. 8 So those two pieces are critical pieces of 9 the Department's decision, and so on and so forth, 10 looking at total energy savings. There's a national 11 impact analysis that quantifies the total energy 12 savings over the time period of analysis, and so on. 13 We're going to have slides throughout today's 14 briefing to talk about each of the analyses the 15 Department conducts. I'm going to give a 30,000-foot 16 overview now about these analyses, how they fit 17 together, so you know the stage of the rulemaking where 18 they'll occur, but we're going to go into more detail 19 on each of these throughout the day. 20 And again, you should feel free to stop us at 21 any time with questions if it's unclear, please. 22 So we started to talk about schedule this 23 morning, and this is another slide showing you the 24 stages of the rulemaking for this product, fluorescent 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  8 0 lamp ballasts and when there are public meetings being 1 held. So today's framework document, you see the 2 framework document public meeting on the timeline there 3 in February 2008. 4 The ANOPR is scheduled about 22 months from 5 now. That's when it will be published. We just have a 6 little footnote there that EISA amended the statute to 7 remove the requirement to hold an ANOPR for this 8 product, and the Department is considering that issue 9 and asking for comment on it. 10 The NOPR will be published about 11 months 11 after that, and the final rule in June of 2011. And 12 then the standard itself which is promulgated in the 13 final rule would take effect three years after that. 14 On the framework document, this is today. 15 Basically, our public meeting is looking to address the 16 issues and present the framework document that was 17 published in January. There was also a Federal 18 Register notice stating that there was today's public 19 meeting and notifying people that the framework 20 document is available for download on the website. 21 The framework document in general, as you've 22 probably seen as you reviewed it, provides an overview 23 of the rulemaking process and encourages public 24 participation. It encourages interested parties to 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  8 1 submit comments by the deadline. Another footnote here 1 that Linda and the Department maintains a website, as 2 you may have seen, for this product. On that website 3 you can see all the materials the Department has 4 published associated with this rulemaking, including 5 the slides from today's presentation, for example, the 6 agenda, the handouts, the framework document, the 7 Federal Register notice, and so on. 8 We give the website on the slide. 9 So you've heard us throw around this acronym 10 "ANOPR" a few times this morning. That stands for the 11 Advance Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking, or Advance 12 Notice of Proposed Rule, excuse me. The ANOPR is kind 13 of expanded here to show you the analyses that are 14 contained. The chevrons indicate a little bit how the 15 pieces fit together. We will, again, be discussing 16 each of these analyses this morning as we move through 17 the process: market and technology assessment, the 18 screening analysis, the engineering analysis, and so 19

on. 20 This is a very detailed process flow diagram. 21 Don't worry about reading it right now. It's pretty 22 small on this slide. But it's more to call out the 23 fact that this Figure is presented in the framework 24 document so you can see essentially the inputs, the 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  8 2 interconnections between these analyses the Department 1 is conducting, and basically the key outputs that will 2 be coming from those analyses. 3 So the Department will then publish its draft 4 analysis on the ANOPR and hold another public hearing 5 like this. The purpose of that -- or, public meeting, 6 rather -- would be to present the methodologies of the 7 ANOPR analysis and to characterize the preliminary 8 results that were found, to discuss specific issues 9 relating to the analyses, to seek input from 10 stakeholders such as yourselves on the methodologies, 11 the assumptions, and the data sources that were 12 considered, and finally, to describe the upcoming 13 analyses in the next phase of the rulemaking where the 14 Department would be proposing a standard level. 15 So that's the ANOPR meeting, which will be 16 held after the ANOPR is published. So we're thinking 17 in the ballpark of December of 2009. 18 The next slide, 32, is the NOPR analyses, and 19 here you can see, as we did with the ANOPR, it spans 20 out to show you the chevrons which define the analyses 21 that are contained in the NOPR. First and foremost, 22 the Department will revise its ANOPR analyses based on 23 the comment received both at the hearing and also in 24 written comments, written submissions to the 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  8 3 Department. 1 DOE then proceeds to conduct a series of 2 additional analyses to look at the manufacturer's 3 impacts, for example, to look at the utility impacts, 4 to look at the environmental assessment, and so on. So 5 these are all components of the NOPR. 6 As before, on Slide 33 I show you the 7 analyses in this flow diagram that are conducted in the 8 NOPR phase and how they interconnect with each other 9 and the key outputs from those analyses. 10 DOE will publish its NOPR in a Federal 11 Register notice and a technical support document on its 12 website and hold another public meeting like this one 13 to hear views on the proposed standard level. At this 14 stage, DOE is now feeling it's got a good 15 representation of the analytical representation of the 16 market and dynamics of the technology and the 17 economics, so it's proposing a level. So the focus of 18 the NOPR is to get comment on that proposed standard 19 level and then to receive any input on remaining issues 20 that might be there on any of the analyses. 21 And then finally, the final rule. DOE simply 22 revises its NOPR analyses and publishes the final rule. 23 So that, in a nutshell, is the Energy Conservation 24 Standards rulemaking process. Are there any questions, 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  8 4 from the new folks in particular? Seems okay? 1 (No response.) 2 MR. SCHOLAND: Great. Then I'll hand over to 3 Diana or Conan. Conan? Okay. 4

5

ANOPR ANALYSIS 6 Market and Technology Assessment and Screening Analysis 7 Conan O’Rourke 8 (PowerPoint presentation.) 9 MR. O'ROURKE: Thank you, Michael. The first 10 of the nine parts of the ANOPR are the market and 11 technology assessment. The purpose of that is to get 12 information about the markets and the fluorescent lamp 13 ballast industry and to look at different ways you can 14 improve efficiency of the products. 15 So the method we go about doing this is 16 identifying and characterizing the manufacturers that 17 are on the market making fluorescent lamp ballasts, 18 getting information on shipments and trends and the 19 products that are being sold, identifying regulatory 20 and non-regulatory initiatives intended to improve the 21 efficiency of the products covered by the rulemaking, 22 study market failures where energy-efficient products 23 should have reached certain markets but failed to, and 24 identify the technologies that do make them more 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  8 5 efficient. 1 This is a small segment of one of the earlier 2 slides that Michael showed showing the interrelation. 3 One of the key outputs coming out of the market and 4 technology assessment is product classes themselves, 5 and that will be used in the engineering analysis. The 6 other important part is different technologies that are 7 identified will be screened in the screening analysis, 8 which I'll discuss later, and then also fed on into the 9 engineering analysis, which is also a later discussion. 10 So in Item 6, the Department is looking for 11 comments about inputs and shipments and manufacturing 12 costs, product features and efficiency trends, and 13 their distribution channels and, for market shares as 14 far as whether it relates to ballasts as part of this 15 rulemaking. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Can you be more specific about 17 what you'd like them to comment on? 18 MR. O'ROURKE: The information that we're 19 going to need for the market analysis is really where 20 what products are sold. We know some of this 21 information was previously available as part of the 22 U.S. census on fluorescent ballasts. I guess that's 23 good up until 2006. It at least gives some input about 24 what's being sold. Distribution channels, estimates of 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  8 6 market share would be important parts, also. 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Comments in support of 2 Item Number 6? Bob. 3 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah. NEMA agrees to work to 4 supply this information to the best of its ability. 5 Some anti-trust requirements will limit what we can, 6 especially about manufacturing costs. We're not 7 allowed to speak about such things, for instance. But 8 the NEMA ballast section will do its best to provide 9 market trends and market share analysis for different 10 product types. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 12 MR. O'ROURKE: We believe at this time that 13 the analysis we're using commercially available 14 products and pricing associated with those, but that 15 will be in a later discussion. 16 I guess Item 7 is looking for comment for 17 potential market failures that could apply to 18 fluorescent ballasts. 19 MR. EHRHARDT: I have to go back and remember 20 what market failures were defined as. 21 MR. O'ROURKE: It's an energy efficient, say, 22 product that is available on the market but didn't 23 reach certain markets it was intended to. If we have 24 examples of that. An example might be that people who 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  8 7 build buildings and people that operate buildings have 1 different agendas when they are considering ballasts 2 based on either pricing, first price versus operating 3 cost. That could be considered something that could 4 impact a market failure. 5 MR. EHRHARDT: Well, there's certainly 6 anecdotal responses to that. What is not clear to me 7 is if we'll be able to provide documented, agreed-upon 8 responses. We can take that to the Ballast Section and 9 see if we can have a response for you. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: Howard. 11 MR. WOLFMAN: Thank you. This is Howard 12 again. This is always a challenging area. When we 13 sell ballasts, they fundamentally go out into the 14 marketplace. "We" being the industry, they 15 fundamentally go through two different channels. One 16 is to the manufacturers of luminaires and the other is 17 to distributors. Once they leave our docks, we know 18 who we shipped them to but we have no idea what happens 19 after that. Where do they go, what part of the 20 country, et cetera, et cetera. Individual 21 replacements, retrofits through distributors, new 22 luminaires going into new buildings. Are they going 23 into major renovations of buildings. We don't know as 24 a ballast group, we don't have access to that type of 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  8 8 information. 1 There may be some additional information that 2 NEMA can gain from other parts of the Lighting Systems 3 Division. We definitely want to work with the 4 Department as much as we can to provide this 5 information, but please be aware that there are some 6 extreme limitations as to what our knowledge level is. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yeah, Bob, go 8 ahead. 9 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah. One more comment is 10 that perhaps we can ask Cheryl English. Really, our 11 customers might be able to say something more about the 12 market failures of new product categories as far as 13 market acceptance. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Cheryl? 15 MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English, Acuity Brands 16 Lighting. The biggest market failure that I've 17 experienced is the lack of enforcement. So I think as 18 we look at this rulemaking, anything that we can do to 19 better define enforcement mechanisms. I appreciate 20 that DOE has limited resources in rulemaking and even 21 more limited in enforcement issues, but perhaps a 22 shared burden. The legal responsibility today, or the 23 existing requirement today, falls completely on the 24 manufacturer. If we try to pull in retailers, then I 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  8 9 think that there's probably more reception to 1 compliance. 2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Andrew. 3 MR. DeLASKI: Actually, I have a couple 4 comments. One, I just want to follow up on the prior 5 comment about lack of enforcement. I know it's a 6 sensitive area, but I wonder if you could elaborate a 7 little bit. Are folks observing that there are 8 ballasts being sold that don't comply and by your 9 competitors? Are we seeing smaller manufacturers 10 coming into the marketplace who are selling non11 compliant ballasts? 12

