Table 6A.16 Industry-wide Employment impacts of an Electronic Ballast Standard

Under the Scenario Where Us Magnetic Ballast Plants Close in

2003 in the Base Case

Country of Direct Jobs lost Associated Jobs Direct Jobs tt5 Net Direct Jobs

Manufacture in magnetic at risk in gained in lost/gained

ballast magnetic electronic

manufacturing ballast ballast

manufacturing manufacturing

2015 (-5% decline) shipment scenario

U.S.A 0* 0*' 500 500 jobs gained

Mexico 2236 596*** 700 1536 jobs lost 1536

2027 (- 3% decline) shipment scenario

U.S.A 0 0 557 557 ained

Mexico 2444 524*** 769 1675 jobs lost

t

Includes both factory and non-factory jobs supporting magnetic ballast production.

These "associated" jobs are assumed relocated to Mexico

These "associated" jobs will be relocated to other plants in Mexico or elsewhere

Includes jobs from Sub-groups 1 and 2

Does not include potential associated jobs added in these plants

6A.2.5 OTHER IMPACTS

During the manufacturer interviews additional relevant industry issues were discussed:

• Impact of the decline in magnetic ballast shipments on Sub-group 1

• Differential impacts on the two sub-groups with regards to their ability to compete in the

marketplace, after an electronic ballast standard is implemented

• Global competition

Cumulative impacts of regulations

Each of these issues is discussed in greater detail in the following sections.

6A.2.5.1 Impact of the Decline in Magnetic Ballast Shipments on Sub-group 1

The decline in shipments of magnetic ballasts in the past decade has negatively impacted all

the magnetic ballast manufacturers represented in Sub-group 1. Manufacturers have adopted

different strategies to remain profitable in the marketplace.

Some have aggressively pursued cost savings to remain competitive, including continual

product redesigns and stronger business management controls

6-31

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table 6A.16 Industry-wide Employment Impacts of an Electronic Ballast Standard 

Under the Scenario Where Us Magnetic Ballast Plants Close in 

2003 in the Base Case 

Country of Direct Jobs lost Associated Jobs Direct Jobs tt5 Net Direct Jobs 

Manufacture in magnetic at risk in gained in lost/gained 

ballast magnetic electronic 

manufacturing ballast ballast 

manufacturillf! manufacturing 

2015 (~5% dechne) shipment scenario 

U.S.A 0* 0** 500 

Mexico 2236 596*** 700 

2027 (~3% decline) shipment scenario 

U.S.A 0 0 557 

Mexico 2444 524*** 769 

* 

** 

Includes both factory and non-factory jobs supporting magnetic ballast production. 

These "associated" jobs are assumed relocated to Mexico 

*** 

t 

+ 

+ 

6A.2.S 

These "associated" jobs will be relocated to other plants in Mexico or elsewhere 

Includes jobs from Sub-groups 1 and 2 

Does not include potential associated jobs added in these plants 

OTHER IMPACTS 

During the manufacturer interviews additional relevant industry issues were discussed: 

Impact of the decline in magnetic ballast shipments on Sub-group 1 

Differential impacts on the two sub-groups with regards to their ability to compete in the 

marketplace, after an electronic ballast standard is implemented 

Global competition 

Cumulative impacts of regulations 

Each of these issues is discussed in greater detail in the following sections. 

6A.2.S.1 Impact of the Decline in Magnetic Ballast Shipments on Sub-group 1 

The decline in shipments of magnetic ballasts in the past decade has negatively impacted all 

the magnetic ballast manufacturers represented in Sub-group 1. Manufacturers have adopted 

different strategies to remain profitable in the marketplace. 

Some have aggressively pursued cost savings to remain competitive, including continual 

product redesigns and stronger business management controls 

6-31 

Table 6A.16 Industry-wide Employment Impacts of an Electronic Ballast Standard 

Under the Scenario Where Us Magnetic Ballast Plants Close in 

2003 in the Base Case 

Country of Direct Jobs lost Associated Jobs Direct Jobs tt5 Net Direct Jobs 

Manufacture in magnetic at risk in gained in lost/gained 

ballast magnetic electronic 

manufacturing ballast ballast 

manufacturing manufacturing 

2015 (~5% dechne) sll1pment scenano 

U.S.A 0* 0** 500 

Mexico 2236 596*** 700 

2027 (~3% decline) shipment scenario 

U.S.A 0 0 557 

Mexico 2444 524*** 769 

* 

** 

Includes both factory and non-factory jobs supporting magnetic ballast production. 

These "associated" jobs are assumed relocated to Mexico 

*** 

t 

+ 

+ 

6A.2.S 

These "associated" jobs will be relocated to other plants in Mexico or elsewhere 

Includes jobs from Sub-groups 1 and 2 

Does not include potential associated jobs added in these plants 

OTHER IMPACTS 

During the manufacturer interviews additional relevant industry issues were discussed: 

Impact of the decline in magnetic ballast shipments on Sub-group 1 

Differential impacts on the two sub-groups with regards to their ability to compete in the 

marketplace, after an electronic ballast standard is implemented 

Global competition 

Cumulative impacts of regulations 

Each of these issues is discussed in greater detail in the following sections. 

6A.2.S.1 Impact of the Decline in Magnetic Ballast Shipments on Sub-group 1 

The decline in shipments of magnetic ballasts in the past decade has negatively impacted all 

the magnetic ballast manufacturers represented in Sub-group 1. Manufacturers have adopted 

different strategies to remain profitable in the marketplace. 

Some have aggressively pursued cost savings to remain competitive, including continual 

product redesigns and stronger business management controls 

6-31 
Some have aggressively tried to maintain or increase market share to minimize or offset

the impact of the overall market decline

Some have closed plants in the U.S. and moved production to lower labor cost facilities

in Mexico in order to maintain cost leadership and market position

Some manufacturers have closed down one (or more) of their plants and consolidated

operations in order to increase capacity utilization

Most manufacturers indicated that they continually re-adjust to optimize the production mix

between their current plants in order to remain cost competitive. In addition, all manufacturers in

Sub-group 1 plan to continue producing magnetic ballasts until the electronic ballast standard comes

into effect.

6A.2.5.2 Differential Impacts on the Two Sub-groups with Regards to their Ability to Compete

in the Marketplace

Manufacturer interviews revealed that ballast producers that offer both magnetic and

electronic products have an advantage over manufacturers offering a limited product line. It was

frequently stated that OEMs and distributors prefer "one-stop" shoppingwith full-line manufacturers

as it reduces their transaction and order processing costs. The inability to provide a full-line of

ballasts acts as a barrier for new entrants with only an electronic ballast product offering.

Manufacturers in both the sub-groups seemed to agree with this argument. Industry sources stated

that, partly for this reason, one manufacturer in Sub-group 2 intends to begin production of magnetic

ballasts. This could potentially exert downward pressure on magnetic ballast margins, pushing them

to levels lower than currently factored in the base case cashflow projections.

If an electronic ballast standard comes into effect, having both magnetic and electronic

ballasts would no longer be an advantage in the marketplace, making market entry more attractive

for firms not currently participating in magnetic ballast production. Some manufacturer(s) in Subgroup 2 stated that an electronic ballast standard would increase their ability to compete in the

marketplace. Manufacturers in Sub-group 1 perceive this as a loss of competitive position. These

changes in competitive environment were captured by the manufacturer cash flow projections.

6A.2.5.3 Global Competition

Most manufacturers recognize that a major portion of magnetic ballast manufacturing has

moved just south of the Mexican border in the past decade. Lower labor costs in Mexico have helped

them remain cost competitive.

When asked about the possibility of new entrants in the magnetic ballast market, some

manufacturers in Sub-groups 1 and 2 anticipated one or more new entrants in the absence of a

standard, while others did not.

Manufacturers differed on the likelihood of successful new entrants in the electronic ballast

market. Most manufacturers in Sub-group 1 expected one or more major new players once an

6-32

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Some have aggressively tried to maintain or increase market share to minimize or offset 

the impact of the overall market decline 

Some have closed plants in the U.S. and moved production to lower labor cost facilities 

in Mexico in order to maintain cost leadership and market position 

Some manufacturers have closed down one (or more) oftheir plants and consolidated 

operations in order to increase capacity utilization 

Most manufacturers indicated that they continually re-adjust to optimize the production mix 

between their current plants in order to remain cost competitive. In addition, all manufacturers in 

Sub-group I plan to continue producing magnetic ballasts until the electronic ballast standard comes 

into effect. 

6A.2.S.2 Differential Impacts on the Two Sub-groups with Regards to their Ability to Compete 

in the Marketplace 

Manufacturer interviews revealed that ballast producers that offer both magnetic and 

electronic products have an advantage over manufacturers offering a limited product line. It was 

frequently stated that OEMs and distributors prefer "one-stop" shopping with full-line manufacturers 

as it reduces their transaction and order processing costs. The inability to provide a full-line of 

ballasts acts as a barrier for new entrants with only an electronic ballast product offering. 

Manufacturers in both the sub-groups seemed to agree with this argument. Industry sources stated 

that, partly for this reason, one manufacturer in Sub-group 2 intends to begin production of magnetic 

ballasts. This could potentially exert downward pressure on magnetic ballast margins, pushing them 

to levels lower than currently factored in the base case cashflow projections. 

If an electronic ballast standard comes into effect, having both magnetic and electronic 

ballasts would no longer be an advantage in the marketplace, making market entry more attractive 

for firms not currently participating in magnetic ballast production. Some manufacturer(s) in Subgroup 2 stated that an electronic ballast standard would increas~ their ability to compete in the 

marketplace. Manufacturers in Sub-group I perceive this as a loss of competitive position. These 

changes in competitive environment were captured by the manufacturer cash flow projections. 

6A.2.S.3 Global Competition 

Most manufacturers recognize that a major portion of magnetic ballast manufacturing has 

moved just south of the Mexican border in the past decade. Lower labor costs in Mexico have helped 

them remain cost competitive. 

When asked about the possibility of new entrants in the magnetic ballast market, some 

manufacturers in Sub-groups 1 and 2 anticipated one or more new entrants in the absence of a 

standard, while others did not. 

Manufacturers differed on the likelihood of successful new entrants in the electronic ballast 

market. Most manufacturers in Sub-group 1 expected one or more major new players once an 

6-32 

Some have aggressively tried to maintain or increase market share to minimize or offset 

the impact of the overall market decline 

Some have closed plants in the U.S. and moved production to lower labor cost facilities 

in Mexico in order to maintain cost leadership and market position 

Some manufacturers have closed down one (or more) oftheir plants and consolidated 

operations in order to increase capacity utilization 

Most manufacturers indicated that they continually re-adjust to optimize the production mix 

between their current plants in order to remain cost competitive. In addition, all manufacturers in 

Sub-group I plan to continue producing magnetic ballasts until the electronic ballast standard comes 

into effect. 

6A.2.S.2 Differential Impacts on the Two Sub-groups with Regards to their Ability to Compete 

in the Marketplace 

Manufacturer interviews revealed that ballast producers that offer both magnetic and 

electronic products have an advantage over manufacturers offering a limited product line. It was 

frequently stated that OEMs and distributors prefer "one-stop" shopping with full-line manufacturers 

as it reduces their transaction and order processing costs. The inability to provide a full-line of 

ballasts acts as a barrier for new entrants with only an electronic ballast product offering. 

Manufacturers in both the sub-groups seemed to agree with this argument. Industry sources stated 

that, partly for this reason, one manufacturer in Sub-group 2 intends to begin production of magnetic 

ballasts. This could potentially exert downward pressure on magnetic ballast margins, pushing them 

to levels lower than currently factored in the base case cashflow projections. 

If an electronic ballast standard comes into effect, having both magnetic and electronic 

ballasts would no longer be an advantage in the marketplace, making market entry more attractive 

for firms not currently participating in magnetic ballast production. Some manufacturer(s) in Subgroup 2 stated that an electronic ballast standard would increas~ their ability to compete in the 

marketplace. Manufacturers in Sub-group I perceive this as a loss of competitive position. These 

changes in competitive environment were captured by the manufacturer cash flow projections. 

6A.2.S.3 Global Competition 

Most manufacturers recognize that a major portion of magnetic ballast manufacturing has 

moved just south of the Mexican border in the past decade. Lower labor costs in Mexico have helped 

them remain cost competitive. 

When asked about the possibility of new entrants in the magnetic ballast market, some 

manufacturers in Sub-groups 1 and 2 anticipated one or more new entrants in the absence of a 

standard, while others did not. 

Manufacturers differed on the likelihood of successful new entrants in the electronic ballast 

market. Most manufacturers in Sub-group 1 expected one or more major new players once an 

6-32 
electronic ballast standard is announced . Manufacturers in Sub-group 2 had differing

opinions-some believed that there would be new entrants while others believed that there would

be no new entrants in the "affected" electronic ballasts classes, only in specialty niches. The latter

group emphasized that a lot of new entrants have come and gone in the last eight years without

gaining any significant market share . They believe that the current manufacturers are in a better

position to gain share in the market created by the additional electronic ballasts. They highlighted

the importance of existing relations with OEMs and distributors as a barrier to new market entrants

seeking to gain a large market share. The potential impacts of a new market entrant were captured

in the "new entrant" scenario.

6A.2.5.4 Cumulative Impact of Regulations

Most manufacturers, except one, reported that they did not face any burden resulting from

the imposition of cumulative regulations. One manufacturer, however, commented that the

imposition of energy efficiency standards on small motors would limit the availability of capital for

both its ballast and motor businesses.

6B. IMPACT ON SUPPLIERS TO THE FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLAST INDUSTRY

New energy-efficiency standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts will significantly alter the

product mix of ballast shipments among magnetic , cathode cutout, and electronic types. Because

magnetic and electronic ballast types differ significantly in their materials requirements, these

changes in product mix will substantially affect the sales of ballast industry suppliers and trade allies.

This chapter documents the financial and employment impacts that ballast industry suppliers might

experience as a result of a new energy efficiency standard for ballasts.

We performed a detailed analysis of the impacts of an electronic ballast standard on ballast

manufacturer suppliers. The methodology used for ballast suppliers was essentially the same as was

used for the ballast manufacturers . The analysis includes a quantitative evaluation of manufacturer

cash flows based on the GRIM spreadsheet . The information necessary for GRIM was collected

during detailed interviews with ballast suppliers. The interview guide used to structure and organize

the interview discussion invited supplier interviewees to discuss:

® The nature of materials and components they produce for ballast production

® The level of financial importance of these products to the plant or profit center

® Financial impacts of changes in ballast energy efficiency standards on the plant or profit

center

• Employment impacts of a new ballast energy efficiency standard, and

• Recent market trends and their impacts.

Ballast manufacturers identified key supplier firms, and a number of additional supplier firms

were identified through their attendance at one or more ballast workshops at the Department and/or

their correspondence with the Department on ballast efficiency issues. The supplier companies

identified are listed in Table 6B . 1. In total 31 firms were invited to participate in interviews designed

6-33

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

electronic ballast standard is announced. Manufacturers in Sub-group 2 had differing 

opinions-some believed that there would be new entrants while others believed that there would 

be no new entrants in the "affected" electronic ballasts classes, only in specialty niches. The latter 

group emphasized that a lot of new entrants have come and gone in the last eight years without 

gaining any significant market share. They believe that the current manufacturers are in a better 

position to gain share in the market created by the additional electronic ballasts. They highlighted 

the importance of existing relations with OEMs and distributors as a barrier to new market entrants 

seeking to gain a large market share. The potential impacts of a new market entrant were captured 

in the "new entrant" scenario. 

6A.2.S.4 Cumulative Impact of Regulations 

Most manufacturers, except one, reported that they did not face any burden resulting from 

the imposition of cumulative regulations. One manufacturer, however, commented that the 

imposition of energy efficiency standards on small motors would limit the availability of capital for 

both its ballast and motor businesses. 

6B. IMPACT ON SUPPLIERS TO THE FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLAST INDUSTRY 

New energy-efficiency standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts will significantly alter the 

product mix of ballast shipments among magnetic, cathode cutout, and electronic types. Because 

magnetic and electronic ballast types differ significantly in their materials requirements, these 

changes in product mix will substantially affectthe sales of ballast industry suppliers and trade allies. 

This chapter documents the financial and employment impacts that ballast industry suppliers might 

experience as a result of a new energy efficiency standard for ballasts. 

We performed a detailed analysis of the impacts of an electronic ballast standard on ballast 

manufacturer suppliers. The methodology used for ballast suppliers was essentially the same as was 

used for the ballast manufacturers. The analysis includes a quantitative evaluation of manufacturer 

cash flows based on the GRIM spreadsheet. The information necessary for GRIM was collected 

during detailed interviews with ballast suppliers. The interview guide used to structure and organize 

the interview discussion invited supplier interviewees to discuss: 

.. The nature of materials and components they produce for ballast production 

• The level of financial importance of these products to the plant or profit center 

.. Financial impacts of changes in ballast energy efficiency standards on the plant or profit 

center 

• Employment impacts of a new ballast energy efficiency standard, and 

.. Recent market trends and their impacts. 

Ballast manufacturers identified key supplier firms, and a number of additional supplier fimls 

were identified through their attendance at one or more ballast workshops at the Department and/or 

their correspondence with the Department 011 ballast efficiency issues. The supplier companies 

identified are listed in Table 6B.1. In total 31 firms were invited to participate in interviews designed 

6-33 

electronic ballast standard is announced. Manufacturers in Sub-group 2 had differing 

opinions-some believed that there would be new entrants while others believed that there would 

be no new entrants in the "affected" electronic ballasts classes, only in specialty niches. The latter 

group emphasized that a lot of new entrants have come and gone in the last eight years without 

gaining any significant market share. They believe that the current manufacturers are in a better 

position to gain share in the market created by the additional electronic ballasts. They highlighted 

the importance of existing relations with OEMs and distributors as a barrier to new market entrants 

seeking to gain a large market share. The potential impacts of a new market entrant were captured 

in the "new entrant" scenario. 

6A.2.S.4 Cumulative Impact of Regulations 

Most manufacturers, except one, reported that they did not face any burden resulting from 

the imposition of cumulative regulations. One manufacturer, however, commented that the 

imposition of energy efficiency standards on small motors would limit the availability of capital for 

both its ballast and motor businesses. 

6B. IMPACT ON SUPPLIERS TO THE FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLAST INDUSTRY 

New energy-efficiency standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts will significantly alter the 

product mix of ballast shipments among magnetic, cathode cutout, and electronic types. Because 

magnetic and electronic ballast types differ significantly in their materials requirements, these 

changes in product mix will substantially affectthe sales of ballast industry suppliers and trade allies. 

This chapter documents the financial and employment impacts that ballast industry suppliers might 

experience as a result of a new energy efficiency standard for ballasts. 

We performed a detailed analysis of the impacts of an electronic ballast standard on ballast 

manufacturer suppliers. The methodology used for ballast suppliers was essentially the same as was 

used for the ballast manufacturers. The analysis includes a quantitative evaluation of manufacturer 

cash flows based on the GRIM spreadsheet. The information necessary for GRIM was collected 

during detailed interviews with ballast suppliers. The interview guide used to structure and organize 

the interview discussion invited supplier interviewees to discuss: 

.. The nature of materials and components they produce for ballast production 

• The level of financial importance of these products to the plant or profit center 

.. Financial impacts of changes in ballast energy efficiency standards on the plant or profit 

center 

• Employment impacts of a new ballast energy efficiency standard, and 

.. Recent market trends and their impacts. 

Ballast manufacturers identified key supplier firms, and a number of additional supplier fimls 

were identified through their attendance at one or more ballast workshops at the Department and/or 

their correspondence with the Department 011 ballast efficiency issues. The supplier companies 

identified are listed in Table 6B.1. In total 31 firms were invited to participate in interviews designed 

6-33 
to allow them to describe the impact new energy efficiency standards for ballasts might have on

them. Eleven of these suppliers served magnetic ballast production, eleven electronic ballast

production, and nine suppliers served both magnetic and electronic products.

Sixteen of the 20 organizations serving magnetic ballast applications participated in

interviews and/or provided plant tours. Five organizations hosted plant tours as well as interviews.

Eleven ofthe 20 organizations serving electronic ballast applications participated in interviews. Four

of these hosted plant tours as well.

Table 6B.1 Supplier Companies Invited to Participate in Interviews.

Organization Name

Advance Transformer Capacitors

Aerovox

MagneTek Capacitors

MagneTek Wire

Optec Sales, Inc.

Phelps Dodge Mag Wire

Rea Magnet Wire

Tempel Steel Co.

United Tool & S--NJ

United Tool & S--TN

Bolmet, Inc.

Steinerfilm

Armco Steel

Inland Steel

LTV Steel

USX Corp.

WCI Steel

Texas Instruments

P.D. George

Calhoun Pitch Company

Pixley Richards

Web Tool & Mfg.

Methode Electronics

Dynacircuits Mfg

Ferrite International

International Rectifier

Littlefuse

Murata Electronics

Parkview Metals

Photocircuits Atlanta

Ballast Type Served

Magnetic/electronic

Magnetic/electronic

Magnetic/electronic

Magnetic/electronic

Magnetic

Magnetic

Magnetic

Magnetic

Magnetic

Magnetic

Magnetic/electronic

Magnetic/electronic

Magnetic/electronic

Magnetic

Magnetic

Magnetic

Magnetic

Magnetic/electronic

Magnetic

Magnetic/electronic

Electronic

Electronic

Electronic

Electronic

Electronic

Electronic

Electronic

Electronic

Electronic

Electronic

Electronic

Material(s) Supplied

capacitors

capacitors

capacitors

magnet and lead wire

magnet wire

magnet wire

magnet wire

Case & CRML steels,

stamping

metal clamps

metal clamps

metallized film

metallized film

case & CRML steels

case & CRML steels

case & CRML steels

case & CRML steels

case & CRML steels

thermal protectors

wire coatings

potting materials

plastic bobbins

metal cases

wire connectors

circuit boards

ferrite cores

semiconductors

fuses

ceramic capacitors

Metal cases

circuit boards

(Shieldmate plastic insulators

6-34

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

to allow them to describe the impact new energy efficiency standards for ballasts might have on 

them. Eleven of these suppliers served magnetic ballast production, eleven electronic ballast 

production, and nine suppliers served both magnetic and electronic products. 

Sixteen of the 20 organizations serving magnetic ballast applications participated in 

interviews and/or provided plant tours. Five organizations hosted plant tours as well as interviews. 

Eleven of the 20 organizations serving electronic ballast applications participated in interviews. Four 

of these hosted plant tours as well. 

Table 6B.l Supplier CODlJ!anies Invited to Participate in Interviews. 

Organization Name Ballast Type Served Material(s) Supplied 

Advance Transformer Capacitors Magnetic/electronic capacitors 

Aerovox Magnetic/electronic capacitors 

MagneTek Capacitors Magnetic/electronic capacitors 

MagneTek Wire Magnetic/electronic magnet and lead wire 

Optec Sales, Inc. Magnetic magnet wire 

Phelps Dodge Mag Wire Magnetic magnet wire 

Rea Magnet Wire Magnetic magnet wire 

Tempel Steel Co. Magnetic Case & CRML steels, 

stamping 

United Tool & S--NJ Magnetic metal clamps 

United Tool & S--TN Magnetic metal clamps 

Bolmet, Inc. Magnetic/electronic metallized film 

SteinerfIlm Magnetic/electronic metallized film 

Armco Steel Magnetic/electronic case & CRML steels 

Inland Steel Magnetic case & CRML steels 

LTV Steel Magnetic case & CRML steels 

USXCorp. Magnetic case & CRML steels 

WCI Steel Magnetic case & CRML steels 

Texas Instruments Magnetic/electronic thermal protectors 

P.D. George Magnetic wire coatings 

Calhoun Pitch Company Magnetic/electronic potting materials 

Pixley Richards Electronic plastic bobbins 

Web Tool & Mfg. Electronic metal cases 

Methode Electronics Electronic wire connectors 

Dynacircuits Mfg Electronic circuit boards 

Ferrite International Electronic ferrite cores 

International Rectifier Electronic semiconductors 

Littlefuse Electronic fuses 

Murata Electronics Electronic ceramic capacitors 

Parkview Metals Electronic Metal cases 

Photocircuits Atlanta Electronic circuit boards 

Shieldmate Electronic plastic insulators 

6-34 

to allow them to describe the impact new energy efficiency standards for ballasts might have on 

them. Eleven of these suppliers served magnetic ballast production, eleven electronic ballast 

production, and nine suppliers served both magnetic and electronic products. 

Sixteen of the 20 organizations serving magnetic ballast applications participated in 

interviews and/or provided plant tours. Five organizations hosted plant tours as well as interviews. 

Eleven of the 20 organizations serving electronic ballast applications participated in interviews. Four 

of these hosted plant tours as well. 

Table 6B.l Supplier Companies Invited to Participate in Interviews. 

Organization Name Ballast Type Served Material(s) Supplied 

Advance Transformer Capacitors Magnetic/electronic capacitors 

Aerovox Magnetic/electronic capacitors 

MagneTek Capacitors Magnetic/electronic capacitors 

MagneTek Wire Magnetic/electronic magnet and lead wire 

Optec Sales, Inc. Magnetic magnet wire 

Phelps Dodge Mag Wire Magnetic magnet wire 

Rea Magnet Wire Magnetic magnet wire 

Tempel Steel Co. Magnetic Case & CRML steels, 

stamping 

United Tool & S--NJ Magnetic metal clamps 

United Tool & S--TN Magnetic metal clamps 

Bolmet, Inc. Magnetic/electronic metallized film 

SteinerfIlm Magnetic/electronic metallized film 

Armco Steel Magnetic/electronic case & CRML steels 

Inland Steel Magnetic case & CRML steels 

LTV Steel Magnetic case & CRML steels 

USXCorp. Magnetic case & CRML steels 

WCI Steel Magnetic case & CRML steels 

Texas Instruments Magnetic/electronic thermal protectors 

P.D. George Magnetic wire coatings 

Calhoun Pitch Company Magnetic/electronic potting materials 

Pixley Richards Electronic plastic bobbins 

Web Tool & Mfg. Electronic metal cases 

Methode Electronics Electronic wire connectors 

Dynacircuits Mfg Electronic circuit boards 

Ferrite International Electronic ferrite cores 

International Rectifier Electronic semiconductors 

Littlefuse Electronic fuses 

Murata Electronics Electronic ceramic capacitors 

Parkview Metals Electronic Metal cases 

Photocircuits Atlanta Electronic circuit boards 

Shieldmate Electronic plastic insulators 

6-34 
6B.1. Impacts On Suppliers to Both Magnetic And Electronic Ballast Production

The industries supplying materials and/or components for magnetic ballasts frequently also

serve electronic ballasts, although in some cases the individual companies are different. To the extent

that materials and/or components for electronic and magnetic ballasts overlap, they are considered

in this section. We used information from the literature and from ballast manufacturers to establish

preliminary estimates of the important financial and employment factors of production and

interviewed supplier plant personnel to gather more detailed financial and employment information

from them.

