APPENDIX 14A. INTERPOLATION OF UTILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL

RESULTS FROM NEMS­BT OUTPUT

LIST O F TABLES

**Table 1**  **4A.1 Set**  **of Multipliers**  **for Various**  **IRL Standards...........................................**  **14A­1**

**Table 14A.2**  **Set of**  **Multipliers for**  **Various GSFL**  **Standards**

**....................................... 14A­2** 

LIST O F FIGURES

**Figure 1**  **4A.1 An**  **Example of**  **Interpolation of**  **a Trial**  **Standard Level:**  **Difference in** 

**Total G**  **enerating Capacity** 

**........................................................................ 14A­3** 

**Figure 14A.2**  **An Example**  **of Estimates**  **Based on**  **Regression Results**  **of a**  **Sample**

**Trial S**  **tandard Level:**  **Difference in**  **Total Generating**  **Capacity............... 14A­4** 

**14A­i**1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5 APPENDIX 14A. INTERPOLATION OF UTILITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL

RESULTS FROM NEMS­BT OUTPUT

**The e**  **ffects of**  **proposed incandescent**  **reflector lamp**  **(IRL) and**  **general service** 

**fluorescence lamp**  **(GSFL) efficacy**  **standards on**  **the electric**  **power industry**  **were analyzed**  **using**

**a variant**  **of the**  **U.S. DOE/EIA**  **National Energy**  **Modeling System**  **(NEMS) called**  **NEMS­BT,**

**together with**  **some exogenous**  **calculations. Because**  **the relative**  **size of**  **the energy**  **savings**

**being implemented**  **in NEMS­BT**  **was, in**  **general, too**  **small to**  **be reliably**  **estimated in**  **the**

**context of**  **the whole**  **electricity sector,**  **adjustments to**  **the NEMS­BT**  **runs were**  **necessary.**

**To run**  **a simulation**  **in NEMS­BT,**  **the Residential**  **Demand Module,**  **Commercial**

**Demand Module**  **and Industrial**  **Demand Modules**  **electric lighting**  **end use**  **is reduced**  **annually**

**according to**  **the energy**  **savings estimated**  **by the**  **National Energy**  **Savings model**  **(see Chapter** 

**13) for**  **a given**  **trial standard**  **level. These**  **energy savings**  **varied over**  **time.**

**The m**  **agnitude of**  **the energy**  **decrement that**  **would be**  **required for**  **NEMS­BT to**  **produce**

**stable results**  **safely out**  **of the**  **range of**  **numerical noise**  **made it**  **necessary, in**  **both the**  **utility**

**analysis and**  **environmental assessment,**  **to estimate**  **results in**  **the range**  **of the**  **standard levels** 

**effects using**  **interpolation. Interpolated**  **values are**  **derived from**  **a series**  **of higher**  **decrement**

**simulations based**  **on the**  **standard levels.**  **The standard**  **levels for**  **the IRL**  **and GSFL**  **analysis**

**were modeled**  **separately under**  **two technology**  **penetration scenarios.** 

**To preserve**  **t he**  **pattern of**  **energy savings**  **over time**  **for a**  **trial standard**  **level, savings**  **in**

**each year**  **were multiplied**  **by the**  **same “scaling”**  **factor. This**  **factor varies**  **between standards** 

**because the**  **magnitude of**  **the savings**  **changes. An**  **appropriate set**  **of multipliers**  **was chosen**  **to**

**augment the**  **savings to**  **a magnitude**  **that produces**  **more stable**  **results. Using**  **professional**

**judgement, sets**  **of three**  **multipliers were**  **selected for**  **each of**  **the modeled**  **trial standard**  **levels as** 

**shown in**  **Table 14A.1**  **for IRL**  **and Table**  **14A.2 for**  **GSFL.**

Table 1 4A.1 Set of Multipliers for Various IRL Standards

IRL Existing Technologies, Shift Product Substitution Scenario

Trial S tandard Level 39., 7 9., 118.

Trial S tandard Level 15., 3 0., 44.

Trial S tandard Level 8., 1 6., 25.