MS. ENGLISH: Yes. 13 MR. DeLASKI: I see lots of nodding around 14 the table. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: Howard. 16 MR. WOLFMAN: This goes back a number of 17 years, and I'd be surprised if things have changed. 18 But my recollection is that it's the FTC that would be 19 responsible for the enforcement; is that correct? The 20 Federal Trade Commission? 21 MR. STAS: With labeling issues. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Eric. 23 MR. WOLFMAN: Yeah, with labeling issues. 24 MR. STAS: We have the lead on the standards. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  9 0 MR. BROOKMAN: Eric, you've got to state your 1 name and organization. 2 MR. STAS: Eric Stas, DOE. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 4 MR. STAS: With labeling issues FTC is the 5 lead agency. But for the standards themselves, 6 unfortunately, that's DOE. But of course, we have 7 limited resources and many things to do, so. 8 MR. WOLFMAN: Again going back in history, 9 we've observed products that were non-compliant with 10 the rules and labeled as if they were compliant. And 11 being good citizens, we reported that to the FTC, and 12 nothing happened. No enforcement. 13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Andrew, I 14 thought you had another comment. 15 MR. DeLASKI: This is one for the Department. 16 Conan, I guess I'm curious. This particular question 17 about market failures, and I think that's a good 18 question and I think an important question that sort of 19 speaks to the overall driver behind the act, frankly. 20 Why is it here in this question? How does this fit 21 into your analysis? 22 I'd certainly be interested in helping 23 provide comment on it. I'm curious how it fits into 24 the analysis. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  9 1 MR. STAS: Let me respond. Eric Stas, DOE. 1 Executive Order 128622, especially in the most recent 2 amendments, asks us to look specifically at the market 3 failure or other problems leading -- specific problems 4 leading to our rules. We have added some language in 5 recent documents saying that we're going to look at 6 these type of problems and ask for comments and try to 7 figure out what's going on. Maybe do some limited 8 testing of these type of issues if we can get 9 information. 10 But we may be required to move forward with 11 standards even if we can't show a market failure 12 because EPCA may require it. But the genesis of that 13 question is probably from the Executive Order 12866. 14 MR. DeLASKI: Okay. But what I heard you say 15 is that it may have relatively little impact on the 16 analysis that you do. It's simply in response to this 17 particular executive order. 18 MR. McCABE: Eric, if I may interject, this 19 is Michael McCabe. I'm with the Department. The 20 market failure fits in a number of places in the 21 rulemaking process. Howard Wolfman touched on it 22 partially with his observation about where ballasts are 23 shipped, that some are shipped to luminaire 24 manufacturers, others are shipped to distributors. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  9 2 In our energy savings analysis and the pieces 1 that are going to be presented later on, we try to 2 capture the market, where products are going into the 3 market and is there a difference in the efficiency of 4 what's being sold in one segment of the market as 5 opposed to another. For some of the, say, home 6 appliance issues, it's is there a difference in 7 efficiency in what's going into new construction versus 8 replacement. 9 So this is an issue that deals with the 10 structure of the analysis. As Eric Stas also reported, 11 that in response to the executive order we have to look 12 at alternatives to regulations and identify what the 13 effects of those alternatives would be. Typically in 14 the past, we have looked at enhanced labeling programs. 15 We've looked at state standards, DSM programs, and 16 have estimated what the cost is in very summary 17 fashion, what the costs and benefits of those would be 18 as compared to a standards program. The standards have 19 in the past shown benefits that have exceeded the other 20 alternatives. 21 But this is something that has been part of 22 our analysis process for 25 years. Given some recent 23 discussions in other rulemakings with other agencies 24 and with the legislation, it's one that we're giving 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  9 3 more attention to as far as to try to understand what's 1 happening and be able to discuss that more explicitly 2 throughout the rulemaking. 3 Does that answer it? 4 MR. DeLASKI: It helps. First of all, your 5 answer, I think, also helps a lot as well, which is 6 that we also have to look at data. What's happening in 7 the marketplace as opposed to what we think is 8 happening in the marketplace. That's why data for the 9 analyses that you're describing is important. I think 10 it's been the Department's practice in the past to do a 11 cost analysis, the national energy savings analysis. 12 What theoretically is happening in the 13 marketplace often is different from what's actually 14 happening in the marketplace. So this sort of question 15 I think is somewhat useful, but I think that's limited. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 17 comments on Item Number 7 before we move on? Yes, 18 Cheryl. 19 MS. ENGLISH: Doug, I've got one more 20 comment. Cheryl English, Acuity Brands Lighting. I 21 have a comment, and I'm not sure if it fits in here. 22 But a potential limiter to this is that the Energy 23 Independence Act that was just passed in December has a 24 Section 33.13(g), under Lighting, "The Applicability of 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  9 4 Buy America Act." That does present a number of 1 manufacturing burdens with regard to energy-efficient 2 products. So there probably needs to be some 3 consideration in the analysis of this. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Would you say what the 5 Department should do about that? 6 MS. ENGLISH: I don't know how that got into 7 the federal bill, honestly, or why. But in order to 8 promote higher energy-efficient products it requires a 9 lot of electronics that is not produced in the U.S. It 10 would be great to see if the DOE could get an exemption 11 to that for lighting equipment in order to promote more 12 efficient products. 13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Final 14 comments on No. 7 before we move on? 15 (No response.) 16 MR. BROOKMAN: We're moving on. 17 MR. DeLASKI: Doug? 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Andrew. 19 MR. DeLASKI: This may be appropriate for 20 later on, but as I'm tracking along here and following 21 the public document, the framework document published 22 on the Web, DOE also invited comments here on how they 23 should weight external benefit. Is that going to be 24 discussed later or is this the right time to comment on 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  9 5 that? 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Is this a good time for that? 2 MS. GRAVES: Is there an item number with any 3 of it? 4 MR. DeLASKI: It's not an item number, but 5 two paragraphs up, "DOE invites comments on the weight 6 that should be given to these factors and discussion of 7 external benefits." Item 7. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's have it now. 9 MR. DeLASKI: It's not given an item number. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. 11 MR. DeLASKI: So the specific issue I think 12 is that DOE should weight external benefits and the 13 specific external benefits are pollution reductions 14 that should be monetized for carbon dioxide as well as 15 for NOx, SOx, and mercury. To the extent that there 16 are impacts on credit prices, they should be 17 calculated. The Department, I think, in prior 18 rulemakings has acknowledged it has the capacity to 19 calculate impacts on credit prices. They should be 20 examined and weighted in the analysis. 21 In addition, the Department should look at 22 impacts on natural gas use and energy security. 23 There's specifically a question here on page 18 of the 24 framework document, on impacts on natural gas use and 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  9 6 energy security. I would urge the Department to 1 calculate to determine what are the natural gas savings 2 resulting from improved electrical efficiency in 3 ballasts. Of course, it's not a direct savings, but 4 it's electrical generation. That's an important 5 external benefit in terms of energy security. 6 I also would comment that impacts on energy 7 prices is an issue that's come up in other proceedings 8 and should be considered in this proceeding as well. 9 As we reduce the demand for a commodity, energy, that 10 should, at least theoretically, have some impact on 11 energy prices. The Department should be developing a 12 methodology for being able to estimate what are impacts 13 on energy prices in the general market. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. Now we're 15 moving on to Slide 41. 16 MR. O'ROURKE: With Slide 41 we start our 17 discussion of product classes, trying to give some 18 sense of what goes into creating product classes. 19 Standards will be developed for each product class. 20 Product class in its basic definition is defined as 21 based on the type of energy used or the capacity of the 22 product or other performance-related features that 23 justify different standard levels, such features 24 affecting customer utility. For ballasts, that falls 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  9 7 under that second category. 1 It's useful when looking at product classes 2 to see at least how they're defined currently. In 3 Slide 42 we're looking at existing product classes for 4 currently covered product there are several components 5 here. They're based on number of lamps. It's based on 6 lamp shape. It's based on the lamp wattage, on lamp 7 diameter, and also has some issues with different input 8 voltages. 9 These are for all the F40 one-lamp and two10 lamp four-foot lamps and also for two F96 T12 lamps and 11 also F96 T12 HO lamps and the particular ballast 12 efficacy factors as they stand today. 13 I will comment that at least in the framework 14 document there are additional standards for replacement 15 ballasts, and they're held under a separate category. 16 So they are discussed separately. 17 In 2005, as part of EPACT, they also added 18 product classes for the 34-watt one-lamp and two-lamp 19 systems, T12s, and also the energy-saving versions of 20 the eight-foot lamps as well. These are the associated 21 ballast efficacy factors as they stand today. 22 So going on to look forward on how we develop 23 product classes as we're trying to address additional 24 coverage, how we will try and separate out product 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  9 8 classes, the Department is currently considering using 1 lamp length, base type, and the number of lamps 2 operated as categories at this point. Other areas to 3 consider are lamp diameter, lamp wattage, starting 4 method, harmonic distortion, ability for universal 5 input voltage with varying input voltages, and the 6 ability to operate multiple types of lamps. 7 Here's an example showing some ballast 8 efficacy factor products on the market today. We're 9 showing lamp wattage along the X-axis of what the rated 10 wattage of the lamps operating on those ballasts are, 11 and the ballast efficacy factor on the Y-axis. We have 12 the split there showing T8 lamps are lower than the 13 roughly 33 watts, where T12s are greater than 33 watts. 14 The boxes in there represent the average of 15 the ballast efficacy factors, and the error bars 16 represent the max and min within that category. 17 These data were generated based on gathering 18 data from manufacturers' literature. At this point, 19 this is just a sampling of what we've gathered so far. 20 It's not a complete list. 21 The orange bars for the T12 show where those 22 efficacy factor standards are today. The one for the 23 40-watt went into effect in 2005 and the one for the 24 34-watt goes into effect in 2009. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  9 9 Any questions on this information? 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 2 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah, just a general comment. 3 BEF is not an appropriate metric for comparing 4 different lamp types. I'm very curious how you 5 reconciled that. 6 MR. O'ROURKE: Well, the attempt here was to 7 show that maybe you could establish a relationship 8 between lamp types. Here you have some relationship at 9 least using the means, you could have somewhat of a 10 linear relationship across wattages of lamps. If you 11 could establish a relationship you could use an 12 equation in the standard and I'm going to get into this 13 a little bit later when we talk about scaling to other 14 product classes, is there a way to do it. 15 Because the opposite is, if we follow this 16 guideline of how is it done today, just for four-foot 17 lamps we would have over 36 product classes just for 18 four-foot lamps. It would probably be on the order of 19 100 to 120 for other classes. We're looking at ways it 20 is possible to reduce the number of product classes 21 down into smaller numbers. 22 This was just meant as an illustration. It 23 may be possible that there's a way to go across lamp 24 types if you could establish a relationship for those 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 00 lamps. 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's let Howard continue, and 2 then back to you, Bob. 3 MR. WOLFMAN: Thank you. First of all, I 4 concur with Bob's statement. Secondly, Conan, I think 5 you just presented an opportunity as a great straw man 6 because the application of ballast efficiency would 7 address exactly what you're talking about. That would 8 be applicable across product lines. 9 MR. O'ROURKE: Obviously, all this changes if 10 you have the different metric and how this graph may 11 look. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Bob. 13 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah. In broad terms, I think 14 RSE is the first step in addressing this very issue 15 that you're talking about, Conan. If you factor in the 16 lamp power as RSE does, then you'll find that you get a 17 much straighter line here. Ballast efficiency we feel 18 is a step further in that direction. 19 There will be some allowances that we would 20 suggest in between lamp types because, depending on a 21 lamp's characteristics, you may be able to better 22 exploit the efficiency of a ballast for a lamp with 23 lower total BAs than one with higher total BAs. So 24 there's some technical detail that we may wish to bring 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 01 up in the future, but generally speaking, a ballast 1 efficiency metric would be much more applicable across 2 broader product lines. 3 Talking about classes, I don't know if you 4 wish to talk about your previous slide or if you want 5 to wait for comments later. 6 MR. O'ROURKE: There's going to be a comment 7 a little bit later that will look for comments on 8 product classes. 9 MR. EHRHARDT: Okay. 10 MR. O'ROURKE: Going on to the next slide 11 this is to follow up on that last graph. You could 12 establish different product classes based on lamp 13 wattage or try and find a relationship across those 14 lamp wattages and say, if I know this, then I can 15 extend that to performance of another wattage. 16 So this is probably in its simplest form 17 what, say, a product class discussion could be for the 18 lamps that would be considered to be covered. If you 19 looked at this region it is showing a four-foot and 20 two-foot U-shaped lamps, medium bi-pin together. 21 That's similar to what the lamp categories would be. 22 You would have a separate product class for one-lamp, 23 two-lamp, three-lamp, and four-lamp. 24 And then you would also have product classes 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 02 for eight-foot single-pin slim-line fluorescent lamps 1 with one- or two-lamp configurations and for recessed, 2 double-contact, high output, also in one-lamp or two3 lamp. 4 What would be expressed in each one of these 5 cells is a function that would allow you to extend 6 based on wattage what the ballast efficacy requirement 7 would be based on that wattage. And it would apply to 8 all different input voltages. 9 So this is the extreme on one end, probably 10 the simplest form. At least, the fewest number of 11 product classes that could be compared to something on 12 the order of over a hundred. So I guess this is the 13 point now where we add comments on product classes. I 14 guess comments now, Bob. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: So of course, product classes 16 are really important for how this analysis proceeds. 17 So your comments now on this representation and other 18 possible ones. Ed. 19 MR. THOMAS: I just wanted to start out with 20 a question. When you referred to lamp wattages, are 21 you talking about nominal wattage like we would call a 22 32-watt lamp? 23 MR. O'ROURKE: Correct, correct. 24 MR. THOMAS: But the reality of the industry 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 03 is nobody actually operates that lamp at 32 watts. 1 MR. O'ROURKE: That's correct. 2 MR. THOMAS: I think that might add some 3 confusion to the general sub-classifications. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Closer to the microphone. 5 MS. ENGLISH: It's a quiet mic. 6 MR. THOMAS: Yeah, okay. I guess my comment 7 was the fact that nobody operates a 32-watt lamp 8 specifically at 32 watts. Everybody operates it at a 9 lower wattage or a higher wattage in order to tailor 10 the light output that one might expect to receive. So 11 I think there might be some confusion based on a 12 nomenclature that says it's a 32-watt lamp. 13 MR. O'ROURKE: And that's just done for 14 categorical purposes. It doesn't represent its 15 performance in application. When we do later analyses, 16 we'll actually be using the real wattage of the system 17 in place, not just this wattage of the lamp. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Bob. 19 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah. I think everybody's 20 volume just went up. With my mouth, I don't think we 21 need it. 22 (Laughter.) 23 MR. EHRHARDT: In general terms, I think that 24 you can have ballast metrics that can be applied over 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 04 broad classes, but NEMA's position is that the DOE 1 should also be taking into account the overall system 2 that these different categories are being used in. To 3 give some examples, a programmed start ballast may have 4 slightly lower BEF but it can be used in conjunction 5 with occupancy sensors with a very fast cycling time, 6 which can save much more energy than the small 7 incremental difference in ballast losses that are 8 included when you have the programmed start feature. 9 Similarly, we would recommend you take into 10 account the relative efficacy of the light sources 11 themselves. You may wish to promote the use of one 12 light source over another if it does result in a higher 13 total system efficacy. 14 We caution against writing one-size-fits-all 15 requirements that may actually hinder new technologies 16 that could have overall higher system efficacies. 17 I'll give an example. I was involved in 18 metal halide ballast efficiency requirements. Well, 19 our company is working on a new, highly efficacious 20 metal halide system that has the highest system 21 efficacy of any metal halide system. But its ballast 22 efficiency is lower than typical. 23 So we recommend that in developing product 24 classes the DOE look at how the products are used in 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 05 overall systems. 1 MR. BROOKMAN: So those comments are very 2 helpful in terms of general guidance. I mentioned the 3 Department would really like to have your best guesses 4 of how to configure these product classes, everything 5 from, as Conan suggests, the simplest way of doing it 6 on Slide 47 to, as was referenced, perhaps a hundred or 7 so product classes, which are what the manufacturers' 8 recommendations would be. 9 MR. EHRHARDT: We've had some initial 10 discussions within NEMA. We were not prepared to make 11 proposals at this meeting. We do hope to have further 12 written comments by the March 7th, I believe it is, 13 cutoff date. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Scholand. 15 MR. SCHOLAND: Mike Scholand here from 16 Navigant Consulting. I just wanted to add, going back 17 to my first slide on the scope of coverage, obviously 18 as the Department looks at expanding its scope to 19 additional lamps it would also be interested in putting 20 those new, additional lamps into product classes that 21 are appropriate for analysis. So as you prepare your 22 response, keep in the back of your minds as well your 23 opinions and positions on the Department's scope of 24 coverage when you make recommendations on these product 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 06 classes. 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Any additional comments on 2 possible product classes? Give you another chance. 3 Bob. 4 MR. EHRHARDT: Just to give some input on our 5 preliminary discussions in asking about light source 6 types, I believe we have consensus that we recommend 7 against writing specific requirements for T5 lamps, for 8 instance, because this is an emerging market and lamp 9 specifications are still in flux. We consider that T8 10 can be appropriate if allowances are made for ballast 11 type characterizations of, again, programmed start 12 versus instant start ballasts. 13 I believe we have consensus on that much, but 14 we'll try to provide further input. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: I know the Department would 16 welcome that information as soon as you can provide it. 17 MR. DeLASKI: Doug? 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Andrew. 19 MR. DeLASKI: I think this is a time to sort 20 of come back to this issue of scope since product class 21 and scope are linked so closely together. I did want 22 to come back to this issue because I told Ron that I'd 23 look at the law again. I did look at the law again, 24 and it is our take that the Department is not prevented 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 07 from looking at products that were excluded from the 1 initial standards. 2 If you look at the law again, it's pretty 3 clear the law said that those products are excluded 4 from the initial standards legislation. The law also 5 instructs the Department to look at regulating 6 additional ballast types, and those ballast types are 7 additional ballast types. 8 I think the Department is taking a far too 9 constrained view of its authority in saying that it 10 can't look at ballasts that were excluded from the 11 initial legislative standards. In fact, Congress told 12 you quite explicitly to look at additional ballast 13 types that were not included in the standards specified 14 in that particular paragraph. 15 So go back to that paragraph again. I urge 16 you to go back and look at that paragraph again and 17 take a closer look at your authority. 18 I guess it's a question perhaps for Eric. 19 Has the Department come to a final conclusion on that 20 or is that an issue that you see as still being open? 21 MR. STAS: I think we'll have to examine that 22 issue further. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: That was Eric Stas. 24 MR. STAS: Eric Stas, DOE. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 08 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. Thank you. 1 MR. DeLASKI: And in light of that, we'll 2 consider what our comments will be with respect to 3 product class and we'll give you more comments in our 4 written comments. 5 Again, as I mentioned earlier, some of those 6 products are the dimming products, the low power factor 7 products. The T5 products were just mentioned as 8 something that, in my view, should be investigated. 9 And again, the Department should take a broader look 10 than just the products that were identified in the 11 earlier part of the presentation. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Bob. 13 MR. EHRHARDT: In response to this comment 14 and elaborating on my previous comment, NEMA is of the 15 opinion that it is not a time to be making requirements 16 for dimming product. The dimming ballast lamp 17 compatibility is still being defined, and it is 18 inappropriate to use today's BEF numbers from 19 commercially available product today for rulemaking as 20 these are subject to change as lamp ballast 21 compatibility is developed into a standard. 22 There is a NEMA activity done in conjunction 23 with LRC and the DOE to define lamp ballast 24 compatibility in dimming systems because we understand 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 09 that this is a limiting factor for market acceptance, 1 and indications at this time are that the overall BEF 2 of systems may be going down as standards are defined 3 to ensure compatibility between lamps and ballasts. 4 We also would like to point out that the 5 types of energy savings capable -- possible with 6 dimming systems, as evidenced by the DOE's Commercial 7 Lighting Initiative, can be on the order of 30 to 50 8 percent and far outweigh any incremental gains of a few 9 percent that can be realized by setting component 10 standards on dimming ballasts. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, Eric. 12 MR. STAS: Eric Stas, DOE. While DOE is 13 considering this issue further and reaching its own 14 conclusion, everybody should please comment on this 15 issue and give your suggestions for ballasts that you'd 16 like to see covered and why, the ones that you think 17 shouldn't be covered and why, so that we don't slow the 18 process down, that no one is waiting for that decision. 19 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Let me offer one 20 more time an opportunity for anybody that wishes to say 21 anything additional about product classes, since this 22 is a really central issue here, how this gets 23 configured. 24 MR. DeLASKI: I'd like to respond to Eric's 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 10 comment because I think at this point what we're 1 commenting on is not what should be covered, which, as 2 I understood it earlier in the discussion, will be 3 decided in the final rule published in 2011, but rather 4 what should be evaluated. I think that's the question 5 as I understood that's being posed today. The 6 framework stage of the rulemaking is what is going to 7 be part of the Department's analysis, not what is the 8 Department going to regulate, which won't be decided 9 for a while based on the kind of input that we just 10 heard from Bob, that's a different question. I think 11 at this point the question is what should be evaluated. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. Final 13 comments before we move on? Yes, Cheryl. 14 MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English, Acuity Brands. 15 I guess continuing on the what should not be covered, 16 if in fact DOE believes that it's under their authority 17 to cover products that were previously excluded, the 18 area of residential lighting, residential ballasts will 19 need to be addressed separately with separate studies 20 because it's a very different market and a different 21 set of stakeholders. 22 I was kind of surprised that these are 23 actually posted on the DOE site under residential 24 products, and I don't think it really is intended to be 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 11 residential products, so. 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. 2 MR. O'ROURKE: Okay. Continuing on, the next 3 phase of the market and technology assessment is 4 looking at technology options. There's a list of some 5 preliminary technology options you could consider on 6 how could you make a fluorescent lamp ballast more 7 efficient. 8 With the magnetic systems, what was employed, 9 at least commercially available product, was to use a 10 cathode cutout or a hybrid type of system which would 11 remove cathode heating after the starting phase and 12 would make the system, at least at steady state 13 operation, more efficient. 14 Electronic ballasts themselves, as mentioned 15 already, are more efficient and losses within the 16 ballast are less compared to magnetic systems. 17 The ability to take and integrate more of the 18 discrete components in a ballast into one piece of 19 silicon in an integrated circuit has also an 20 opportunity to improve the efficiency of a fluorescent 21 lamp ballast, and also using higher-grade components 22 with less losses in them. 23 The last phase of looking at potentially 24 improved designs could also have better efficiency 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 12 compared to other designs as far as technology options. 1 So Item 9, we have some comments on at least 2 any additional potential technology options or comments 3 on the ones we've listed. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah, I wanted to cycle back, 5 before I forget, to Eric. Eric, you wanted to comment 6 on Cheryl's question with respect to residential 7 products. 8 MR. STAS: Eric Stas, DOE. The reason for 9 what seems like the strange placement is that this was 10 in Part 430. Congress put it in the consumer products 11 section, so. 12 MS. ENGLISH: I assumed it was probably one 13 of the regulatory, procedural things. 14 MR. STAS: Right. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So Bob, you were the 16 first person that wanted to comment as prompted by 17 Slide 48. 18 MR. EHRHARDT: Yes. I apologize. For some 19 reason I haven't my power source. Well, I believe I 20 can comment. We had a meeting and we brought out notes 21 and a draft. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Sure. 23 MR. EHRHARDT: But I can comment on these 24 directly. Cathode cutout or hybrid ballasts. We 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 13recognize that this is a technology, even for high1 frequency electronic ballasts, that can be considered 2 in determining appropriate rulemaking. 3 Electronic ballasts. It's the NEMA position 4 that electronic ballast efficacy levels are appropriate 5 to set rulemakings. We recognize that the 6 electromagnetic market, due to the cost of commodities, 7 is almost becoming a non-issue moving forward. I think 8 we can supply some data indicating that. So we think 9 it is appropriate to set system efficacy levels based 10 on electronic ballast performance. 11 Integrated circuits. We have a comment that 12 integrated circuits on their own have no direct impact 13 on system efficacy. While the use of integrated 14 circuits can allow some improvements in one manner or 15 another, there is no direct correlation. Whether or 16 not a product contains an integrated circuit should not 17 be used as a criteria for setting regulations. 18 Higher-grade components. We recognize that 19 the use of higher-grade components can affect system 20 efficacy, but we caution that we must also look at the 21 cost benefit analysis in specifying levels that require 22 premium components. 23 And improved circuit design. There was some 24 reference to power factor correction having an 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 14 influence on system efficacy, or total system 1 efficiency. We question if there is any improvement to 2 be gained by using a higher power factor. Certainly 3 within the ballast design itself increasing or 4 improving power factor lowers the ballast efficiency. 5 It does not improve it. We question if distribution 6 system gains can offset the increase in power losses 7 within the ballast. 8 And we are unaware of any emerging 9 technologies that have the potential to fundamentally 10 improve upon the existing state of the art in ballast 11 design. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 13 comments on these -- one, two, three, four -- five 14 elements on Slide 48? 15 (No response.) 16 MR. O'ROURKE: Okay. Moving on to the next 17 phase of the ANOPR process is going to be looking at 18 the screening analysis related particularly to those 19 technology options. 20 This is just a slide to explain the basic 21 process of what the screening analysis does. 22 Basically, it's going to look at the technological 23 feasibility of actually producing a product that may 24 have that higher efficiency, the practicability to 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 15 manufacture and install it as well as service it, also 1 looking at impacts on product utility and availability 2 to consumers and impacts on health and safety. 3 So through this process, the particular 4 design options or variations of these design options, 5 some of them will get filtered out if they do not meet 6 these criteria. 7 Any comment on the screening criteria or how 8 it will be used, Item 10? 9 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 10 MR. EHRHARDT: Technology feasibility. It's 11 NEMA's position that only currently available 12 commercial technology be used for consideration in 13 setting standards. This has a direct impact on the 14 practicability to manufacture, install, and service 15 because we feel that only product that has had time in 16 the marketplace can you make a proper determination on 17 its manufacturing impact and its reliability and impact 18 on the marketplace. 19 MR. BROOKMAN: So, a definition for that 20 would be that it would be in some sort of a catalogue 21 or something? 22 MR. EHRHARDT: I'll even caution against that 23 because what’s in a catalogue may not be currently 24 available. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 16 (Laughter.) 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Could you say a little more, 2 though? "Currently available," how would you go 3 further in defining it? 4 MR. EHRHARDT: I would say that it would be a 5 problem that the industry has, and this is a broad 6 term, I recognize, but commercial experience with. You 7 can find things in the catalogue. And again, I had 8 this with metal halide. My own company's catalogue was 9 my worst enemy in arguing metal halide requirements 10 because we had an item in our catalogue for some time, 11 and we are still re-releasing that product. Just 12 because a product is on the Internet or in a catalogue 13 does not mean it has successful market and commercial 14 experience. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: So I know the Department would 16 appreciate your guidance on how they might come to 17 understand what you think is currently available. 18 MR. EHRHARDT: Certainly, if we're talking 19 about T8, T8 instant start systems are quite mature in 20 the marketplace. They are appropriate to look at. 21 NEMA has a program for premium products that you might 22 look at. There are other factors too, well, again, the 23 maturity of ANSI standards, for instance, standards 24 availability. These are factors. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Howard. 1 MR. WOLFMAN: This is Howard. Building on 2 Bob's comment for a moment, the Lighting Systems 3 Division would very much like to work with the 4 Department in further addressing this and providing as 5 much information as we can. We do some data collection 6 work, and maybe that would be something that would be 7 very useful in this situation. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So there are three 9 other criteria listed here: practicability to 10 manufacture, install, and service; impacts on product 11 utility and availability to consumers; impacts on 12 health or safety. Comments on those three additional 13 criteria? 14 MR. EHRHARDT: Only that NEMA agrees that we 15 should not consider anything that has a negative impact 16 on health or safety. 17 (Laughter.) 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Priscilla. 19 MS. RICHARDS: Yeah, Priscilla Richards, 20 NYSERDA. It does seem to me that some of Bob's 21 comments on the commercial experience with including 22 that in the technological feasibility also is partly in 23 the practicability to manufacture, install, and 24 service. So I wouldn't want to see us narrow down that 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 18 technological feasibility too much if it's going to be 1 captured in those other technology options because 2 lighting industry does move so fast, and we're talking 3 about standards seven years out. There might be some 4 emerging technologies that are worthy of at least 5 capturing in that technological feasibility assessment. 6 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 7 MR. EHRHARDT: My comment would be that in 8 the area of fluorescent lighting I'm not sure there are 9 any new innovations that are going to turn the industry 10 upside down. So I'm not sure there's something here 11 that we have to be overly concerned with. In other 12 areas, certainly. Like I say, with metal halide 13 there's many advances, it's the Wild West over there 14 and we have to be more careful. 15 But we will comment on technology as the 16 matters come up. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Final comments on 18 these criteria before we move on? These aspects of the 19 screening analysis. Cheryl. 20 MS. ENGLISH: I guess I want to add in with 21 Bob on technological feasibility. One thing we may 22 want to look at is history of that product in the 23 marketplace so that we have some understanding of the 24 reliability. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 19 MR. BROOKMAN: That is to say, an increase in 1 market share or something like that? 2 MS. ENGLISH: Well, an increase in market 3 share as well as how long has it been in the market, so 4 that we have enough data to understand that there's not 5 going to be failures of those products a year or two 6 years after a consumer purchases it. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew. 8 MR. DeLASKI: I think the Department 9 historically has done a pretty good job of getting 10 technological feasibility right, looking at what is 11 just on terms and technically feasible. It's a 12 different question than is it being accepted by the 13 marketplace. 14 This is not to determine whether something 15 will be a standard, it's whether it should be screened 16 out of technical analysis early in the process. I 17 would just caution the Department against screening 18 things out based on criteria that are more about 19 whether or not something could be the basis for a 20 standard applied to the entire marketplace. Two 21 different questions, I think, not to screen out 22 technologies based on whether or not some 23 presupposition about whether or not you could have it 24 apply to every single unit in the marketplace. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 20 MR. O'ROURKE: Just a comment on this as far 1 as being technologically feasible, if it's commercially 2 available today, it's probably met most of these 3 criteria. 4 MR. DeLASKI: That's right. 5 MR. O'ROURKE: And if you're talking about 6 new design options that aren't commercially available, 7 you would then use this process to help screen it out. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Do the assessment. Yes. 9 MR. DeLASKI: I think I agree. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Conan, are you going to 11 continue with Slide 53? 12