6B.1.1 Cost of Materials for Magnetic Ballast

An estimated bill of materials fora 21740T I2 magnetic ballast, developed through discussions

with ballast manufacturers, had a distribution of costs among material categories as shown in Figure

613, 1. The interviews with suppliers yielded a second distribution of prices charged by suppliers for

the same categories of materials. The interview results are shown in Figure 6B.2. Comparison of the

figures indicates reasonable agreement between the benchmark and the interview results and implies

that reliable information was obtained through the interviews for the important material costs going

into magnetic ballasts. The suppliers interviewed represent components and materials that account

for approximately 91 % of the average ballast cost of materials.

The "coverage" of each category of ballast component represented by the interviewed

suppliers is approximated as follows:

Capacitors: Approximately 57% (including some captive capacity) of the capacitors

supplying the 31.5 million "affected" magnetic ballasts were reported by the

interviewees. Virtually all the remaining are produced by ballast manufacturers' wholly

owned subsidiaries. The impacts for these subsidiaries are covered in the calculation of

ballast manufacturer impacts. Thus one or the other impact analysis accounts for nearly

100% ofthe capacitors for magnetic ballasts and metallized film capacitors for electronic

ballasts. Coverage of capacitors serving electronic ballasts was less comprehensive

because of the greater variety in capacitor types and less availability of domestic

suppliers for interviews.

® Magnet and lead wire: Approximately 36 million pounds of lead and magnet wire are

needed to supply 31.5 million "affected" magnetic ballasts, assuming.65 lb/F40 and 1.67

lb/F96 magnet wire and 20ft of lead wire per ballast. Respondents over-reported this

about 10% at 39.7 million lb., within the error of the assumptions and consistent with

100% coverage of wire suppliers. Some of the same suppliers can serve the electronic

ballast market, which requires only about one fourth the magnet wire per ballast for a

smaller number of ballasts. Finally wire connectors are used in place of lead wire in some

electronic ballasts, so this industry was considered and interviewed as well.

® Thermal protectors and metal clamps: All 31.5 million "affected" thermal protectors

6-35

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

68.1. Impacts On Suppliers to Both Magnetic And Electronic Ballast Production 

The industries supplying materials and/or components for magnetic ballasts frequently also 

serve electronic ballasts, although in some cases the individual companies are different. To the extent 

that materials and/or components for electronic and magnetic ballasts overlap, they are considered 

in this section. We used information from the literature and from ballast manufacturers to establish 

preliminary estimates of the important financial and employment factors of production and 

interviewed supplier plant personnel to gather more detailed financial and employment infoffilation 

from them. 

68.1.1 Cost of Materials for Magnetic Ballast 

An estimated bill of materials for a 2F40T12 magnetic ballast, developed through discussions 

with ballast manufacturers, had a distribution of costs among material categories as shown in Figure 

6B.l. The interviews with suppliers yielded a second distribution of prices charged by suppliers for 

the same categories of materials. The interview results are shown in Figure 6B.2. Comparison of the 

figures indicates reasonable agreement between the benchmark and the interview results and implies 

that reliable information was obtained through the interviews for the important material costs going 

into magnetic ballasts. The suppliers interviewed represent components and materials that account 

for approximately 91 % of the average ballast cost of materials. 

The "coverage" of each category of ballast component represented by the interviewed 

suppliers is approximated as follows: 

.. Capacitors: Approximately 57% (including some captive capacity) of the capacitors 

supplying the 31.5 million "affected" magnetic ballasts· were reported by the 

interviewees. Virtually all the remaining are produced by ballast manufacturers' wholly 

owned subsidiaries. The impacts for these subsidiaries are covered in the calculation of 

ballast manufacturer impacts. Thus one or the other impact analysis accounts for nearly 

100% ofthe capacitors for magnetic ballasts and metallized film capacitors for electronic 

ballasts. Coverage of capacitors serving electronic ballasts was less comprehensive 

because of the greater variety in capacitor types and less availability of domestic 

suppliers for interviews. 

.. Magnet and lead wire: Approximately 36 million pounds of lead and magnet wire are 

needed to supply 31.5 million "affected" magnetic ballasts, assuming .651b/F40 and 1.67 

Ib/F96 magnet wire and 20ft of lead wire per ballast. Respondents over-reported this 

about 10% at 39.7 million lb., within the error of the assumptions and consistent with 

100% coverage of wire suppliers. Some of the same suppliers can serve the electronic 

ballast market, which requires only about one fourth the magnet wire per ballast for a 

smaller number of ballasts. Finally wire connectors are used in place oflead wire in some 

electronic ballasts, so this industry was considered and interviewed as well. 

• Thermal protectors and metal clamps: All 31.5 million "affected" thermal protectors 

6-35 

68.1. Impacts On Suppliers to Both Magnetic And Electronic Ballast Production 

The industries supplying materials and/or components for magnetic ballasts frequently also 

serve electronic ballasts, although in some cases the individual companies are different. To the extent 

that materials and/or components for electronic and magnetic ballasts overlap, they are considered 

in this section. We used information from the literature and from ballast manufacturers to establish 

preliminary estimates of the important financial and employment factors of production and 

interviewed supplier plant personnel to gather more detailed financial and employment infoffilation 

from them. 

68.1.1 Cost of Materials for Magnetic Ballast 

An estimated bill of materials for a 2F40T12 magnetic ballast, developed through discussions 

with ballast manufacturers, had a distribution of costs among material categories as shown in Figure 

6B.l. The interviews with suppliers yielded a second distribution of prices charged by suppliers for 

the same categories of materials. The interview results are shown in Figure 6B.2. Comparison of the 

figures indicates reasonable agreement between the benchmark and the interview results and implies 

that reliable information was obtained through the interviews for the important material costs going 

into magnetic ballasts. The suppliers interviewed represent components and materials that account 

for approximately 91 % of the average ballast cost of materials. 

The "coverage" of each category of ballast component represented by the interviewed 

suppliers is approximated as follows: 

.. Capacitors: Approximately 57% (including some captive capacity) of the capacitors 

supplying the 31.5 million "affected" magnetic ballasts· were reported by the 

interviewees. Virtually all the remaining are produced by ballast manufacturers' wholly 

owned subsidiaries. The impacts for these subsidiaries are covered in the calculation of 

ballast manufacturer impacts. Thus one or the other impact analysis accounts for nearly 

100% ofthe capacitors for magnetic ballasts and metallized film capacitors for electronic 

ballasts. Coverage of capacitors serving electronic ballasts was less comprehensive 

because of the greater variety in capacitor types and less availability of domestic 

suppliers for interviews. 

.. Magnet and lead wire: Approximately 36 million pounds of lead and magnet wire are 

needed to supply 31.5 million "affected" magnetic ballasts, assuming .651b/F40 and 1.67 

Ib/F96 magnet wire and 20ft of lead wire per ballast. Respondents over-reported this 

about 10% at 39.7 million lb., within the error of the assumptions and consistent with 

100% coverage of wire suppliers. Some of the same suppliers can serve the electronic 

ballast market, which requires only about one fourth the magnet wire per ballast for a 

smaller number of ballasts. Finally wire connectors are used in place oflead wire in some 

electronic ballasts, so this industry was considered and interviewed as well. 

• Thermal protectors and metal clamps: All 31.5 million "affected" thermal protectors 

6-35 
were covered by interviewed suppliers, and 36.1 of 63 million (57%) stamped end

clamps for laminations were considered. Some electronic ballasts also employ thermal

protectors, and these were covered by the interviews also. We held discussions with

potting and impregnating compound suppliers serving over half the magnetic and

domestic electronic ballast markets.

Cold rolled steel for cases and motor laminate (CRML) steel for ballast transformers:

Interviewed suppliers reported sales of steel for ballast cases and metal lamination

accounting for 25.9 of 31.5 million "affected" magnetic ballasts representing 82%

coverage. Some of these suppliers also serve the electronic ballast industry. Some

electronic ballast manufacturers purchase finished cases, and the industry supplying these

cases is represented among the interviewees.

Other: The remaining supplier industries represent approximately 9% of the cost of

materials for magnetic ballasts and are generally small contributors to the totals.

Materials and components included in this category include terminal boards, labels, and

miscellaneous paper and tape products. Values for their economic and employment

impacts were estimated by pro-rating the values for the above industries representing the

other 91 %.

Other

13%

Capacitors

17%

Steel case &

CRML

21%

Thermal Magnet&lead

protect, wire

clamps, 34%

potting

Figure 6B.1 Cost Distribution Provided by Ballast Manufacturers

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

were covered by interviewed suppliers, and 36.1 of 63 million (57%) stamped end 

clamps for laminations were considered. Some electronic ballasts also employ thermal 

protectors, and these were covered by the interviews also. We held discussions with 

potting and impregnating compound suppliers serving over half the magnetic and 

domestic electronic ballast markets. 

.. Cold rolled steel for cases and motor laminate (CRML) steel for ballast transformers: 

Interviewed suppliers reported sales of steel for ballast cases and metal lamination 

accounting for 25.9 of 31.5 million "affected" magnetic ballasts representing 82% 

coverage. Some of these suppliers also serve the electronic ballast industry. Some 

electronic ballast manufacturers purchase finished cases, and the industry supplying these 

cases is represented among the interviewees. 

" Other: The remaining supplier industries represent approximately 9% of the cost of 

materials for magnetic ballasts and are generally small contributors to the totals. 

Materials and components included in this category include terminal boards, labels, and 

miscellaneous paper and tape products. Values for their economic and employment 

impacts were estimated by pro-rating the values for the above industries representing the 

other 91%. 

Other 

13% 

Capacitors 

17% 

Thermal 

protect, 

clamps, 

potting 

1!'i% 

Steel case & 

CRML 

21% 

wire 

34% 

Figure 6B.l Cost Distribution Provided by Ballast Manufacturers 

6-36 

were covered by interviewed suppliers, and 36.1 of 63 million (57%) stamped end 

clamps for laminations were considered. Some electronic ballasts also employ thermal 

protectors, and these were covered by the interviews also. We held discussions with 

potting and impregnating compound suppliers serving over half the magnetic and 

domestic electronic ballast markets. 

.. Cold rolled steel for cases and motor laminate (CRML) steel for ballast transformers: 

Interviewed suppliers reported sales of steel for ballast cases and metal lamination 

accounting for 25.9 of 31.5 million "affected" magnetic ballasts representing 82% 

coverage. Some of these suppliers also serve the electronic ballast industry. Some 

electronic ballast manufacturers purchase finished cases, and the industry supplying these 

cases is represented among the interviewees. 

" Other: The remaining supplier industries represent approximately 9% of the cost of 

materials for magnetic ballasts and are generally small contributors to the totals. 

Materials and components included in this category include terminal boards, labels, and 

miscellaneous paper and tape products. Values for their economic and employment 

impacts were estimated by pro-rating the values for the above industries representing the 

other 91%. 

Other 

13% 

Capacitors 

17% 

Thermal 

protect, 

clamps, 

potting 

1!'i% 

Steel case & 

CRML 

21% 

wire 

34% 

Figure 6B.l Cost Distribution Provided by Ballast Manufacturers 

6-36 
Capacitors

16%

Thermal protect,

clamps, potting

12%

Figure 6B.2 Suppliers' Distribution of Revenues

Two secondary supplier industries, wire enamel and metallized film, provided some data that

was used to supplement the employment impact estimates.

The high fraction of supplier industry coverage by the interviews and the good agreement

between the benchmark cost of materials, Figure 6B. 1, and that derived from interview data

presented in Figure 6B.2 suggest that the sample of organizations interviewed is representative of

the primary supplier industries as a whole. The estimated cost of materials for the weighted average

"affected" magnetic ballast, including the F96 sizes is shown in Figure 6B.3. The additional magnet

wire required for the F96 ballast types is reflected in the distribution of costs or supplier revenues

shown in Figure 6B.3. Because magnet wire suppliers were covered by the interviews, the fraction

of "other" materials shown in Figure 6B.3 is only 9%.

Figure 6B.3 Cost of Materials for "Affected" Magnetic Ballasts

6-37

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Capacitors 

16% 

Other 

15% 

Steel case & 

CRM.. 

24% 

wire 

33% 

Figure 6B.2 Suppliers' Distribution of Revenues 

Two secondary supplier industries, wire enamel and metallized film, provided some data that 

was used to supplement the employment impact estimates. 

The high fraction of supplier industry coverage by the interviews and the good agreement 

between the benchmark cost of materials, Figure 6B.l, and that derived from interview data 

presented in Figure 6B.2 suggest that the sample of organizations interviewed is representative of 

the primary supplier industries as a whole. The estimated cost of materials for the weighted average 

"affected" magnetic ballast, including the F96 sizes is shown in Figure 6B.3. The additional magnet 

wire required for the F96 ballast types is reflected in the distribution of costs or supplier revenues 

shown in Figure 6B.3. Because magnet wire suppliers were covered by the interviews, the fraction 

of "other" materials shown in Figure 6B.3 is only 9%. 

Capacitors 

16% 

Thermal 

protect, 

clamps, 

potting 

12% 

Other 

9% Steel case & 

CRML 

23% 

wire 

40% 

Figure 6B.3 Cost of Materials for "Affected" Magnetic Ballasts 

6-37 

Capacitors 

16% 

Other 

15% 

Steel case & 

CRM.. 

24% 

wire 

33% 

Figure 6B.2 Suppliers' Distribution of Revenues 

Two secondary supplier industries, wire enamel and metallized film, provided some data that 

was used to supplement the employment impact estimates. 

The high fraction of supplier industry coverage by the interviews and the good agreement 

between the benchmark cost of materials, Figure 6B.l, and that derived from interview data 

presented in Figure 6B.2 suggest that the sample of organizations interviewed is representative of 

the primary supplier industries as a whole. The estimated cost of materials for the weighted average 

"affected" magnetic ballast, including the F96 sizes is shown in Figure 6B.3. The additional magnet 

wire required for the F96 ballast types is reflected in the distribution of costs or supplier revenues 

shown in Figure 6B.3. Because magnet wire suppliers were covered by the interviews, the fraction 

of "other" materials shown in Figure 6B.3 is only 9%. 

Capacitors 

16% 

Thermal 

protect, 

clamps, 

potting 

12% 

Other 

9% Steel case & 

CRML 

23% 

wire 

40% 

Figure 6B.3 Cost of Materials for "Affected" Magnetic Ballasts 

6-37 
Some of the capacitors, magnet wire, and lead wire contributing to the costs shown in Figure

6B.3 are attributable to captive plants owned and operated by the ballast manufacturers. These

"captive" suppliers are not included in the supplier impacts because they are included in the

manufacturer impact analysis. Although the captive supplier's financial and employment

contributions are excluded from the results of the supplier analysis, data from these sources was

useful in establishing reliable values for industry-wide financial and employment variables. In

categories where few suppliers were interviewed, captive supplier cost data was also aggregated with

supplier data to maintain confidentiality.

Only a very small fraction of the cost of materials for "affected" magnetic ballasts can be

attributed to sources outside the U.S. This amounted to only about 0.25 million capacitors produced

by non-captive plants. This quarter million capacitors, like the captive capacitors, magnet wire, and

lead wire, is subtracted from the shipments required to serve the 31.5 million "affected" magnetic

ballasts for the purposes of the financial and employment impact calculations to follow.

6B.1.2 Suppliers Serving both Magnetic and Electronic Ballast Manufacturers

Supplier interviews assessed the importance of the "affected" magnetic ballast business for

each supplier to the magnetic ballast industry.

Capacitors: The largest suppliers of capacitors for "affected" magnetic ballasts are the ballast

manufacturers themselves, and the profitability of these plants or profit centers tends to depend

heavily on the production volumes of "affected" capacitors, in some cases 20 to over 50% of "sales"

for the plant. The independent capacitor manufacturer segment is more diversified with respect to

capacitor type and produces a greater variety of capacitors serving smaller, very competitive markets

in addition to magnetic and/or electronic ballasts. This non-captive segment regards the "affected"

capacitors as favorable products. This is because they generally are ordered in larger quantities with

longer production runs than most other capacitors and thereby provide stability to the use of capital

and labor that allows them to better compete for the smaller orders that make up much of the other

90% of their business.

Magnet and lead wire: This supplier segment is approximately 40% captive and the captive

plants are highly dependent on "affected" magnet wire production. The impacts on captive plants,

however, are incorporated into the ballast manufacturer impact analysis and, as explained earlier,

will be excluded from this supplier impact analysis. Among the non-captive suppliers, magnet wire

sales account for a wide range in fractions of total plant sales, from under 5% to about 25%. Industry

participants at the low end of this range expect to accommodate a continued decline in industry

shipments with small reductions in income and losses in employment. Plants more highly dependent

on magnet and/or lead wire, however, have a critical need to replace any lost sales from reductions

in magnetic ballast business, and development of such business is often a 3-5 year effort if

successful. Wire connectors are targeted at electronic ballasts but are considered along with suppliers

6-38

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Some of the capacitors, magnet wire, and lead wire contributing to the costs shown in Figure 

6B.3 are attributable to captive plants owned and operated by the ballast manufacturers. These 

"captive" suppliers are not included in the supplier impacts because they are included in the 

manufacturer impact analysis. Although the captive supplier's financial and employment 

contributions are excluded from the results of the supplier analysis, data from these sources was 

useful in establishing reliable values for industry-wide financial and employment variables. In 

categories where few suppliers were interviewed, captive supplier cost data was also aggregated with 

supplier data to maintain confidentiality. 

Only a very small fraction of the cost of materials for "affected" magnetic ballasts can be 

attributed to sources outside the U.S. This amounted to only about 0.25 million capacitors produced 

by non-captive plants. This quatier million capacitors, like the captive capacitors, magnet wire, and 

lead wire, is subtracted from the shipments required to serve the 31.5 million "affected" magnetic 

ballasts for the purposes of the financial and employment impact calculations to follow. 

6B.1.2 Suppliers Serving both Magnetic and Electronic Ballast Manufacturers 

Supplier interviews assessed the impOliance ofthe "affected" magnetic ballast business for 

each supplier to the magnetic ballast industry. 

Capacitors: The largest suppliers of capacitors for "affected" magnetic ballasts are the ballast 

manufacturers themselves, and the profitability of these plants or profit centers tends to depend 

heavily on the production volumes of "affected " capacitors, in some cases 20 to over 50% of "sales" 

for the plant. The independent capacitor manufacturer segment is more diversified with respect to 

capacitor type and produces a greater variety of capacitors serving smaller, very competitive markets 

in addition to magnetic and/or electronic ballasts. This non-captive segment regards the "affected" 

capacitors as favorable products. This is because they generally are ordered in larger quantities with 

longer production runs than most other capacitors and thereby provide stability to the use of capital 

and labor that allows them to better compete for the smaller orders that make up much ofthe other 

90% of their business. 

Magnet and lead wire: This supplier segment is approximately 40% captive and the captive 

plants are highly dependent on "affected" magnet wire production. The impacts on captive plants, 

however, are incorporated into the ballast manufacturer impact analysis and, as explained earlier, 

will be excluded from this supplier impact analysis. Among the non-captive suppliers, magnet wire 

sales account for a wide range in fractions of total plant sales, from under 5% to about 25%. Industry 

participants at the low end of this range expect to accommodate a continued decline in industry 

shipments with small reductions in income and losses in employment. Plants more highly dependent 

on magnet and/or lead wire, however, have a critical need to replace any lost sales from reductions 

in magnetic ballast business, and development of such business is often a 3-5 year effort if 

successful. Wire connectors are targeted at electronic ballasts but are considered along with suppliers 

6-38 

Some of the capacitors, magnet wire, and lead wire contributing to the costs shown in Figure 

6B.3 are attributable to captive plants owned and operated by the ballast manufacturers. These 

"captive" suppliers are not included in the supplier impacts because they are included in the 

manufacturer impact analysis. Although the captive supplier's financial and employment 

contributions are excluded from the results of the supplier analysis, data from these sources was 

useful in establishing reliable values for industry-wide financial and employment variables. In 

categories where few suppliers were interviewed, captive supplier cost data was also aggregated with 

supplier data to maintain confidentiality. 

Only a very small fraction of the cost of materials for "affected" magnetic ballasts can be 

attributed to sources outside the U.S. This amounted to only about 0.25 million capacitors produced 

by non-captive plants. This quatier million capacitors, like the captive capacitors, magnet wire, and 

lead wire, is subtracted from the shipments required to serve the 31.5 million "affected" magnetic 

ballasts for the purposes of the financial and employment impact calculations to follow. 

6B.1.2 Suppliers Serving both Magnetic and Electronic Ballast Manufacturers 

Supplier interviews assessed the impOliance ofthe "affected" magnetic ballast business for 

each supplier to the magnetic ballast industry. 

Capacitors: The largest suppliers of capacitors for "affected" magnetic ballasts are the ballast 

manufacturers themselves, and the profitability of these plants or profit centers tends to depend 

heavily on the production volumes of "affected " capacitors, in some cases 20 to over 50% of "sales" 

for the plant. The independent capacitor manufacturer segment is more diversified with respect to 

capacitor type and produces a greater variety of capacitors serving smaller, very competitive markets 

in addition to magnetic and/or electronic ballasts. This non-captive segment regards the "affected" 

capacitors as favorable products. This is because they generally are ordered in larger quantities with 

longer production runs than most other capacitors and thereby provide stability to the use of capital 

and labor that allows them to better compete for the smaller orders that make up much ofthe other 

90% of their business. 

Magnet and lead wire: This supplier segment is approximately 40% captive and the captive 

plants are highly dependent on "affected" magnet wire production. The impacts on captive plants, 

however, are incorporated into the ballast manufacturer impact analysis and, as explained earlier, 

will be excluded from this supplier impact analysis. Among the non-captive suppliers, magnet wire 

sales account for a wide range in fractions of total plant sales, from under 5% to about 25%. Industry 

participants at the low end of this range expect to accommodate a continued decline in industry 

shipments with small reductions in income and losses in employment. Plants more highly dependent 

on magnet and/or lead wire, however, have a critical need to replace any lost sales from reductions 

in magnetic ballast business, and development of such business is often a 3-5 year effort if 

successful. Wire connectors are targeted at electronic ballasts but are considered along with suppliers 

6-38 
to both magnetic and electronic ballast production because they can substitute for lead wire in

electronic ballasts.

Metal stamping: These plants are often small businesses set up to serve a small number of

important customers who purchase stamped parts in very large quantities. Dependence on "affected"

magnetic ballast parts ranged from just over 30 to nearly 100% among the participants in this market,

and these plants are highly dependent on sales of "affected" ballast products for survival in the short

term.

Thermal protectors: These components are supplied to the "affected" ballasts almost

exclusively by one supplier which dominates the thermal protector industry. Although the "affected"

ballast applications account for a small portion of plant revenues, the fraction is high enough to

seriously affect profitability relative to corporate requirements. These thermal protectors are used

in some electronic ballasts also.

Specialty steel: Specialty steel suppliers are large steel companies with diversified product

mixes. Generally less than 5% of their production capacity is allocated to ballast components. This

market is important to them primarily because there are no readily available other customers for this

product. As is the case with motor capacitors, the market for motor lamination steel is not growing

significantly and any reduction in sales to the ballast industry would not likely be recovered

elsewhere.

6B.1.3 Cash Flow Impacts

The financial variables for the major "affected" magnetic ballast supplier types are

summarized in the second and third columns of Table 2. Significant fractions of the capacitor,

magnet wire, and lead wire components used in "affected" ballasts are produced in-house by the

ballast manufacturers themselves, and this portion is excluded here to avoid double counting. Table

6B.2 also reflects the exclusion of 250,000 foreign-produced "affected" capacitors. Domestic

revenue per ballast for a component was estimated by multiplying the total cost of that component

per ballast times the fraction of the market served by domestic suppliers. The domestic and foreign

market shares were estimated by industry sources for each ballast component separately.

Many of the supplier industries for "affected" magnetic ballast production also supply their

electronic ballast equivalents, although in some cases the production facilities are different. A new

energy efficiency standard at the electronic ballast level could provide new markets for some ofthese

supplier industries. We have estimated the extent to which these new market opportunities can

mitigate the elimination of the $83 million in "affected" magnetic ballast component revenues. The

following paragraphs illustrate the estimation procedure using capacitors as an example.

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

to both magnetic and electronic ballast production because they can substitute for lead wire in 

electronic ballasts. 

Metal stamping: These plants are often small businesses set up to serve a small number of 

important customers who purchase stamped parts in very large quantities. Dependence on "affected" 

magnetic ballast patis ranged fromjust over 30 to nearly 100% among the participants in this market, 

and these plants are highly dependent on sales of "affected" ballast products for survival in the short 

term. 

Thermal protectors: These components are supplied to the "affected" ballasts almost 

exclusively by one supplier which dominates the them1a1 protector industry. Although the "affected" 

ballast applications account for a small portion of plant revenues, the fraction is high enough to 

seriously affect profitability relative to corporate requirements. These thermal protectors are used 

in some electronic ballasts also. 

