DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division

JOEL I. KLEIN

Assistant Attorney 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.

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 103 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Antitrust Division 

JOEL I. KLEIN 

Assistant Auorney General 

Main Justice BUilding 

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N W 

Washington, D.C. 20530-0001 

(202) 514-2401/ (202) 616-2645 (t) 

antitmst@justice.usdoj .gov (internet) 

http://www.usdoj.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 

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.

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 103 

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 balTa'sts. 

S ince,/ , re,l., I! fL" 00 ' 

tt;' //' / /' Ii ·t· /~ 

" ! 'I 

Jro' I. Klein