13 Engineering Analysis 14 Conan O'Rourke 15 (PowerPoint presentation.) 16 MR. O'ROURKE: Yes. Moving on to the next 17 phase of the ANOPR analysis is the engineering 18 analysis. Engineering analysis is used in conjunction 19 with the product price determination to try and 20 establish an efficiency gain with a product cost to get 21 that efficiency gain. Those feed back into life-cycle 22 cost and payback period analysis, the manufacturer's 23 impact analysis, and the national impact analysis. 24 The main steps of the engineering analysis 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 21 deal with choosing representative product classes. So 1 once we've decided on all the product classes that we 2 are going to at least have our boundary of what's going 3 to be considered and analyzed, within that we may pick 4 representative product classes as a starting point to 5 do the analysis. 6 Within those representative product classes 7 we need to define what a baseline model is, and that 8 will serve as a reference point for all the analysis 9 within that product class. 10 And then the next phase is identifying 11 efficient substitutes to that baseline model and 12 looking at alternative technologies and this is key, I 13 guess, when considering the comments on additional 14 metrics and the impact of changing the metric on how 15 we'll look at maintaining light output and looking at 16 overall system performance when you're comparing the 17 systems. This is to Bob's comment earlier about 18 looking at system performance as a whole. 19 Once we've identified the efficient 20 substitutions, we will work on developing candidate 21 standard levels and try and compare that to the 22 baseline model. An important part is having the 23 maximum technology feasible as far as the upper end. 24 You shoot for that. What's maximum efficacy you can 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 22 get. Then you compare that with where you are and all 1 the candidate standard levels in between. 2 And then the last would be to try and scale 3 these results from these particular representative 4 product classes to the other product classes that may 5 not be analyzed as part of this rulemaking. 6 MR. BROOKMAN: There's a lot in that slide. 7 Questions? 8 MR. O'ROURKE: My following slides will be 9 going over each one of those chevrons individually. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: Great. Okay. 11 (Laughter.) 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Keep going. 13 MR. O'ROURKE: So choosing representative 14 product classes. We've already had that discussion 15 already about this. There are going to be many ways we 16 could slice or dice this whole market of fluorescent 17 lamp ballasts. Then, once you've done that, trying to 18 pick representative ones would be key. 19 So, about deciding which ones get chosen to 20 be analyzed and then the engineering analysis and life21 cycle cost will be done on those products. Again, 22 called representative product classes. These will 23 generally be based around the high-volume products in 24 the market. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 23 The baseline models. They'll usually be ones 1 with the lowest performance within the representative 2 product classes, they'll be the ones at the lowest 3 efficiency within that product class and that just 4 meets existing standard or, for ones that are newly 5 covered, they'll be at the lowest-performing efficiency 6 levels for that product class. 7 This slide shows an example at least of 8 showing what representative product classes. This is 9 showing four-foot and two-foot U-shape lumped together 10 and showing you different wattages of lamps and 11 different numbers of lamps. It's kind of a matrix. 12 What we're illustrating here is to say the two-lamp 32- 13 watt may be the representative product class and also 14 have a 32-watt T8 baseline model, excuse me, and also 15 have maybe another baseline model for the 34-watt T12. 16 And through the analysis, you may be able to compare 17 how this would scale across lamp types or also scale 18 against wattages as an attempt not to analyze every 19 single product class but try and find relationships 20 between product classes. 21 So we have an opportunity for some comments 22 on the use of representative product classes in 23 selecting baseline models, Item 11. We also added Item 24 14 in here commenting on how ballast efficacy factor 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 24 varies as a function of lamp wattage, and also, in Item 1 12, comments on scaling these results to other product 2 classes. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. Thank you. 4 MR. EHRHARDT: As I commented earlier, we 5 have our initial comments on some lamp types. We will 6 attempt to have a more detailed recommendation before 7 the comment period ends. We have some comment on 8 product classes. I'm a little mixed up in order there, 9 but a little comment on generic requirements across 10 multiple lamp types because we think that lamp efficacy 11 should be taken into consideration in writing 12 standards, or writing regulations for the total system 13 impact. Some lamp types may not lend themselves to as 14 efficient a ballast as others but may have a better 15 impact on the total system efficacy. 16 So while we think that it may be possible to 17 have a broad generic metric, we would caution against 18 setting the bar too high to not stifle technological 19 development of new, high-efficiency, high-efficacy 20 light sources. 21 I think that goes into No. 12 as well. 22 And BEF. I think we've talked this horse 23 into the ground already. I think we've had comments 24 that that is lamp-dependent. We will follow up with 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 25 formal written comments later this month. 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Other comments on 2 Nos. 11, 12, and 14? Yes, Howard. 3 MR. WOLFMAN: This is Howard. This may be 4 beating a dead horse again. But just to illustrate 5 what Bob was saying, the rulemaking of 2000 established 6 BEF performance levels for systems containing 40-watt 7 T12 lamps, as an example, and in 2005 the legislation 8 passed by Congress had different BEFs for energy-saving 9 versions of those same lamps. So again, BEF is lamp10 dependent. It cannot be used across lamp types. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 12 MR. O'ROURKE: I just will provide an 13 additional comment, Howard. In where we had the 14 product classes and it had those spaces for what the 15 BEF would be, it's not a number. It would be an 16 equation that would allow you to scale to those 17 different wattages. It wouldn't be one number fits 18 all. It would be an ability to try and scale it to the 19 appropriate wattage, would be the attempt. 20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Bob. 21 MR. EHRHARDT: I don't know if it was the 22 intent on this slide, but Item 13 asked about input on 23 various ballast types. One statement that NEMA would 24 like to make very strongly is that the DOE be careful 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 2 6 about not using just commercially available data 1 because it can be optimistic. We feel that the DOE 2 should only be using electrical data from accredited 3 laboratories when they're doing their analysis. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: So you're jumping ahead to 5 Slide 63. We'll be there in a moment, but thanks. 6 MR. EHRHARDT: Oh, okay. Well, you're at 11 7 and 14 and 12. You skipped 13. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks for looking ahead, 9 though. 10 MR. EHRHARDT: We do feel pretty strong about 11

No. 13. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: And that's getting us on 13 towards the lunch hour, for those of you that are 14 curious where we are. 15 (Laughter.) 16 MR. BROOKMAN: We'll be going shortly to our 17 lunch. Why don't you keep going? 18 MR. O'ROURKE: Okay. Next slide. No. 60 is 19 looking at identifying more efficient substitutes. 20 This kind of gets to your point, Bob, where we are 21 utilizing catalogue data and what's commercially 22 available. It's not necessarily clear in there what 23 data is coming from accredited laboratories or not in 24 those catalogues, so we're using that at its face 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 27 value. 1 Substitutions can be made when you're looking 2 at performance when you're comparing the baseline 3 system to other systems, you have this issue of 4 different light outputs potentially of these systems or 5 combination of systems. So the substitution method 6 could be done in a couple of ways, looking at 7 maintaining the baseline systems light output and 8 scaling its performance, or as to the previous ballast 9 rulemaking, there was some attempt to normalize the 10 base candidate standard levels or the other system 11 being analyzed to that baseline system based on input 12 wattage. So those are the methods that are being 13 considered for comparing the different systems 14 together. 15 And the attempt is, when you're comparing 16 systems, you're going to pick systems that have equal 17 or better performance when you're making those 18 comparisons. We use the example here of THD. 19 Developing candidate standard levels. The 20 Department is required to analyze the max 21 technologically feasible option. We realize that 22 what's in the catalogues may represent what the maximum 23 available efficiency option is and there might be some 24 gap in between. So we are looking for some comment on 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 28 the resultant discrepancy between max tech feasible 1 versus max tech available. 2 So here's an example draft. This is just 3 putting out there a possible way to do these analyses. 4 Say we have these product classes where this is 5 showing two different tables with two different 6 baselines. The top is showing a 32-watt T8 baseline, 7 so it's a baseline or also Candidate Standard Level 1 8 in the first row in the first table. It's showing what 9 the starting method would be, the lamp diameter, the 10 ballast efficacy factor, ballast factor, the total 11 wattage, the fixture wattage, and then a system mean 12 light output and the percent difference in that light 13 output. 14 So the various candidate standard levels 15 change to different instant start systems with higher 16 ballast efficacy factors and while holding light output 17 constant. Those would be considered as potential 18 candidate standard levels. 19 The next one is looking at a 34-watt T12. If 20 you started out with a T12 system, looking at the 21 possibility of using T8s as possible substitutions to 22 that T12 system to still provide the same overall mean 23 light output in evaluating its performance. I will 24 note that for the T8s in the fixture wattage category, 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 29 the fixture wattage has been normalized to make the 1 system lumens be equal, realizing the fact that right 2 out of the box with these particular ballast factors 3 you will not have necessarily the same light output. 4 So there has to be some method in order to scale the 5 light outputs to show equal performance. 6 And now we come to Item 13. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: We've already received one 8 comment on Item 13. Additional comments? 9 (No response.) 10 MR. BROOKMAN: Comment on commercially 11 available fluorescent lamp ballasts for each of the 12 baseline models with incrementally increasing BEF all 13 the way to max tech ballast and perhaps the spread 14 between them. 15 (No response.) 16 MR. BROOKMAN: No additional comments? Okay. 17 So then let's take lunch. It's now 12:10. We're 18 almost caught up, I believe, in terms of where we're 19 supposed to be. 20 MR. O'ROURKE: I have two more slides. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: Oh, you have two more slides? 22 MR. O'ROURKE: Two more small slides. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Do it, then. Sorry. 24 Two more slides and then we'll take lunch. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 30 MR. O'ROURKE: The next slide is talking 1 about proprietary designs. The Department will look at 2 design options that are potentially working prototypes 3 that are covered by patent literature. These designs 4 will be only considered if they are not the only way to 5 reach that efficiency. So say there's a patent, and 6 there's only one way to do it. That would not 7 necessarily be considered. But if other manufacturers 8 have the opportunity to achieve those efficacies, that 9 would be considered. 10 And through this process, the confidentiality 11 of the manufacturers would be maintained through this 12 analysis. 13 MR. BROOKMAN: So, Bob, you already made one 14 comment on proprietary design. 15 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah. I guess we have a 16 general comment that we caution against requirements 17 that require proprietary technology just as a general 18 restraint of trade issue. Even if there are two 19 patents out there that allow you to reach an efficacy 20 level, we question if the DOE wishes to write 21 requirements that will affect market share and will put 22 one company at advantage over another. 23 MR. O'ROURKE: The intent here is just to 24 look at the possibility of those higher efficacy 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 31 levels. They're just going to be used for 1 consideration in the evaluation. We're not saying that 2 the standard levels will be written to those 3 proprietary designs. That would happen after the life4 cycle cost analysis, and that would look at the 5 economic impact and all the factors that would play 6 into that, say, more expensive potential option. 7 So what is analyzed here is not what gets set 8 later on. It's just something to compare it to say, 9 okay, if I did consider that as my highest level, how 10 does that affect the analysis of the life-cycle cost 11 and payback period. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 13 MR. EHRHARDT: I guess just a general 14 comment, and this isn't something I've vetted with NEMA 15 but just a general comment. We're on an accelerated 16 path here and we have limited resources and we question 17 how many paths we should be going down in doing 18 analysis. I guess it would be our recommendation that 19 you stay as close to the commercially available product 20 as possible as the most direct route in getting to your 21 goal of end legislation. 22 If you start chasing after every new 23 innovation that someone is claiming, it's going to take 24 resources. If it's unlikely that it's going to affect 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 32 the analysis or have major market impact in the near 1 term, we question if you should be expending resources 2 on it. 3 MR. O'ROURKE: I guess the only response to 4 that is just that the Department is required to look at 5 them. 6 MR. EHRHARDT: Okay. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: You can see the other segment 8 of that question in Item 15 is about cost data. 9 Thoughts on how DOE should acquire the cost data? 10 MR. EHRHARDT: NEMA will work with you to the 11 best of our ability, but we wish to point out that we 12 are very limited on our ability to provide cost data 13 due to trade antitrust requirements. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other comments on Item 15