Specialty steel: Specialty steel suppliers are large steel companies with diversified product 

mixes. Generally less than 5% oftheir production capacity is allocated to ballast components. This 

market is important to them primarily because there are no readily available other customers for this 

product. As is the case with motor capacitors, the market for motor lamination steel is not growing 

significantly and any reduction in sales to the ballast industry would not likely be recovered 

elsewhere. 

6B.1.3 Cash Flow Impacts 

The financial variables for the major "affected" magnetic ballast supplier types are 

summarized in the second and third columns of Table 2. Significant fractions of the capacitor, 

magnet wire, and lead wire components used in "affected" ballasts are produced in-house by the 

ballast manufacturers themselves, and this portion is excluded here to avoid double counting. Table 

6B.2 also reflects the exclusion of 250,000 foreign-produced "affected" capacitors. Domestic 

revenue per ballast for a component was estimated by multiplying the total cost of that component 

per ballast times the fraction of the market served by domestic suppliers. The domestic and foreign 

market shares were estimated by industry sources for each ballast component separately. 

Many of the supplier industries for "affected" magnetic ballast production also supply their 

electronic ballast equivalents, although in some cases the production facilities are different. A new 

energy efficiency standard at the electronic ballast level could provide new markets for some ofthese 

supplier industries. We have estimated the extent to which these new market opportunities can 

mitigate the elimination of the $83 million in "affected" magnetic ballast component revenues. The 

following paragraphs illustrate the estimation procedure using capacitors as an example. 

6-39 

to both magnetic and electronic ballast production because they can substitute for lead wire in 

electronic ballasts. 

Metal stamping: These plants are often small businesses set up to serve a small number of 

important customers who purchase stamped parts in very large quantities. Dependence on "affected" 

magnetic ballast patis ranged fromjust over 30 to nearly 100% among the participants in this market, 

and these plants are highly dependent on sales of "affected" ballast products for survival in the short 

term. 

Thermal protectors: These components are supplied to the "affected" ballasts almost 

exclusively by one supplier which dominates the them1a1 protector industry. Although the "affected" 

ballast applications account for a small portion of plant revenues, the fraction is high enough to 

seriously affect profitability relative to corporate requirements. These thermal protectors are used 

in some electronic ballasts also. 

Specialty steel: Specialty steel suppliers are large steel companies with diversified product 

mixes. Generally less than 5% oftheir production capacity is allocated to ballast components. This 

market is important to them primarily because there are no readily available other customers for this 

product. As is the case with motor capacitors, the market for motor lamination steel is not growing 

significantly and any reduction in sales to the ballast industry would not likely be recovered 

elsewhere. 

6B.1.3 Cash Flow Impacts 

The financial variables for the major "affected" magnetic ballast supplier types are 

summarized in the second and third columns of Table 2. Significant fractions of the capacitor, 

magnet wire, and lead wire components used in "affected" ballasts are produced in-house by the 

ballast manufacturers themselves, and this portion is excluded here to avoid double counting. Table 

6B.2 also reflects the exclusion of 250,000 foreign-produced "affected" capacitors. Domestic 

revenue per ballast for a component was estimated by multiplying the total cost of that component 

per ballast times the fraction of the market served by domestic suppliers. The domestic and foreign 

market shares were estimated by industry sources for each ballast component separately. 

Many of the supplier industries for "affected" magnetic ballast production also supply their 

electronic ballast equivalents, although in some cases the production facilities are different. A new 

energy efficiency standard at the electronic ballast level could provide new markets for some ofthese 

supplier industries. We have estimated the extent to which these new market opportunities can 

mitigate the elimination of the $83 million in "affected" magnetic ballast component revenues. The 

following paragraphs illustrate the estimation procedure using capacitors as an example. 

6-39 
Table 6B.2 Estimated Financial Factors for Domestic "Affected" Magnetic Ballast and

Selected Electronic Ballast Supplier Industries

"AFFECTED"

MAGNETIC

ELECTRONIC

SUPPLIER INDUSTRY REVENU

E PER

BALLAST

ESTIMATE

D 1997

SALES'

$Millions

REVENUE PER

BALLAST

ESTIMATED 1997

SALES'

$Millions

Capacitors $.62 $3.1 $1.21 $3.99

Magnet & Lead Wire,

Connectors

1.48 26.4 .60 3.82

Thermal Protectors,

Clamps, Potting

.45 14.2 .23 3.69

Steel Case & CRML .89 28.0 .61 6.19

Other2 .36 11.3 .16 2.32

TOTAL $ 83.00 $20.01

Excluding shipments from captive and non-domestic plants.

z Miscellaneous "affected " components and three electronic matching components (paper, tape, and label).

Capacitors: The revenue per ballast for capacitors used in magnetic ballasts is taken from the

cost of materials developed for an average "affected" magnetic ballast as presented in 6B. 3. The

number of "affected" ballasts is assumed to be 31.5 million in 1997 shipments, but a substantial

portion of capacitors are produced in captive plants owned and operated by ballast manufacturers

and a small number are manufactured outside ofthe domestic U.S. The focus of the supplier analysis

is on the impact a new energy efficiency standard will have on domestic supplier industries, so the

non-domestic production is excluded from the estimated sales. The captive plants are considered in

the ballast manufacturer impact analysis, where the financial and employment impacts of a new

standard are estimated and those impacts include contributions from the capacitor operations. Thus

"affected" magnetic ballast shipments and their direct electronic replacements containing captive

capacitors are excluded to avoid double counting. The result of these exclusions is to reduce the

shipments of "affected" magnetic ballast capacitors in 1997 to those required to serve about 5 million

"affected" magnetic ballasts, which generate about $3 million in industry revenues.

Electronic ballasts for linear lamp fixtures require about 8-10 capacitors each and include

ceramic, metallized polyester film, metallized polypropylene film, and electrolytic types. The total

estimated cost of capacitors per average electronic ballast replacing the average "affected" magnetic

ballast is approximately $1.21. We estimate that about 60% of the ceramic, all the metallized

polyester film, 70% of the polypropylene film and half the electrolytic type purchased by North

American plants are of foreign origin. In addition, some film capacitors are manufactured by captive

capacity. We exclude these foreign and captive capacitors from the domestic sales

reported in Table 6B.2. The revenue in $ millions provided the domestic supplier industry by a given

electronic ballast manufacturer is:

MFGR J = 23.6x106 x mktshares x f action domestics x fraction_noncaptive, x cap price

6-40

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table 6B.2 Estimated Financial Factors for Domestic "Affected" Magnetic Ballast and 

SId e ecte EI ectromc . B a II as t SrI UpPJ ler n d us t' nes 

"AFFECTED" ELECTRONIC 

MAGNETIC 

SUPPLIER INDUSTRY REVENU ESTIMATE REVENUE PER ESTIMATED 1997 

EPER D 1997 BALLAST SALESl 

BALLAST SALESl $MiHions 

$Millions 

Capacitors $.62 $3.1 $1.21 $3.99 

Magnet & Lead Wire, 1.48 26.4 .60 3.82 

Connectors 

Thermal Protectors, .45 14.2 .23 3.69 

Clamps, Potting 

Steel Case & CRML .89 28.0 .61 6.19 

Other2 .36 11.3 .16 2.32 

TOTAL $83.00 $20.01 

I Excluding shipments from captive and non-domestIc plants. 

2 Miscellaneous "affected" components and three electronic matching components (paper, tape, and label). 

Capacitors: The revenue per ballast for capacitors used in magnetic ballasts is taken from the 

cost of materials developed for an average "affected" magnetic ballast as presented in 6B. 3. The 

number of "affected" ballasts is assumed to be 31.5 million in 1997 shipments, but a substantial 

portion of capacitors are produced in captive plants owned and operated by ballast manufacturers 

and a small number are manufactured outside ofthe domestic U.S. The focus of the supplier analysis 

is on the impact a new energy efficiency standard will have on domestic supplier industries, so the 

non-domestic production is excluded from the estimated sales. The captive plants are considered in 

the ballast manufacturer impact analysis, where the financial and employment impacts of a new 

standard are estimated and those impacts include contributions from the capacitor operations. Thus 

"affected" magnetic ballast shipments and their direct electronic replacements containing captive 

capacitors are excluded to avoid double counting. The result of these exclusions is to reduce the 

shipments of "affected" magnetic ballast capacitors in 1997 to those required to serve about 5 million 

"affected" magnetic ballasts, which generate about $3 million in industry revenues. 

Electronic ballasts for linear lamp fixtures require about 8-10 capacitors each and include 

ceramic, metallized polyester film, metallized polypropylene film, and electrolytic types. The total 

estimated cost of capacitors per average electronic ballast replacing the average "affected" magnetic 

ballast is approximately $1.21. We estimate that about 60% of the ceramic, all the metallized 

polyester film, 70% of the polypropylene film and half the electrolytic type purchased by North 

American plants are of foreign origin. In addition, some film capacitors are manufactured by captive 

capacity. We exclude these foreign and captive capacitors from the domestic sales 

reported in Table 6B.2. The revenue in $ millions provided the domestic supplier industry by a given 

electronic ballast manufacturer is: 

MFGR} = 23.6xl06 x mktshare} xfractiol1_domestic} xfractiol1_l1oncaptive} x capyrice 

6-40 

Table 6B.2 Estimated Financial Factors for Domestic "Affected" Magnetic Ballast and 

SId e ecte EI ectromc . B a II as t SrI UpPJ ler n d us t' nes 

"AFFECTED" ELECTRONIC 

MAGNETIC 

SUPPLIER INDUSTRY REVENU ESTIMATE REVENUE PER ESTIMATED 1997 

EPER D 1997 BALLAST SALESl 

BALLAST SALESl $MiHions 

$Millions 

Capacitors $.62 $3.1 $1.21 $3.99 

Magnet & Lead Wire, 1.48 26.4 .60 3.82 

Connectors 

Thermal Protectors, .45 14.2 .23 3.69 

Clamps, Potting 

Steel Case & CRML .89 28.0 .61 6.19 

Other2 .36 11.3 .16 2.32 

TOTAL $83.00 $20.01 

I Excluding shipments from captive and non-domestIc plants. 

2 Miscellaneous "affected" components and three electronic matching components (paper, tape, and label). 

Capacitors: The revenue per ballast for capacitors used in magnetic ballasts is taken from the 

cost of materials developed for an average "affected" magnetic ballast as presented in 6B. 3. The 

number of "affected" ballasts is assumed to be 31.5 million in 1997 shipments, but a substantial 

portion of capacitors are produced in captive plants owned and operated by ballast manufacturers 

and a small number are manufactured outside ofthe domestic U.S. The focus of the supplier analysis 

is on the impact a new energy efficiency standard will have on domestic supplier industries, so the 

non-domestic production is excluded from the estimated sales. The captive plants are considered in 

the ballast manufacturer impact analysis, where the financial and employment impacts of a new 

standard are estimated and those impacts include contributions from the capacitor operations. Thus 

"affected" magnetic ballast shipments and their direct electronic replacements containing captive 

capacitors are excluded to avoid double counting. The result of these exclusions is to reduce the 

shipments of "affected" magnetic ballast capacitors in 1997 to those required to serve about 5 million 

"affected" magnetic ballasts, which generate about $3 million in industry revenues. 

Electronic ballasts for linear lamp fixtures require about 8-10 capacitors each and include 

ceramic, metallized polyester film, metallized polypropylene film, and electrolytic types. The total 

estimated cost of capacitors per average electronic ballast replacing the average "affected" magnetic 

ballast is approximately $1.21. We estimate that about 60% of the ceramic, all the metallized 

polyester film, 70% of the polypropylene film and half the electrolytic type purchased by North 

American plants are of foreign origin. In addition, some film capacitors are manufactured by captive 

capacity. We exclude these foreign and captive capacitors from the domestic sales 

reported in Table 6B.2. The revenue in $ millions provided the domestic supplier industry by a given 

electronic ballast manufacturer is: 

MFGR} = 23.6xl06 x mktshare} xfractiol1_domestic} xfractiol1_l1oncaptive} x capyrice 

6-40 
Performing this calculation for each manufacturer and each capacitor type and summing over

all ballast manufacturers yields an estimated total revenue to the domestic capacitor industries of

$3.99 million as indicated in Table 6B.2. Thus although the value of capacitors contained in the 23.6

million ballasts representing the new market is over $28 million, only about $4 million represents

revenue to domestic, non-captive suppliers. Still, the capacitor industries group is the only example

in Table 6B.2 of actual growth in industry sales after the standard. Conversion costs to build the

capacity required to produce the new capacitors are primarily associated with metallized film

capacitors and amount to approximately $1-1.2 million if the standard year is 2003.

The estimation procedure can be summarized as a simple three-step process:

® Determine the cost of each component on a per-ballast basis,

® Estimate the domestic and non-captive fractions of each component for each ballast

manufacturer, and

• Apply the previous equation for each ballast manufacturer and component combination

and sum the results. The total magnetic ballast market involved will be 31.5 million

rather than the 23.6 million shown in the equation, which illustrates an electronic ballast

example. The "revenue per ballast" in Table 6B.2 represents the total cost per ballast of

the components in each supplier industry grouping, and the sales amount represents the

revenue received by U.S. domestic suppliers.

The domestic content or revenue per ballast has been shown for magnetic ballasts in Figure

6B.3. The equivalent discussion of materials costs and supplier revenues for electronic ballasts is

outlined in Section 6B.2.4. Maximum shipments are 31.5 million "affected" magnetic ballasts and

23.6 million electronic ballasts that would replace them in the event of an electronic standard. Each

supplier industry was considered separately and the results combined into the five groups shown in

Table 6B.2. The industries included in the analysis included four types of capacitors, magnet wire,

lead wire, wire connectors, thermal protectors, metal clamps, potting and impregnation compounds,

cold rolled steel for cases, fabricated steel cases, cold rolled motor lamination steel, and some

miscellaneous industries classified as "other".

The measure used to characterize the financial value of the industries is the net present value

(NPV) of the industry cash. flow under a specified set of conditions. The annual sales for each

industry, along with the profitability, depreciation, discount rate, and capital expenditure rates

reported by supplier plants, were used to calculate NPV cash flow values under the two base case

scenarios. The NPV values are presented first as a reference case in Table 6B.3 and second as a

"worst case" in Table 6B.4. The reference case assumes that, in the event of an electronic standard,

domestic suppliers to the electronic ballast industry will maintain their 1997 shares in serving the

new electronic ballasts. The "worst case" assumes that domestic suppliers will lose all the new

market to foreign suppliers.

6-41

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Perfonning this calculation for each manu facturer and each capacitor type and summing over 

all ballast manufacturers yields an estimated total revenue to the domestic capacitor industries of 

$3.99 million as indicated in Table 6B.2. Thus although the value of capacitors contained in the 23.6 

million ballasts representing the new market is over $28 million, only about $4 million represents 

revenue to domestic, non-captive suppliers. Still, the capacitor industries group is the only example 

in Table 6B.2 of actual growth in industry sales after the standard. Conversion costs to build the 

capacity required to produce the new capacitors are primarily associated with metallized film 

capacitors and amount to approximately $1-1.2 million if the standard year is 2003. 

The estimation procedure can be summarized as a simple three-step process: 

" Detennine the cost of each component on a per-ballast basis, 

" Estimate the domestic and non-captive fractions of each component for each ballast 

manufacturer, and 

" Apply the previous equation for each ballast manufacturer and component combination 

and sum the results. The total magnetic ballast market involved will be 31.5 million 

rather than the 23.6 million shown in the equation, which illustrates an electronic ballast 

example. The "revenue per ballast" in Table 6B.2 represents the total cost per ballast of 

the components in each supplier industry grouping, and the sales amount represents the 

revenue received by U.S. domestic suppliers. 

The domestic content or revenue per ballast has been shown for magnetic ballasts in Figure 

6B.3. The equivalent discussion of materials costs and supplier revenues for electronic ballasts is 

outlined in Section 6B.2.4. Maximum shipments are 31.5 million "affected" magnetic ballasts and 

23.6 million electronic ballasts that would replace them in the event of an electronic standard. Each 

supplier industry was considered separately and the results combined into the five groups shown in 

Table 6B.2. The industries included in the analysis included four types of capacitors, magnet wire, 

lead wire, wire connectors, thennal protectors, metal clamps, potting and impregnation compounds, 

cold rolled steel for cases, fabricated steel cases, cold rolled motor lamination steel, and some 

miscellaneous industries classified as "other". 

The measure used to characterize the financial value of the industries is the net present value 

(NPV) of the industry cash flow under a specified set of conditions. The annual sales for each 

industry, along with the profitability, depreciation, discount rate, and capital expenditure rates 

reported by supplier plants, were used to calculate NPV cash flow values under the two base case 

scenarios. The NPV values are presented first as a reference case in Table 6B.3 and second as a 

"worst case" in Table 6B.4. The reference case assumes that, in the event of an electronic standard, 

domestic suppliers to the electronic ballast industry will maintain their 1997 shares in serving the 

new electronic ballasts. The "worst case" assumes that domestic suppliers will lose all the new 

market to foreign suppliers. 

6-41 

Perfonning this calculation for each manu facturer and each capacitor type and summing over 

all ballast manufacturers yields an estimated total revenue to the domestic capacitor industries of 

$3.99 million as indicated in Table 6B.2. Thus although the value of capacitors contained in the 23.6 

million ballasts representing the new market is over $28 million, only about $4 million represents 

revenue to domestic, non-captive suppliers. Still, the capacitor industries group is the only example 

in Table 6B.2 of actual growth in industry sales after the standard. Conversion costs to build the 

capacity required to produce the new capacitors are primarily associated with metallized film 

capacitors and amount to approximately $1-1.2 million if the standard year is 2003. 

The estimation procedure can be summarized as a simple three-step process: 

" Detennine the cost of each component on a per-ballast basis, 

" Estimate the domestic and non-captive fractions of each component for each ballast 

manufacturer, and 

" Apply the previous equation for each ballast manufacturer and component combination 

and sum the results. The total magnetic ballast market involved will be 31.5 million 

rather than the 23.6 million shown in the equation, which illustrates an electronic ballast 

example. The "revenue per ballast" in Table 6B.2 represents the total cost per ballast of 

the components in each supplier industry grouping, and the sales amount represents the 

revenue received by U.S. domestic suppliers. 

The domestic content or revenue per ballast has been shown for magnetic ballasts in Figure 

6B.3. The equivalent discussion of materials costs and supplier revenues for electronic ballasts is 

outlined in Section 6B.2.4. Maximum shipments are 31.5 million "affected" magnetic ballasts and 

23.6 million electronic ballasts that would replace them in the event of an electronic standard. Each 

supplier industry was considered separately and the results combined into the five groups shown in 

Table 6B.2. The industries included in the analysis included four types of capacitors, magnet wire, 

lead wire, wire connectors, thennal protectors, metal clamps, potting and impregnation compounds, 

cold rolled steel for cases, fabricated steel cases, cold rolled motor lamination steel, and some 

miscellaneous industries classified as "other". 

The measure used to characterize the financial value of the industries is the net present value 

(NPV) of the industry cash flow under a specified set of conditions. The annual sales for each 

industry, along with the profitability, depreciation, discount rate, and capital expenditure rates 

reported by supplier plants, were used to calculate NPV cash flow values under the two base case 

scenarios. The NPV values are presented first as a reference case in Table 6B.3 and second as a 

"worst case" in Table 6B.4. The reference case assumes that, in the event of an electronic standard, 

domestic suppliers to the electronic ballast industry will maintain their 1997 shares in serving the 

new electronic ballasts. The "worst case" assumes that domestic suppliers will lose all the new 

market to foreign suppliers. 

6-41 
Table 6B.3. Estimated NPV in $Millions for Industries Supplying Both Magnetic and

Electronic Ballasts, Assuming Domestic Supplier Industries Maintain Their 1997 Market

Shares

5% Scenario, 1998-2015 3% Scenario, 1998-2027

INDUSTRY Base Standar

d

Change Base Standar

d

Change

Capacitors 1.28 1.59 0.31 1.34 1.74 0.41

Magnet & Lead Wire,

Connectors

11.40 8.83 -2.57 12.39 9.27 -3.13

Thermal Protectors,

Clamps, Potting

8.55 7.05 -1.51 10.24 7.59 -2.65

Steel Case & CI2 16.59 12.45 -4.14 18.74 14.21 -4.53

Other 6.11 4.87 -1.23 6.81 5.18 -1.63

TOTAL 43.93 34.79 -9.14 49.52 37.07 -12.46

Table 6B.3 summarizes two scenarios.

® For the 5% scenario we assumed a base case wherein "affected" magnetic ballast

shipments decline from their 1997 level (The NPV considers 1998-2015 values with

1998 the base year.) to 10% of that level in 2015 while their electronic substitutes

increase proportionally. The standard case assumes the same rate of change in shipments

until 2003 when the "affected" magnetic ballast shipment level drops to zero and the

electronic substitutes rise to their maximum values. We use sales, profitability, and

depreciation values for the electronic substitutes to calculate the net cash flow and the

resultant net present value.

® For the 3% scenario we assumed a base case wherein "affected" ballast shipments

decline more slowly, 3% of 1997 shipments per year, to 10% of that level in 2027 while

electronic substitutes increase proportionally. The standard case in this scenario repeats

this rate of decline in shipments, and like the first scenario, drops the level of "affected"

ballasts to zero and adds electronic substitutes in 2003.

The results presented in Table 6B.3 indicate that in general the industry NPVs are lower for

the standard cases than for the base cases. Except for the case of capacitors, this is because the

substitute electronic ballast market is smaller than the "affected" magnetic ballast market and

because the equivalent materials and components used in each electronic ballast are smaller and

lower cost. Capacitor sales are higher for electronic in part because of the higher number of

capacitors per electronic ballast and in part because of a higher market penetration from non-captive

suppliers. The total impact on supplier cash flows for the 5% and 3% scenarios are -$9.1 million and

-$12.5million respectively.

Table 6B.3 assumes that all domestic supplier industries would capture the new market for

electronic ballast components to the same extent they had in 1997. Through discussions with

supplier industries it became apparent that there existed some uncertainty as to the probability that

ballast manufacturers would continue to source their components domestically in the event of an

6-42

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table 6B.3. Estimated NPV in $Millions for Industries Supplying Both Magnetic and 

Electronic Ballasts, Assuming Domestic Supplier Industries Maintain Their 1997 Market 

Shares 

5% Scenario, 1998-2015 3% Scenario, 1998-2027 

INDUSTRY Base Standar Change Base Standar Change 

d d 

Capacitors 1.28 1.59 0.31 1.34 1.74 0.41 

Magnet & Lead Wire, 11.40 8.83 -2.57 12.39 9.27 -3.13 

Connectors 

Thermal Protectors, 8.55 7.05 -1.51 10.24 7.59 -2.65 

Clamps, Potting 

Steel Case & CRML 16.59 12.45 -4.14 18.74 14.21 -4.53 

Other 6.11 4.87 -1.23 6.81 5.18 -1.63 

TOTAL 43.93 34.79 -9.14 49.52 37.07 -12.46 

Table 6B.3 summarizes two scenarios. 

<> For the 5% scenario we assumed a base case wherein "affected" magnetic ballast 

shipments decline from their 1997 level (The NPV considers 1998-2015 values with 

1998 the base year.) to 10% of that level in 2015 while their electronic substitutes 

increase proportionally. The standard case assumes the same rate of change in shipments 

until 2003 when the "affected" magnetic ballast shipment level drops to zero and the 

electronic substitutes rise to their maximum values. We use sales, profitability, and 

depreciation values for the electronic substitutes to calculate the net cash flow and the 

resultant net present value. 

• For the 3% scenario we assumed a base case wherein "affected" ballast shipments 

decline more slowly, 3% of 1997 shipments per year, to 10% of that level in 2027 while 

electronic substitutes increase proportionally. The standard case in this scenario repeats 

this rate of decline in shipments, and like the first scenario, drops the level of "affected" 

ballasts to zero and adds electronic substitutes in 2003. 

The results presented in Table 6B.3 indicate that in general the industry NPVs are lower for 

the standard cases than for the base cases. Except for the case of capacitors, this is because the 

substitute electronic ballast market is' smaller than the "affected" magnetic ballast market and 

because the equivalent materials and components used in each electronic ballast are smaller and 

lower cost. Capacitor sales are higher for electronic in part because of the higher number of 

capacitors per electronic ballast and in part because of a higher market penetration from non-captive 

suppliers. The total impact on supplier cash flows for the 5% and 3% scenarios are -$9. 1 million and 

-$ 12.5million respectively. 

Table 6B.3 assumes that all domestic supplier industries would capture the new market for 

electronic ballast components to the same extent they had in 1997. Through discussions with 

supplier industries it became apparent that there existed some uncertainty as to the probability that 

ballast manufacturers would continue to source their components domestically in the event of an 

6-42 

Table 6B.3. Estimated NPV in $Millions for Industries Supplying Both Magnetic and 

Electronic Ballasts, Assuming Domestic Supplier Industries Maintain Their 1997 Market 

Shares 

5% Scenario, 1998-2015 3% Scenario, 1998-2027 

INDUSTRY Base Standar Change Base Standar Change 

d d 

Capacitors 1.28 1.59 0.31 1.34 1.74 0.41 

Magnet & Lead Wire, 11.40 8.83 -2.57 12.39 9.27 -3.13 

Connectors 

Thermal Protectors, 8.55 7.05 -1.51 10.24 7.59 -2.65 

Clamps, Potting 

Steel Case & CRML 16.59 12.45 -4.14 18.74 14.21 -4.53 

Other 6.11 4.87 -1.23 6.81 5.18 -1.63 

TOTAL 43.93 34.79 -9.14 49.52 37.07 -12.46 

Table 6B.3 summarizes two scenarios. 

<> For the 5% scenario we assumed a base case wherein "affected" magnetic ballast 

shipments decline from their 1997 level (The NPV considers 1998-2015 values with 

1998 the base year.) to 10% of that level in 2015 while their electronic substitutes 

increase proportionally. The standard case assumes the same rate of change in shipments 

until 2003 when the "affected" magnetic ballast shipment level drops to zero and the 

electronic substitutes rise to their maximum values. We use sales, profitability, and 

depreciation values for the electronic substitutes to calculate the net cash flow and the 

resultant net present value. 