Trial S tandard Level 7., 1 3., 20.

Trial S tandard Level 6., 1 2., 18.

IRL E merging Technologies Roll­up No Product Substitution Scenario

Trial S tandard Level 72., 143., 215.

Trial Standard Level 31., 61., 92.

Trial Standard Level 16., 32., 48.

Trial Standard Level 13., 26., 39.

Trial Standard Level 11., 22., 33.

**14A­1**1

2

3

4

5

1

2

3

4

5 Table 14A.2 Set of Multipliers for Various GSFL Standards

GSFL Exisiting Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise

Trial S tandard Level 3.6, 7 .2, 10.8

Trial S tandard Level 3.4, 6 .8, 10.2

Trial S tandard Level 1.9, 3 .8, 5.7

Trial S tandard Level 1.0, 2 .0, 3.1

Trial S tandard Level .9, 1 .9, 2.8

GSFL E merging Tech., Roll up, Market Segment Based Lighting Expertise

Trial S tandard Level 10.2, 20.3, 30.5

Trial Standard Level 6.7, 13.3, 20.0

Trial Standard Level 3.9, 7.8, 11.7

Trial Standard Level 2.5, 5.1, 7.6

Trial Standard Level 2.0, 4.1, 6.1

**The output**  **for electricity**  **generation and**  **capacity by**  **fuel type**  **for each**  **of the**  **scaled**

**model runs**  **(e.g., 3.6,**  **7.9, 10.8**  **times the**  **standard level)**  **is then**  **regressed, with**  **the y­intercept** 

**forced through**  **the origin,**  **and the**  **actual standard**  **level forecast**  **is interpolated**  **along this** 

**regression line.**  **The linear**  **regression is**  **forced through**  **the origin**  **because a**  **zero change**  **must be** 

**the case**  **with no**  **standard in**  **place and**  **because the**  **target points**  **of interpolation**  **are close**  **to the** 

**origin (i.e.,**  **at low**  **energy decrements).** 

**Figure 1**  **4A.1 shows**  **an example**  **of the**  **interpolation approach**  **for a**  **proposed trial** 

**standard level.**  **The magnitude**  **of the**  **energy savings**  **multiplier is**  **plotted on**  **the x­axis**  **against**

**the reduction**  **in total**  **installed generating**  **capacity for**  **the years**  **2020, 2025**  **and 2030,**  **as shown** 

**by the**  **various plotted**  **lines. In**  **general, results**  **for the**  **various NEMS­BT**  **runs are**  **reasonably**

**stable and**  **linear. Using**  **these interpolation**  **techniques, the**  **results of**  **the NEMS­BT**  **model runs** 

**have been**  **used to**  **estimate the**  **annual values**  **of selected**  **variables for**  **each of**  **the trial**  **standard**

**levels. Figure**  **14A.2 shows**  **estimates of**  **total generating**  **capacity reductions**  **associated with**  **a**

**sample trial**  **standard level**  **for the**  **years 2012**  **to 2030**  **(the last**  **year output**  **from NEMS­BT).** 

**As w**  **as discussed**  **more fully**  **in Chapter**  **16 of**  **the TSD,**  **because the**  **courts vacated**  **CAIR**

**and CAMR,**  **the 2008**  **version of**  **NEMS­BT could**  **not be**  **used directly**  **to estimate**  **emissions**

**impacts for**  **NO X**  **and Hg.**  **Instead, DOE**  **established a**  **range of**  **NO X**  **reductions due**  **to standards.** 

**DOE’s high**  **estimate was**  **based on**  **the use**  **of a**  **nationwide NO**  **X emission**  **rate for**  **electrical**

**generation. DOE**  **derived a**  **current NO**  **X emission**  **rate for**  **the power**  **sector based**  **on data**  **from**

**the** Annual Energy Outlook 2008 (AEO2008)

**. DOE**  **based the**  **emission rate**  **on the**  **tons of**  **NO X** 

**emitted per**  **TWh of**  **electricity generated**  **in the**  **year 2006.**  **For 2006,**  **the NO**  **X emission**  **rate was** 