15? 16 (No response.) 17 MR. O'ROURKE: All right. Last slide is 18 looking at outside regulatory changes. DOE takes into 19 consideration the effects that it has on manufacturers 20 and other regulatory changes outside the standard 21 rulemaking process. The only example I could think of 22 is potentially with impacts on lead-free solder. How 23 does that affect this ballast rulemaking and this 24 analysis. That could be considered as an outside 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 33 regulatory change. 1 So, Item 16. DOE welcomes comment on the 2 regulatory burdens and changes that should be 3 considered in the engineering analysis. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 5 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah, this is Bob Ehrhardt 6 again. We've discussed this, and without having 7 product classes defined it's a little difficult to 8 respond. But in general there are some areas where 9 there could be considerations that could impact 10 rulemaking. In the area of safety, for instance, there 11 are system interconnect concerns that could result in 12 new ballast requirements that could impact ballast 13 efficiency and also affect payback calculations. 14 Environmental. As hazardous material 15 regulations are implemented, it could affect component 16 availability and affect payback calculations. 17 Materials. As commodity prices change, 18 payback analysis can be affected. 19 EMF. Electromagnetic field concerns could 20 require ballast redesign if current international 21 acceptance levels are modified. There's some emergence 22 in recognition of EMF as a possible health concern. 23 Analysis done by our industry at this time shows that 24 our products would not have much issue with current 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 34 recognized levels that are considered with safe. If 1 that changes, it could have some impact on our ballast 2 design. 3 And again under safety, lamp end-of-life 4 requirements. If there are new lamp end-of-life 5 requirements that need to be implemented in a ballast, 6 it could impact ballast efficiency and payback 7 calculations. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So I guess you 9 addressed in part Item 17, which is about engineering 10 issues that could impact engineering analysis. 11 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah. We have no other 12

comments. 13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other comments on Items 14 Number 16 and 17, regulatory burdens and also 15 engineering issues as might affect the engineering 16 analysis? 17 (No response.) 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So, thank you very 19 much, Conan. It's now 12:20, almost. Let's take a 20 lunch break. 21 (Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the meeting was 22 adjourned for lunch, to reconvene at 1:25 p.m., the 23 same day.) 24**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 35

A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N 1 1:25 p.m. 2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks for being back 3 here on time so we can resume. We are going to proceed 4 with the agenda as we had laid it out. Does anybody 5 have any additions or supplements that they want to 6 call out, things that came forward at lunch that you'd 7 like to address that does not fit in the agenda as 8 written? 9 (No response.) 10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Then we'll proceed. 11 Diana Burk. 12 Product Price Determination 13 Diana Burk 14 (PowerPoint presentation.) 15 MS. BURK: My name is Diana Burk. I'm with 16 Navigant Consulting, and I'll be talking about the 17 product price determination. Product price 18 determination, along with the engineering analysis, 19 feeds into both the life-cycle cost analysis and the 20 national impact analysis. 21 The purpose of the product price 22 determination is to establish a relationship between 23 the price of a ballast and its efficiency. For this 24 analysis DOE will be using available pricing lists such 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 36 as manufacturer price lists or procurement contracts. 1 To characterize the variability found in the market, 2 DOE could develop a high-, medium-, and low-range 3 price. The medium-range price would serve as a 4 reference price whereas the high- and low-range price 5 would serve as a sensitivity to that price for the 6 life-cycle cost analysis. 7 States typically receive a fixed discount off 8 of a manufacturer price list, for example. The low9 range price could be based on this price. Of course, a 10 contractor markup would not be applied. For the 11 medium-range price, typically consumers or commercial 12 institutions buying a large volume of ballasts, the 13 medium-range price would be developed to be consistent 14 with prices experienced by commercial institutions. 15 Finally, the high-range price could be developed to be 16 consistent with those prices encountered by small17 quantity purchasers such as people buying ballasts on 18 the Internet. These prices, the medium-range and high19 range price, would also incorporate contractor markup. 20 So the next slide. DOE requests comments on 21 final end-user prices for ballasts. That's Item 19. 22 And Item 20, DOE welcomes comment on typical contractor 23 and distributor markups for ballasts. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Howard. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 37 MR. WOLFMAN: I think we're probably starting 1 to sound a little bit like a broken record, but as much 2 as we truly desire to assist and work and provide 3 pricing information, number one, we are limited by the 4 consent decree in terms of what NEMA can do on pricing. 5 As a matter of fact, we're not even allowed to use the 6 word. 7 And number two, we don't sell directly to the 8 end user. We sell to distribution chains or through 9 OEM chains who go to distributors, et cetera. So there 10 is a limited amount of pricing information that we can 11 provide. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. However, having 13 said that, the pricing data, information you do have 14 available you would be willing to supply? 15 MR. WOLFMAN: At this point, I don't know. 16 We would have to talk about that. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 18 MR. WOLFMAN: And again, any decisions of 19 that nature would have to be made in consort with 20 NEMA's attorney. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Thank you. Bob, follow 22

on. 23 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah. Just following up on 24 what Howard said, I think NEMA is going to have a good 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 38 deal of difficulty trying to give you industry price 1 information because of our structure. It may be that 2 you may need to solicit -- your approaches of using 3 government contracts I think is quite valid. Otherwise 4 you may have to solicit from individual companies if 5 that's going to be willing to be made available on a 6 confidential basis. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Scholand. 8 MR. SCHOLAND: Mike Scholand from Navigant 9 Consulting. As a follow-on for that, that was actually 10 what I wanted to ask you. Would manufacturers be 11 willing to provide their list prices that they have, 12 their sort of published list prices that they give to, 13 say, contractors or wholesalers that show the ballasts 14 that would be considered by the Department? The blue 15 book pricing. Do you know what I mean? The product 16 price schedules, I think they're called. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Howard. 18 MR. WOLFMAN: There are -- I don't know. I'm 19 not colorblind, fortunately, but -- because otherwise 20 they would all look the same. There are a multiplicity 21 of different price lists, and I think we all have very 22 convoluted methods of figuring out what pricing really 23 is. So I'm not sure what use those lists would be to 24

you. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 39 MR. SCHOLAND: Mike Scholand again from 1 Navigant. If you go to the Web and you look at the 2 procurement contract, for example, for the State of 3 California or the State of New York, it specifies that, 4 for example, X Company is offering products available, 5 and it gives a very specific reference to a certain 6 price schedule. And then it says "At a discount of." 7 They're very large, like 80 percent or 85 percent 8 discount off of list. That's what Diana's referring to 9 in her low-price scenario. 10 This is a methodology, actually, that was 11 proposed by NEMA in the lamps rulemaking for 12 fluorescent and incandescent reflector lamps, which the 13 ANOPR is forthcoming from the Department. List prices 14 were provided and state procurement discounts off of 15 those list prices were used to develop one of the 16 pricing scenarios that was considered by DOE. So 17 that's really the basis for the issue that Diana is 18 raising here. 19 MR. BROOKMAN: Howard. 20 MR. WOLFMAN: Howard again. I can only speak 21 to my own situation. I have an understanding with our 22 sales folks who say keep out of technology and I keep 23 out of pricing. 24 (Laughter.) 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 40 MR. WOLFMAN: So personally, I have no 1 knowledge of any of this. Jeff, do you have any 2

comments? 3 MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon with GE. If you 4 use that method with our book prices, it would be very 5 misleading and not consistent to market prices, a 6 standard discount. So I would not recommend using that 7 alternative. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Can you recommend an 9 alternative or can you characterize how that level of 10 divergence could be surmounted? 11 MR. PLASKON: Perhaps GE would be willing to 12 submit some of that data for the study independent and 13 confidential. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Cheryl? 15 MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English, Acuity Brands. 16 I guess what you described from the lamp rulemaking 17 probably doesn't equate to what we're doing here 18 because those are primarily maintenance components and 19 purchased in large volumes. When you're talking about 20 a ballast, it's very low percentage of the time being 21 purchased for maintenance. So it's a new construction 22 type of component, slightly different. 23 I'm not aware of those kinds of price 24 reductions, although I agree with Howard that the 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 41 published price sheets are essentially meaningless and 1 probably not the best way. 2 I would just encourage, as we get into this 3 in more detail, that NEMA is very interested in 4 providing data. We may have to craft how we can 5 sanitize it or how we want to group things together. 6 There are a lot of sensitive issues. But we've learned 7 in the past that we'd rather give you our information 8 rather than having you go off and create something 9 because it oftentimes, when you're creating it from 10 going to distributors, is not realistic information as 11 well. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, Bob. 13 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah. Again, NEMA has -- 14 every time we've brought up the issue in the past about 15 trying to come up with such a metric, it's -- given our 16 structure at NEMA and the constraints that we are 17 organized under, we just don't have a way of talking 18 about price. If the consultants that you're working 19 with wish to take a lead, then you can perhaps contact 20 our individual companies and we can see if we can 21 provide some data on a confidential basis. But it's 22 very difficult for us to talk about pricing. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: Howard. 24 MR. WOLFMAN: Yeah, thank you. One of the 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 42 things that we will try to do is when we get a written 1 understanding of exactly what you want, we will go to 2 our NEMA staff and to our NEMA attorney and say, "How 3 can we do this?" They may come back and say, "You 4 can't," but we'll give it an honest effort. 5 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike, maybe you or Eric or 6 Linda, one of the three of you, could just say briefly 7 the -- there have been a whole bunch of different 8 things DOE has done over time to provide 9 confidentiality to try and obtain the kind of data that 10 you're looking for. 11 MR. SCHOLAND: Sure. I guess -- Mike 12 Scholand again from Navigant. Navigant, as a private 13 company -- actually, we're a public company, but -- 14 enters into non-disclosure agreements, confidentiality 15 agreements, with companies. Like, we have one with GE 16 or with Philips right now for the lamps rulemaking. 17 They're providing confidential input to us for the 18 analyses that we're conducting. 19 And so by being a third party, it's a little 20 bit easier, or being an independent party from the 21 Department, it's a little bit easier and there's a 22 greater degree of trust between the companies and my 23

own. 24 So my understanding of the pricing is exactly 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 43 as Bob has described, that for NEMA to do this would be 1 very difficult. And so if it is a one-to-one with each 2 -- because when it comes down to it, our analysis, 3 we're going to be looking at commercially available 4 ballasts. And so talking to those companies about 5 particular skew numbers and getting an indication of 6 pricing, we can't obviously publish that pricing but we 7 may be able to get a relative idea of the delta 8 increase in cost relative to the performance 9 improvement in efficiency. 10 Jeff, that's what I was getting to with the 11 idea of the schedule pricing. As you look at those 12 list prices, there is -- it's the delta between the 13 unit that you consider as your baseline model, the unit 14 you consider as your next more efficient, the unit you 15 consider as your next more efficient and your max 16 efficient. The delta increases in price in those list 17 prices are a reflection of the technologies 18 incorporated into those ballasts. That gives the 19 Department an idea of delta first cost, and then they 20 compare that with delta savings on the operating cost 21 side, and then look at whether that standard is 22 justified. 23 So the deltas are important, and if the 24 schedules by some factor can't get there, then maybe we 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 44 need to talk about confidential disclosure of pricing. 1 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. 2 MR. PLASKON: A couple comments. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Say your name again. I'm 4

sorry. 5 MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon. Sorry. 6 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks, Jeff. Yes. 7 MR. PLASKON: The delta difference is what 8 we'd want to get versus the market reality of what we 9 do get. So that's the first comment. So I don't think 10 it's accurate in that reflection. 11 But whatever -- I can say a second comment. 12 Whatever you've agreed upon with the lamp section we 13 would agree to in terms of GE submitting data in that 14

same manner. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Howard. 16 MR. WOLFMAN: Maybe we can put this point to 17 bed. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. 19 MR. WOLFMAN: The key thing is put in writing 20 what it is you'd like to get, what it is you're going 21 to want to do with it, and the fact that you can 22 maintain the confidentiality. And I suspect we're in 23 the same situation. Our company on the lamp side is 24 executing an agreement. So I don't suspect there's 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 45 going to be any issue about doing it. 1 But I can't go back and say, hey, this, this, 2 this. I need a document that says this is the 3 information that the guys are looking for, this is what 4 they're going to do with it, and here's a 5 confidentiality agreement that they're willing to sign. 6 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. 7 MS. BURK: All right. And then, Mike, I 8 believe you're going to talk about the 9 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis 10 Mike Scholand 11 (PowerPoint presentation.) 12 MR. SCHOLAND: So, Mike Scholand again from 13 Navigant. This section we're going to discuss is the 14 preliminary manufacturer's impact analysis. As I 15 mentioned earlier this morning, the manufacturer's 16 impact analysis is a requirement of EPCA, the Energy 17 Policy and Conservation Act. There are seven factors 18 that DOE takes into consideration when it sets the 19 standard, and one of them is economics impacts on the 20 country. There it looks at both impacts to consumers, 21 which is the life-cycle cost assessment, and impacts to 22 manufacturers, which is what I'm talking about now, the 23 manufacturer's impact analysis. 24 There's two aspects of the MIA. One is an 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 46 economic impact of the standards on manufacturers. 1 That's both a qualitative and a quantitative 2 assessment. So for example, the quantitative side 3 would be a cash flow analysis of a typical ballast 4 manufacturer in the U.S. and a qualitative would be 5 discussion around retraining of staff, employment 6 impacts, other things that are harder to quantify but 7 are impacts that are a result of the Department's 8 regulation. 9 The second thing would be impacts on any 10 lessening of competition in the industry. If you start 11 to set mandatory standards, that can remove some of the 12 differentiation in the market and have an impact on 13 competition. 14 One of the reasons we're talking about a 15 preliminary manufacturer's impact assessment now as 16 opposed to when it's normally done in the NOPR phase is 17 because of the 2006 Report to Congress, which there's a 18 Web link for here. In essence, it was a decision 19 agreed between the Department and Congress that by 20 having some discussion of manufacturer impacts earlier 21 in the analytical process it might facilitate more 22 consensus agreements between stakeholders that might 23 accelerate rulemaking. 24 So by having some discussion -- we do a much 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 47 more detailed version later, but having some discussion 1 about manufacturer impacts, it puts it on the table 2 along with the consumer impacts. Then the parties, the 3 stakeholders, can sit together and come up with a 4 recommendation, perhaps, to the Department. DOE may be 5 in a position to simply adopt and move the rule 6 forward. So that was part of the reason for that 7 methodological change. 8 Here is the complete flow diagram, on Slide 9 71, of the manufacturer's impact analysis. The 10 preliminary part of this is just the first two 11 chevrons, phase one. That's going to be conducted 12 between now and the ANOPR. Navigant Consulting will be 13 visiting ballast manufacturers around the U.S. to 14 conduct interviews and discuss the impacts. And then 15 later I'll talk about phase two and phase three of the 16