• For the 3% scenario we assumed a base case wherein "affected" ballast shipments 

decline more slowly, 3% of 1997 shipments per year, to 10% of that level in 2027 while 

electronic substitutes increase proportionally. The standard case in this scenario repeats 

this rate of decline in shipments, and like the first scenario, drops the level of "affected" 

ballasts to zero and adds electronic substitutes in 2003. 

The results presented in Table 6B.3 indicate that in general the industry NPVs are lower for 

the standard cases than for the base cases. Except for the case of capacitors, this is because the 

substitute electronic ballast market is' smaller than the "affected" magnetic ballast market and 

because the equivalent materials and components used in each electronic ballast are smaller and 

lower cost. Capacitor sales are higher for electronic in part because of the higher number of 

capacitors per electronic ballast and in part because of a higher market penetration from non-captive 

suppliers. The total impact on supplier cash flows for the 5% and 3% scenarios are -$9. 1 million and 

-$ 12.5million respectively. 

Table 6B.3 assumes that all domestic supplier industries would capture the new market for 

electronic ballast components to the same extent they had in 1997. Through discussions with 

supplier industries it became apparent that there existed some uncertainty as to the probability that 

ballast manufacturers would continue to source their components domestically in the event of an 

6-42 
electronic standard. To bracket the uncertainty separate cash flows were performed for the extreme

case where all components for electronic ballasts were purchased from foreign sources. The results

are presented in Table 6B.4.

Table 6B.4 Estimated Npv in $Millions for Industries Supplying Both Magnetic and

Electronic Ballasts, Assuming Foreign Suppliers Capture All the New Electronic Ballast

Market

5% Scenario, 1998-2015 3% Scenario, 1998-2027

INDUSTRY Base Stand

and

Change Base Standa

rd

Change

Capacitors 1.28 .89 -.39 1.34 .92 -0.41

Magnet & Lead Wire,

Connectors

11.40 8.06 -3.34 12.39 8.38 -4.03

Thermal Protectors,

Clamps, Potting

8.55 5.69 -2.86 10.24 5.92 -4.31

Steel Case & CRML 16.59 11.05 -5.54 18.74 11.54 -7.20

Other 6.11 4.13 -1.97 6.81 4.31 -2.50

TOTAL 43.93 29.82 -14.1 49.52 31.07 -18.45

6B.1.4 Employment Impacts

Tables 6B.5 and 6B.6 summarize the expected employment impacts for each of the

primary supplier industries and one secondary industry for the two base case shipment scenarios.

The methodology used to obtain these estimates is detailed in the following paragraphs.

Discussions with ballast manufacturers and suppliers allowed us to establish an estimated

"labor content" value for each of the materials and components studied in order to provide a

check on the reasonableness of job impact estimates reported through the interviews. Typically

this was done by obtaining values for labor hours required per unit of component or material

from two or more sources and by calculating an estimated labor cost per unit to compare with the

total cost of the material. We were able to estimate reasonable and internally consistent values

for labor content in terms of seconds of labor per ballast served and thereby estimate the

approximate labor hours or number of full time job equivalents associated with serving

"affected" magnetic ballasts. We used these estimates in conjunction with those provided directly

by the suppliers interviewed to determine the employment levels associated with "affected"

materials as of a reference year, 1998.

We assumed 1997 employment levels to decline by 3% and 5% for each of the four years

1998-2001 to arrive at the estimates shown in Tables 6B.5 and 6B.6. We assumed 2001

employment levels to remain constant in 2002 to serve the likely surge in demand during the last

two quarters of "affected" components production. The jobs lost and gained represent a snapshot

taken in the standard year 2003. The associated impact shown in the tables represents jobs

6-43

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

electronic standard. To bracket the uncertainty separate cash flows were perfonned for the extreme 

case where all components for electronic ballasts were purchased from foreign sources. The results 

are presented in Table 6B.4. 

Table 6B.4 Estimated Npv in $Millions for Industries Supplying Both Magnetic and 

Electronic Ballasts, Assuming Foreign Suppliers Capture All the New Electronic Ballast 

Market 

5% Scenario, 1998-2015 3% Scenario, 1998-2027 

INDUSTRY Base Stand Change Base Standa Change 

ard rd 

Capacitors 1.28 .89 -.39 1.34 .92 -0.41 

Magnet & Lead Wire, 11.40 8.06 -3.34 12.39 8.38 -4.03 

Connectors 

Thermal Protectors, 8.55 5.69 -2.86 10.24 5.92 -4.31 

Clamps, Pottin2 

Steel Case & CRML 16.59 11.05 -5.54 18.74 11.54 -7.20 

Other 6.11 4.13 -1.97 6.81 4.31 -2.50 

TOTAL 43.93 29.82 -14.1 49.52 31.07 -18.45 

6B.1.4 Employment Impacts 

Tables 6B.5 and 6B.6 summarize the expected employment impacts for each of the 

primary supplier industries and one secondary industry for the two base case shipment scenarios. 

The methodology used to obtain these estimates is detailed in the following paragraphs. 

Discussions with ballast manufacturers and suppliers allowed us to establish an estimated 

"labor content" value for each of the materials and components studied in order to provide a 

check on the reasonableness of job impact estimates reported through the interviews. Typically 

this was done by obtaining values for labor hours required per unit of component or material 

from two or more sources and by calculating an estimated labor cost per unit to compare with the 

total cost of the material. We were able to estimate reasonable and internally consistent values 

for labor content in terms of seconds of labor per ballast served and thereby estimate the 

approximate labor hours or number of full time job equivalents associated with serving 

"affected" magnetic ballasts. We used these estimates in conjunction with those provided directly 

by the suppliers interviewed to detennine the employment levels associated with "affected" 

materials as of a reference year, 1998. 

We assumed 1997 employment levels to decline by 3% and 5% for each of the four years 

1998-2001 to arrive at the estimates shown in Tables 6B.5 and 6B.6. We assumed 2001 

employment levels to remain constant in 2002 to serve the likely surge in demand during the last 

two quarters of "affected" components production. The jobs lost and gained represent a snapshot 

taken in the standard year 2003. The associated impact shown in the tables represents jobs 

6-43 

electronic standard. To bracket the uncertainty separate cash flows were perfonned for the extreme 

case where all components for electronic ballasts were purchased from foreign sources. The results 

are presented in Table 6B.4. 

Table 6B.4 Estimated Npv in $Millions for Industries Supplying Both Magnetic and 

Electronic Ballasts, Assuming Foreign Suppliers Capture All the New Electronic Ballast 

Market 

5% Scenario, 1998-2015 3% Scenario, 1998-2027 

INDUSTRY Base Stand Change Base Standa Change 

ard rd 

Capacitors 1.28 .89 -.39 1.34 .92 -0.41 

Magnet & Lead Wire, 11.40 8.06 -3.34 12.39 8.38 -4.03 

Connectors 

Thermal Protectors, 8.55 5.69 -2.86 10.24 5.92 -4.31 

Clamps, Pottin2 

Steel Case & CRML 16.59 11.05 -5.54 18.74 11.54 -7.20 

Other 6.11 4.13 -1.97 6.81 4.31 -2.50 

TOTAL 43.93 29.82 -14.1 49.52 31.07 -18.45 

6B.1.4 Employment Impacts 

Tables 6B.5 and 6B.6 summarize the expected employment impacts for each of the 

primary supplier industries and one secondary industry for the two base case shipment scenarios. 

The methodology used to obtain these estimates is detailed in the following paragraphs. 

Discussions with ballast manufacturers and suppliers allowed us to establish an estimated 

"labor content" value for each of the materials and components studied in order to provide a 

check on the reasonableness of job impact estimates reported through the interviews. Typically 

this was done by obtaining values for labor hours required per unit of component or material 

from two or more sources and by calculating an estimated labor cost per unit to compare with the 

total cost of the material. We were able to estimate reasonable and internally consistent values 

for labor content in terms of seconds of labor per ballast served and thereby estimate the 

approximate labor hours or number of full time job equivalents associated with serving 

"affected" magnetic ballasts. We used these estimates in conjunction with those provided directly 

by the suppliers interviewed to detennine the employment levels associated with "affected" 

materials as of a reference year, 1998. 

We assumed 1997 employment levels to decline by 3% and 5% for each of the four years 

1998-2001 to arrive at the estimates shown in Tables 6B.5 and 6B.6. We assumed 2001 

employment levels to remain constant in 2002 to serve the likely surge in demand during the last 

two quarters of "affected" components production. The jobs lost and gained represent a snapshot 

taken in the standard year 2003. The associated impact shown in the tables represents jobs 

6-43 
unrelated to ballast component production but "associated " in the same plant that is closed as a

result of lost ballast-related business.

Table 6B.5 Estimated Employment Impacts for Magnetic/electronic Ballast Supplier

Industries (3% Scenario)

INDUSTRY JOBS LOST

POTENTIAL JOBS

GAINED

Electronic Ballasts

Direct

Impact

Associated

Impact

Capacitors 29 37

Magnet & Lead Wire,

Connectors

76 11

Thermal Protectors, Clamps,

Potting

57 Plant closure 23 15

Steel Case & CRML 63 14

Metallized Film 48 1

Other 44 9

TOTAL 317 23 87

Table 6B.6 Estimated Employment Impacts for Magnetic/electronic Ballast Supplier

Industries (5% Scenario

INDUSTRY

JOBS LOST POTENTIAL JOBS

GAINED

Electronic Ballasts

Direct

Impact

Associated

Impact

Capacitors 27 34

Magnet & Lead Wire,

Connectors

69 10

Thermal Protectors, Clamps,

Potting

52 Plant closure 23 14

Steel Case & CRML 58 13

Metallized Film 44 1

Other 40 8

TOTAL 290 23 80

Capacitors: The capacitor industry suppliers estimated about 42-52 jobs associated with

production of "affected" magnetic ballasts by non-captive plants. This implied a higher labor content

6-44

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

unrelated to ballast component production but "associated" in the same plant that is closed as a 

result oflost ballast-related business. 

Table 6B.S Estimated Employment Impacts for Magnetic/electronic Ballast Supplier 

Industries 3 % Scenario) 

Ca acitors 

Magnet & Lead Wire, 

Connectors 

Thermal Protectors, Clamps, 57 

Portin 

Steel Case & CRML 63 

Metallized Film 48 

Other 44 

TOTAL 317 

JOBS LOST 

Plant closure 23 

23 

POTENTIAL JOBS 

GAINED 

37 

11 

15 

14 

1 

9 

87 

Table 6B.6 Estimated Employment Impacts for Magnetic/electronic Ballast Supplier 

Industries (5% Scenario) 

JOBS LOST POTENTIAL JOBS 

GAINED 

INDUSTRY Electronic Ballasts 

Direct Associated ::; .;'.;;;.;; 

Impact Impact . ;;. ;;;.;;;;;;.;; . 

Capacitors 27 34 

Magnet & Lead Wire, 69 10 

Connectors 

Thermal Protectors, Clamps, 52 Plant closure 23 14 

Portinl?; 

Steel Case & CRML 58 13 

Metallized Film 44 I 

Other 40 8 

TOTAL 290 23 80 

; ... 

;;; 

Capacitors: The capacitor industry suppliers estimated about 42-52 jobs associated with 

production of "affected" magnetic ballasts by non-captive plants. This implied a higher labor content 

6-44 

unrelated to ballast component production but "associated" in the same plant that is closed as a 

result oflost ballast-related business. 

Table 6B.S Estimated Employment Impacts for Magnetic/electronic Ballast Supplier 

Industries 3 % Scenario) 

Ca acitors 

Magnet & Lead Wire, 

Connectors 

Thermal Protectors, Clamps, 57 

Portin 

Steel Case & CRML 63 

Metallized Film 48 

Other 44 

TOTAL 317 

JOBS LOST 

Plant closure 23 

23 

POTENTIAL JOBS 

GAINED 

37 

11 

15 

14 

1 

9 

87 

Table 6B.6 Estimated Employment Impacts for Magnetic/electronic Ballast Supplier 

Industries (5% Scenario) 

JOBS LOST POTENTIAL JOBS 

GAINED 

INDUSTRY Electronic Ballasts 

Direct Associated ::; .;'.;;;.;; 

Impact Impact . ;;. ;;;.;;;;;;.;; . 

Capacitors 27 34 

Magnet & Lead Wire, 69 10 

Connectors 

Thermal Protectors, Clamps, 52 Plant closure 23 14 

Portinl?; 

Steel Case & CRML 58 13 

Metallized Film 44 I 

Other 40 8 

TOTAL 290 23 80 

; ... 

;;; 

Capacitors: The capacitor industry suppliers estimated about 42-52 jobs associated with 

production of "affected" magnetic ballasts by non-captive plants. This implied a higher labor content 

6-44 
for the non-captive plants than for the captive plants and suggested a higher expected labor cost per

capacitor than reported by the Census of Manufactuers. The estimate was adjusted downward to

about 34 "affected" jobs as of 1997, leading to 29 or 27 remaining in 2002 corresponding to the 3%

or 5% scenario, respectively. There is a potential for about 42 new capacitor jobs associated with

supplying electronic ballasts, and this implies gains of 37 or 34 in 2003 jobs assuming the 3% or 5%

scenario, respectively.

Magnet and Lead Wire. Connectors: The estimates of job impacts and labor intensities from

the magnet wire and lead wire manufacturers agreed reasonably well and totaled 86 "affected" jobs

which attrition reduced to 76 under the 3% scenario and 69 under the 5% scenario in the year before

the standard year. On the electronic side, each ballast uses about one-fourth the magnet wire of the

average magnetic ballast and about the same lead wire. Both components serve smaller numbers of

ballasts (total electronic ballasts served are about 75% of magnetic and about 30% use foreign

components), however, and wire connectors replace some lead wire. Assuming that domestic

employment in magnet and lead wire production changes proportional to sales, employment serving

the new electronic market would be 86 jobs magnetic x 3.82 revenue electronic/26.4 revenue

magnetic = 12.4 jobs. This discounts to 11 and 10 jobs gained in 2003 under the 3 & 5% scenarios

Thermal Protector. Metal Clamps, Potting/impregnation: These industries are relatively small

in terms of labor intensities but the metal clamp industry is highly dependent on the "affected"

magnetic ballast market to cover fixed costs. At least one small plant that receives over 90% of its

revenue from "affected" component sales would close immediately, and another with over 30% of

its revenue from this source would be likely to close and bring about the associated impact shown

in tables 6B.5 and 6B.6. Electronic ballasts do not use the type of clamps this industry produces. The

thermal protector industry also would experience significant net losses in jobs since the demand for

thermal protectors is much smaller in the electronic ballast industry. The potting and impregnation

compound industry requires very little variable labor, and although the long-term impact of

increasing market share for electronic ballasts is negative for this supplier the employment impact

is limited to approximately one job lost.

Steel Cases and CRML Steel: Steel suppliers used labor per "affected" magnetic ballast

served in an amount representing approximately 72 jobs in 1997. This level decreases to 63 and 58

in 2003 under the 3% and 5% scenarios, respectively. Steel case and CRML suppliers to the

electronic ballast industry exhibit labor intensities per pound of product similar to those supplying

magnetic ballast manufacturing, but the amount of CRML steel per ballast and the number of ballasts

involved are lower for electronic ballasts. (The total new market for electronic ballasts in the event

of an electronic standard is approximately 75% of the magnetic ballast market that would be

replaced, and foreign suppliers would serve part of the new market.) The number of jobs supported

by the electronic business should be about the same per dollar of revenue as for the magnetic

business. That is, we assume that for the most part the same suppliers will support both ballast types.

Thus the jobs gained for electronic will be about = magnetic jobs x (revenue electronic/revenue

magnetic), or

Electronic jobs gained = 72 x ($6.2 million/$28 million) = 16jobs gained.

6-45

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

for the non-captive plants than for the captive plants and suggested a higher expected labor cost per 

capacitor than reported by the Census of Manufactuers. The estimate was adjusted downward to 

about 34 "affected" jobs as of 1997, leading to 29 or 27 remaining in 2002 corresponding to the 3 % 

or 5% scenario, respectively. There is a potential for about 42 new capacitor jobs associated with 

supplying electronic ballasts, and this implies gains of3 7 or 34 in 2003 jobs assuming the 3% or 5% 

scenario, respectively. 

Magnet and Lead Wire, Connectors: The estimates of job impacts and labor intensities from 

the magnet wire and lead wire manufacturers agreed reasonably well and totaled 86 "affected" jobs 

which attrition reduced to 76 under the 3% scenario and 69 under the 5% scenario in the year before 

the standard year. On the electronic side, each ballast uses about one-fourth the magnet wire of the 

average magnetic ballast and about the same lead wire. Both components serve smaller numbers of 

ballasts (total electronic ballasts served are about 75% of magnetic and about 30% use foreign 

components), however, and wire connectors replace some lead wire. Assuming that domestic 

employment in magnet and lead wire production changes propoliional to sales, employment serving 

the new electronic market would be 86 jobs magnetic x 3.82 revenue electronic/26.4 revenue 

magnetic = 12.4 jobs. This discounts to 11 and 10 jobs gained in 2003 under the 3 & 5% scenarios 

Thermal Protector, Metal Clamps, Potting/impregnation: These industries are relatively small 

in terms of labor intensities but the metal clamp industry is highly dependent on the "affected" 

magnetic ballast market to cover fixed costs. At least one small plant that receives over 90% of its 

revenue from "affected" component sales would close immediately, and another with over 30% of 

its revenue from this source would be likely to close and bring about the associated impact shown 

in tables 6B.5 and 6B.6. Electronic ballasts do not use the type of clamps this industry produces. The 

thermal protector industry also would experience significant net losses injobs since the demand for 

thermal protectors is much smaller in the electronic ballast industry. The potting and impregnation 

compound industry requires very little variable labor, and although the long-term impact of 

increasing market share for electronic ballasts is negative for this supplier the employment impact 

is limited to approximately one job lost. 

Steel Cases and CRML Steel: Steel suppliers used labor per "affected" magnetic ballast 

served in an amount representing approximately 72 jobs in 1997. This level decreases to 63 and 58 

in 2003 under the 3% and 5% scenarios, respectively. Steel case and CRML suppliers to the 

electronic ballast industry exhibit labor intensities per pound of product similar to those supplying 

magnetic ballast manufacturing, but the amount of CRML steel per ballast and the number of ballasts 

involved are lower for electronic ballasts. (The total new market for electronic ballasts in the event 

of an electronic standard is approximately 75% of the magnetic ballast market that would be 

replaced, and foreign suppliers would serve part of the new market.) The number of jobs supported 

by the electronic business should be about the same per dollar of revenue as for the magnetic 

business. That is, we assume that for the most part the same suppliers will support both ballast types. 

Thus the jobs gained for electronic will be about = magnetic jobs x (revenue electronic/revenue 

magnetic), or 

Electronic jobs gained = 72 x ($6.2 millionl$28 million) = 16 jobs gained. 

6-45 

for the non-captive plants than for the captive plants and suggested a higher expected labor cost per 

capacitor than reported by the Census of Manufactuers. The estimate was adjusted downward to 

about 34 "affected" jobs as of 1997, leading to 29 or 27 remaining in 2002 corresponding to the 3 % 

or 5% scenario, respectively. There is a potential for about 42 new capacitor jobs associated with 

supplying electronic ballasts, and this implies gains of3 7 or 34 in 2003 jobs assuming the 3% or 5% 

scenario, respectively. 

Magnet and Lead Wire, Connectors: The estimates of job impacts and labor intensities from 

the magnet wire and lead wire manufacturers agreed reasonably well and totaled 86 "affected" jobs 

which attrition reduced to 76 under the 3% scenario and 69 under the 5% scenario in the year before 

the standard year. On the electronic side, each ballast uses about one-fourth the magnet wire of the 

average magnetic ballast and about the same lead wire. Both components serve smaller numbers of 

ballasts (total electronic ballasts served are about 75% of magnetic and about 30% use foreign 

components), however, and wire connectors replace some lead wire. Assuming that domestic 

employment in magnet and lead wire production changes propoliional to sales, employment serving 

the new electronic market would be 86 jobs magnetic x 3.82 revenue electronic/26.4 revenue 

magnetic = 12.4 jobs. This discounts to 11 and 10 jobs gained in 2003 under the 3 & 5% scenarios 

Thermal Protector, Metal Clamps, Potting/impregnation: These industries are relatively small 

in terms of labor intensities but the metal clamp industry is highly dependent on the "affected" 

magnetic ballast market to cover fixed costs. At least one small plant that receives over 90% of its 

revenue from "affected" component sales would close immediately, and another with over 30% of 

its revenue from this source would be likely to close and bring about the associated impact shown 

in tables 6B.5 and 6B.6. Electronic ballasts do not use the type of clamps this industry produces. The 

thermal protector industry also would experience significant net losses injobs since the demand for 

thermal protectors is much smaller in the electronic ballast industry. The potting and impregnation 

compound industry requires very little variable labor, and although the long-term impact of 

increasing market share for electronic ballasts is negative for this supplier the employment impact 

is limited to approximately one job lost. 

Steel Cases and CRML Steel: Steel suppliers used labor per "affected" magnetic ballast 

served in an amount representing approximately 72 jobs in 1997. This level decreases to 63 and 58 

in 2003 under the 3% and 5% scenarios, respectively. Steel case and CRML suppliers to the 

electronic ballast industry exhibit labor intensities per pound of product similar to those supplying 

magnetic ballast manufacturing, but the amount of CRML steel per ballast and the number of ballasts 

involved are lower for electronic ballasts. (The total new market for electronic ballasts in the event 

of an electronic standard is approximately 75% of the magnetic ballast market that would be 

replaced, and foreign suppliers would serve part of the new market.) The number of jobs supported 

by the electronic business should be about the same per dollar of revenue as for the magnetic 

business. That is, we assume that for the most part the same suppliers will support both ballast types. 

Thus the jobs gained for electronic will be about = magnetic jobs x (revenue electronic/revenue 

magnetic), or 

Electronic jobs gained = 72 x ($6.2 millionl$28 million) = 16 jobs gained. 

6-45 
This discounts to 13 and 14 jobs under the 5 and 3% scenarios. There is a recently emerging plastic

case competitor industry that could capture a significant share of the market for electronic ballast

cases. The impact of this development has not been included in the analysis because it is speculative

at this time. Injection molded plastic cases require roughly 3 to a the labor of steel cases.

Metallized Film: This industry is a supplier to capacitor plants and thus could be considered

a secondary industry, but it supplies the ballast industry directly as well through ballast

manufacturers' capacitor subsidiaries. We did not determine the industry's financial structure and

do not report on it here. Our interviews did determine a reasonable estimate of expected employment

impact, however, and that estimate is included as a direct impact in Tables 6B.5 and 6B.6. Our

estimate of the labor content of polypropylene film is approximately 12 seconds/ "affected" magnetic

ballast served, or about 55 jobs in 1997. We assume this number to decline to 48 in 2002 under the

3% scenario or to 44 under the 5% scenario. Increased production of electronic ballasts would,

however, represent a new, but much smaller, market for the film. Industry sources estimate that about

one third of the electronic ballast market uses domestic suppliers for metallized polypropylene

capacitors and that these capacitors require about 2-8% as much film to serve each ballast as the

magnetic ballast capacitors they might replace. Assuming the high-end value of 8%, the number of

new jobs created to serve the new electronic market would be approximately one.

Other: We estimated the employment impact on the remaining supplier industries and three

matching electronic ballast supplier industries (paper, tape, and label materials) by assuming a labor

cost of 10% of revenue at a rate of $12.50 per hour. This yielded an estimate of approximately 50

jobs, which reduced to 44 and 40 under the 3% and 5% scenarios. The same assumptions on the

electronic' supplier revenue produced the potential job gains of 9 and 8 shown in Tables 6B.5 and

6B.6.

In summary, the expected employment impact of an electronic ballast standard on supplier

industries is a loss of 340 jobs assuming the 3% scenario or 313 assuming the 5% scenario. If the

supplier industries maintain their 1997 market shares of electronic ballast components, there is a

potential for gaining back 87 jobs under the 3% scenario or 80 under the 5% scenario. These results

lead to a net loss of 233-253 jobs depending on the scenario. To the exent that foreign suppliers

make inroads on the electronic ballast market, the net employment losses would go up toward the

350 limit.

611.1.5 Impacts of Recent Market Trends

Based on 1998 sales figures, shipments of corrected power factor magnetic ballasts have

decreased over 20% since the peak year of 1994, according to Census data published through Current

Industrial Reports. The Department surveyed ballast industry suppliers to learn how this trend has

affected them and what measures they had taken to adjust to this market development. The

Department also invited them to discuss how they plan to adjust to this trend in the future and to

speculate on how a new energy efficiency standard would affect their businesses. This section briefly

summarizes the answers to those questions as presented by the interviewed supplier representatives.

"Affected" capacitor sales have decreased in recent years to about 60% of the peak of this

decade and the industry has survived through consolidation and by developing other markets. While

one major ballast manufacturer stopped buying capacitors on the open market in favor of relying on

6-46

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

This discounts to 13 and 14 jobs under the 5 and 3% scenarios. There is a recently emerging plastic 

case competitor industry that could capture a significant share of the market for electronic ballast 

cases. The impact ofthis development has not been included in the analysis because it is speculative 

at this time. Injection molded plastic cases require roughly 3 to a the labor of steel cases. 

