### DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AntitrustDivision

JOEL I. KLEIN AssistantAttorney General

Main Justice Building 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W. Washington, D. C. 20530-0001 (202) 514-2401 / (202) 616-2645 (f) antitrust@justice

.usdoj

.gov (intemet) http://www.usdoi.gov (World Wide Web)

Mary Anne Sullivan, General Counsel Department of Energy Washington, DC 20585

Dear Ms . Sullivan:
I am responding to your March 28, 2000 letter seeking the views of the Attorney General about the potential impact on competition of the proposed energy efficiency standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts. Your request was submitted pursuant to Section 325(0)(2)(B)(i) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. §6291, 6295, which requires the Attorney General to make a determination of the impact of any lessening of competition that is likely to result from the imposition of proposed energy efficiency standards. The Attorney General's responsibility for responding to requests from other departments about the effect of a program on competition has been delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division in 28 CFR § 0.40(g).
We have reviewed the proposed standards and the supplementary information published in the Federal Register notice and submitted to the Attorney General, which includes information provided to the Department of Energy by ballast manufacturers, their suppliers, and their customers. The proposed standards could not be met by most types of magnetic fluorescent lamp ballasts and would likely result in the increased use of electronic ballasts. Our conclusion is that the proposed standards would not adversely affect competition in the ballast market.
In reaching this conclusion we note that production of electronic ballasts has already grown to more than 60 percent of industry sales, and that each of the seven manufacturers that together account for more than 95 percent of the domestic ballast market already produces electronic ballasts. The ballast manufacturers have said the proposed standards would not force any of them to exit the ballast business. 

### DEPARTMENTOF

### JUSTICE Antitrust

### Division



### JOELI.KLEIN AssistantAuorneyGeneral

MainJusticeBUilding 950PennsylvaniaAvenue,N W Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 (202)514-2401/(202)616-2645 (t) antitmst@justice.usdoj.gov (internet) http://www.usdoj.gov(WorldWideWeb)

Mary Anne Sullivan/ General Counsel Department of Energy Washington/ DC 20585
Dear Ms. Sullivan:

I am responding to your March 28/ 2000 letter seeking the views of the Attorney General about the potential impact on competition of the proposed energy efficiency standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts. Your request was submitted pursuant to Section 325(0) (2) (B) (i) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S.C. §6291/ 6295/ which requires the Attorney General to make a determination of the impact of any lessening of competition that is likely to result from the imposition of proposed energy efficiency standards. The Attorney General's responsibility for responding to requests from other departments about the effect of a program on competition has been delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division in 2 8 CFR § O.4 0(g)

. We have reviewed the proposed standards and the supplementary information published in the Federal Register notice and submitted to the Attorney General/ which includes information provided to the Department of Energy by ballast manufacturers/ their suppliers/ and their customers. The proposed standards could not be met by most types of magnetic fluorescent lamp ballasts and would likely result in the increased use of electronic ballasts. Our conclusion is that the proposed standards would not adversely affect competition in the ballast market.

In reaching this conclusion we note that production of electronic ballasts has already grown to more than 60 percent of industry sales, and that each of the seven manufacturers that together account for more than 95 percent of the domestic ballast market already produces electronic ballasts. The ballast manufacturers have said the proposed standards would not force any of them to exit the ballast business.Page 2

Further, the proposed standards would be phased in -- five

years for new ballasts and ten years for replacement ballasts -- and include a number of exemptions, such as an exemption for residential applications. Finally, there is no indication in the record that the proposed standards would limit electronic ballast production by any firms and therefore would not likely reduce competition in the production of electronic ballasts. We therefore conclude that the proposed standards will not likely reduce competition in the sale of ballasts. Page2

Further, the proposed standards would be phased in

-- five years for new ballasts and ten years for replacement ballasts and include a number of exemptions, such as an exemption for residential applications. Finally, there is no indication in the record that the proposed standards would limit electronic ballast production by any firms and therefore would not likely reduce competition in the production of electronic ballasts. We therefore conclude that the proposed standards will not likely reduce competition in the sale of balTa'sts.

Since,/re,l.,

# fL" '

, I!

00 

# tt

;'//' / /' Ii ·t·

### /~

" ! 'I 

# Jro' I. Klein