MIA. 17 The purpose of the manufacturer's impact 18 analysis is to provide initial discussion on any 19 potential impacts of standards on manufacturers of 20 ballasts and to provide an opportunity to verify DOE's 21 market information, its understanding and 22 characterization of the ballast market, and the 23 engineering design options that are under 24 consideration. That's really the purpose of this. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 48 So in Slide 73, I just have a couple cards to 1 show you. Phase one, the preliminary MIA, consists of 2 the industry profile and the preliminary impact 3 interview results. There's a few bullets in each of 4 those. The profile is evaluating current and past 5 industry structure, producing an industry profile 6 report which will be published as part of the technical 7 support document, and identifying critical issues that 8 require special consideration in the next phase of the 9 manufacturer's impact analysis, such as types or groups 10 of manufacturers, access to technology -- we talked 11 earlier about patent issues, for example -- and 12 potential regulatory scenarios. 13 The manufacturer interviews. They occur 14 during our engineering analysis process so we can also 15 have the benefit of your design engineers when we talk 16 about improving the efficiency of ballasts. Topics 17 here typically include shipment projections, conversion 18 costs, product mix profitability, market shares, and 19 the cumulative regulatory burden issue, which was also 20 discussed a little bit today. 21 So, are there any questions on the 22 preliminary MIA? This is done under a confidentiality 23 agreement with Navigant. The write-up protects the 24 identity of the companies when it's published, but the 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 49 idea is that you characterize, in general, impacts to 1 the industry that would be a result of the Department's 2 regulation. 3 Okay. Back to Diana for LCC. 4 Energy Use and End-Use Load Characterization 5 Diana Burk 6 (PowerPoint presentation.) 7 MS. BURK: I'm going to be talking about the 8 energy use and end-use load characterization. This 9 feeds into the life-cycle cost and payback period 10 analyses as well as the national impact analysis. 11 The purpose of the energy use and end-use 12 load characterization is to develop the energy use of 13 fluorescent lamp ballasts. There are two basic 14 components: the system power of the fluorescent lamp 15 ballast as well as operating hours. First I'll talk 16 about operating hours. 17 DOE plans on developing a distribution of 18 operating hours for fluorescent lamp ballasts by sector 19 and census division. The data sources DOE may include 20 are the 2002 U.S. lighting market characterization, 21 which gives you operating hours by specific building 22 types, and the 2003 and 2002 Commercial Building Energy 23 Consumption Survey, the 2002 Manufacturer Energy 24 Consumption Survey, which gives you the probability a 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 50 certain building type is in a certain census division. 1 DOE then plans on correlating the operating 2 hour distribution with an electricity price 3 distribution and a sales tax distribution in the life4 cycle cost analysis. 5 Finally, DOE would calculate the energy use 6 of fluorescent lamp ballasts by multiplying the 7 operating hours by the system power. DOE may conduct a 8 sensitivity analysis in the life-cycle cost and payback 9 period analyses using estimates of high and low 10 operating hours, which would give you estimates of high 11 and low energy use. 12 Again, there are two inputs to the energy use 13 calculation system, input power and operating hours. 14 The following figure is an example of a commercial 15 sector distribution for fluorescent lamp ballasts. The 16 operating hours are on the bottom and the probability 17 is on the Y-axis. 18 Finally, DOE welcomes comment on the use of 19 this planned operating hour profile for fluorescent 20 lamp ballasts and whether end-use operating profiles 21 would be different for various types of ballasts within 22 a certain sector. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Howard. 24 MR. WOLFMAN: Looking at Slide 76, you've got 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 51 a couple of bumps on it. I suspect that's because 1 there are different sectors of usage. 2 MS. BURK: Yeah. The -- 3 MR. WOLFMAN: Commercial, institutional, 4 educational. 5 MS. BURK: Yes. The operating hours are 6 actually associated with a certain building type. 7 Certain building types have very low operating hours 8 whereas others would have high operating hours. 9 MS. RICHARDS: Priscilla Richards, NYSERDA. 10 What's included in your system here when you say 11 "system input power"? 12 MS. BURK: System input power? That would be 13 the input power given in the catalogue. So that would 14 include the lamp power as well. 15 MS. RICHARDS: Another question. Priscilla 16 Richards. Are you going to take any kind of controls 17 into account somehow in your modeling? 18 MS. BURK: I'm unsure what you mean by 19 "controls." 20 MS. RICHARDS: Lighting controls. 21 MS. BURK: Oh, lighting controls. 22 MS. RICHARDS: Different ballasts that might 23 be more appropriate to be used with lighting controls 24

versus not -- 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 52 MS. BURK: Whether that would affect 1 operating hours. 2 MS. RICHARDS: -- how it would affect energy 3 use. That's the question. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael Scholand. 5 MR. SCHOLAND: Mike Scholand from Navigant. 6 I think we appreciate any comments on how we might 7 structure an analysis around that. But typically, it's 8 the system performance that will be analyzed. So if 9 there's an existing system that has a control -- I 10 guess the Department would want its analysis as it 11 considers more efficient options to always provide the 12 same utility as the baseline system. 13 So the baseline system is a steady state, F34 14 T12 system. The lumen output of that would be compared 15 to other systems that were more efficient, perhaps 16 including F32 T8s or 30-watt equivalents or otherwise. 17 So as you move up in system efficiency, you've got to 18 be maintaining system performance. 19 I guess stakeholders can provide comments to 20 the Department whether controls should be brought into 21 that scenario and what sort of energy savings the 22 Department should consider on what basis. That might 23 be even greater because, really, the assessment is kind 24 of in a steady state. That's how it's been done in the 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 53 past. But if you guys have some ideas about controls 1 should be brought into the fold, we'd be all ears. 2 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments? Yes, 3 Priscilla, another? No? Other comments on energy use 4 and end-use load characterization. 5 (No response.) 6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 7 Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis 8 Diana Burk 9 (PowerPoint presentation.) 10 MS. BURK: Okay. Next I'll be talking about 11 the life-cycle cost and payback period analysis. This 12 is an important analysis in the standards rulemaking. 13 This analysis uses results from the engineering and 14 product price determination, which will give you 15 consumer price of a ballast by its efficiency level, as 16 well as results from the energy use and end-use load 17 characterization, which would give you customer energy 18 use at a certain efficiency level. 19 The purpose of the life-cycle cost and 20 payback period analysis is to assess the payback period 21 and net life-cycle cost impacts of different efficiency 22 standards. This analysis is done from the perspective 23 of the consumer as opposed to the manufacturing impact 24 analysis, which is done from the perspective of a 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 54 manufacturer. Basically, DOE wants to assess how 1 particular consumers will be affected economically by 2 certain efficiency standards. 3 Life-cycle cost itself is the consumer's cost 4 of both owning and operating a fluorescent lamp ballast 5 over its lifetime. It consists of consumer ballast 6 prices, which includes both the consumer price of 7 purchasing the ballast and of installation costs, as 8 well as operating expenses, which would consist of 9 electricity costs and the cost of replacing the lamp on 10 that ballast over its lifetime. 11 For transparency, the life-cycle cost 12 analysis will be implemented in Microsoft Excel. The 13 life-cycle cost analysis tools will be available to 14 stakeholders and will include the ability to explore 15 variability in some key inputs. 16 The results of the life-cycle cost will be 17 expressed as the difference between the life-cycle cost 18 of the baseline system and the standard system. In 19 addition, the life-cycle cost analysis will show the 20 simple payback period at each candidate standard level. 21 MR. SCHOLAND: Can I interrupt there at one 22 point, Diana? 23

MS. BURK: Yes. 24 MR. SCHOLAND: This is Mike Scholand again. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 55 Just to Howard's point about confidentiality and 1 pricing earlier, what Diana has basically just said is 2 the inputs that are inputs to the life-cycle cost 3 assessment will be part of that spreadsheet. So how 4 much the Department considers as the price of the 5 ballast it's looking at this level or the next level 6 will need to be part of that spreadsheet. 7 That's something to bear in mind when we talk 8 about confidentiality. You might need to identify 9 three equivalent ballasts, or more ballasts, and then 10 take the average of the pricing information that's 11 provided. There would be ways to noise it out so it's 12 not disclosing any individual company but still gives 13 the Department the delta that it needs to have for the 14 analysis. 15 So I wanted to just add that point here where 16 we're talking about the transparency of the analysis 17 where it has to be made public. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Howard. 19 MR. WOLFMAN: This is Howard. Please include 20 that in the written information you give us on your 21 request. 22 MR. SCHOLAND: Absolutely, Howard. Thank 23

you. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 56 MS. BURK: In the life-cycle cost and payback 1 period analysis, DOE will incorporate a Monte Carlo 2 simulation. This simulation allows the Department to 3 characterize the variability in certain inputs, like 4 operating hours or discount rates or electricity 5 prices. DOE will be able to correlate inputs where 6 necessary. For example, electricity prices in the 7 industrial sector will be different than electricity 8 prices in the commercial sector, and so will discount 9 rates and operating hours. 10 This is a draft concept of how the life-cycle 11 cost analysis will be -- how we will structure the 12 life-cycle cost analysis. We've talked a bit about 13 total installed cost. This includes both the price of 14 the ballast, which will be determined in the product 15 price determination, as well as ballast installation 16

costs. 17 Operating costs are another key input to the 18 life-cycle cost analysis. This includes both the cost 19 of operating the ballast in terms of energy use and 20 paying for its electricity as well as the cost of 21 maintenance and repairs of the ballast. That is, 22 replacing the lamp over the ballast's lifetime. 23 Lifetime operating costs will include both an 24 electricity price trend and discount rate. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 57 Finally, to calculate the life-cycle cost, 1 one would add the total installed cost with the 2 lifetime operating cost, and payback period would 3 include the operating cost of the ballast in one year 4 and the total installed cost of that ballast. 5 I'll be talking about some of these inputs 6 later in the presentation. 7 Annual energy costs are a very important 8 input to the life-cycle cost analysis. DOE will 9 develop electricity prices from the Energy Information 10 Administration's Form 861 data. Projections will be 11 based on the Annual Energy Outlook to estimate how 12 electricity prices will change in the future. DOE may 13 conduct a sensitivity analysis using high and low 14 electricity prices to determine the impact on economic 15 feasibility. 16 DOE welcomes comments on electricity prices. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 18 MR. EHRHARDT: Actually, this is taking a 19 step back, and it's on the ballast prices. While 20 ballast manufacturers may be able to give you some 21 prices on a confidentiality basis, what the DOE might 22 want to consider is the impact on the finished product 23 that the consumer will actually see. We can tell you 24 what our component costs would be going to an OEM, but 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 58 we can't tell you what impact that has on the final 1 product because there's carrying costs and costs to 2 stock, et cetera, et cetera, that we're not privy to. 3 We can give you information perhaps on 4 distributor costs and if someone wants to do a 5 retrofit, but you may need to include OEM luminaire 6 manufacturers to get some indication of impact on the 7 end user for luminaires. 8 MR. SCHOLAND: Thanks for that comment, Bob. 9 Mike Scholand again. That's definitely something 10 that's done in the markup analysis. So there will be a 11 -- the engineering analysis is meant to output your, as 12 a ballast manufacturer, your cost efficiency, your 13 manufacturer's selling price. You sell into different 14 channels, maybe 90 percent into a channel of fixtures 15 and 10 percent into a replacement market. DOE will 16 attempt to develop the appropriate markups in the value 17 chain through those distribution channels and weight 18 them appropriately. 19 So the ultimate life-cycle cost where we're 20 talking about the consumer impact, it would be weighted 21 proportionately by the distribution chain. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Andrew? 23 MR. SCHOLAND: Excuse me. And any comments 24 you have on what you think the appropriate markups are 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 59 in that distribution chain, the volume going through 1 the channels, that is very much appreciated. Thank 2

you. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew. 4 MR. DeLASKI: I'm responding to the question 5 here -- this is Andrew DeLaski, Appliance Standards 6 Awareness Project -- on the slide. Electricity prices 7 for commercial lighting, clearly commercial customers 8 pay demand charges. A significant portion of their 9 overall electricity costs. How does the Department 10 anticipate taking into account demand charges? 11 MS. BURK: Typically for lighting, demand 12 charges for -- the average electricity price for 13 lighting is typically higher than what a consumer would 14 pay for lighting itself in terms of marginal energy 15 prices. The Department -- 16 MR. DeLASKI: Say that again? I'm sorry. I 17 didn't follow you. 18 MS. BURK: In the 2000 ballast rule -- here. 19 I have a slide to show you. 20 (Pause.) 21 MS. BURK: This is a marginal price 22 electricity price for lighting in the 2000 ballast rule 23 as compared to average electricity price in the 2000 24 ballast rule. So typically, the marginal is less than 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 60 average for most consumers. Yeah, and those would 1 include demand charges. 2 MR. WOLFMAN: Let's see if I can translate it 3 into something I understand. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Howard, please. 5 MR. WOLFMAN: This is Howard. Thank you. 6 Are you saying that when you complete your calculations 7 you have thrown in an adjustment factor that accounts 8 for the demand charge? 9 MS. BURK: The 2000 ballast rule did this 10 calculation. It's a very complicated calculation and 11 involves like profiles of the loads of commercial 12 buildings. Right now the Department does not know if 13 it has the resources to do this, so we're planning on 14 just using average electricity pieces. However, we 15 welcome comment on this approach. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Did you find Howard's 17 characterization -- did you like what he said? 18 MS. BURK: He asked if we were doing marginal 19 -- developing these electricity prices for this 20 rulemaking. Is that correct? 21 MR. WOLFMAN: Basically, I asked did you put 22 a fudge factor in there to account for the demand 23 charge. 24 MS. BURK: We plan on not accounting for 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 61 demand charges and using average electricity prices. 1 MR. WOLFMAN: Because when you reduce the 2 base load by using more efficient product, you're also 3 going to hopefully reduce the demand, the peak demand 4 charge as well. 5 MS. BURK: I think typically lighting, since 6 it's on typically 12 hours a day, the peak to non-peak 7 time is -- it just ends up being lighting isn't a very 8 peaky sort of appliance. 9 MR. WOLFMAN: I agree that it doesn't peak 10 during that 12 -- well, there is some variation. But 11 what I'm talking about is the fact that you're reducing 12 the overall load and therefore you're going to reduce 13 the overall peak and therefore you're going to reduce 14 the overall peak demand charge. Priscilla is shaking 15 her head yes. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Priscilla. 17 MS. RICHARDS: Priscilla. Yeah, I would 18 agree with Howard that lighting would have a -- could 19 have a potentially large impact on capacity and peak 20 could be an issue worth looking at. 21 MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew. 22 MR. DeLASKI: Just to follow on, I mean, 23 clearly the value of this peak savings has to be 24 characterized in some way. Historically, the 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 62 Department has calculated peak demand reductions from 1 rulemakings -- from a whole host of rulemakings. I 2 anticipate that will happen in this rulemaking as well. 3 So if it's not -- so the value of that peak 4 reduction, if it's not reflected in prices, needs to be 5 calculated by the Department in some other manner. So 6 that speaks to, I think, a need for some way to value 7 that peak demand reduction. The Department should look 8 at that question and how can it be added to the 9 rulemaking if it's not reflected in pricing. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: Howard, go ahead. 11 MR. WOLFMAN: Because then looking at life12 cycle costing, this consideration of the peak demand 13 charge and the reduction of that is going to improve 14 the life-cycle costing analysis for more energy15 efficient products and reduce the total cost. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: Michael. 17 MR. SCHOLAND: Just as a point of 18 information, I mean, the Department welcomes all of 19 these comments and will be looking at the transcript as 20 well as the written comments that you want to provide. 21 I was talking with our boss, Mike Rivest, 22 earlier and he apologized for having to leave for 23 another meeting. But he's coming back, and maybe he 24 can speak to this issue later if this answer isn't 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 63 satisfactory. 1 The peak coincidence factor for lighting is 2 100 percent, right, because it's on during the peak, 3 it's before, after, during, et cetera. But the 4 coefficient of utilization that Diana is talking to 5 here, that it's on 12 hours a day in most cases. And 6 so the coefficient of utilization is 0.5. 7 So we are aware of an internal study that was 8 done by Berkeley National Lab that looked at the peak 9 coincidence factor and a bunch of distributed end uses, 10 and they compared -- because of the coefficient of 11 utilization being what it is for lighting, they 12 compared whether you would come out to a different 13 result using marginal or average prices. The answer 14 was no. The answer was it's basically the same, which 15 is, I think, what Diana is showing on this slide from 16 the ballast 2000 rule. 17 More recent analysis Berkeley has done, but 18 again has not published, has shown that in fact you 19 would come to the same result. 20 So from an analytical perspective, using 21 average pricing, which does include demand charge as 22 part of that average, right, because we're looking at 23 the total bill paid out, defining it by the kilowatt24 hours taken in, that average pricing includes some 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 64 consideration of demand charge. You are going to 1 capture that in this analysis using average pricing. 2 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 3 MR. EHRHARDT: This is Bob Ehrhardt again. I 4 think I agree if you're talking about fixed light 5 output ballasts and they're on 12 hours. There's no 6 peak considerations. And we are -- well, NEMA has 7 assumed at this time that we are not including dimming 8 ballasts. If you are including dimming ballasts with 9 daylight harvesting, then that equation might change as 10 you would be lowering efficiency during peak hours of 11 the day. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 13 MS. BURK: Do we have any more questions on 14 electricity cost? 15 (No response.) 16 MS. BURK: Okay. On the installation, 17 maintenance, and repair costs, DOE typically includes 18 installation, maintenance, and repair costs for 19 ballasts. The impacts of these costs are prominent 20 when there's a difference between the installation or 21 maintenance cost between the base case, or the baseline 22 ballast, and the more efficient substitutes. 23 For installation cost, DOE does not believe 24 that the installation costs will change from the 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 65 baseline ballast with more energy-efficient 1 substitutes. Maintenance costs, however, might change. 2 Maintenance costs will include the cost of relamping 3 over the ballast lifetime. If the standard results in 4 a shift from T12 to T8 ballasts, the equipment costs of 5 the T12 or T8 lamp will change. However, the labor 6 cost of installing those lamps may not change. The 7 lifetime between the T12 and T8 lamps may not be 8 different. 9 Repair costs are also typically included. 10 However, DOE right now does not believe ballasts are 11 typically repaired. So right now we think that these 12 costs may not have to be part of the analysis. 13 DOE welcomes comment on how to develop these 14 costs and appropriate fluorescent lamp ballast 15 lifetimes. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: So, in 83 they list what 17 amount to a series of assumptions, and the Department 18 would welcome -- appreciate your comments on those, and 19 others. 20 MR. WOLFMAN: I agree with the observation 21 about installation costs being identical. This is 22 Howard. I'm sorry. And maintenance costs. I agree 23 with the wording you've got down there, too. 24 My own opinion is that the use of more 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 66 energy-efficient ballasts should not materially affect 1 the life of the lamp. 2 MS. BURK: Okay. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, please. 4 Cheryl. 5 MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English, Acuity Brands. 6 You may also want to, in the maintenance area, look at 7 disposal costs. 8 MS. BURK: Disposal costs? Okay. 9 MR. SCHOLAND: Excuse me. Cheryl, would you 10 like to say a little more about that? 11 MS. ENGLISH: Well, if your analysis is going 12 to be based on an assumption of a certain percentage of 13 the ballasts being sold going in and replacing existing 14 buildings, retrofitting buildings, there will be a cost 15 of disposal of the existing ballasts in that place. In 16 some cases it may have hazardous types of -- or, 17 undesirable types of substances such as going into 18 asbestos ceilings and things like that in older 19 facilities, which could be an incremental cost. 20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Andrew. 21 MR. DeLASKI: I'd encourage the Department to 22 thoroughly investigate this question of whether or not 23 more efficient ballasts have a longer life or not. If 24 the life is six months or a year longer than a 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 67 conventional ballast, that's important to know. I 1 respect what Howard just said as an expert who's 2 thought about this question perhaps some, but I would 3 urge you guys as the Department to investigate it 4 thoroughly because it clearly is going to impact the 5 life-cycle cost of the end user. 6 It stands to reason, at least intuitively, 7 that if there's less heat -- less energy waste is less 8 heat in the product. Less heat, it stands to reason 9 that there's going to be a longer life. How much 10 longer? That's a question that I think I can't answer 11 sitting here today, but the Department, I think, should 12 investigate. 13 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 14 MR. SCHOLAND: Could I just -- excuse me. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah, Michael. Follow on. 16 MR. SCHOLAND: Just a point of clarification. 17 Andrew, Howard's comment was that an energy-efficient 18 ballast should not materially affect the life of the 19 lamps. I do not believe he made a comment about the 20 life of the ballast. But I'm interested in that. 21 Would you like to elaborate? 22 MR. EHRHARDT: Well, I was going to exactly 23 say that, that Howard's comment reflected the -- 24 MR. BROOKMAN: So Bob's first. Go ahead. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 68 MR. DeLASKI: Thanks for that clarification. 1 MR. EHRHARDT: -- was the life of the lamp. 2 We might want to consider and make statements at a 3 later time on the life of the ballast because some -- 4 it's not clear the impact of -- I agree that in 5 principle a cooler ballast will have a longer life. 6 However, some types of ballasts are used in more 7 restricted, smaller luminaires, which makes them run 8 even hotter. I would say that the trend in the 9 industry is for ballasts to run hotter, not cooler, 10 given miniaturization in the industry. And that does 11 not help plant life -- ballast life. 12 MR. SCHOLAND: We'll look at it. 13 MR. DeLASKI: And I think -- this is Andrew 14 DeLaski. To follow on, we have to sort of separate out 15 trends that are happening independent of a standard and 16 what would happen with the standard. What's the delta 17 due to a potential standard. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Howard. 19 MR. WOLFMAN: This comment has nothing to do 20 with the current discussion, but just FYI. Those of 21 you who haven't heard, Chicago is not having the best 22 of weather today. Bob and I are going to have to leave 23 at about 3:15. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 69 MR. WOLFMAN: Unless my pager goes off and 1 tells me that United has canceled all the flights to 2 Chicago. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So we will go as 4 quickly as we can. And in the service of that, do you 5 wish to queue up -- did we do them both? 6 MS. BURK: No, we're not finished. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah, I didn't think so. 8 MS. BURK: The next item for discussion is 9 discount rates. Discount rates are used to convert 10 streams of annual operating expenses to present value 11 in the life-cycle cost analysis. DOE will derive a 12 distribution of discounts for both the commercial and 13 industrial sectors. These will be based on a weighted 14 average cost of capital, which will include both 15 financial cost of any debt incurred and the opportunity 16 costs of any equity to purchased products. 17 DOE welcomes comment on discount rates. 18 MR. BROOKMAN: Hasn't DOE developed a fairly 19 standard approach to discount rates previously? Do you 20 want to say what they are? 21 MS. BURK: They include basically these two 22 concepts. We've developed discount rates for the lamps 23 rule and the lamp ANOPR will be published. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other -- so, additional 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 70 comments on discount rates? 1 SPEAKER: It's a crap shoot. 2 (Laughter.) 3 Shipments Analysis 4 Diana Burk 5 (PowerPoint presentation.) 6 MS. BURK: Great. Finally, I'm going to talk 7 about the shipments analysis. The shipments analysis 8 and the life-cycle cost and payback period analysis 9 feed into the national impact analysis, which 10 determines the effects of energy conservation on the 11 nation. The purpose of the shipments analysis is to 12 quantify any changes in product shipments due to 13 potential new or amended energy efficiency standards. 14 The shipments model will rely on a range of 15 data sources, as this model typically projects 16 shipments for 30 years. For ballasts, this would be 17 from 2014 to 2043. The model will also only consider 18 shipments of covered product and covered product 19 shipped to U.S. consumers. 20 There are two possible approaches to the 21 shipments analysis. One is based on historical data, 22 where a shipments projection -- say historical data -- 23 there's a growth rate of X percent each year. DOE 24 would apply that growth rate for the next 30 years. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 71 Shipments projections could also be based on modeling 1 the installed base of fluorescent lamp ballasts 2 nationally. This approach would allow DOE to analyze 3 the turnover of the ballast inventory in a very 4 quantitative manner. It has the advantage of being 5 able to capture market dynamics but the disadvantage of 6 being complex and possibly difficult to calibrate. 7 So DOE welcomes input on these two 8 approaches. 9 (Pause.) 10 MS. BURK: So I'm assuming nobody has 11 comments on the two approaches for shipments? 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Two alternatives there at the 13 bottom of 87. 14 MS. BURK: Shipments projection based on 15 historical data. So, to quantify the effects of a 16 standard, one must first know how shipments would be 17 projected without a standard. So a base case shipments 18 forecast approach will be developed. This shipment 19 forecast will include the current mix of ballast 20 efficiencies and how those will improve in the market 21 over time. The shipment forecast will also designate 22 what ballasts are being sold to, for example, new 23 construction, what ballasts are replacements, and what 24 ballasts are retrofits. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 72 There are many data requirements for the 1 shipments analysis. These include historical shipments 2 and a breakdown of shipments by market segment. For 3 example, new construction, replacements, and retrofits 4 by end-use sector and by product class. 5 DOE welcomes recommendations on the sources 6 of data it would use for the shipments analysis, as 7 well as an accounting methodology for the fluorescent 8 lamp ballast shipments analysis and a breakdown of 9 fluorescent lamp ballast shipments by market segment 10 and sector. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Bob. 12 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah. Only we don't have any 13 input at this time, but NEMA will work to assist the 14 Department of Energy as they can in this area. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: Is it pretty well broken out 16 by what is listed here on the bottom of Slide 88? New 17 construction, replacements, and retrofits. 18 MR. EHRHARDT: Not exactly. It's not clear 19 to me that we're going to be able to give -- answer 20 these questions directly, but we would like to work 21 with you to try to get you meaningful information that 22 could help your analysis based on the breakdown of our 23 different census-taking on product types, et cetera. 24 So we'll try to work with you and get you 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 73 information that we can, but we don't have a clear 1 answer on what we will and what we will not be able to 2 give you at this time. 3 MS. BURK: Okay. Should we go on? 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Did you list the 5 accounting methodology? 6 MS. BURK: Yeah. The accounting methodology, 7 how DOE would establish an accounting methodology of 8 how -- what ballasts are shipped and what their 9 qualities are. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, okay. 11 MS. BURK: So now we're going to talk about 12 standards impacts on ballast shipments. Once the base 13 case forecast is developed, DOE develops standards case 14 forecasts. Those forecasts use the same data -- DOE 15 would use the same data to develop the standards case 16 forecast as it did the base case forecast. The main 17 difference between the base case and standards case is 18 that the purchase price of ballasts in the standards 19 case will increase and the operating costs will go 20 down. 21 Typically, consumers may be impacted by these 22 changes. However, these changes may affect consumers 23 mostly in the residential sector with non-lighting 24 products and this may not be as much of an impact in 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 74 the commercial sector with lighting products. 1 In addition, DOE will consider impacts from 2 market pull programs such as tax incentives or rebates 3 for fluorescent lamp ballasts and the total amount of 4 light produced by these ballasts in the commercial and 5 industrial sector. If the engineering analysis does 6 not normalize the light output. There is a range in 7 light output. Light output might be impacted by a 8 standard. 9 DOE welcomes comment on how new energy 10 conservation standards would affect fluorescent lamp 11 ballast shipments. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Your chance to be forecasters. 13 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah, this is Bob Ehrhardt 14 again. The companies that knew all these forecasts 15 would be very happy and very wealthy indeed. 16 (Laughter.) 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Get it just right. 18 MR. EHRHARDT: To some extent -- I've been in 19 this industry 25 years and I've seen a lot of 20 projections. I was on the first SL18 compact 21 fluorescent development and we were projecting 1 22 million units a year after three years. Ten years 23 later we still weren't at 1 million units a year. So 24 I'm not so confident in giving you forecasts. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 75 Now, we can tell you of relative ballast 1 efficiencies and current trends and we can try to 2 supply you this information, but we'll have to take 3 this back under advisement about where we expect trends 4 to be. 5 It actually may be NEMA's -- what do they 6 call it? Business Systems Unit? NEMA Biz? We may 7 need -- we may wish to consult with NEMA Biz. There 8 are some attempts at NEMA to give industry reports, and 9 we can look at this and see if this section of NEMA has 10 the ability to provide some forecast to the DOE, and 11 we'll take that back under advisement. 12 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. I thought you were 13 starting with saying perhaps the data would be best 14 collected from individual companies but now perhaps 15 aggregated in some form? 16 MR. EHRHARDT: Well, that's quite possible, 17 too. But also, until we define our product classes and 18 exactly what it is we're asking for, it's difficult to 19 answer the question. 20 MR. BROOKMAN: Howard. 21 MR. WOLFMAN: Thank you. A question. Is 22 this a 30-year projection? 23 MS. BURK: Yes, it's 30 years. So it goes 24 from 2014 to 2043. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 76 MR. WOLFMAN: That's one heck of a crystal 1 ball. 2 MS. BURK: Yeah. 3 (Laughter.) 4 MR. EHRHARDT: Also, there are other market 5 factors that will influence this heavily. Solid state 6 lighting is an emerging technology. 7 MS. BURK: Right. 8 MR. EHRHARDT: And depending on who you talk 9 to, if you go on the Department of Energy's website, 10 they've taken over the market already. 11 (Laughter.) 12 MR. EHRHARDT: When this will occur, how fast 13 this will occur is going to influence the fluorescent 14 market. So there are a number of factors out there 15 that make it difficult to give some, with any 16 certainty, the direction that things will go. We also 17 -- as former chairman until quite recently of the NEMA 18 Lighting Control Section, we're expecting growth of 19 lighting control systems. But we've been expecting 20 that for 20 years now, too. 21 So it's difficult to give you a 20-year 22 crystal ball. 23 MR. BROOKMAN: Cheryl, do you want to provide 24 a fearless forecast? 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 77 MS. ENGLISH: Yeah. I know that Michael had 1 mentioned in some of your analysis of distribution 2 channels that this really is a ballast area that you're 3 studying. But when we did this back in 2000 and Mike 4 Rivest came down to our facility, at that time we had 5 already had market plans to offer a major class of 6 products with electronic ballasts. 7 So I think if that makes sense, we would be 8 more than glad to entertain some confidential 9 discussions about some of our business plans as well as 10 some of the channel distributions as well. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Andrew. 12 MR. DeLASKI: One part of this question I 13 think is what's happening to the overall ballast 14 market. The other part of the question is what happens 15 in a base case and in a standards case. It strikes me 16 that there's likely to be little difference between the 17 two in terms of shipments. 18 If you think about the marketplace for 19 ballasts as being driven by new construction, as being 20 driven by major build-outs or retrofits of building 21 space or commercial building space, the incremental 22 cost of a more efficient ballast is not going to affect 23 whether or not those build-outs happen or that new 24 construction happens, it strikes me. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 78 So it seems to me that the shipments is 1 likely to be the same, whatever the shipments are. 2 That's the real crystal ball. But whether they're 3 different in the standards case and the base case to me 4 strikes me as being unlikely. 5 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, Howard. 6 MR. WOLFMAN: If I look at the fourth bullet, 7 impacts of total amount of light produced by these 8 ballasts, if I understand that correctly, that should 9 be zero impact on the total amount of light produced, 10 regardless of the efficiency level of the ballast 11 itself. 12 MS. BURK: Right. And that would be the 13 idea. We would try to minimize the impact on the total 14

amount. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Bob. 16 MR. EHRHARDT: I thought Howard was going to 17 point out that ballasts don't produce light. 18 (Laughter.) 19 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks for bringing us back. 20 Okay. 21

22

23

24 National Impact Analysis 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 79 Diana Burk 1 (PowerPoint presentation.) 2 MS. BURK: So now we'll talk about the 3 national impact analysis. The national impact analysis 4 estimates the impacts of the standard on the nation. 5 It takes inputs from the life-cycle cost and payback 6 period analysis and the shipments analysis. 7 More specifically, the national impact 8 analysis determines the projected national energy 9 savings and the consumer net present value of an energy 10 conservation standard. To estimate this, DOE will 11 utilize the shipments models to estimate the total 12 stock of ballasts in service and the qualities of those 13 ballasts. 14 From the life-cycle cost analysis, DOE will 15 obtain the estimate of cost and energy use per unit. 16 Finally, DOE will aggregate the cost and energy use 17 over a 30-year analysis period. This report will give 18 energy savings in quads, which is about 293 terawatt 19 hours of electricity. These energy savings will also 20 take into account HVAC interactions, which will 21 typically increase energy savings of more efficient 22 ballasts, and the rebound effect, which would typically 23 decrease energy savings as consumers may use lighting 24 more often because they're paying lower operating 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 80

costs. 1 The report will also give estimates of the 2 economic impact of the standard in constant-year 3 dollars and will also account for the time value of 4 money through discount rates. Currently, the 5 Department uses a 3 and 7 percent discount rate in the 6 analysis. 7 So the following two slides are diagrams of 8 how national energy savings and net present value are 9 calculated. This is the national energy savings flow 10 diagram. Inputs from the shipments analysis help us 11 estimate base case and standards case energy 12 consumption each year from 2014 to 2043. Finally, base 13 case cumulative energy use is calculated and standards 14 case cumulative energy use is calculated. These are 15 for site energy used. These are converted to source 16 energy used, how much energy the power plant is saving, 17 to give you the national energy savings. 18 Again, the HVAC interactions and rebound 19 effect will be taken into account in this calculation. 20 The national consumer net present value is 21 also calculated. Again, the shipments analysis feeds 22 into this calculation. The shipments analysis allows 23 the Department to calculate the cumulative operating 24 cost savings, which depends on the energy cost and 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 81 maintenance and installation costs in both the base and 1 standards case, and cumulative total equipment cost 2 increases are also calculated. These depend on the 3 product costs in both the base and the standards case. 4 Finally, these are discounted using a 5 discount rate to give you the national net present 6 value. 7 DOE welcomes comment on the data sources it 8 anticipates using to develop inputs for the national 9 impact analysis, as well as the net spreadsheet model 10 it proposes on using. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: So you can see those two 12 diagrams on 93 and 94. Comments on those? Andrew. 13 MR. DeLASKI: Andrew DeLaski, Appliance 14 Standards Awareness Project. What's the methodology 15 that you anticipate using to characterize the HVAC 16 interaction? 17 MS. BURK: We would look at the methodology 18 used by the 2000 ballast rule, which took into account 19 where buildings were located and the efficiency of the 20 HVAC units and how this would be affected by the 21 efficiency of ballasts. 22 MR. DeLASKI: Okay. One thing I would urge 23 you to look at is, you said it in -- but, where 24 buildings are located going forward over the analysis 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 82 period as we see building -- the emphasis on new 1 construction happening in the Sun Belt states, the 2

Western states. 3 MS. BURK: Right. 4 MR. DeLASKI: Where construction happens may 5