Metallized Film: This industry is a supplier to capacitor plants and thus could be considered 

a secondary industry, but it supplies the ballast industry directly as well through ballast 

man~facturers' capacitor subsidiaries. We did not detennine the industry's financial structure and 

do not report on it here. Our interviews did determine a reasonable estimate of expected employment 

impact, however, and that estimate is included as a direct impact in Tables 6B.5 and 6B.6. Our 

estimate ofthe labor content of polypropylene film is approximately 12 seconds/ "affected" magnetic 

ballast served, or about 55 jobs in 1997. We assume this number to decline to 48 in 2002 under the 

3% scenario or to 44 under the 5% scenario. Increased production of electronic ballasts would, 

however, represent a new, but much smaller, market for the film. Industry sources estimate that about 

one third of the electronic ballast market uses domestic suppliers for metallized polypropylene 

capacitors and that these capacitors require about 2-8% as much film to serve each ballast as the 

magnetic ballast capacitors they might replace. Assuming the high-end value of 8%, the number of 

new jobs created to serve the new electronic market would be approximately one. 

Other: We estimated the employment impact on the remaining supplier industries and three 

matching electronic ballast supplier industries (paper, tape, and label materials) by assuming a labor 

cost of 10% of revenue at a rate of $12.50 per hour. This yielded an estimate of approximately 50 

jobs, which reduced to 44 and 40 under the 3% and 5% scenarios. The same assumptions on the 

electronic'supplier revenue produced the potential job gains of 9 and 8 shown in Tables 6B.5 and 

6B.6. 

In summary, the expected employment impact of an electronic ballast standard on supplier 

industries is a loss of 340 jobs assuming the 3% scenario or 313 assuming the 5% scenario. If the 

supplier industries maintain their 1997 market shares of electronic ballast components, there is a 

potential for gaining back 87 jobs under the 3 % scenario or 80 under the 5% scenario. These results 

lead to a net loss of 233-253 jobs depending on the scenario. To the exent that foreign suppliers 

make inroads on the electronic ballast market, the net employment losses would go up toward the 

350 limit. 

68.1.5 Impacts of Recent Market Trends 

Based on 1998 sales figures, shipments of corrected power factor magnetic ballasts have 

decreased over 20% since the peak year of 1994, according to Census data published through Current 

Industrial Reports. The Department surveyed ballast industry suppliers to learn how this trend has 

affected them and what measures they had taken to adjust to this market development. The 

Department also invited them to discuss how they plan to adjust to this trend in the future and to 

speculate on how a new energy efficiency standard would affect their businesses. This section briefly 

summarizes the answers to those questions as presented by the interviewed supplier representatives. 

"Affected" capacitor sales have decreased in recent years to about 60% of the peak of this 

decade and the industry has survived through consolidation and by developing other markets. While 

one major ballast manufacturer stopped buying capacitors on the open market in favor of relying on 

6-46 

This discounts to 13 and 14 jobs under the 5 and 3% scenarios. There is a recently emerging plastic 

case competitor industry that could capture a significant share of the market for electronic ballast 

cases. The impact ofthis development has not been included in the analysis because it is speculative 

at this time. Injection molded plastic cases require roughly 3 to a the labor of steel cases. 

Metallized Film: This industry is a supplier to capacitor plants and thus could be considered 

a secondary industry, but it supplies the ballast industry directly as well through ballast 

man~facturers' capacitor subsidiaries. We did not detennine the industry's financial structure and 

do not report on it here. Our interviews did determine a reasonable estimate of expected employment 

impact, however, and that estimate is included as a direct impact in Tables 6B.5 and 6B.6. Our 

estimate ofthe labor content of polypropylene film is approximately 12 seconds/ "affected" magnetic 

ballast served, or about 55 jobs in 1997. We assume this number to decline to 48 in 2002 under the 

3% scenario or to 44 under the 5% scenario. Increased production of electronic ballasts would, 

however, represent a new, but much smaller, market for the film. Industry sources estimate that about 

one third of the electronic ballast market uses domestic suppliers for metallized polypropylene 

capacitors and that these capacitors require about 2-8% as much film to serve each ballast as the 

magnetic ballast capacitors they might replace. Assuming the high-end value of 8%, the number of 

new jobs created to serve the new electronic market would be approximately one. 

Other: We estimated the employment impact on the remaining supplier industries and three 

matching electronic ballast supplier industries (paper, tape, and label materials) by assuming a labor 

cost of 10% of revenue at a rate of $12.50 per hour. This yielded an estimate of approximately 50 

jobs, which reduced to 44 and 40 under the 3% and 5% scenarios. The same assumptions on the 

electronic'supplier revenue produced the potential job gains of 9 and 8 shown in Tables 6B.5 and 

6B.6. 

In summary, the expected employment impact of an electronic ballast standard on supplier 

industries is a loss of 340 jobs assuming the 3% scenario or 313 assuming the 5% scenario. If the 

supplier industries maintain their 1997 market shares of electronic ballast components, there is a 

potential for gaining back 87 jobs under the 3 % scenario or 80 under the 5% scenario. These results 

lead to a net loss of 233-253 jobs depending on the scenario. To the exent that foreign suppliers 

make inroads on the electronic ballast market, the net employment losses would go up toward the 

350 limit. 

68.1.5 Impacts of Recent Market Trends 

Based on 1998 sales figures, shipments of corrected power factor magnetic ballasts have 

decreased over 20% since the peak year of 1994, according to Census data published through Current 

Industrial Reports. The Department surveyed ballast industry suppliers to learn how this trend has 

affected them and what measures they had taken to adjust to this market development. The 

Department also invited them to discuss how they plan to adjust to this trend in the future and to 

speculate on how a new energy efficiency standard would affect their businesses. This section briefly 

summarizes the answers to those questions as presented by the interviewed supplier representatives. 

"Affected" capacitor sales have decreased in recent years to about 60% of the peak of this 

decade and the industry has survived through consolidation and by developing other markets. While 

one major ballast manufacturer stopped buying capacitors on the open market in favor of relying on 

6-46 
captive production, another reduced its domestic in-house production in favor of outsourcing part

of its requirements. Profitability in the industry has decreased as it has developed less profitable

niche markets to replace lost shipments to the magnetic ballast manufacturers.

The capacitor industry expects that layoffs and reduced revenues and income will result if

an electronic level standard is adopted. They do not see growing alternative markets to enter that can

absorb production lost from reduced ballast industry purchases. The capacitor industry is diversified

among other applications for capacitors, including motors, HID lamp ballasts, power factor

correction, microwave ovens, and other applications. All of these applications, however, are highly

competitive, mature markets. The only apparent growth market, electronic lamp ballasts, is perceivec

as risky since it is vulnerable to foreign competition and requires investment in capital equipment

to convert from "affected" magnetic to electronic market segments. Industry sources estimate that

foreign manufactured capacitors have about 70% of the market for metallized film capacitors for

electronic ballasts manufactured in North America and can be expected to maintain or increase that

in the future.

The impact ofreduced shipments of "affected" magnetic ballasts on the magnet and lead wire

industry has been mixed. One major ballast manufacturer has reduced its in-house wire

manufacturing in favor of outsourcing while another has curtailed its outside purchases of wire in

favor of preserving its in-house production. The net reduction in captive manufacturing of magnet

and lead wire has provided some opportunities for outside suppliers to increase sales, but this benefit

has accrued primarily to relative newcomers. The old-line suppliers have focused on building other

businesses as sales to the ballast industry declined 2-3% per year. The industry expects that a new

standard and loss of the "affected" magnetic ballast market would lead to layoffs at the old-line firms

and threaten the survival of newcomer plants that are not sufficiently diversified.

Consolidation in the metal clamps industry has opened opportunities for expansion among

the industry firms remaining, but loss of the "affected" magnetic ballast market will close some

domestic plants. One small plant dependent on magnetic ballasts for nearly all its business would

close immediately at the end of 2002 if a standard year of 2003 is established.

Specialty steel sales have decreased and consolidation of the market has allowed the current

participants to survive by increasing market share. Loss of the "affected" magnetic ballast market

would lead to lower revenues and lower employment in the industry as no growing markets are on

the horizon.

The thermal protectors industry is increasing sales for automotive applications and has been

searching for additional markets as the ballast market has declined. The industry would, however,

have difficulty coping with a sudden loss of the "affected" magnetic ballast market. Small firms in

the industry would face greater competition as larger, low-cost producers compete for niche markets

formerly left to small producers.

The metallized film industry has investigated new markets and has gained a share of the

6-47

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

captive production, another reduced its domestic in-house production in favor of outsourcing part 

of its requirements. Profitability in the industry has decreased as it has developed less profitable 

niche markets to replace lost shipments to the magnetic ballast manufacturers. 

The capacitor industry expects that layoffs and reduced revenues and income will result if 

an electronic level standard is adopted. They do not see growing alternative markets to enter that can 

absorb production lost from reduced ballast industry purchases. The capacitor industry is diversified 

among other applications for capacitors, including motors, HID lamp ballasts, power factor 

correction, microwave ovens, and other applications. All of these applications, however, are highly 

competitive, mature markets. The only apparent growth market, electronic lamp ballasts, is perceivec 

as risky since it is vulnerable to foreign competition and requires investment in capital equipment 

to convert from "affected" magnetic to electronic market segnlents. Industry sources estimate that 

foreign manufactured capacitors have about 70% of the market for metallized film capacitors for 

electronic ballasts manufactured in North America and can be expected to maintain or increase that 

in the future. 

The impact of reduced shipments of "affected" magnetic ballasts on the magnet and lead wire 

industry has been mixed. One major ballast manufacturer has reduced its in-house wire 

manufacturing in favor of outsourcing while another has curtailed its outside purchases of wire in 

favor of preserving its in-house production. The net reduction in captive manufacturing of magnet 

and lead wire has provided some opportunities for outside suppliers to increase sales, but this benefit 

has accrued primarily to relative newcomers. The old-line suppliers have focused on building other 

businesses as sales to the ballast industry declined 2-3% per year. The industry expects that a new 

standard and loss ofthe "affected" magnetic ballast market would lead to layoffs atthe old-line firms 

and threaten the survival of newcomer plants that are not sufficiently diversified. 

Consolidation in the metal clamps industl'y has opened opportunities for expansion among 

the industry firms remaining, but loss of the "affected" magnetic ballast market will close some 

domestic plants. One small plant dependent on magnetic ballasts for nearly all its business would 

close immediately at the end of 2002 if a standard year of 2003 is established. 

Specialty steel sales have decreased and consolidation ofthe market has allowed the current 

participants to survive by increasing market share. Loss of the "affected" magnetic ballast market 

would lead to lower revenues and lower employment in the industly as no growing markets are on 

the horizon. 

The thermal protectors industry is increasing sales for automotive applications and has been 

searching for additional markets as the ballast market has declined. The industry would, however, 

have difficulty coping with a sudden loss of the "affected" magnetic ballast market. Small firms in 

the industry would face greater competition as larger, low-cost producers compete for niche markets 

formerly left to small producers. 

The metallized film industry has investigated new markets and has gained a share of the 

6-47 

captive production, another reduced its domestic in-house production in favor of outsourcing part 

of its requirements. Profitability in the industry has decreased as it has developed less profitable 

niche markets to replace lost shipments to the magnetic ballast manufacturers. 

The capacitor industry expects that layoffs and reduced revenues and income will result if 

an electronic level standard is adopted. They do not see growing alternative markets to enter that can 

absorb production lost from reduced ballast industry purchases. The capacitor industry is diversified 

among other applications for capacitors, including motors, HID lamp ballasts, power factor 

correction, microwave ovens, and other applications. All of these applications, however, are highly 

competitive, mature markets. The only apparent growth market, electronic lamp ballasts, is perceivec 

as risky since it is vulnerable to foreign competition and requires investment in capital equipment 

to convert from "affected" magnetic to electronic market segnlents. Industry sources estimate that 

foreign manufactured capacitors have about 70% of the market for metallized film capacitors for 

electronic ballasts manufactured in North America and can be expected to maintain or increase that 

in the future. 

The impact of reduced shipments of "affected" magnetic ballasts on the magnet and lead wire 

industry has been mixed. One major ballast manufacturer has reduced its in-house wire 

manufacturing in favor of outsourcing while another has curtailed its outside purchases of wire in 

favor of preserving its in-house production. The net reduction in captive manufacturing of magnet 

and lead wire has provided some opportunities for outside suppliers to increase sales, but this benefit 

has accrued primarily to relative newcomers. The old-line suppliers have focused on building other 

businesses as sales to the ballast industry declined 2-3% per year. The industry expects that a new 

standard and loss ofthe "affected" magnetic ballast market would lead to layoffs atthe old-line firms 

and threaten the survival of newcomer plants that are not sufficiently diversified. 

Consolidation in the metal clamps industl'y has opened opportunities for expansion among 

the industry firms remaining, but loss of the "affected" magnetic ballast market will close some 

domestic plants. One small plant dependent on magnetic ballasts for nearly all its business would 

close immediately at the end of 2002 if a standard year of 2003 is established. 

Specialty steel sales have decreased and consolidation ofthe market has allowed the current 

participants to survive by increasing market share. Loss of the "affected" magnetic ballast market 

would lead to lower revenues and lower employment in the industly as no growing markets are on 

the horizon. 

The thermal protectors industry is increasing sales for automotive applications and has been 

searching for additional markets as the ballast market has declined. The industry would, however, 

have difficulty coping with a sudden loss of the "affected" magnetic ballast market. Small firms in 

the industry would face greater competition as larger, low-cost producers compete for niche markets 

formerly left to small producers. 

The metallized film industry has investigated new markets and has gained a share of the 

6-47 
capacitor market supplying the electronic ballast industry. But electronic ballast capacitors use less

than 10% as much film as capacitors for "affected" magnetic ballasts. Serving the electronic ballast

capacitor industry is highly competitive, and well over half of the polypropylene film capacitors used

in electronic ballasts are of foreign origin. The industry expects that a new standard and loss of the

"affected" magnetic ballast market would lead to layoffs at the old-line firms and threaten the

survival of newcomer plants that are not sufficiently diversified.

6B.2 Impacts on Suppliers to Electronic Ballast Production

We limited our investigation of the industries which supply the electronic ballast industry to

those which use U.S.-based production facilities for this purpose. The electronic ballast supplier

industries are higher in number (and supplying a larger variety of components) and more

international in makeup than those allied with magnetic ballast production. Many electronic ballast

suppliers, for example, produce their ballast components in Europe or Asia for export to ballast

manufacturers serving U.S. markets.

6B.2.1 Cost of Materials

The estimated cost ofmaterials for an electronic ballast substitute for the "affected" magnetic

ballast shown in Figure 6B.3 and guide to the distribution of components that make up electronic

ballasts is shown as Figure 6B.4. Because our focus with respect to the electronic ballast industry

suppliers was to estimate the financial and employment impacts of a new energy efficiency standard

on domestic supplier industries, we estimated the fraction produced domestically for each industry

group represented in Figure 6B.4.

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

capacitor market supplying the electronic ballast industry. But electronic ballast capacitors use less 

than 10% as much film as capacitors for "affected" magnetic ballasts. Serving the electronic ballast 

capacitor industry is highly competitive, and well over half ofthe polypropylene film capacitors used 

in electronic ballasts are offoreign origin. The industry expects that a new standard and loss ofthe 

"affected" magnetic ballast market would lead to layoffs at the old-line firms and threaten the 

survival of newcomer plants that are not sufficiently diversified. 

6:8.2 Impacts on Suppliers to Electronic Ballast Production 

We limited our investigation of the industries which supply the electronic ballast industry to 

those which use U.S.-based production facilities for this purpose. The electronic ballast supplier 

industries are higher in number (and supplying a larger variety of components) and more 

international in makeup than those allied with magnetic ballast production. Many electronic ballast 

suppliers, for example, produce their ballast components in Europe or Asia for export to ballast 

manufacturers serving U.S. markets. 

6:8.2.1 Cost of Materials 

The estimated cost of materials for an electronic ballast substitute for the "affected" magnetic 

ballast shown in Figure 6B.3 and guide to the distribution of components that make up electronic 

ballasts is shown as Figure 6B.4. Because our focus with respect to the electronic ballast industry 

suppliers was to estimate the financial and employment impacts of a new energy efficiency standard 

on domestic supplier industries, we estimated the fraction produced domestically for each industry 

group represented in Figure 6B.4. 

6-48 

capacitor market supplying the electronic ballast industry. But electronic ballast capacitors use less 

than 10% as much film as capacitors for "affected" magnetic ballasts. Serving the electronic ballast 

capacitor industry is highly competitive, and well over half ofthe polypropylene film capacitors used 

in electronic ballasts are offoreign origin. The industry expects that a new standard and loss ofthe 

"affected" magnetic ballast market would lead to layoffs at the old-line firms and threaten the 

survival of newcomer plants that are not sufficiently diversified. 

6:8.2 Impacts on Suppliers to Electronic Ballast Production 

We limited our investigation of the industries which supply the electronic ballast industry to 

those which use U.S.-based production facilities for this purpose. The electronic ballast supplier 

industries are higher in number (and supplying a larger variety of components) and more 

international in makeup than those allied with magnetic ballast production. Many electronic ballast 

suppliers, for example, produce their ballast components in Europe or Asia for export to ballast 

manufacturers serving U.S. markets. 

6:8.2.1 Cost of Materials 

The estimated cost of materials for an electronic ballast substitute for the "affected" magnetic 

ballast shown in Figure 6B.3 and guide to the distribution of components that make up electronic 

ballasts is shown as Figure 6B.4. Because our focus with respect to the electronic ballast industry 

suppliers was to estimate the financial and employment impacts of a new energy efficiency standard 

on domestic supplier industries, we estimated the fraction produced domestically for each industry 

group represented in Figure 6B.4. 

6-48 
Other

Ferrite Cores 10%

5%

Steel Case &

C RML

12%

Magnet & PC Board,

Lead Wire, Thermal

Connectors r?<:' Protectors,

12/o T2% Potting

rans i stors

1 5%

Bobbins j Diodes 10%

6% 6%

Figure 6B.4 Benchmark Cost of Materials for Electronic Ballasts

We found that about 70% of the revenue for components used in electronic ballasts go to foreign

suppliers. This is in part because a substantial number of electronic ballasts are manufactured outside

North America, and in part because large, low-cost electronic component manufacturing plants have

been set up overseas to serve the industries producing personal computers and consumer electronics

products. We have extracted the foreign-produced portions ofthe components shown in Figure 6B.4

and present the distribution of the 30% remaining domestic content of these materials and

components in Figure 6B.5.

Figure 6B.5 summarizes the distribution of revenues to suppliers for components and

materials produced in the U.S. for use in electronic ballasts. But we have already estimated the

financial and employment impacts of an electronic ballast standard on those supplier industries,

which provide components and materials for both electronic and magnetic ballasts. Reorganizing the

domestic supplier industries shown in Figure 6B.5 allows us to highlight those we have already

considered. Figure 6B.6 pulls out those industry groups and shows that over two thirds of the

electronic ballast suppliers have already been analyzed for financial and employment impacts. This

section focuses on the remaining suppliers.

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Other 

Ferrite Cores 10% 

5% 

Steel Case & 

CRIVIL 

12% 

Connectors 

12% 

Bobbins Diodes 

6% 6% 

Capacitors 

17% 

Ceramic & 

Electrolytic 

Capacitors 

7% 

PC Board, 

Thermal 

Protectors, 

Potting 

15% 

Figure 6BA Benchmark Cost of Materials for Electronic Ballasts 

We found that about 70% of the revenue for components used in electronic ballasts go to foreign 

suppliers. This is in part because a substantial number of electronic ballasts are manufactured outside 

North America, and in part because large, low-cost electronic component manufacturing plants have 

been set up overseas to serve the industries producing personal computers and consumer electronics 

products. We have extracted the foreign-produced portions ofthe components shown in Figure 6B.4 

and present the distribution of the 30% remaining domestic content of these materials and 

components in Figure 6B.5. 

Figure 6B.5 summarizes the distribution of revenues to suppliers for components and 

materials produced in the u.s. for use in electronic ballasts. But we have already estimated the 

financial and employment impacts of an electronic ballast standard on those supplier industries, 

which provide components and materials for both electronic and magnetic ballasts. Reorganizing the 

domestic supplier industries shown in Figure 6B.5 allows us to highlight those we have already 

considered. Figure 6B.6 pulls out those industry groups and shows that over two thirds of the 

electronic ballast suppliers have already been analyzed for financial and employment impacts. This 

section focuses on the remaining suppliers. 

6-49 

Other 

Ferrite Cores 10% 

5% 

Steel Case & 

CRIVIL 

12% 

Connectors 

12% 

Bobbins Diodes 

6% 6% 

Capacitors 

17% 

Ceramic & 

Electrolytic 

Capacitors 

7% 

PC Board, 

Thermal 

Protectors, 

Potting 

15% 

Figure 6BA Benchmark Cost of Materials for Electronic Ballasts 

We found that about 70% of the revenue for components used in electronic ballasts go to foreign 

suppliers. This is in part because a substantial number of electronic ballasts are manufactured outside 

North America, and in part because large, low-cost electronic component manufacturing plants have 

been set up overseas to serve the industries producing personal computers and consumer electronics 

products. We have extracted the foreign-produced portions ofthe components shown in Figure 6B.4 

and present the distribution of the 30% remaining domestic content of these materials and 

components in Figure 6B.5. 

Figure 6B.5 summarizes the distribution of revenues to suppliers for components and 

materials produced in the u.s. for use in electronic ballasts. But we have already estimated the 

financial and employment impacts of an electronic ballast standard on those supplier industries, 

which provide components and materials for both electronic and magnetic ballasts. Reorganizing the 

domestic supplier industries shown in Figure 6B.5 allows us to highlight those we have already 

considered. Figure 6B.6 pulls out those industry groups and shows that over two thirds of the 

electronic ballast suppliers have already been analyzed for financial and employment impacts. This 

section focuses on the remaining suppliers. 

6-49 
Film Capacitors Ceramic &

0

Other 5%

14% `°\ `Capacitors

Figure 6B.5 Distribution of Cost among Domestic Components and Materials for Electronic

Ballasts

Paper, Tape,

Label Capacitors 0

Other 7 /o 12%

Ferrite Cores 8% :''::'; Magnet & Lead

5% Wire, Connectors

Transistors & 11%

Diodes

8%

PC Board & ' ' Thermal

Bobbins Protectors,

9% Potting

Steel 22%

18%

Figure 6B.6 About 70% of the Domestic Materials Cost for Electronic Ballasts Are Associated

with Industries Serving Both Magnetic and Electronic Ballasts

6B.2.2 Financial Impacts

Financial values determined for electronic ballast supplier industries are shown in Table

6B.7. The estimated annual sales in Table 6B.7 assume that prices and domestic supplier market

share will hold at 1997 levels. This is the reference case optimistic assumption as PC board prices

and domestic market share dropped significantly in 1998 and industry sources expect this trend to

6-50

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Ferrite Cores 

5% 

Steel Case & 

CRrvl. 

18% 

11% 

Film Capacitors 

Other 5% 

8% 

Ceramic & 

8ectrolytic 

Capacitors 

7% 

FCBoard, 

Thermal 

A-otectors, 

~tting 

24% 

Transistors 

4% 

Figure 6B.5 Distribution of Cost among Domestic Components and Materials for Electronic 

Ballasts 

Ferrite Cores 

5% 

Transistors & 

Diodes 

8% 

Bobbins 

9% 

Paper, Tape, 

Label 

Steel 

18% 

Magnet & Lead 

11% 

22% 

Figure 6B.6 About 70% ofthe Domestic Materials Cost for Electronic Ballasts Are Associated 

with Industries Serving Both Magnetic and Electronic Ballasts 

6B.2.2 Financial Impacts 

Financial values determined fOT electronic ballast supplier industries are shown in Table 

6B.7. The estimated annual sales in Table 6B.7 assume that prices and domestic supplier market 

share will hold at 1997 levels. This is the reference case optimistic assumption as PC board prices 

and domestic market share dropped significantly in 1998 and industry sources expect this trend to 

6-50 

Ferrite Cores 

5% 

Steel Case 

CRrvl. 

18% 

11% 

Film Capacitors 

Other 5% 

8% 

Ceramic & 

8ectrolytic 

Capacitors 

7% 

FCBoard, 

Thermal 

A-otectors, 

~tting 

24% 

Transistors 

4% 

Figure 6B.5 Distribution of Cost among Domestic Components and Materials for Electronic 

Ballasts 

Ferrite Cores 

5% 

Transistors & 

Diodes 

8% 

Bobbins 

9% 

Paper, Tape, 

Label 

Steel 

18% 

Magnet & Lead 

11% 

22% 

Figure 6B.6 About 70% ofthe Domestic Materials Cost for Electronic Ballasts Are Associated 

with Industries Serving Both Magnetic and Electronic Ballasts 

6B.2.2 Financial Impacts 

Financial values determined fOT electronic ballast supplier industries are shown in Table 

6B.7. The estimated annual sales in Table 6B.7 assume that prices and domestic supplier market 

share will hold at 1997 levels. This is the reference case optimistic assumption as PC board prices 

and domestic market share dropped significantly in 1998 and industry sources expect this trend to 

6-50 
continue through 2003 when the new market for electronic ballasts stimulated by a new standard

would emerge. Our interviews with manufacturers and suppliers have indicated that these trends will

continue as physical size reductions, foreign competition, and market growth for electronic ballasts

exert their impacts.

Table 6B.7 Estimated Financial Factors for Domestic Electronic Ballast Su pplier Industries

SUPPLIER INDUSTRY REVENUE PER

BALLAST

ESTIMATED 1997

SALES'

PC Board, Bobbins .83 $6.86 million

Other2 $1.23 $6.95 million

TOTAL $13.81 million

Domestic plants

2 Transistors, diodes, ferrite cores, miscellaneous

The NPV cash flow estimates for the electronic industry suppliers are summarized for the

3% and 5% scenarios in Table 6B. 8. The cash flow calculations were done separately for PC boards

and bobbins and combined for presentation in the table. The "other" components were combined for

the cash flow calculations. As indicated earlier, Table 6B.8 summarizes a reference case wherein

domestic suppliers keep their 1997 market shares. The "worst case" would have foreign suppliers

taking the entire new market and the cash flow values would decline to zero. Also, because of

insufficient information, conversion costs to provide the production capacity to serve the new

markets for bobbins and the "other" category have not been included in the cash flow calculations.