**0.764 k**  **t/TWh (**  **0.842 thousand**  **short tons/TWh).**  **DOE’s low**  **estimate was**  **based on**  **the use**  **of an** 

**emission rate**  **for new**  **combined­cycle gas**  **plants as**  **provided in**  **the NEMS­BT.**  **This emission** 

**rate equals**  **0.0310 kt/TWh**  **(0.0341 thousand**  **short tons/TWh)**  **and represents**  **the lowest**  **emission**

**rate of**  **fossil­fuel based**  **generation that**  **might be**  **displaced under**  **standards. To**  **estimate the** 

**reduction in**  **NO X**  **emissions from**  **the power**  **sector, DOE**  **multiplied these**  **emission rates**  **by the** 

**reduction in**  **electricity generation**  **due to**  **the standards**  **considered as**  **determined by**  **the utility** 

**impact analysis**  **(see Chapter**  **14, Utility**  **Impact Analysis).**  **The estimates**  **of the**  **total reduction**  **in**

**14A­2 electricity**  **generation was**  **developed using**  **the interpolation**  **technique described**  **above and** 

**illustrated in**  **Figure 14A.1.** 

**DOE e**  **stimated the**  **physical quantity**  **changes in**  **Hg emissions**  **associated with**  **the energy** 

**conservation standard.**  **As opposed**  **to using**  **the NEMS­BT**  **model, DOE**  **established a**  **range of** 

**Hg reductions**  **due to**  **standards. DOE’s**  **high estimate**  **used an**  **Hg emission**  **rate based**  **on the** 

AEO2008

**. Because**  **virtually all**  **Hg emitted**  **from electricity**  **generation is**  **from coal­fired**  **power**

**plants, DOE**  **based the**  **emission rate**  **from the**  **tons of**  **Hg emitted**  **per TWh**  **of coal­generated** 

**electricity. DOE**  **based the**  **emission rate**  **on the**  **average value**  **reported in**  **the** AEO2008 **for the** 

**year 2006.**  **This emission**  **rate is**  **0.0230 metric**  **tons per**  **TWh (0.0253**  **short tons/TWh).**  **DOE’s**

**low estimate**  **was based**  **on the**  **use of**  **an emission**  **rate for**  **new combined­cycle**  **gas plants**  **as**

**provided in**  **the NEMS­BT.**  **The emission**  **rate for**  **this generation**  **technology is**  **0.000 tons**  **per**

**TWh. To**  **estimate the**  **reduction in**  **Hg emissions**  **from the**  **power sector,**  **DOE multiplied**  **the low** 

**and high**  **emission rates**  **by the**  **reduction in**  **coal­generated electricity**  **due to**  **the standards** 

**considered as**  **determined in**  **the utility**  **impact analysis**  **(see Chapter**  **14, Utility**  **Impact Analysis).** 

**Again, the**  **estimates of**  **the reduction**  **in coal**  **electricity generation**  **was developed**  **using the** 

**interpolation technique**  **described above**  **and illustrated**  **in Figure**  **14A.1**

Figure 1 4A.1 An Example of Interpolation of a Trial Standard Level: Difference in

Total Generating Capacity

Regression of Scaled Results

Total Generating Capacity Reductions

y = ­15.681x y = ­12.667x

y = ­8.6159x

(100)

(90) (80) (70) (60) (50) (40) (30) (20) (10) ­ ­ 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 Scaling FactorGWSavings

2025 2020 2030 Linear (2025) Linear (2020) Linear (2030)

**14A­3**Figure 14A.2 An Example of Estimates Based on Regression Results of a Sample

Trial Standard Level: Difference in Total Generating Capacity

Estimates of Savings Based on Regression for Total Generating Capacity

(18) (16) (14) (12) (10) (8) (6) (4) (2) ­2012201320142015201620172018201920202021202220232024202520262027202820292030GWSavings

**The highlighted**  **results for**  **the years**  **2020, 2025**  **and 2030**  **were directly**  **interpolated from**  **the**

**regressions shown**  **in Figure**  **14A.1**

**14A­4**