-- 6 MS. BURK: So those would -- right. Those 7 would impact the -- 8 MR. DeLASKI: -- would impact part of the 9 analysis. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments on these two 11 flow diagrams and particularly the data sources and 12 nuanced applications of the data sources? 13 (No response.) 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 15 MS. BURK: So we're going to be talking about 16 the NOPR Analysis now. Mike Scholand. 17 MR. DeLASKI: Doug, I don't know if this is 18 an appropriate time. Maybe the Department is going to 19 solicit this comment later. But there was -- earlier 20 in the day there was a comment about whether or not we 21 would talk about how the Department might take 22 advantage of the new authority to dispense with a 23 formal ANOPR. Now that we're moving off the ANOPR, is 24 this the time to bring that up? 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 83 MR. BROOKMAN: Do you want to do that now, 1 before -- 2 MR. DeLASKI: Or is that going to come up 3 later? 4 MS. GRAVES: We also wanted to cycle back to 5 some input from Michael Rivest on Slide 81. 6 MR. SCHOLAND: Just to refresh everyone's 7 memory, Mike Rivest has had some discussions with 8 Berkeley about the difference between marginal versus 9 average so -- electricity prices. Go ahead, Mike. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew, they'll make a note 11 and we'll cycle back to that as well. Go ahead. Mike 12 Rivest. 13 MR. RIVEST: Yes. So the issue is energy 14 savings due to lighting, how should they be valued. 15 And most analyses typically use average utility rates 16 and value of the energy savings based on the average 17 utility rates. Previous analyses for ballasts had a 18 more comprehensive analysis where building load shapes 19 were actually procured from a proprietary database 20 called MAZIE (ph), and a database of utility rates was 21 put together into something called the Bill Calculator. 22 So based on actually load shapes in 23 commercial buildings, looking at reductions in 24 kilowatts and kilowatt-hours the lighting -- on the 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 84 building system due to lighting reductions, the actual 1 marginal rates were calculated for lighting. And 2 during that study, done in about 1999, 2000, it was 3 found that lighting was less peaky than a typical load 4 shape. So the marginal rate of lighting energy savings 5 was slightly lower, 5.2 percent less. 6 In 2004, LBNL, in the context of the 7 commercial unitary air conditioner rule, redid the 8 analysis. This time, rather than procuring existing 9 load shapes from a proprietary database, the analysis 10 was done using the BLAST model. I think it's a 11 derivative of the DOE-2 model. So hour-by-hour 12 simulations of buildings was conducted, including 13 lighting and A/C, and a Bill Calculator again was 14 created. 15 I've recently been in conversations with 16 LBNL, and they in fact have a draft paper that shows 17 how each end use can be characterized as contributing 18 to average and peak power and how that ratio of average 19 to peak can be used to characterize a load shape. 20 Therefore, from that study, it came out that the 21 lighting marginal cost was about the same as the 22

average. 23 So we'll be looking to publish that study. 24 But the nice thing about it is it will have more 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 85 universal application than just lighting because of 1 being able to reduce a load shape into an average and 2 the peak power and each application having its own 3 characteristics. So we'll be able to quickly translate 4 from average to marginal for different end uses. 5 I don't know if that's helpful. 6 MR. BROOKMAN: Some questions or comments 7 following Mike Rivest's comments here? 8 (No response.) 9 MR. BROOKMAN: I think you stumped them. 10 MR. RIVEST: Well, I think that's a very 11 long-winded way of saying it's not going to make a 12 difference for this rule. 13 (Laughter.) 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. And Andrew, you 15 appropriately raised again the issue that you raised 16 this morning. We touched on it just very lightly. I 17 would refer -- maybe we'll do that right now, talk 18 about that since you raised it. 19 For those of you that want to flip back to 20 Slide 18 in your packet, this is where the typical flow 21 that includes the ANOPR is shown on those chevrons in 22 the top bar. Andrew, do you wish to comment first on 23 the new authority that DOE has with respect to the 24

ANOPR? 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 86 MR. DeLASKI: Yes. Ron's back, so Ron, you 1 raised the question this morning. I think you 2 appropriately made the point this morning that the 3 Department get valuable input as to what has 4 historically been the ANOPR stage of the rulemaking, 5 input which allows you to advance through the NOPR into 6 the final rule stage more smoothly, perhaps. 7 It strikes me that the Department has an 8 opportunity here with the new authority that Congress 9 has given to get rid of the formal ANOPR to find 10 approaches maybe to get that input that take out some 11 of the administrative steps that have held up prior 12 rulemakings. 13 As a formal ANOPR, my understanding is that 14 you have a set of hurdles to move through as an office 15 in the Department within a government that are time16 consuming and often slow down the process. So it 17 strikes me that this is an opportunity to make up some 18 of the time that will help you to meet your deadlines 19 under the consent decree and that the Department should 20 be looking very hard at how can you get that input 21 without perhaps the formal ANOPR publication. 22 MR. LEWIS: Were you looking for a response 23 or you just wanted to make your suggestion? 24 MR. DeLASKI: Sure. That's my suggestion. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 87 I'd love to hear a response. 1 MR. LEWIS: Okay. First of all, I want to 2 say I would not be disappointed if there were fewer 3 hoops to jump through or fewer obstacles in our path, 4 so I share the objective there. The considerations 5 internally that have to go through with a lot of 6 parties, all those people that are responsible 7 ultimately, later on down the stream. If we don't do 8 it at the ANOPR stage, we do it later on and there's 9 less room for correction or adjustments if there are 10 concerns at higher levels. 11 So it's a matter, where it seems -- and 12 simplistically and philosophically I agree with you 100 13 percent. If we can streamline the process, that would 14 help me a lot. The point of how we do that so that we 15 don't experience a problem or somebody becomes aware of 16 something that they're concerned about much later in 17 the process where we don't have time to thoroughly 18 handle it, that becomes a bigger issue. So there's 19 also another side to that in trying to find a way that 20 we can accomplish that. 21 So I agree with your desire. We fully 22 recognize the new authority that we are not required to 23 do it. If we can find a way that we can get the 24 advantages of the interactions with stakeholders and we 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 88 have a way of not having surprises even internally in 1 the flow of all the people that have to approve it, 2 that would be to my liking as well. 3 So we're trying -- we're attempting to find 4 that balance and trying to find a way that helps us 5 with the time. We're not there yet. So people can ask 6 the question all they want. We don't have an answer to 7 deliver today. We're open for suggestions. We're open 8 for, if there's something that you've observed in 9 another government process, if there's something that's 10 helpful to support a streamlined process that's worked, 11 boy, we would love to get that input. 12 Right now we're considering it. We are in 13 parallel with you of desiring to reduce the wear and 14 tear, but we haven't got specifics to give you today. 15 So no matter how the question is asked, we don't have 16 an answer for you today. 17 MR. DeLASKI: I realize this law just passed 18 a little over a month ago so it's fresh information and 19 it's fresh, I know. But I guess I would point out that 20 in the January 2006 Report to Congress it explains why 21 the Department had missed 20-odd deadlines over 15 22 years for various appliance standards, including this 23 one. The various approvals was given as one of the 24 reasons for why the Department had missed so many 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 89 deadlines. And here Congress is now responding to your 1 complaint, so please take advantage of it. 2 I also would encourage you to look at some of 3 the EPA proceedings, Department of Transportation 4 proceedings. There are other proceedings. An ANOPR is 5 not standard practice in every single major proceeding 6 that the government does. NOPRs, yes, but ANOPRs are - 7 - you can look to other agencies for examples of very 8 important, very high-profile, very controversial in 9 some cases, rulemakings that don't entail an ANOPR but 10 yet the agencies find ways to get the input that they 11 need to advance their process. 12 MR. LEWIS: Thank you for your input, and we 13 are pursuing that. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Any other comments while we're 15 here on this ANOPR authority? Bob. 16 MR. EHRHARDT: Actually, I want to take a 17 small step back and amend my comment from earlier on 18 shipment projections and market projections. 19 While we have not had an opportunity to 20 review this within NEMA, if we are looking out 30 years 21 I think it is important the Department of Energy take 22 into consideration influence of other technologies on 23 its analysis of especially fixed light output ballasts 24 over the next 30 years because I think, while it's 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 9 0 difficult to give you a year-by-year projection, I 1 think most of us would agree that certainly 30 years 2 from now the market for fixed output product is going 3 to be significantly lower than it is today, fixed 4 output fluorescent product, due to the influences of 5 solid state lighting and controls. 6 I haven't had a chance to discuss this with 7 my NEMA colleagues, but we might want to look at coming 8 up with best case and worst case projections on what 9 could happen to this market due to the influence of 10 solid state lighting and controls. Certainly I think 11 some of our member companies would be willing to give 12 you input on that. 13 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest. 14 MR. RIVEST: So just the fixed output versus 15 dimmable; is that the -- so, are you saying that some 16 of these ballasts would become -- 17 MR. EHRHARDT: Well, yeah, what I'm saying is 18 there are -- if you're going out 20 and 30 years, I 19 think the industry and I think the people that are 20 involved in energy understand that the next big gains 21 in energy efficiency are going to be through systems 22 controls and daylight harvesting, et cetera. ASHRAE. 23 There's ASHRAE activities along these lines. I 24 mentioned the Commercial Lighting Initiative from the 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 91 Department of Energy. 1 Certainly Department of Energy is heavily 2 promoting solid state lighting. Solid state lighting 3 will cannibalize some of the fluorescent market as 4 people recognize that they can get as much as 50 5 percent energy savings from controlled fluorescent 6 systems that will take away from the fixed output 7 market. If you're going out 20 and 30 years, you 8 should be taking this into consideration as you look at 9 your projections. 10 MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis. 11 MR. LEWIS: Is it Bob? 12 MR. EHRHARDT: Bob. 13 MR. LEWIS: Yeah. And Mike, the Mikes, if 14 I'm wrong, then just jump right in. But my 15 understanding is we do evaluate substitution analysis 16 of what are choices that people have to make in part of 17 the analysis. But I think the projection on shipments 18 was what is the impact of this rule on the base case 19 that's in existence today. 20 So you're -- I don't want to diminish in any 21 way the influence that you're talking about, but I 22 think that's put into a specific portion of the 23 analysis, not in the forecast of shipments as 24 influenced by this rulemaking. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 92 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest. 1 MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest. Well, for example, 2 there were how many ballasts shipped this year? Any 3 idea? I know there are 400 million lamps, but I don't 4 know how many ballasts. So say there were 10 million 5 ballasts. A simplistic analysis -- 6 MR. EHRHARDT: The number is higher than 7 that. 8 (Laughter.) 9 MR. EHRHARDT: Right. Ballpark, I would say 10 more like 40 or 50 million. 11 MR. RIVEST: So a simplistic analysis would 12 have that growing one or two percent a year based on 13 the stock of buildings, whereas if other products 14 cannibalize it, instead of going up one to two percent 15 it may be going down one or two percent per year, 16 looking at that. So it would affect the magnitude of 17 the energy savings generated by the rule. 18

MR. EHRHARDT: Yes. 19 MR. RIVEST: And as Andrew pointed out, it 20 wouldn't -- the difference between the base case and 21 the standards case would not be affected by that. It 22 would just -- this is all about the base case we're 23 talking about now. 24 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Howard. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 93 MR. WOLFMAN: If I remember my business 1 school days, the further out you're looking, and you 2 take into account the time value of money, the less of 3 an impact it's going to have upon the present value. 4 MR. RIVEST: That's also true. But if the 5 energy savings are not discounted then it does make a 6 significant difference. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Bob. 8 MR. EHRHARDT: Yes. Something, though, as 9 I'm sitting here, and I was thinking -- my first 10 comments perhaps were a little flippant. If I look 11 today and you ask me what's going to happen in the next 12 five years, we can't give you a good answer. But if 13 you ask me starting in 2013, is it, or 2014 when this 14 rule takes effect, these other factors are going to be 15 significant and they will be impacting your payback 16 analysis. 17 MR. RIVEST: Certainly in the point sources 18 in the lamps analysis we're already starting to see 19 some influence in point sources. But this market is a 20 little hard to -- it's still evolving, so there's less 21 data there to project. 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Howard. 23 MR. WOLFMAN: Yeah. I think what Bob is 24 talking about is going to be a function of a couple of 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 94 things, and that's, number one, the efficacy of the new 1 light sources, the solid state lighting, and number 2 two, the declining cost curve. Without really knowing 3 what those two are, it's hard to predict how the market 4 is going to react. 5 MR. BROOKMAN: So we're going to press on 6 now. Back to Slide 97. Just as a footnote, several 7 people approached me at the end of lunch talking about 8 bad weather, the requirement to try and catch an 9 earlier plane. A couple people have mentioned that 10 already. So we're going to press on and we're going to 11 go from here to the finish, I believe, because we 12 didn't start back from lunch until 1:30. If you need 13 to excuse yourself for a moment, we'll understand. 14 So, Michael Scholand. 15

NOPR ANALYSIS 16 Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis and Manufacturer 17 Impact Analysis 18 Mike Scholand 19 (PowerPoint presentation.) 20 MR. SCHOLAND: Okay. Thank you, Doug. Mike 21 Scholand from Navigant Consulting. Slide 97. We're 22 going to discuss now the NOPR analyses. This is the 23 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking where the Department is 24 actually going to be publishing its proposed standard 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 95 level for fluorescent lamp ballasts. 1 One of the first tasks that the analytical 2 team and DOE will undertake is to revise the ANOPR 3 analyses, and we've sort of pulled out three sort of 4 key ones that are part of the ANOPR: the engineering 5 analysis, the life-cycle cost, and the national impact. 6 Those revisions will be based on comments the 7 Department receives in the ANOPR process. 8 And then the chevrons that go on from there 9 essentially are new analyses that the Department 10 conducts as part of the NOPR phase. All of these 11 analyses will be presented at the NOPR in a technical 12 support document and discussed in the Federal Register 13 notice so everyone has a chance to look at what was 14 done. 15 So I'm just going to talk first about the 16 life-cycle cost subgroup analysis. I just have one 17 slide on this. The purpose of the subgroup analysis of 18 life-cycle cost is to look at economic impacts of 19 standards on consumers, particularly actually subgroups 20 of consumers who may be disproportionately impacted 21 compared to the aggregate of consumers that the LCC 22 analyzes. 23 So the method will be to conduct an LCC 24 analysis and to run the LCC spreadsheet using the 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 96 economic characteristics of a subgroup of consumers of 1 ballasts. 2 We have an issue here. We invite comment 3 from stakeholders on appropriate subgroups that it 4 might consider. You can provide those now, or you can 5 also provide those at the ANOPR stage because this 6 analysis will be done in the NOPR phase. 7 Okay. Should I go to the next slide? Okay. 8 The manufacturer's impact analysis, which I 9 had sort of alluded to earlier when we talked about the 10 preliminary manufacturer's impact analysis. The MIA, 11 again, fulfills a legislative requirement to look at 12 impacts on manufacturers. DOE has moved part of it 13 into the ANOPR phase, but the majority of it is 14 conducted in the NOPR phase of the analysis. It's, 15 again, assessing impacts on manufacturers. It's 16 looking at cumulative regulatory impacts. 17 There's going to be both a cash flow analysis 18 that looks at the net present value of the industry in 19 the base case and in the standards case. That 20 spreadsheet model, the cash flow model, that the 21 Department publishes is called the Government 22 Regulatory Impact Model, or GRIM. That's the 23 quantitative assessment. 24 And then the qualitative assessment is coming 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 97 from interviews with manufacturers who discuss other 1 issues associated with the impacts on their businesses. 2 The output from the manufacturer's impact 3 includes, as I mentioned, the industry net present 4 value impact. There will also be subgroups of 5 manufacturers who are considered. For example, small 6 manufacturers of ballasts, "small" being defined by the 7 Small Business Administration. And then, other impacts 8 that are discussed. 9 You've seen this slide earlier this morning. 10 Phase one of the MIA is conducted for the ANOPR, 11 phases two and three at the stage I'm talking about 12 now, the notice of proposed rulemaking. So I'll just 13 jump right into phase two, the strawman GRIM, the 14 government regulatory impact model. I mentioned is the 15 cash flow model for the industry. It's a starting 16 point. 17 Navigant will create a strawman version of 18 the GRIM based on estimates of inputs or SEC10K 19 reports, what we can cobble together to say, okay, 20 here's a strawman, a starting point. We send that to 21 the companies who are participating with us under a 22 non-disclosure agreement to talk about the impacts on 23 their own organization. The strawman gives us a 24 starting point and then up or down on these inputs. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 98 Let's change that. No, change that. Eventually we'll 1 come up with a model that is specific to that company. 2 We go around to several companies. We get 3 enough information and we aggregate to create a GRIM 4 that is representative of the industry for the United 5