Incorporating them would reduce the standard NPV.

Table 6B.8 Estimated Npv in $Millions for Supplier Industries Serving Only Electronic

Ballasts

5% Scenario, 1998-2015 3% Scenario, 1998-2027

INDUSTRY Base Standard Change Base Standar

d

Change

PC Board, Bobbins 1.87 2.81 .94 1.45 2.69 1.24

Other .79 1.44 .65 1.04 1.88 .84

TOTAL 2.66 4.25 1.59 2.49 4.57 2.08

6B.2.3 Employment Impacts

We estimated employment impacts on the printed circuit board and injection-molded bobbins

industries in the same way as described in Section 3.3.4 for the suppliers of components for both

magnetic and electronic ballasts. PC boards and bobbins were considered separately and their

employment impacts combined for presentation in Table 6B.9. The levels estimated by

manufacturers added to 33 in 1997, which compared reasonably with 37 jobs estimated from industry

revenues and standard labor rates. The remaining "other electronic" supplier industries: transistors,

6-51

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

continue through 2003 when the new market for electronic ballasts stimulated by a new standard 

would emerge. Our interviews with manufacturers and supp liers have indicated that these trends will 

continue as physical size reductions, foreign competition, and market growth for electronic ballasts 

exert their impacts. 

T a bi e 6B . 7 Eft s (rna e d F' manCla . IF ac t ors £ or D omes f IC EI ec t . B romc a II as tS uppller rId n us t' nes 

SUPPLIER INDUSTRY REVENUE PER ESTIMATED 1997 

BALLAST SALES· 

PC Board, Bobbins .83 $6.86 million 

Other $1.23 $6.95 million 

TOTAL $13.81 million 

1 Domestic plants 

2 Transistors, diodes, ferrite cores, miscellaneous 

The NPV cash flow estimates for the electronic industry suppliers are summarized for the 

3% and 5% scenarios in Table 6B.8. The cash flow calculations were done separately for PC boards 

and bobbins and combined for presentation in the table. The "other" components were combined for 

the cash flow calculations. As indicated earlier, Table 6B.8 summarizes a reference case wherein 

domestic suppliers keep their 1997 market shares. The "worst case" would have foreign suppliers 

taking the entire new market and the cash flow values would decline to zero. Also, because of 

insufficient information, conversion costs to provide the production capacity to serve the new 

markets for bobbins and the "other" category have not been included in the cash flow calculations. 

Incorporating them would reduce the standard NPV. 

Table 6B.8 Estimated Npv in $Millions for Supplier Industries Serving Only Electronic 

Ballasts 

5% Scenario, 1998-2015 3% Scenario, 1998-2027 

INDUSTRY Base Standard Change Base Standar Change 

d 

PC Board, Bobbins 1.87 2.81 .94 1.45 2.69 1.24 

Other .79 1.44 .65 1.04 1.88 .84 

TOTAL 2.66 4.25 1.59 2.49 4.57 2.08 

6B.2.3 Employment Impacts 

We estimated employment impacts on the printed circuit board and injection-molded bobbins 

industries in the same way as described in Section 3.3.4 for the suppliers of components for both 

magnetic and electronic ballasts. PC boards and bobbins were considered separately and their 

employment impacts combined for presentation in Table 6B.9. The levels estimated by 

manufacturers added to 33 in 1997 , which compared reasonably with 37 jobs estimated from industry 

revenues and standard labor rates. The remaining "other electronic" supplier industries: transistors, 

6-51 

continue through 2003 when the new market for electronic ballasts stimulated by a new standard 

would emerge. Our interviews with manufacturers and supp liers have indicated that these trends will 

continue as physical size reductions, foreign competition, and market growth for electronic ballasts 

exert their impacts. 

T a bi e 6B . 7 Eft s (rna e d F' manCla . IF ac t ors £ or D omes f IC EI ec t . B romc a II as tS uppller rId n us t' nes 

SUPPLIER INDUSTRY REVENUE PER ESTIMATED 1997 

BALLAST SALES· 

PC Board, Bobbins .83 $6.86 million 

Other $1.23 $6.95 million 

TOTAL $13.81 million 

1 Domestic plants 

2 Transistors, diodes, ferrite cores, miscellaneous 

The NPV cash flow estimates for the electronic industry suppliers are summarized for the 

3% and 5% scenarios in Table 6B.8. The cash flow calculations were done separately for PC boards 

and bobbins and combined for presentation in the table. The "other" components were combined for 

the cash flow calculations. As indicated earlier, Table 6B.8 summarizes a reference case wherein 

domestic suppliers keep their 1997 market shares. The "worst case" would have foreign suppliers 

taking the entire new market and the cash flow values would decline to zero. Also, because of 

insufficient information, conversion costs to provide the production capacity to serve the new 

markets for bobbins and the "other" category have not been included in the cash flow calculations. 

Incorporating them would reduce the standard NPV. 

Table 6B.8 Estimated Npv in $Millions for Supplier Industries Serving Only Electronic 

Ballasts 

5% Scenario, 1998-2015 3% Scenario, 1998-2027 

INDUSTRY Base Standard Change Base Standar Change 

d 

PC Board, Bobbins 1.87 2.81 .94 1.45 2.69 1.24 

Other .79 1.44 .65 1.04 1.88 .84 

TOTAL 2.66 4.25 1.59 2.49 4.57 2.08 

6B.2.3 Employment Impacts 

We estimated employment impacts on the printed circuit board and injection-molded bobbins 

industries in the same way as described in Section 3.3.4 for the suppliers of components for both 

magnetic and electronic ballasts. PC boards and bobbins were considered separately and their 

employment impacts combined for presentation in Table 6B.9. The levels estimated by 

manufacturers added to 33 in 1997 , which compared reasonably with 37 jobs estimated from industry 

revenues and standard labor rates. The remaining "other electronic" supplier industries: transistors, 

6-51 
diodes, ferrite cores, and miscellaneous small items, were not included in the interviews.

Employment levels were estimated fi•om revenues and assumed values for labor cost as a fraction

of revenues and hourly labor rates. The 1997 employment level derived this way was 37 j obs, which

amounted to 30 and 26 potential jobs gained under the 3% and 5% scenarios, respectively.

Table 6B.9 Estimated Employment Impacts for Electronic Ballast Supplier Industries

POTENTIAL JOBS GAINED

INDUSTRY 3% Scenario 5% Scenario

PC Board, Bobbins 27 23

Other Electronic 30 26

TOTAL 57 49

6B.3 COMBINED FINANCIAL AND EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS FOR ALL SUPPLIERS

In this section we combine the results from Section 3.3 which considered suppliers to both

"affected" magnetic and electronic ballast manufacturers with those from Section 3.4 that considered

suppliers now serving only the electronic ballast manufacturers to present the overall impacts on

supplier industries.

6B.3.1 Financial Impacts

Tables 6B. 10 and 6B. 11 summarize the reference and worst cases, respectively. The reference

case assumes that U.S. domestic suppliers will maintain their 1997 market shares of electronic

ballast production if a new ballast energy efficiency standard were to become effective in 2003. The

worst case, Table 6B. 11, assumes that all the components and materials used in the new electronic

ballasts will be supplied by foreign plants. The financial impact ranges from a reference case of a

$7.6 million decline in NPV cash flow under the 5% scenario to a $20.7 million decline under the

3% scenario and assuming foreign suppliers provide all materials and components. Since some

decline in domestic suppliers' market share has already taken place, the reference case results shown

in Table 6B. 10 are unlikely to be realized, but, on the other hand domestic suppliers can be expected

to retain a portion of their market share. Thus, the expected financial impact should be in the range

-$7.6 million to -$20.7 million.

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

diodes, ferrite cores, and miscellaneous small items, were not included in the interviews. 

Employment levels were estimated from revenues and assumed values for labor cost as a fraction 

of revenues and hourly labor rates. The 1997 employment level derived this way was 37 jobs, which 

amounted to 30 and 26 potential jobs gained under the 3% and 5% scenarios, respectively. 

T a bi e 6B9 . E . shmate dE mpJoyment I mpacts £ or EI ectromc . B a II ast S uppller r I ndustnes 

POTENTIAL JOBS GAINED 

INDUSTRY 3% Scenario 5% Scenario 

PC Board, Bobbins 27 23 

Other Electronic 30 26 

TOTAL 57 49 

6B.3 COMBINED FINANCIAL AND EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS FOR ALL SUPPLIERS 

In this section we combine the results from Section 3.3 which considered suppliers to both 

"affected" magnetic and electronic ballast manufacturers with those from Section 3.4 that considered 

suppliers now serving only the electronic ballast manufacturers to present the overall impacts on 

supplier industries. 

6B.3.1 Financial Impacts 

Tables 6B.l 0 and 6B.ll summarize the reference and worst cases, respectively. The reference 

case assumes that U.S. domestic suppliers will maintain their 1997 market shares of electronic 

ballast production if a new ballast energy efficiency standard were to become effective in 2003. The 

worst case, Table 6B.ll, assumes that all the components and materials used in the new electronic 

ballasts will be supplied by foreign plants. The financial impact ranges from a reference case of a 

$7.6 million decline in NPV cash flow under the 5% scenario to a $20.7 million decline under the 

3% scenario and assuming foreign suppliers provide all materials and components. Since some 

decline in domestic suppliers' market share has already taken p lace, the reference case results shown 

in Table 6B.l 0 are unlikely to be realized, but, on the other hand domestic suppliers can be expected 

to retain a portion oftheir market share. Thus, the expected financial impact should be in the range 

-$7.6 million to -$20.7 million. 

6-52 

diodes, ferrite cores, and miscellaneous small items, were not included in the interviews. 

Employment levels were estimated from revenues and assumed values for labor cost as a fraction 

of revenues and hourly labor rates. The 1997 employment level derived this way was 37 jobs, which 

amounted to 30 and 26 potential jobs gained under the 3% and 5% scenarios, respectively. 

T a bi e 6B9 . E . shmate dE mpJoyment I mpacts £ or EI ectromc . B a II ast S uppller r I ndustnes 

POTENTIAL JOBS GAINED 

INDUSTRY 3% Scenario 5% Scenario 

PC Board, Bobbins 27 23 

Other Electronic 30 26 

TOTAL 57 49 

6B.3 COMBINED FINANCIAL AND EMPLOYMENT IMPACTS FOR ALL SUPPLIERS 

In this section we combine the results from Section 3.3 which considered suppliers to both 

"affected" magnetic and electronic ballast manufacturers with those from Section 3.4 that considered 

suppliers now serving only the electronic ballast manufacturers to present the overall impacts on 

supplier industries. 

6B.3.1 Financial Impacts 

Tables 6B.l 0 and 6B.ll summarize the reference and worst cases, respectively. The reference 

case assumes that U.S. domestic suppliers will maintain their 1997 market shares of electronic 

ballast production if a new ballast energy efficiency standard were to become effective in 2003. The 

worst case, Table 6B.ll, assumes that all the components and materials used in the new electronic 

ballasts will be supplied by foreign plants. The financial impact ranges from a reference case of a 

$7.6 million decline in NPV cash flow under the 5% scenario to a $20.7 million decline under the 

3% scenario and assuming foreign suppliers provide all materials and components. Since some 

decline in domestic suppliers' market share has already taken p lace, the reference case results shown 

in Table 6B.l 0 are unlikely to be realized, but, on the other hand domestic suppliers can be expected 

to retain a portion oftheir market share. Thus, the expected financial impact should be in the range 

-$7.6 million to -$20.7 million. 

6-52 
Table 6B.10 Estimated Npv in $Millions for Supplier Industries, Assuming Domestic Supplier

Industries Maintain Their 1997 Market Shares (Reference Case

5% Scenario, 1998-2015 3% Scenario, 1998-2027

INDUSTRY Base

Case

Standar

d Case

Chang

e $Mil

Base

Case

Standar

d Case

Change

$Mil

Capacitor 1.28 1.59 0.31 1.34 1.74 0.41

Magnet, Lead Wire,

Connectors

11.40 8.83 -2.57 12.39 9.27 -3.13

TP, Metal Clamps, Potting &

Impregnating

8.55 7.05 -1.51 10.24 7.59 -2.65

Steel 16.59 12.45 -4.14 18.74 14.21 -4.53

Other Mag/Electronic

Suppliers

6.11 4.87 -1.23 6.81 5.18 -1.63

PC Board, Bobbins 1 .87 2.81 .94 1.45 2.69 1.24

Other Electronic Suppliers .79 1.44 .65 1.04 1.88 .84

TOTAL, 46.59 39.04 -7.55 52.01 42.56 -9.45

Table 6B.11 Estimated NPV in $Millions for Supplier Industries, Assuming Foreign Suppliers

Ca ture All the New Electronic Ballast Market (Worst Case

5% Scenario, 1998-2015 3% Scenario, 1998-2027

INDUSTRY Base

Case

Standar

d Case

Chang

e $Mil

Base

Case

Standar

d Case

Change

$Mil

Capacitor 1.28 .89 -.39 1.34 .92 -0.41

Magnet, Lead Wire,

Connectors

11.40 8.06 -3.34 12.39 8.37 -4.03

TP, Metal Clamps, Potting &

Impregnating

8.55 5.69 -2.86 10.24 5.92 -4.31

Steel 16.59 11.05 -5.54 18.74 11.54 -7.20

Other 6.11 4.13 -1.97 6.81 4.31 -2.50

PC Board, Bobbins 1.87 0.25 -1.62 1.45 0.15 -1.3

Other Electronic Suppliers 0.79 0.16 -0.64 1.04 0.09 -0.94

TOTAL 46.59 30.23 -16.36 52.01 31.3 -20.69

6B.3.2 Employment Impacts

The reference-case employment impacts under the 3% and 5% scenarios are summarized in

Tables 6B. 12 and 6B.13, respectively. The more gradual 3% decline in the base case leaves more

jobs still at risk in 2003 than in the case of the 5% scenario. Thus the expected job losses are about

340 under the 3% scenario and about 313 under the 5% scenario. The potential for job gains from

the increased production of electronic replacements is approximately 144 and 129 under the 3% and

5% scenarios. The resultant net job losses for the reference case conditions are 196 and 184. The

6-53

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table 6B.10 Estimated Npv in $Millions for Supplier Industries, Assuming Domestic Supplier 

Industries Maintain Their 1997 Market Shares (Reference Case) 

5% Scenario, 1998-2015 3% Scenario, 1998-2027 

INDUSTRY Base Standar Chang Base Standar Change 

Case dCase e $Mil Case dCase $Mil 

Capacitor 1.28 1.59 0.31 1.34 1.74 0.41 

Magnet, Lead Wire, 11.40 8.83 -2.57 12.39 9.27 -3.13 

Connectors 

TP, Metal Clamps, Potting & 8.55 7.05 -1.51 10.24 7.59 -2.65 

Impregnating 

Steel 16.59 12.45 -4.14 18.74 14.21 -4.53 

Other Mag/Electronic 6.11 4.87 -1.23 6.81 5.18 -1.63 

Suppliers 

PC Board, Bobbins 1.87 2.81 .94 1.45 2.69 1.24 

Other Electronic Suppliers .79 1.44 .65 1.04 1.88 .84 

TOTAL 46.59 39.04 -7.55 52.01 42.56 -9.45 

Table 6B.11 Estimated NPV in $MiHions for Supplier Industries, Assuming Foreign Suppliers 

Capture AU the New Electronic Ballast Market (Worst Case 

5% Scenario, 1998-2015 3% Scenario, 1998-2027 

INDUSTRY Base Stan dar Chang Base Standar Change 

Case d Case e $Mil Case d Case $Mil 

Capacitor 1.28 .89 -.39 1.34 .92 -0.41 

Magnet, Lead Wire, 11.40 8.06 -3.34 12.39 8.37 -4.03 

Connectors 

TP, Metal Clamps, Potting & 8.55 5.69 -2.86 10.24 5.92 -4.31 

Impregnating 

Steel 16.59 11.05 -5.54 18.74 11.54 -7.20 

Other 6.11 4.13 -1.97 6.81 4.31 -2.50 

PC Board, Bobbins 1.87 0.25 -1.62 1.45 0.15 -1.3 

Other Electronic Suppliers 0.79 0.16 -0.64 1.04 0.09 -0.94 

TOTAL 46.59 30.23 -16.36 52.01 31.3 -20.69 

6B.3.2 Employment Impacts 

The reference-case employment impacts under the 3% and 5% scenarios are summarized in 

Tables 6B.12 and 6B.13, respectively. The more gradual 3% decline in the base case leaves more 

jobs still at risk in 2003 than in the case ofthe 5% scenario. Thus the expected job losses are about 

340 under the 3% scenario and about 313 under the 5% scenario. The potential for job gains from 

the increased production of electronic replacements is approximately 144 and 129 under the 3% and 

5% scenarios. The resultant net job losses for the reference case conditions are 196 and 184. The 

6-53 

Table 6B.10 Estimated Npv in $Millions for Supplier Industries, Assuming Domestic Supplier 

Industries Maintain Their 1997 Market Shares (Reference Case) 

5% Scenario, 1998-2015 3% Scenario, 1998-2027 

INDUSTRY Base Standar Chang Base Standar Change 

Case dCase e $Mil Case dCase $Mil 

Capacitor 1.28 1.59 0.31 1.34 1.74 0.41 

Magnet, Lead Wire, 11.40 8.83 -2.57 12.39 9.27 -3.13 

Connectors 

TP, Metal Clamps, Potting & 8.55 7.05 -1.51 10.24 7.59 -2.65 

Impregnating 

Steel 16.59 12.45 -4.14 18.74 14.21 -4.53 

Other Mag/Electronic 6.11 4.87 -1.23 6.81 5.18 -1.63 

Suppliers 

PC Board, Bobbins 1.87 2.81 .94 1.45 2.69 1.24 

Other Electronic Suppliers .79 1.44 .65 1.04 1.88 .84 

TOTAL 46.59 39.04 -7.55 52.01 42.56 -9.45 

Table 6B.11 Estimated NPV in $MiHions for Supplier Industries, Assuming Foreign Suppliers 

Capture AU the New Electronic Ballast Market (Worst Case 

5% Scenario, 1998-2015 3% Scenario, 1998-2027 

INDUSTRY Base Stan dar Chang Base Standar Change 

Case d Case e $Mil Case d Case $Mil 

Capacitor 1.28 .89 -.39 1.34 .92 -0.41 

Magnet, Lead Wire, 11.40 8.06 -3.34 12.39 8.37 -4.03 

Connectors 

TP, Metal Clamps, Potting & 8.55 5.69 -2.86 10.24 5.92 -4.31 

Impregnating 

Steel 16.59 11.05 -5.54 18.74 11.54 -7.20 

Other 6.11 4.13 -1.97 6.81 4.31 -2.50 

PC Board, Bobbins 1.87 0.25 -1.62 1.45 0.15 -1.3 

Other Electronic Suppliers 0.79 0.16 -0.64 1.04 0.09 -0.94 

TOTAL 46.59 30.23 -16.36 52.01 31.3 -20.69 

6B.3.2 Employment Impacts 

The reference-case employment impacts under the 3% and 5% scenarios are summarized in 

Tables 6B.12 and 6B.13, respectively. The more gradual 3% decline in the base case leaves more 

jobs still at risk in 2003 than in the case ofthe 5% scenario. Thus the expected job losses are about 

340 under the 3% scenario and about 313 under the 5% scenario. The potential for job gains from 

the increased production of electronic replacements is approximately 144 and 129 under the 3% and 

5% scenarios. The resultant net job losses for the reference case conditions are 196 and 184. The 

6-53 
worst case condition, wherein all the new electronic ballast production is supplied by foreign firms,

is summarized in Table 6B.14 and corresponds to the jobs lost results shown in Tables 6B.5 and

6B.6 without any compensating gains by electronic ballast suppliers. In the worst case, then, supplier

industries' job losses would be in the 313-340 range.

Table 6B.12 Estimated Employment Impacts for Supplier Industries Assuming Domestic

Suppliers Maintain Their 1997 Market Shares (3% Scenario)

INDUSTRY

Capacitor

Magnet & Lead Wire

TP, Metal Clamp, Potting

Steel

Metallized Film

Other Magnetic/Electronic

PC Board, Bobbins

Other Electronic

TOTAL

JOBS LOST

POTENTIAL JOBS

GAINED

Electronic Ballasts

Direct

Impact

Associated

Impact

29 37

76 11

57 Plant closure 23 15

63 14

48 1

44 9

27

30

317 23 144

Table 6B.13 Estimated Employment Impacts for Supplier Industries Assuming Domestic

Suppliers Maintain Their 1997 Market Shares (5% Scenario

INDUSTRY

JOBS LOST POTENTIAL JOBS

GAINED

Electronic Ballasts

Direct

Impact

Associated

Impact

Capacitor 27 34

Magnet & Lead Wire 69 10

TP, Metal Clamp, Potting 52 Plant closure 23 14

Steel 58 13

Metallized Film 44 1

Other 40 8

PC Board, Bobbins 23

Other Electronic 26

TOTAL 290 23 129

6-54

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

worst case condition, wherein all the new electronic ballast production is supplied by foreign firms, 

is summarized in Table 6B.14 and conesponds to the jobs lost results shown in Tables 6B.5 and 

6B.6 without any compensating gains by electronic ballast suppliers. In the worst case, then, supplier 

industries' job losses would be in the 313-340 range. 

Table 6B.12 Estimated Employment Impacts for Supplier Industries Assuming Domestic 

Suppliers Maintain Their 1997 Market Shares (3% Scenario) 

POTENTIAL JOBS 

GAINED 

INDUSTRY JOBS LOST Electronic Ballasts 1 ',,,'::::: ' .::. , ... , .. '.: .. : Direct Associated I·} ••. ,:: .: ......... y .•..•.••.••. 

I'····:: .. >< .......................... y .•• , •.• ,. Impact Impact 1,'>/ .. , .••...•. , .• ,.' ................ , ..•••..•. 

Capacitor 29 37 

Magnet & Lead Wire 76 11 

TP, Metal Clamp, Potting 57 Plant closure 23 15 

Steel 63 14 

Metallized Film 48 1 

Other Magnetic/Electronic 44 9 

PC Board, Bobbins 27 

Other Electronic 30 

TOTAL 317 23 144 

Table 6B.13 Estimated Employment Impacts for Supplier Industries Assuming Domestic 

Maintain Their 1997 Market Shares % 

JOBS LOST POTENTIAL JOBS 

GAINED 

6-54 

worst case condition, wherein all the new electronic ballast production is supplied by foreign firms, 

is summarized in Table 6B.14 and conesponds to the jobs lost results shown in Tables 6B.5 and 

6B.6 without any compensating gains by electronic ballast suppliers. In the worst case, then, supplier 

industries' job losses would be in the 313-340 range. 

Table 6B.12 Estimated Employment Impacts for Supplier Industries Assuming Domestic 

Suppliers Maintain Their 1997 Market Shares (3% Scenario) 

POTENTIAL JOBS 

GAINED 

INDUSTRY JOBS LOST Electronic Ballasts 1 ',,,'::::: ' .::. , ... , .. '.: .. : Direct Associated I·} ••. ,:: .: ......... y .•..•.••.••. 

I'····:: .. >< .......................... y .•• , •.• ,. Impact Impact 1,'>/ .. , .••...•. , .• ,.' ................ , ..•••..•. 

Capacitor 29 37 

Magnet & Lead Wire 76 11 

TP, Metal Clamp, Potting 57 Plant closure 23 15 

Steel 63 14 

Metallized Film 48 1 

Other Magnetic/Electronic 44 9 

PC Board, Bobbins 27 

Other Electronic 30 

TOTAL 317 23 144 

Table 6B.13 Estimated Employment Impacts for Supplier Industries Assuming Domestic 

Maintain Their 1997 Market Shares % 

JOBS LOST POTENTIAL JOBS 

GAINED 

6-54 
Table 6B.14 Estimated Employment Impacts for Supplier Industries Assuming Foreign

Su liers Capture All the New Electronic Ballast Market

INDUSTRY JOBS LOST (3% Scenario) JOBS LOST (5% Scenario)

Direct

Impact

Associated

Impact

Direct

Impact

Associated Impact

Capacitor 29 27

Magnet & Lead Wire 76 69

TP, Metal Clamp, Potting 57 Plant closure 23 52 Plant closure 23

Steel 63 58

Metallized Film 48 44

Other 44 40

TOTAL 317 23 290 23

6C. IMPACT ON LUMINAIRE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

6C.1 Summary

New energy-efficiency standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts will significantly alter the

product mix of ballast shipments among magnetic , cathode cutout, and electronic types. Because

magnetic and electronic ballast types differ in some significant ways in their performance

characteristics and prices, a new energy-efficiency standard has a potential for impacting ballast

industry trade allies, including the luminaire manufacturers. Luminaire manufacturing is a $7 billion

per year industry in the U.S . that employs about 60,000 people. The "affected" linear four and eightfoot fluorescent fixtures portion of the industry ships approximately $ 1.4 billion of product annually.

Arthur D. Little performed an analysis of the impacts of an electronic ballast standard on

luminaire manufacturers. The methodology used was to conduct a literature review to characterize

the luminaire industry and to carry out interviews with representatives of the major manufacturers

of linear fluorescent luminaires serving commercial and industrial users. Ballast manufacturers and

the literature review identified key luminaire manufacturer firms, and a number of additional firms

were identified through their attendance at one or more ballast workshops at the Department and/or

their correspondence with the Department on ballast efficiency issues. The eight manufacturers

interviewed represent over 60% of fluorescent luminaire sales and over 80 % of the linear fluorescent

fixture market affected by the proposed new energy efficiency standard for ballasts.

Comments from luminaire manufacturers and other industry sources in past discussions or

correspondence and our interviews with the manufacturers suggested that there are four broad issues

of concern to them.

Customer choice will be reduced by a standard and some luminaire purchasers will be forced

to select higher cost options than they otherwise would, and some will choose higher energy

consumptive options (incandescent or halogen) than fluorescent. The interview results

suggest that the directions of these impacts are negative as suggested but that the impacts are

6-55

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table 6B.14 Estimated Employment Impacts for Supplier Industries Assuming Foreign 

S upplers r C apture All t e h N ew EI ectromc . B a n ast M k ar et 

INDUSTRY JOBS LOST (3% Scenario) JOBS LOST (5% Scenario) 

............................. Direct Associated Direct Associated Impact 

" .. :: .. : .. :...:: . Impact Impact Impact 

Capacitor 29 27 

Magnet & Lead Wire 76 69 

TP, Metal Clamp, Potting 57 Plant closure 23 52 Plant closure 23 

Steel 63 58 

Metallized Film 48 44 

Other 44 40 

TOTAL 317 23 290 23 

6C. IMPACT ON LUMINA IRE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY 

6C.1 Summary 

New energy-efficiency standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts will significantly alter the 

product mix of ballast shipments among magnetic, cathode cutout, and electronic types. Because 

magnetic and electronic ballast types differ in some significant ways in their perfornlance 

characteristics and prices, a new energy-efficiency standard has a potential for impacting ballast 

industry trade allies, including the luminaire manufacturers. Luminaire manufacturing is a $7 billion 

per year industry in the U.S. that employs about 60,000 people. The "affected" linear four and eightfoot fluorescent fixtures portion ofthe industry ships approximately $1.4 billion of product annually. 

Arthur D. Little perfornled an analysis of the impacts of an electronic ballast standard on 

luminaire manufacturers. The methodology used was to conduct a literature review to characterize 

the luminaire industry and to cany out interviews with representatives of the major manufacturers 

oflinear fluorescent luminaires serving commercial and industrial users. Ballast manufacturers and 

the literature review identified key luminaire manufacturer firms, and a number of additional finns 

were identified through their attendance at one or more ballast workshops at the Department and/or 

their correspondence with the Depmtment on ballast efficiency issues. The eight manufacturers 

interviewed represent over 60% of fluorescent luminaire sales and over 80% of the linear fluorescent 

fixture market affected by the proposed new energy efficiency standard for ballasts. 

Comments from luminaire manufacturers and other industry sources in past discussions or 

correspondence and our interviews with the manufacturers suggested that there are four broad issues 

of concern to them. 

e Customer choice will be reduced by a standard and some luminaire purchasers will be forced 

to select higher cost options than they otherwise would, and some will choose higher energy 

consumptive options (incandescent or halogen) than fluorescent. The interview results 

suggest that the directions ofthese impacts are negative as suggested but that the impacts are 

6-55 

Table 6B.14 Estimated Employment Impacts for Supplier Industries Assuming Foreign 

S upplers r C apture All t e h N ew EI ectromc . B a n ast M k ar et 

INDUSTRY JOBS LOST (3% Scenario) JOBS LOST (5% Scenario) 

............................. Direct Associated Direct Associated Impact 

" .. :: .. : .. :...:: . Impact Impact Impact 

Capacitor 29 27 

Magnet & Lead Wire 76 69 

TP, Metal Clamp, Potting 57 Plant closure 23 52 Plant closure 23 

Steel 63 58 

Metallized Film 48 44 

Other 44 40 

TOTAL 317 23 290 23 

6C. IMPACT ON LUMINA IRE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY 

6C.1 Summary 

New energy-efficiency standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts will significantly alter the 

product mix of ballast shipments among magnetic, cathode cutout, and electronic types. Because 

magnetic and electronic ballast types differ in some significant ways in their perfornlance 

characteristics and prices, a new energy-efficiency standard has a potential for impacting ballast 

industry trade allies, including the luminaire manufacturers. Luminaire manufacturing is a $7 billion 

per year industry in the U.S. that employs about 60,000 people. The "affected" linear four and eightfoot fluorescent fixtures portion ofthe industry ships approximately $1.4 billion of product annually. 

Arthur D. Little perfornled an analysis of the impacts of an electronic ballast standard on 

luminaire manufacturers. The methodology used was to conduct a literature review to characterize 

the luminaire industry and to cany out interviews with representatives of the major manufacturers 

oflinear fluorescent luminaires serving commercial and industrial users. Ballast manufacturers and 

the literature review identified key luminaire manufacturer firms, and a number of additional finns 

were identified through their attendance at one or more ballast workshops at the Department and/or 

their correspondence with the Depmtment on ballast efficiency issues. The eight manufacturers 

interviewed represent over 60% of fluorescent luminaire sales and over 80% of the linear fluorescent 

fixture market affected by the proposed new energy efficiency standard for ballasts. 

Comments from luminaire manufacturers and other industry sources in past discussions or 

correspondence and our interviews with the manufacturers suggested that there are four broad issues 

of concern to them. 

e Customer choice will be reduced by a standard and some luminaire purchasers will be forced 

to select higher cost options than they otherwise would, and some will choose higher energy 

consumptive options (incandescent or halogen) than fluorescent. The interview results 

suggest that the directions ofthese impacts are negative as suggested but that the impacts are 

6-55 
not easily quantifiable and are small overall.

Exemptions for residential, dimming, and cold temperature applications, and for applications

exhibiting problems with electromagnetic interference from high frequency electronically

ballasted lighting. The manufacturers were generally in favor of these exemptions with some

minority reservations on the residential exemption inasmuch as it opens the door for some

commercial end users to install "affected" luminaires by purchasing the residential product.

In general, the exemptions have the advantage of softening the abrupt impact of the standard

year on the market and allow these selected market segments to maintain their uses of

fluorescent lighting without major problems.

® Global competition is price competitive for linear fluorescent luminaires and elimination of

low-cost "affected" magnetic ballasts could cause ballast manufacturers to raise prices on

those remaining and being used for the export market, thus raising luminaire costs for

domestic manufacturers. This issue is of concern to a small number of manufacturers who

have substantial export business (nearly all export less than 5% of their shipments) or who

are actively seeking to expand their export business.

® Direct financial and employment impacts due to possible short-term shortages of electronic

ballasts, loss of the price premium for electronic ballast/T8 luminaires, or differences in

profitability between the mix of electronic and magnetic-based luminaires in the base case

from that for the standard case.

A majority of the interviewees believe that the electronic ballast industry will be able to

supply the ballasts needed. A minority felt that a medium term shortage would develop in spite of

the over capacity that currently exists in the industry.

About half of the manufacturers expected no or minimal impacts on profitability from a new

standard while the remaining expected a range of negative impacts. The impacts were attributed to

differences in profitability between base case and standard product mixes and to direct costs

associated with changes in product literature, business processes, product testing and evaluation, and

information management systems required by new product offerings emanating from a new standard.

The aggregated "worst case" change in net present value due to profitability changes for the industry

is negative in the range $9-18 million, assuming that the current premium margin for electronically

ballasted luminaires remains constant in the base case. This is unlikely, however, as the recent trend

has been toward convergence in margins between electronic and magnetic. Assuming continuation

of this convergence of luminaire margins, a reasonable range of change in value to luminaire

manufacturers is approximately -$3 to -$6 million in cash flow due to profitability differences. The

other direct costs reported above amount to about $1 million. In summary the net present value of

costs to the industry is approximately $4-7 million.

In addition, there were concerns expressed that a standard would divert resources from new

product and technology introduction and result in lost opportunities. Also some luminaire

manufacturers look to their ballast manufacturer allies to develop special ballast products for their

luminaires, and to the extent that the ballast manufacturers are distracted by changes imposed by new

standards, they cannot attend to technical assistance to luminaire manufacturers

6-56

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

not easily quantifiable and are small overall. 

.. Exemptions for residential, dimming, and cold temperature applications, and for applications 

exhibiting problems with electromagnetic interference from high frequency electronically 

ballasted lighting. The manufacturers were generally in favor ofthese exemptions with some 

minority reservations on the residential exemption inasmuch as it opens the door for some 

commercial end users to install "affected" luminaires by purchasing the residential product. 

In general, the exemptions have the advantage of softening the abrupt impact of the standard 

year on the market and allow these selected market segments to maintain their uses of 

fluorescent lighting without major problems. 

Global competition is price competitive for linear fluorescent luminaires and elimination of 

low-cost "affected" magnetic ballasts could cause ballast manufacturers to raise prices on 

those remaining and being used for the export market, thus raising luminaire costs for 

domestic manufacturers. This issue is of concern to a small number of manufacturers who 

have substantial export business (nearly all export less than 5% of their shipments) or who 

are actively seeking to expand their export business. 

.. Direct financial and employment impacts due to possible short-term shortages of electronic 

ballasts, loss of the price premium for electronic ballast/T8 luminaires, or differences in 

profitability between the mix of electronic and magnetic-based luminaires in the base case 

from that for the standard case. 

A majority of the interviewees believe that the electronic ballast industry will be able to 

supply the ballasts needed. A minority felt that a medium term shortage would develop in spite of 

the over capacity that currently exists in the industry. 

About half of the manufacturers expected no or minimal impacts on profitability from a new 

standard while the remaining expected a range of negative impacts. The impacts were attributed to 

differences in profitability between base case and standard product mixes and to direct costs 

associated with changes in product literature, business processes, product testing and evaluation, and 

information management systems required by new product offerings emanating from a new standard. 

The aggregated "worst case" change in net present value due to profitability changes for the industry 

is negative in the range $9-18 million, assuming that the current premium margin for electronically 

ballasted luminaires remains constant in the base case. This is unlikely, however, as the recent trend 

has been toward convergence in margins between electronic and magnetic. Assuming continuation 

of this convergence of luminaire margins, a reasonable range of change in value to luminaire 

manufacturers is approximately -$3 to -$6 million in cash flow due to profitability differences. The 

other direct costs reported above amount to about $1 million. In summary the net present value of 

costs to the industry is approximately $4-7 million. 

In addition, there were concerns expressed that a standard would divert resources from new 

product and technology introduction and result in lost opportunities. Also some luminaire 

manufacturers look to their ballast manufacturer allies to develop special ballast products for their 

luminaires, and to the extent that the ballast manufacturers are distracted by changes imposed by new 

standards, they cannot attend to technical assistance to luminaire manufacturers 

6-56 

not easily quantifiable and are small overall. 

.. Exemptions for residential, dimming, and cold temperature applications, and for applications 

exhibiting problems with electromagnetic interference from high frequency electronically 

ballasted lighting. The manufacturers were generally in favor ofthese exemptions with some 

minority reservations on the residential exemption inasmuch as it opens the door for some 

commercial end users to install "affected" luminaires by purchasing the residential product. 

In general, the exemptions have the advantage of softening the abrupt impact of the standard 

year on the market and allow these selected market segments to maintain their uses of 

fluorescent lighting without major problems. 

Global competition is price competitive for linear fluorescent luminaires and elimination of 

low-cost "affected" magnetic ballasts could cause ballast manufacturers to raise prices on 

those remaining and being used for the export market, thus raising luminaire costs for 

domestic manufacturers. This issue is of concern to a small number of manufacturers who 

have substantial export business (nearly all export less than 5% of their shipments) or who 

are actively seeking to expand their export business. 

.. Direct financial and employment impacts due to possible short-term shortages of electronic 

ballasts, loss of the price premium for electronic ballast/T8 luminaires, or differences in 

profitability between the mix of electronic and magnetic-based luminaires in the base case 

from that for the standard case. 

A majority of the interviewees believe that the electronic ballast industry will be able to 

supply the ballasts needed. A minority felt that a medium term shortage would develop in spite of 

the over capacity that currently exists in the industry. 

About half of the manufacturers expected no or minimal impacts on profitability from a new 

standard while the remaining expected a range of negative impacts. The impacts were attributed to 

differences in profitability between base case and standard product mixes and to direct costs 

associated with changes in product literature, business processes, product testing and evaluation, and 

information management systems required by new product offerings emanating from a new standard. 

The aggregated "worst case" change in net present value due to profitability changes for the industry 

is negative in the range $9-18 million, assuming that the current premium margin for electronically 

ballasted luminaires remains constant in the base case. This is unlikely, however, as the recent trend 

has been toward convergence in margins between electronic and magnetic. Assuming continuation 

of this convergence of luminaire margins, a reasonable range of change in value to luminaire 

manufacturers is approximately -$3 to -$6 million in cash flow due to profitability differences. The 

other direct costs reported above amount to about $1 million. In summary the net present value of 

costs to the industry is approximately $4-7 million. 

In addition, there were concerns expressed that a standard would divert resources from new 

product and technology introduction and result in lost opportunities. Also some luminaire 

manufacturers look to their ballast manufacturer allies to develop special ballast products for their 

luminaires, and to the extent that the ballast manufacturers are distracted by changes imposed by new 

standards, they cannot attend to technical assistance to luminaire manufacturers 

6-56 
Nearly all the manufacturers saw no significant impact on their employment levels as a result

of a new standard, and no manufacturer suggested any quantitative employment impact.

6C.2 Introduction

New energy-efficiency standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts will significantly alter the

product mix of ballast shipments among magnetic , cathode cutout, and electronic types. Because

magnetic and electronic ballast types differ in some significant ways in their performance

characteristics and prices, a new energy-efficiency standard has a potential for impacting ballast

industry trade allies, including the luminaire manufacturers . This chapter documents the financial

and other impacts that luminaire manufacturers might experience as a result of a new energy

efficiency standard for ballasts.

Arthur D. Little performed an analysis of the impacts of an electronic ballast standard on

luminaire manufacturers. The methodology used was to conduct a literature review to characterize

the luminaire industry and to carry out interviews with representatives of the major manufacturers

of linear fluorescent luminaires serving commercial and industrial users. The interview guides used

to structure and organize the interview discussion invited manufacturer interviewees to discuss:

• Company opinions or positions on issues related to new energy efficiency standards for ballasts

• Changes in product design and production methods required to accommodate new energyefficiency standards

• Cost and financial impacts of changes in ballast energy-efficiency standards

• Employment impacts of changes in ballast energy-efficiency standards

Ballast manufacturers and the literature review identified key luminaire manufacturer firms,

and a number of additional firms were identified through their attendance at one or more ballast

workshops at the Department and/or their correspondence with the Department on ballast efficiency

issues. All of these manufacturers were invited to interview with Arthur D. Little concerning the

issues listed above. The following manufacturers make up this list.

• Cooper Lighting Group

• Genlyte Thomas Group

- Genlyte Group

® Lightolier, Inc.

- Thomas Industries

® Day-Brite, Inc.

® Wide-Lite, Inc.

• Holophane Corporation

- Halophane merged with Lithonia in 1999

• H.E. Williams and Infinity Lighting, Inc.

• Hubbell Lighting, Inc.

• Lighting Corporation of America

6-57

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Nearly all the manufacturers saw no significant impact on their employment levels as a result 

of a new standard, and no manufacturer suggested any quantitative employment impact. 

6C.2 Introduction 

New energy-efficiency standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts will significantly alter the 

product mix of ballast shipments among magnetic, cathode cutout, and electronic types. Because 

magnetic and electronic ballast types differ in some significant ways in their performance 

characteristics and prices, a new energy-efficiency standard has a potential for impacting ballast 

industry trade allies, including the luminaire manufacturers. This chapter documents the financial 

and other impacts that luminaire manufacturers might experience as a result of a new energy 

efficiency standard for ballasts. 

Arthur D. Little performed an analysis of the impacts of an electronic ballast standard on 

luminaire manufacturers. The methodology used was to conduct a literature review to characterize 

the luminaire industry and to carry out interviews with representatives of the major manufacturers 

oflinear fluorescent luminaires serving commercial and industrial users. The interview guides used 

to structure and organize the interview discussion invited manufacturer interviewees to discuss: 

• Company opinions or positions on issues related to new energy efficiency standards for ballasts 

Changes in product design and production methods required to accommodate new energyefficiency standards 

• Cost and financial impacts of changes in ballast energy-efficiency standards 

Employment impacts of changes in ballast energy-efficiency standards 

Ballast manufacturers and the literature review identified key luminaire manufacturer firms, 

and a number of additional firms were identified through their attendance at one or more ballast 

workshops at the Department and! or their correspondence with the Department on ballast efficiency 

issues. All of these manufacturers were invited to interview with Arthur D. Little concerning the 

issues listed above. The following manufacturers make up this list. 

Cooper Lighting Group 

Genlyte Thomas Group 

- Genlyte Group 

II Lightolier, Inc. 

- Thomas Industries 

II Day-Brite, Inc. 

II Wide-Lite, Inc. 

Holophane Corporation 

- Halophane merged with Lithonia in 1999 

• H.E. Williams and Infinity Lighting, Inc. 

• Hubbell Lighting, Inc. 

Lighting Corporation of America 

6-57 

Nearly all the manufacturers saw no significant impact on their employment levels as a result 

of a new standard, and no manufacturer suggested any quantitative employment impact. 

6C.2 Introduction 

New energy-efficiency standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts will significantly alter the 

product mix of ballast shipments among magnetic, cathode cutout, and electronic types. Because 

magnetic and electronic ballast types differ in some significant ways in their performance 

characteristics and prices, a new energy-efficiency standard has a potential for impacting ballast 

industry trade allies, including the luminaire manufacturers. This chapter documents the financial 

and other impacts that luminaire manufacturers might experience as a result of a new energy 

efficiency standard for ballasts. 

Arthur D. Little performed an analysis of the impacts of an electronic ballast standard on 

luminaire manufacturers. The methodology used was to conduct a literature review to characterize 

the luminaire industry and to carry out interviews with representatives of the major manufacturers 

oflinear fluorescent luminaires serving commercial and industrial users. The interview guides used 

to structure and organize the interview discussion invited manufacturer interviewees to discuss: 

• Company opinions or positions on issues related to new energy efficiency standards for ballasts 

Changes in product design and production methods required to accommodate new energyefficiency standards 

• Cost and financial impacts of changes in ballast energy-efficiency standards 

Employment impacts of changes in ballast energy-efficiency standards 

Ballast manufacturers and the literature review identified key luminaire manufacturer firms, 

and a number of additional firms were identified through their attendance at one or more ballast 

workshops at the Department and! or their correspondence with the Department on ballast efficiency 

issues. All of these manufacturers were invited to interview with Arthur D. Little concerning the 

issues listed above. The following manufacturers make up this list. 

Cooper Lighting Group 

Genlyte Thomas Group 

- Genlyte Group 

II Lightolier, Inc. 

- Thomas Industries 

II Day-Brite, Inc. 

II Wide-Lite, Inc. 

Holophane Corporation 

- Halophane merged with Lithonia in 1999 

• H.E. Williams and Infinity Lighting, Inc. 

• Hubbell Lighting, Inc. 

Lighting Corporation of America 

6-57 
- Columbia Lighting Corporation

® Lithonia Lighting Company

® Peerless Lighting Corporation

- Peerless merged with Lithonia in 1999

® Simkar Corporation

Arthur D. Little sent letters of invitation to 11 luminaire manufacturing organizations. The

letters invited each individual to participate in a discussion structured around an interview guide

developed in conjunction with the Department of Energy program manager and enclosed with the

invitation letter. Follow-up phone calls determined that one manufacturer 's production of luminaires

using the "affected" magnetic ballasts is insignificant and the interview in that case was not done.

Two other manufacturers, Holophane Corporation and Peerless Lighting Corporation, had been

merged with Lithonia Lighting and input from them was obtained through a visit and interview

meeting at Lithonia Headquarters. In summary, we conducted eight interviews representing

information from ten of the 11 manufacturer organizations in the list above . One manufacturer had

little or no production of the "affected" luminaires as mentioned above. The manufacturers

interviewed represent over 60% of fluorescent luminaire sales and over 80% of the linear fluorescent

fixture market affected by the proposed new energy efficiency standard for ballasts.

6C.3 Results

The lighting fixture manufacturing industry has grown from $4.8 billion in shipments in 1988

to $6.6 billion in 1997 while holding employment relatively constant at about 60 ,000. The

commercial/institutional and industrial sectors, which make the most use of "affected" fluorescent

fixtures, purchased $3 and $0.7 billion, or a little over half of 1997 shipments. Figure 6C.1 shows

this shipment history.'

'Bureau of the Census, Current Industrial Reports: Electric Lighting Fixtures-1997, M436L(97)-

1.

6-58

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

- Columbia Lighting Corporation 

Lithonia Lighting Company 

Peerless Lighting Corporation 

- Peerless merged with Lithonia in 1999 

Simkar Corporation 

Arthur D. Little sent letters of invitation to Illuminaire manufacturing organizations. The 

letters invited each individual to patiicipate in a discussion structured around an interview guide 

developed in conjunction with the Department of Energy program manager and enclosed with the 

invitation letter. Follow-up phone calls determined that one manufacturer's production ofluminaires 

using the "affected" magnetic ballasts is insignificant and the interview in that case was not done. 

Two other manufacturers, Holophane Corporation and Peerless Lighting Corporation, had been 

merged with Lithonia Lighting and input from them was obtained through a visit and interview 

meeting at Lithonia Headquatiers. In summary, we conducted eight interviews representing 

information from ten of the 11 manufacturer organizations in the list above. One manufacturer had 

little or no production of the "affected" luminaires as mentioned above. The manufacturers 

interviewed represent over 60% offluorescent luminaire sales and over 80% of the linear fluorescent 

fixture market affected by the proposed new energy efficiency standard for ballasts. ' 

6C.3 Results 

The lighting fixture manufacturing industry has grown from $4.8 billion in shipments in 1988 

to $6.6 billion in 1997 while holding employment relatively constant at about 60,000. The 

commercial/institutional and industrial sectors, which make the most use of "affected" fluorescent 

fixtures, purchased $3 and $0.7 billion, or a little over half of 1997 shipments. Figure 6C.l shows 

this shipment history.4 

4 Bureau of the Census, Current Industrial Reports,' Electric Lighting Fixtures-l 997, MA36L(97}-

r 

6-58 

- Columbia Lighting Corporation 

Lithonia Lighting Company 

Peerless Lighting Corporation 

- Peerless merged with Lithonia in 1999 

Simkar Corporation 

Arthur D. Little sent letters of invitation to Illuminaire manufacturing organizations. The 

letters invited each individual to patiicipate in a discussion structured around an interview guide 

developed in conjunction with the Department of Energy program manager and enclosed with the 

invitation letter. Follow-up phone calls determined that one manufacturer's production ofluminaires 

using the "affected" magnetic ballasts is insignificant and the interview in that case was not done. 

Two other manufacturers, Holophane Corporation and Peerless Lighting Corporation, had been 

merged with Lithonia Lighting and input from them was obtained through a visit and interview 

meeting at Lithonia Headquatiers. In summary, we conducted eight interviews representing 

information from ten of the 11 manufacturer organizations in the list above. One manufacturer had 

little or no production of the "affected" luminaires as mentioned above. The manufacturers 

interviewed represent over 60% offluorescent luminaire sales and over 80% of the linear fluorescent 

fixture market affected by the proposed new energy efficiency standard for ballasts. ' 

6C.3 Results 

The lighting fixture manufacturing industry has grown from $4.8 billion in shipments in 1988 

to $6.6 billion in 1997 while holding employment relatively constant at about 60,000. The 

commercial/institutional and industrial sectors, which make the most use of "affected" fluorescent 

fixtures, purchased $3 and $0.7 billion, or a little over half of 1997 shipments. Figure 6C.l shows 

this shipment history.4 

4 Bureau of the Census, Current Industrial Reports,' Electric Lighting Fixtures-l 997, MA36L(97}-

r 

6-58 
Figure 6C.1. The luminaire manufacturing industry grew from $4.8 billion to $6.6 billion in

shipments during the decade ending in 1997.

From 1985 through 1996, 84 companies dropped out of the lighting fixture manufacturing

business, 19 from the commercial/institutional sector. No new firms entered the business (excepting

consolidations) except in the outdoor lighting classification. In 1995 there were 1096 plants5

manufacturing lighting fixtures in the United States, 1.3% lower than in 1994. Most of these plants,

over 60%, are small and employ fewer than 20 people each. Larger plants employing 50 or more

account for about 30% of the facilities and many of these produce commercial/institutional lighting

fixtures.

The commercial/institutional segment of the market accounts for nearly half the total value

of lighting fixture shipments, as shown in Figure 6C.2, and is even more important to the fluorescent

market.

5 Economic Industry Reports, Inc. The U.S. Lighting Fixtures Industry, An Economic & Market

Study, 1998 Edition, Vol. 2.

6-59

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

/I) 

c 

~ 

:::!E 

~ 

Value of Shipments for Lighting Fixtures 

7,000.0 

6,000.0 

5,000.0 

4,000.0 

3,000.0 

2,000.0 

1,000.0 

0.0 

l!b~ ,,0) 

PJ\;) 

,,0) PJ'" ,,0) 

PJt;< 

,,0) 

YEAR 

PJro 

,,0) 

••• l!$ •••• Total Fixtures 

-+- Comi/inst 

... Outdoor 

... ::.,: .... Resi'dential 

--?Ir Industrial 

Figure 6C.1. The luminaire manufacturing industry grew from $4.8 billion to $6.6 billion in 

shipments during the decade ending in 1997. 

From 1985 through 1996, 84 companies dropped out ofthe lighting fixture manufacturing 

business, 19 from the commerciaIlinstitutional sector. No new firms entered the business (excepting 

consolidations) except in the outdoor lighting classification. In 1995 there were 1096 plants5 

manufacturing lighting fixtures in the United States, 1.3 % lower than in 1994. Most of these plants, 

over 60%, are small and employ fewer than 20 people each. Larger plants employing 50 or more 

account for about 30% of the facilities and many of these produce commerciaIlinstitutionallighting 

fixtures. 

The commerciaIlinstitutional segment ofthe market accounts for nearly halfthe total value 

oflighting fixture shipments, as shown in Figure 6C.2, and is even more important to the fluorescent 

market. 

5 Economic Industry Reports, Inc. The u.s. Lighting Fixtures Industry, An Economic & Market 

Study, 1998 Edition, Vol. 2. 