States. 6 There's an interview guide which is prepared 7 for this and distributed looking at topics such as the 8 engineering analysis, shipments, cost structure and 9 financial parameters, cumulative burden, import/export, 10 direct employment, a range of issues. 11 In the phase three of the MIA -- excuse me. 12 This is the point where we conduct the interviews where 13 we have discussion with manufacturers directly about 14 obsolescence of existing assets, tooling, and 15 investment. Then that characterization is combined 16 into a final government regulatory impact model for the 17 country. 18 This is just an example, this slide, on 19 cumulative regulatory burden that the Department is 20 aware of, for example. There is, of course, the 2000 21 standard for fluorescent lamp ballasts, new standards 22 that came out of EPACT 2005 for the energy-saving 23 versions of fluorescent lamps, medium screw-base 24 fluorescent lamps that companies being regulated may 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  1 99 also be affected by the compact fluorescent lamp 1 standards. Mercury vapor lamp ballasts is another one. 2 EISA 2007 prescribes standards for 3 incandescent lamps and metal halide lamp fixtures, et 4 cetera, et cetera. 5 These are just some examples of some of the 6 cumulative regulatory aspects that the Department was 7 able to think of for the framework document and 8 publish. Of course the Department invites comment on 9 those and any others that stakeholders may be aware of. 10 So that's what this slide is about. 11 Item 31 is, if appropriate, what would be 12 some potential subgroups of manufacturers DOE should 13 consider in the MIA. And then secondly, are there any 14 other regulations or pending regulations DOE should 15 consider in its examination of cumulative regulatory 16 burden. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: So we had some comment this 18 morning on the regulatory burden question, a little 19 bit. Any additional comment related to subgroups 20 affected or considered? Yes, please. Cheryl. 21 MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English, Acuity Brands 22 Lighting. Certainly the luminaire manufacturers will 23 be impacted by this and should be evaluated. If the 24 scope does include residential lighting, I would 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 00 suggest that you coordinate with the American Lighting 1 Association and manufacturers that control the largest 2 volume of the residential lighting production. 3 MR. BROOKMAN: Other subgroups for special 4 consideration? 5 (No response.) 6 MR. BROOKMAN: And then, Item 32, pending 7 regulations, issues that will result in a cumulative 8 regulatory burden? 9 MR. SCHOLAND: I can put the list back up if 10 that helps. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. 12 MR. SCHOLAND: From Slide 106. We mentioned 13 the fourth bullet down, existing or proposed state 14 standards. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: Cheryl, go ahead. 16 MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English, Acuity Brands 17 Lighting. Certainly, we ought to be considering the 18 whirlwind of regulatory activities in California. 19 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, Bob. 20 MR. EHRHARDT: Yeah, just expounding on 21 Cheryl's comment, California is of course very 22 aggressive and very active in writing legislation for 23 energy efficiency for lighting products. When you talk 24 about manufacturer's burden, we do look for federal 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 01 legislation to keep the same standards across all 50 1 states. So keeping abreast of -- trying to track or 2 somehow keep abreast of California regulations I think 3 is something to keep in mind. 4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 5 MR. SCHOLAND: Okay. Should we go to utility 6 impact analysis? The lady coming to speak now, her 7 name is Frances Wood from On Location. 8 Utility Impact Analysis, Employment Impact Analysis, 9 and Environmental Assessment 10 Frances Wood 11 (PowerPoint presentation.) 12 MS. WOOD: Hi. I'm going to talk about the 13 next three segments of analyses that will be helping 14 Navigant conduct the first of the utility impact 15 analyses, which looks at the overall impacts on the 16 electric utility industry from the proposed standards. 17 We'll be using a model that's a variation of the 18 National Energy Modeling System, which was developed by 19 EIA and is used in their annual energy reports and is 20 also used as a basis for a lot of other studies we'll 21 be using here. We call it NEMS-BT. It's a slight 22 variation. It's very similar, but EIA asked other 23 people to change the name of the model when other 24 people use it. 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 02 We'll be looking at -- it's a multi-region 1 model, and the utility sector is obviously a big part 2 of that. The utility impact analysis will include 3 forecasts of electricity generation, sales, price, and 4 avoided capacity by type, and resulting from the impact 5 between a reference case and a case with a standard. 6 So essentially, we run the baseline, which 7 would be like the AEO, and we decrement the lighting 8 electricity demand by the electricity savings that are 9 estimated out of the national energy spreadsheet work. 10 That way we get to see how do you deal with utility 11 impact, will be from that. 12 Do you have any questions or any comments 13 about the use of NEMS-BT for this analysis? 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew. 15 MR. DeLASKI: I'll just reprise a comment I 16 made earlier. The Department solicited comments about 17 external benefits, and part of that solicitation was 18 the terms of energy security benefits. The document 19 specifically raised the benefits of saving natural gas. 20 So I would urge the Department to report what 21 are the natural gas savings resulting from reduced 22 natural gas use in power generation to power ballasts, 23 an important consideration that I think has not 24 historically been calculated. But it would be valuable 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 03 for understanding the benefits of potential rules. 1 MS. WOOD: Okay. The next analysis is the 2 employment impact analysis, which assesses the impact 3 on employment, looking again at the efficiency 4 standards at different levels. There are both direct 5 and indirect effects. The direct employment effects 6 are already going to be incorporated in the 7 manufacturing impact analysis that Michael just 8 described. 9 The indirect employment impacts come from the 10 change in energy consumption and capital expenditures 11 that result from the standards. There are two effects. 12 One is the substitution effect, the switch between 13 goods and services. The other is an income effect, how 14 the standard affects overall consumer expenditures, 15 taking into account both the expense of the ballasts as 16 well as the electricity savings. 17 The model use for that is called ImSet. It's 18 an update of the ImBuild model, for those of you who 19 are familiar with it from other, previous standards. 20 It's used to evaluate these employment impacts using 21 information again from the other analyses. 22 If you have any comments on that, they are 23 very welcome by the Department. 24 And then finally, the last analysis is the 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 04 environmental assessment. This is to look at the 1 overall national environmental impact from the 2 standards. The primary impact will be looking at the 3 CO2 emissions. Again, this is very tied to the utility 4 impact analysis where we're seeing how generation is 5 affected by the standards, what kind of generation is 6 displaced that has -- determines basically what the CO2 7 emissions are. 8 The reason for focusing on CO2 rather than 9 other emissions is that at this point in time SO2, NOx, 10 and mercury are all capped by national regulation, the 11 Clean Air Act, the Clean Air Mercury Rule, and the 12 Clean Air Interstate Rule. So changes in generation 13 may change where the emissions occur, but it's not 14 likely to change the overall emission level because of 15 the existing legislation that controls those emissions. 16 So if there's any questions or you want to 17 make comments on that environmental impact analysis 18 proposed, you're welcome to do so. 19 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. Your name for 20 the record. 21 MR. BALLARD: Tim Ballard (ph) with Earth 22 Justice. Just to correct one thing you said, the NOx 23 emissions are not subject to a nationwide cap. The 24 Clean Air Interstate Rule, which does cap NOx 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 05 emissions, only applies in the eastern states. I 1 encourage the Department to look at physical emission 2 productions that do occur in the western states that 3 are not subject to CAIR. 4 MS. WOOD: Right. I did overstate that. The 5 impact -- you're right. The west is not covered. We 6 expect the impact to be relatively small. Hence the 7 near zero. But I'll certainly look at that. 8 MR. PLASKON: Doug? 9 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please, Andrew. Oh, I'm 10 sorry. Jeff. 11 MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 13 MR. PLASKON: I would also advocate that the 14 environmental impact take in consideration a disposal 15 cost, as Cheryl mentioned earlier, into the analysis as 16 well. 17 MR. BROOKMAN: Does it include that? 18 MS. WOOD: It hasn't traditionally, is my 19 understanding. It hasn't been looking at that. 20 MR. BROOKMAN: Howard and then we'll come 21 back to Andrew. 22 MR. WOLFMAN: In the case of disposal costs, 23 would it be the disposal cost of any change in 24 efficiency in the ballast versus the baseline? 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 06 MS. WOOD: We're always looking at 1 incremental impacts -- 2 MR. WOLFMAN: If you dispose of an old 3 ballast or -- 4 MS. WOOD: Right. 5 MR. WOLFMAN: Yeah. Because you've got to 6 dispose of a ballast one way or the other, so I suspect 7 the net is zero. 8 MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew. 9 MR. DeLASKI: I had a couple of comments on 10 this as well as the prior slide on the employment 11 impacts. In the document, in the framework document, 12 talking about the Department indicates that it plans 13 not to modify its SO2 benefits, NOx benefits, and 14 mercury benefits, there seems to be a predetermined 15 outcome here at the framework stage that we would say 16 is premature. 17 I was struck in reading that document that 18 for each of these paragraphs on page 43 to 44 of the 19 framework document the Department writes that "Since 20 the impact of any one standard on the allowance price 21 is likely small and highly uncertain, DOE does not plan 22 to monetize the SO2 benefit." That's repeated each 23 place. 24 What I'm struck by is that I've got nothing 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 07 with which to evaluate that statement. It's simply an 1 assertion made by the Department without any data 2 provided. My understanding is the NEMS-BT does provide 3 some sort of estimate of impact on credit prices for 4 reductions of emissions. So I think that it's 5 something that it's incumbent on the Department to 6 explain a bit more why it's concluding that it's likely 7 small and highly uncertain. 8 Just because something is -- we just heard a 9 lot about uncertainty about this marketplace going out 10 30 years. People characterized it as a crystal ball. 11 If the Department has to do a lot of crystal ball 12 development in figuring out how to make decisions in 13 this and other rulemakings, it doesn't allow you to 14 simply say, well, it's uncertain, therefore we're going 15 to throw up our hands, we're not going to evaluate it. 16 I think in this case we've got a model that 17 can be used to come up with estimates. If they're 18 small, show us. Let's do the analysis so we can see 19 what the impacts are. 20 I also want to come back to the employment 21 impact analysis. Again, I want to point to some 22 phrasing in the framework document which I found 23 troubling. This is on page 42 of the framework 24 document where the document says "There is a general 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 08 presumption against any CSL that would directly cause 1 plant closures or significant loss to domestic 2 employment unless specifically identified expected 3 benefits of the standard would outweigh the adverse 4 effects." 5 Now, certainly I think that the loss of 6 domestic manufacturing jobs is a major concern for all 7 of us. It's not something that people want to see 8 happen in terms of loss of good-paying manufacturing 9 jobs. I looked at the Department's citations here and 10 I couldn't find anyplace in the statute or in the 11 guidance where there is a general presumption. It's 12 not in the process rule docket, finally. 13 So it is a consideration but a general 14 presumption I think is a pretty strong way to 15 characterize that. I think the way I want to 16 characterize it in terms of this particular proceeding, 17 and other proceedings as well, is that it is certainly 18 a factor but the difficult thing is that when you're 19 talking about industries that are looking at trying to 20 compete on price where they have manufacturing fully 21 loaded labor costs in this country of, say, $40 an hour 22 versus the chance to manufacture elsewhere at $2 to $3 23 an hour, the driver there is most often I'm going to 24 say not going to be energy efficiency standards but 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 09 cost of production, manufacturing costs of production 1 and labor costs. 2 When you start drawing a specific -- result 3 of a specific standard to a plant being closed, there 4 are presumptions being made that I think we need to be 5 very careful about going forward. I know of no 6 instance in this particular rulemaking where this is 7 being raised, but this characterization here I think is 8 one that we need to be very careful of and very careful 9 going forward about linking a particular standard to 10 its impact on a plant. 11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you, Andrew. No 12 additional comment, Andrew, at this time? 13

MR. DeLASKI: No. 14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Other 15 comments as they relate to environmental assessment and 16 perhaps the underpinning assumptions here? 17 (No response.) 18 Regulatory Impact Analysis 19 Mike Scholand 20 (PowerPoint presentation.) 21 MR. SCHOLAND: Okay. Excuse me. The 22 regulatory impact, the last of the NOPR analyses that 23 we'll discuss this afternoon. The purpose of this 24 analysis is to explore the potential for non-regulatory 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 10 alternatives to new mandatory efficiency standards. 1 This analysis is based on an assessment of actual 2 impacts. The analysis is kind of extrapolated from 3 existing programs that are looking at transforming the 4 market and projecting them forward, and we'll consider 5 how those programs might change in the future because 6 of other factors. 7 Programs considered here are things you're 8 familiar with: the Energy Star program, the NEMA 9 Premium program, and so on. These are market-pull 10 programs that may transform the market and encourage 11 use of more energy-efficient product in the absence of 12 standards. So that's the purpose of the regulatory 13 impact analysis. 14 Excuse me. I forgot to advance my slide. 15 On 118, it's our closing remarks. This is 16 the opportunity for folks to make their closing 17 remarks. I think, Linda or Ron, if you want to come up 18 and say something. I'm going to leave with Slide 119, 19 which is how to submit written comments. I want to 20 make sure everybody knows how to submit their input. 21 Other Issues and Comments 22 MR. BROOKMAN: Before we turn to Linda for 23 closing remarks, we want to provide one more time the 24 Department, and me as your facilitator, an opportunity 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 11 for anybody to say any other things they feel compelled 1 to say at this time, any other business that they think 2 is relevant that didn't get covered sufficiently, and 3 that sort of thing, briefly, at this time. Howard. 4 MR. WOLFMAN: Very briefly, I would like to 5 thank the Department for holding today's session and 6 the opportunity to walk us all through the framework 7 document. We have many, many folks around the table 8 who have not been through the process before, and the 9 process has been fine-tuned since we went through it 10 the last time. 11 I think everybody will walk out of here with 12 a much better understanding of the number and magnitude 13 of the tasks that are ahead of us in a relatively short 14 time frame. 15 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Appreciate that. 16 Bob, yes? 17 MR. EHRHARDT: Yes. I too would like to 18 thank the Department of Energy for allowing us to 19 speak. I also have, in closing comments and your 20 comment on alternatives to rulemaking, while we 21 understand the time frame allowed for this set of 22 rulemaking does not allow expansion of the scope beyond 23 component requirements, I have been part of the 24 Department of Energy's Commercial Lighting Initiative 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 12 looking at systems approaches to energy savings. As a 1 comment, I think the Department of Energy is right to 2 be exploring that area moving forward. 3 When you start looking at control systems and 4 daylight harvesting, there are some, again, very large 5 energy savings to be had, and I encourage the 6 Department to look further in that direction. 7 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional closing 8 comments from anybody? Yes, Howard. 9 MR. WOLFMAN: Shame on me forgetting this, 10 but in the framework document, is this section covered 11 in the framework document? 12 MR. BROOKMAN: The environmental assessment? 13 MR. WOLFMAN: No, the how to submit written 14 comments? Because it's not -- there's no slide in the 15 packet. 16 MR. BROOKMAN: I'll let Linda address that in 17 her closing remarks. 18 Closing Remarks 19 Doug Brookman 20 MR. BROOKMAN: My closing remark is thanks to 21 all of you for a very, very, I think, focused and 22 direct day of communication. Many thanks to all of you 23 for your diligence and your intelligence. 24 There's an evaluation form at the very back 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 13 of your packet. The Department is always looking for 1 ways to improve these meetings and suit the needs of 2 stakeholders and the Department as well, so please take 3 30 seconds to a minute to fill it out. 4 And then, Linda Graves, the floor is yours. 5 Closing Remarks by Linda Graves 6 MS. GRAVES: On behalf of the Department and 7 my team especially, I want to really thank all of you 8 for your participation. We got a lot of excellent 9 feedback today. We will be back to you, for those of 10 you who have volunteered to give us confidential 11 information for sure, regarding giving us more formal 12 written comments. 13 Yeah, if you look at your Federal Register 14 notice, it spells out in complete sentences how to go 15 about giving us that input. The basics are up on this 16 slide of three main approaches. Obviously, you can 17 send it to us electronically or by snail mail, or even 18 courier to our building, if you like. It is important 19 to us if you could try to get it to us before the 20 comment period ends, which is March 7th. 21 That's all I have. Ron, do you have anything 22 you want to add? 23

24 Closing Remarks by Ron Lewis 25**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 14 MR. LEWIS: I want to add my thanks to the 1 long list of thanks. I'm thrilled that we're ending 2 early, hearing that there's bad weather, so everybody 3 can get home safely. There were a lot of lively 4 discussions this morning. I was out for a little bit, 5 but I was highly encouraged and impressed by the 6 exchange of thoughts this morning. 7 I did try to give you the message early, and 8 I'd like to end with it, of time is of essence in that 9 we barely have time, with all the things we have to do, 10 to get everything done. We don't have the ability to 11 go back and redo things after the fact and still meet 12 deadlines. So if you would take it serious, the need 13 for data and input and your thoughts early on, because 14 if you miss that train and we have to go back and redo 15 things, it's very, very difficult to accommodate that. 16 So we appreciate your attitudes of 17 volunteering to supply stuff, but we urge you, please, 18 to follow through and do that in a prompt manner 19 because otherwise it may be tough to absorb it. 20 Thanks, everybody, and a safe journey back. 21 Wish you all well with the weather that's coming in. 22 (Whereupon, at 3:05 p.m., the meeting was 23 concluded.) 24**EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064**  2 15 **REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE** 1

2 This is to certify that the attached proceedings 3 before: 4

**UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY** 5 In the Matter of: 6

**PUBLIC MEETING ON FRAMEWORK DOCUMENT FOR ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLASTS**  7 8 Were held as herein appears and that this is the 9 original transcript thereof for the file of the 10 Department, Commission, Board, Administrative Law Judge 11 or the Agency. 12 Further, I am neither counsel for or related to any 13 party to the above proceedings. 14

15

16 

### Debra Derr 17 Official Reporter 18 Dated: February 12, 2008 19

20