6-59 

/I) 

c 

~ 

:::!E 

~ 

Value of Shipments for Lighting Fixtures 

7,000.0 

6,000.0 

5,000.0 

4,000.0 

3,000.0 

2,000.0 

1,000.0 

0.0 

l!b~ ,,0) 

PJ\;) 

,,0) PJ'" ,,0) 

PJt;< 

,,0) 

YEAR 

PJro 

,,0) 

••• l!$ •••• Total Fixtures 

-+- Comi/inst 

... Outdoor 

... ::.,: .... Resi'dential 

--?Ir Industrial 

Figure 6C.1. The luminaire manufacturing industry grew from $4.8 billion to $6.6 billion in 

shipments during the decade ending in 1997. 

From 1985 through 1996, 84 companies dropped out ofthe lighting fixture manufacturing 

business, 19 from the commerciaIlinstitutional sector. No new firms entered the business (excepting 

consolidations) except in the outdoor lighting classification. In 1995 there were 1096 plants5 

manufacturing lighting fixtures in the United States, 1.3 % lower than in 1994. Most of these plants, 

over 60%, are small and employ fewer than 20 people each. Larger plants employing 50 or more 

account for about 30% of the facilities and many of these produce commerciaIlinstitutionallighting 

fixtures. 

The commerciaIlinstitutional segment ofthe market accounts for nearly halfthe total value 

oflighting fixture shipments, as shown in Figure 6C.2, and is even more important to the fluorescent 

market. 

5 Economic Industry Reports, Inc. The u.s. Lighting Fixtures Industry, An Economic & Market 

Study, 1998 Edition, Vol. 2. 

6-59 
Distribution of Shipments 1997

Outdoor Residential

17% I1

Figure 6C.2. The commercial market segment, including institutional buildings, is the major

market for luminaires.

The latest publication of Current Industrial Reports, August 10, 1998, indicates 162

companies to be involved in producing fixtures for the commercial/institutional market in 1997.

Approximately two dozen of these plants produce 4 and/or 8-foot linear fluorescent lamp fixtures.

The total value of these fixtures, shown in Table 6C.1, was approximately $1.678 billion. The

industrial general fluorescent lighting market adds another $0.142 billion for an upper bound of

about $1.82 billion. Manufacturer interviews suggested that the total market for "affected" fixtures

(those using either "affected" magnetic ballasts or their electronic ballast substitutes) was

approximately $1.4 billion in 1998, which is consistent with the upper bound of $1.82 billion minus

the $.4 billion in the "other" categories in Table 6C. 1.

The $1.4 billion market for linear fluorescent luminaires is dominated by the top five

manufacturing companies: Cooper Lighting, Genlyte Thomas Group (Lightolier and Day-Brite

Lighting), Lighting Corporation of America, Hubbell Lighting, and Lithonia Lighting, all of which

participated in the interviews. An approximate distribution of the markets served by these

companies, including H.E. Williams/Infinity Lighting and Simkar Corporation that also participated,

is shown in Figure 6C.3. These manufacturers as a group serve over 80% of this market.

6 Bureau of the Census, Current Industrial Reports: Electric Lighting Fixtures-1997, MA36L(97)-1

6-60

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Distribution of Shipments 1997 

Outdoor 

Ind 

Residential 

17% 

Commercial 

47% 

Figure 6C.2. The commercial market segment, including institutional buildings, is the major 

market for luminaires. 

The latest publication of Current Industrial Reports6

, August 10, 1998, indicates 162 

companies to be involved in producing fixtures for the commercial/institutional market in 1997. 

Approximately two dozen of these plants produce 4 and/or 8-foot linear fluorescent lamp fixtures. 

The total value of these fixtures, shown in Table 6C.l, was approximately $1.678 billion. The 

industrial general fluorescent lighting market adds another $0.142 billion for an upper bound of 

about $1.82 billion. Manufacturer interviews suggested that the total market for "affected" fixtures 

(those using either "affected" magnetic ballasts or their electronic ballast substitutes) was 

approximately $1.4 billion in 1998, which is consistent with the upper bound of$I.82 billion minus 

the $.4 billion in the "other" categories in Table 6C.1. 

The $1.4 billion market for linear fluorescent luminaires is dominated by the top five 

manufacturing companies: Cooper Lighting, Genlyte Thomas Group (Lightolier and Day-Brite 

Lighting), Lighting Corporation of America, Hubbell Lighting, and Lithonia Lighting, all of which 

participated in the interviews. An approximate distribution of the markets served by these 

companies, including H. E. Williams/Infinity Lighting and Simkar Corporation that also participated, 

is shown in Figure 6C.3. These manufacturers as a group serve over 80% of this market. 

6 Bureau of the Census, Current Industrial Reports: Electric Lighting Fixtures-1997, MA36L(97}-1 

6-60 

Distribution of Shipments 1997 

Outdoor 

Ind 

Residential 

17% 

Commercial 

47% 

Figure 6C.2. The commercial market segment, including institutional buildings, is the major 

market for luminaires. 

The latest publication of Current Industrial Reports6

, August 10, 1998, indicates 162 

companies to be involved in producing fixtures for the commercial/institutional market in 1997. 

Approximately two dozen of these plants produce 4 and/or 8-foot linear fluorescent lamp fixtures. 

The total value of these fixtures, shown in Table 6C.l, was approximately $1.678 billion. The 

industrial general fluorescent lighting market adds another $0.142 billion for an upper bound of 

about $1.82 billion. Manufacturer interviews suggested that the total market for "affected" fixtures 

(those using either "affected" magnetic ballasts or their electronic ballast substitutes) was 

approximately $1.4 billion in 1998, which is consistent with the upper bound of$I.82 billion minus 

the $.4 billion in the "other" categories in Table 6C.1. 

The $1.4 billion market for linear fluorescent luminaires is dominated by the top five 

manufacturing companies: Cooper Lighting, Genlyte Thomas Group (Lightolier and Day-Brite 

Lighting), Lighting Corporation of America, Hubbell Lighting, and Lithonia Lighting, all of which 

participated in the interviews. An approximate distribution of the markets served by these 

companies, including H. E. Williams/Infinity Lighting and Simkar Corporation that also participated, 

is shown in Figure 6C.3. These manufacturers as a group serve over 80% of this market. 

6 Bureau of the Census, Current Industrial Reports: Electric Lighting Fixtures-1997, MA36L(97}-1 

6-60 
Table 6C.1. Shipments of selected lighting fixtures for commercial/industrial applications,

1997.

Product Product Description Number of Quantity Value

Code companies $Thousand

s

36462 -- Electric lighting fixtures, commercial and

institutional, fluorescent

Recessed, air handle incl. heat extract

Lensed

36462 80 2 X 4 feet, 4 lamp 10 In 52 In 52

36462 81 2 X 4 feet, 3 lamp 8 199 12,079

36462 82 2 X 4 feet, 2 lamp 10 127 7,134

36462 52 All other lensed, air handling

Metal louvered

13 382 23,450

36462 83 2 X 4 feet, 4 lamp 9 323 23,429

36462 84 2 X 4 feet, 3 lamp 10 1,450 102,121

36462 85 2 X 4 feet, 2 lamp 9 443 28,620

36462 53 All other mtl lvrd, air handling 12 1,980 130,343

Non-metal louvered 0

36462 86 2 X 4 feet, 4 lamp 3 In 54 In 54

36462 87 2 X 4 feet, 3 lamp 3 (D)

36462 88 2 X 4 feet, 2 lamp 3 (D)

36462 54 All other non-metal lvrd, air hndlng

Recessed, non-air hndl incl. heat extract

Lensed

6 63 6,710

36462 89 2 X 4 feet, 4lamp 23 3,354 141,426

36462 90 2 X 4 feet, 3 lamp 18 1,547 76,522

36462 91 2 X 4 feet, 2 lamp 17 1,896 73,031

36462 58 All other lensed, non-air hndlng

Metal louvered

25 4,553 187,488

36462 92 2 X 4 feet, 4 lamp 11 153 8,839

36462 93 2 X 4 feet, 3 lamp 11 672 29,546

36462 94 2 X 4 feet, 2 lamp 12 400 27,543

36462 56 All other mtl lvrd, non-air hndlng

Non-metal louvered

15 393 23,619

36462 95 2 X 4 feet, 4 lamp 9 86 4,303

36462 96 2 X 4 feet, 3 lamp 8 51 2,949

36462 97 2 X 4 feet, 2 lamp 10 39 2,054

6-61

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table 6C.1. Shipments of selected lighting fixtures for commercial/industrial applications, 

1997. 

Product Product Description Number of Quantity Value 

Code companies $Thousand 

s 

36462 -- Electric lighting fixtures, commercial and 

institutional, fluorescent 

Recessed, air handle inc!. heat extract 

Lensed 

3646280 2 X 4 feet, 4 lamp 10 ill 52 ill 52 

3646281 2 X 4 feet, 3 lamp 8 199 12,079 

3646282 2 X 4 feet, 2 lamp 10 127 7,134 

3646252 All other lensed, air handling 13 382 23,450 

Metal louvered 

3646283 2 X 4 feet, 4 lamp 9 323 23,429 

3646284 2 X 4 feet, 3 lamp 10 1,450 102,121 

3646285 2 X 4 feet, 2 lamp 9 443 28,620 

3646253 All other mtllvrd, air handling 12 1,980 130,343 

Non-metal louvered 0 

3646286 2 X 4 feet, 4 lamp 3 ill 54 In 54 

3646287 2 X 4 feet, 3 lamp 3 " CD) 

3646288 2 X 4 feet, 2 lamp 3 " CD) 

3646254 All other non-metallvrd, air hndlng 6 63 6,710 

Recessed, non-air hndl inc!. heat extract 

Lensed 

3646289 2 X 4 feet, 4 lamp 23 3,354 141,426 

3646290 2 X 4 feet, 3 lamp 18 1,547 76,522 

3646291 2 X 4 feet, 2 lamp 17 1,896 73,031 

3646258 All other lensed, non-air hndlng 25 4,553 187,488 

Metal louvered 

3646292 2 X 4 feet, 4 lamp 11 153 8,839 

3646293 2 X 4 feet, 3 lamp 11 672 29,546 

3646294 2 X 4 feet, 2 lamp 12 400 27,543 

3646256 All other mtllvrd, non-air hlldlng 15 393 23,619 

Non-metal louvered 

3646295 2 X 4 feet, 4 lamp 9 86 4,303 

3646296 2 X 4 feet, 3 lamp 8 51 2,949 

3646297 2 X 4 feet, 2 lamp 10 39 2,054 

6-61 

Table 6C.1. Shipments of selected lighting fixtures for commercial/industrial applications, 

1997. 

Product Product Description Number of Quantity Value 

Code companies $Thousand 

s 

36462 -- Electric lighting fixtures, commercial and 

institutional, fluorescent 

Recessed, air handle inc!. heat extract 

Lensed 

3646280 2 X 4 feet, 4 lamp 10 ill 52 ill 52 

3646281 2 X 4 feet, 3 lamp 8 199 12,079 

3646282 2 X 4 feet, 2 lamp 10 127 7,134 

3646252 All other lensed, air handling 13 382 23,450 

Metal louvered 

3646283 2 X 4 feet, 4 lamp 9 323 23,429 

3646284 2 X 4 feet, 3 lamp 10 1,450 102,121 

3646285 2 X 4 feet, 2 lamp 9 443 28,620 

3646253 All other mtllvrd, air handling 12 1,980 130,343 

Non-metal louvered 0 

3646286 2 X 4 feet, 4 lamp 3 ill 54 In 54 

3646287 2 X 4 feet, 3 lamp 3 " CD) 

3646288 2 X 4 feet, 2 lamp 3 " CD) 

3646254 All other non-metallvrd, air hndlng 6 63 6,710 

Recessed, non-air hndl inc!. heat extract 

Lensed 

3646289 2 X 4 feet, 4 lamp 23 3,354 141,426 

3646290 2 X 4 feet, 3 lamp 18 1,547 76,522 

3646291 2 X 4 feet, 2 lamp 17 1,896 73,031 

3646258 All other lensed, non-air hndlng 25 4,553 187,488 

Metal louvered 

3646292 2 X 4 feet, 4 lamp 11 153 8,839 

3646293 2 X 4 feet, 3 lamp 11 672 29,546 

3646294 2 X 4 feet, 2 lamp 12 400 27,543 

3646256 All other mtllvrd, non-air hlldlng 15 393 23,619 

Non-metal louvered 

3646295 2 X 4 feet, 4 lamp 9 86 4,303 

3646296 2 X 4 feet, 3 lamp 8 51 2,949 

3646297 2 X 4 feet, 2 lamp 10 39 2,054 

6-61 
36462 60 Other non-mtl lvrd, non-air hndlng 11 159 5,808

36462 49 Strip lights (surface) 51 9,538 217,360

36462 50 Strip lights (recessed) 11 340 11,429

36462 55 Ceiling systems, incl luminous ceilings

Plastic wraparounds

16 (X) 35,726

36462 40 4 foot, 2 lamp 27 1,997 62,582

36462 42 4 foot, 4 lamp 23 666 30,269

36462 51 Other plastic coma/inst wraparounds 24 1,572 56,462

36462 57 Wall mounted fixtures 54 1,442 88,746

36462 65 Under cabinet mount task light

Surface and pendant, all other:

32 2,555 87,440

36462 66 Lensed 48 4,527 145,993

36462 68 Louvered 24 229 24,957

36463 13 Industrial general lighting fluorescent 41 3,367 142,099

TOTAL 1,820,000

Affected TOTAL less "other" in categories with linear

lamps defined

1,420,000

Source: Current Industrial Reports

Approximate Distribution of Linear

Fluorescent Fixture Sales to Commercial

and Industrial Segments

Hubbell

Williams

Simkar

Other

Figure 6C.3. The manufacturers that participated in the interviews account for over 80% of

the market for linear fluorescent luminaires.

The size of the export market in commercial and industrial lighting fixtures for the industry

in general is shown in Figure 6C.4. Although a small number of companies have substantial sales

in foreign markets (on the order of 10% of revenues), most manufacturers and the industry in general

6-62

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

3646260 Other non-mtllvrd, non-air hndlng 

3646249 Strip lights (surface) 

3646250 Strip lights (recessed) 

3646255 Ceiling systems, inclluminous ceilings 

Plastic wraparounds 

3646240 4 foot, 2 lamp 

3646242 4 foot, 4 lamp 

3646251 Other plastic coml/inst wraparounds 

3646257 Wall mounted fixtures 

3646265 Under cabinet mount task light 

Surface and pendant, all other: 

3646266 Lensed 

3646268 Louvered 

36463 13 Industrial general lighting fluorescent 

TOTAL 

Affected TOTAL less "other" in categories with linear 

lam s defined 

Source: Current Industrial Reports 

Approximate Distribution of Linear 

Fluorescent Fixture Sales to Commercial 

and Industrial Segments 

Hubbell Other 

Williams 

Simkar 

Thomas 

11 159 5,808 

51 9,538 217,360 

11 340 11,429 

16 (X) 35,726 

27 1,997 62,582 

23 666 30,269 

24 1,572 56,462 

54 1,442 88,746 

32 2,555 87,440 

48 4,527 145,993 

24 229 24,957 

41 3,367 142,099 

1,820,000 

1,420,000 

Figure 6C.3. The manufacturers that participated in the interviews account for over 80% of 

the market for linear fluorescent luminaires. 

The size of the export market in commercial and industrial lighting fixtures for the industry 

in general is shown in Figure 6C.4. Although a small number of companies have substantial sales 

in foreign markets (on the order of 1 0% of revenues), most manufacturers and the industry in general 

6-62 

3646260 Other non-mtllvrd, non-air hndlng 

3646249 Strip lights (surface) 

3646250 Strip lights (recessed) 

3646255 Ceiling systems, inclluminous ceilings 

Plastic wraparounds 

3646240 4 foot, 2 lamp 

3646242 4 foot, 4 lamp 

3646251 Other plastic coml/inst wraparounds 

3646257 Wall mounted fixtures 

3646265 Under cabinet mount task light 

Surface and pendant, all other: 

3646266 Lensed 

3646268 Louvered 

36463 13 Industrial general lighting fluorescent 

TOTAL 

Affected TOTAL less "other" in categories with linear 

lam s defined 

Source: Current Industrial Reports 

Approximate Distribution of Linear 

Fluorescent Fixture Sales to Commercial 

and Industrial Segments 

Hubbell Other 

Williams 

Simkar 

Thomas 

11 159 5,808 

51 9,538 217,360 

11 340 11,429 

16 (X) 35,726 

27 1,997 62,582 

23 666 30,269 

24 1,572 56,462 

54 1,442 88,746 

32 2,555 87,440 

48 4,527 145,993 

24 229 24,957 

41 3,367 142,099 

1,820,000 

1,420,000 

Figure 6C.3. The manufacturers that participated in the interviews account for over 80% of 

the market for linear fluorescent luminaires. 

The size of the export market in commercial and industrial lighting fixtures for the industry 

in general is shown in Figure 6C.4. Although a small number of companies have substantial sales 

in foreign markets (on the order of 1 0% of revenues), most manufacturers and the industry in general 

6-62 
show export shipments in the 1-5% of sales range with the industry average at about 2.5%. In 1997,

for example, about $92 million in commercial and industrial luminaire shipments were exported

from a total of $3768 million in shipments.

Exports & imports of Commercial,

Institutional , and Industrial Fixtures

120.0

100.0

80.0

60.0

40.0

20.0

0.0

:Export

M Import

:Net imports

YEAR

Figure 6C.4. The luminaire industry exports about 2.5% of its Commercial/Industrial

production.

Our interviews with the manufacturers suggested that there are four broad issues of concern

to them, and the following discussion of the interview results focuses on those areas:

• Customer choice will be reduced by a standard and some luminaire purchasers will be forced to

select higher cost options than they otherwise would, and some will choose higher energy

consumptive options (incandescent or halogen) than fluorescent.

• Exemptions for residential, dimming, and cold temperature applications, and for applications

exhibiting problems with electromagnetic interference from high frequency electronically

ballasted lighting.

• Global competition is price competitive for linear fluorescent luminaires and elimination of lowcost "affected" magnetic ballasts could cause ballast manufacturers to raise prices on those

remaining and being used for the export market, thus raising luminaire costs for domestic

manufacturers.

• Direct financial impacts brought about by possible shortages of electronic ballasts soon after a

standard might take effect, loss of the price premium for electronic ballast/T8 luminaires, and

differences in profitability between the current mix of electronic and magnetic-based luminaires

can exhibit impacts on cash flow and employment.

6-63

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

show export shipments in the 1-5% of sales range with the industry average at about 2.5%. In 1997, 

for example, about $92 million in commercial and industrial luminaire shipments were exported 

from a total of$3768 million in shipments. 

UI 

c 

g 

::s 

~ 

Exports & Imports ofCommerciai, 

Institutional, and Industrial Fixtures 

120.0 

100.0 

80.0 

60.0 

40.0 

20.0 

0.0 

Q)f), 

"Q) 

Q)fl:> 

"Q) 

Q)">-

"Q) 

Q)V:J 

"Q) 

Q)r'o 

"Q) 

YEAR 

Q)'\ 

"Q) 

[;ilExport 

II!!! 1m port 

o Net im ports 

Figure 6C.4. The luminaire industry exports about 2.5% of its Commercial/Industrial 

production. 

Our interviews with the manufacturers suggested that there are four broad issues of concem 

to them, and the following discussion of the interview results focuses on those areas: 

• Customer choice will be reduced by a standard and some luminaire purchasers will be forced to 

select higher cost options than they otherwise would, and some will choose higher energy 

consumptive options (incandescent or halogen) than fluorescent. 

Exemptions for residential, dimming, and cold temperature applications, and for applications 

exhibiting problems with electromagnetic interference from high frequency electronically 

ballasted lighting. 

• Global competition is price competitive for linear fluorescent luminaires and elimination oflowcost "affected" magnetic ballasts could cause ballast manufacturers to raise prices on those 

remaining and being used for the export market, thus raising luminaire costs for domestic 

manufacturers. 

Direct financial impacts brought about by possible shortages of electronic ballasts soon after a 

standard might take effect, loss of the price premium for electronic ballast/T8 luminaires, and 

differences in profitability between the current mix of electronic and magnetic-based luminaires 

can exhibit impacts on cash flow and employment. 

6-63 

show export shipments in the 1-5% of sales range with the industry average at about 2.5%. In 1997, 

for example, about $92 million in commercial and industrial luminaire shipments were exported 

from a total of$3768 million in shipments. 

UI 

c 

g 

::s 

~ 

Exports & Imports ofCommerciai, 

Institutional, and Industrial Fixtures 

120.0 

100.0 

80.0 

60.0 

40.0 

20.0 

0.0 

Q)f), 

"Q) 

Q)fl:> 

"Q) 

Q)">-

"Q) 

Q)V:J 

"Q) 

Q)r'o 

"Q) 

YEAR 

Q)'\ 

"Q) 

[;ilExport 

II!!! 1m port 

o Net im ports 

Figure 6C.4. The luminaire industry exports about 2.5% of its Commercial/Industrial 

production. 

Our interviews with the manufacturers suggested that there are four broad issues of concem 

to them, and the following discussion of the interview results focuses on those areas: 

• Customer choice will be reduced by a standard and some luminaire purchasers will be forced to 

select higher cost options than they otherwise would, and some will choose higher energy 

consumptive options (incandescent or halogen) than fluorescent. 

Exemptions for residential, dimming, and cold temperature applications, and for applications 

exhibiting problems with electromagnetic interference from high frequency electronically 

ballasted lighting. 

• Global competition is price competitive for linear fluorescent luminaires and elimination oflowcost "affected" magnetic ballasts could cause ballast manufacturers to raise prices on those 

remaining and being used for the export market, thus raising luminaire costs for domestic 

manufacturers. 

Direct financial impacts brought about by possible shortages of electronic ballasts soon after a 

standard might take effect, loss of the price premium for electronic ballast/T8 luminaires, and 

differences in profitability between the current mix of electronic and magnetic-based luminaires 

can exhibit impacts on cash flow and employment. 

6-63 
6C.3.1 Customer Choice

There was general agreement that the fixtures most likely to be affected by higher electronic

ballast prices being passed through were low-end, price sensitive ones sold primarily for residential,

small commercial, and low usage applications that are not specified by architects or

engineering/lighting design professionals. The applications include those using decorative lighting

fixtures, primarily 4-foot fluorescents among the "affected" luminaires. Two potentially negative

customer impacts of a new standard for these low-end, luminaires are the choice of less efficient

incandescent or halogen lighting instead of higher cost electronically ballasted fluorescents and the

choice of higher cost electronically ballasted luminaires for applications that do not show a positive

payback. Most, not all, of the luminaire manufacturers felt that there would be some setbacks in

fluorescent market share and some customers hurt by the reduction in choice resulting from a new

standard, but to the extent that any attempted to quantify these impacts , the impacts were judged to

be small. In summary the opinions ranged from no impact to slightly negative as suggested above.

6C.3.2 Exemption Issues

6C.3.2.1 Residential Applications.

We asked the manufacturers for comment on both a general exemption for residential

applications and for a second option wherein the exemption would be limited to luminaires which

used T8 lamps. Those manufacturers that offered opinions on the residential exemption agreed that

limiting the exemption to luminaires using T8 lamps is tantamount to denying the residential

exemption because the T8 magnetic ballast has no significant price advantage . The residential

exemption was overwhelmingly , although not unanimously, endorsed. Some thought that since the

residential market is largely magnetic , the changeover to electronic would upset the residential

market more than it would the commercial market that is about 60% electronic already. This could

result in some shortages of electronic ballasts, and could exacerbate the problems associated with

consumer choice summarized in Section 4.3.1. Some felt that a residential exemption is important

to maintaining a smooth transition toward electronic ballasts. The minority arguments against a

residential exemption were simplicity (One standard for all "affected" ballasts, whether used in

residences or businesses.) and the notion that the residential exemption represents a loophole through

which commercial businesses or their contractors can purchase the residential ballasts for

commercial building applications.

6C.3.2.2 Dimmable Systems

The manufacturers unanimously endorsed an exemption for dimmable systems. The major

reasons were:

The market is making the transition toward electronic dimmable ballasts, which capture over half

the commercial grade market already

Some applications are not adequately served by electronic ballast technology and an exemption

allows time for these problems to be solved in an orderly way

6-64

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

6C.3.1 Customer Choice 

There was general agreement that the fixtures most likely to be affected by higher electronic 

ballast prices being passed through were low-end, price sensitive ones sold primarily for residential, 

small commercial, and low usage applications that are not specified by architects or 

engineering/lighting design professionals. The applications include those using decorative lighting 

fixtures, primarily 4-foot fluorescents among the "affected" luminaires. Two potentially negative 

customer impacts of a new standard for these low-end, luminaires are the choice of less efficient 

incandescent or halogen lighting instead of higher cost electronically ballasted fluorescents and the 

choice of higher cost electronically ballasted luminaires for applications that do not show a positive 

payback. Most, not all, of the luminaire manufacturers felt that there would be some setbacks in 

fluorescent market share and some customers hmi by the reduction in choice resulting from a new 

standard, but to the extent that any attempted to quantify these impacts, the impacts were judged to 

be small. In summary the opinions ranged from no impact to slightly negative as suggested above. 

6C.3.2 Exemption Issues 

6C.3.2.1 Residential Applications. 

We asked the manufacturers for comment on both a general exemption for residential 

applications and for a second option wherein the exemption would be limited to luminaires which 

used T8 lamps. Those manufacturers that offered opinions on the residential exemption agreed that 

limiting the exemption· to luminaires using T8 lamps is tantamount to denying the residential 

exemption because the T8 magnetic ballast has no significant price advantage. The residential 

exemption was overwhelmingly, although not unanimously, endorsed. Some thought that since the 

residential market is largely magnetic, the changeover to electronic would upset the residential 

market more than it would the commercial market that is about 60% electronic already. This could 

result in some shortages of electronic ballasts, and could exacerbate the problems associated with 

consumer choice summarized in Section 4.3.1. Some felt that a residential exemption is important 

to maintaining a smooth transition toward electronic ballasts. The minority arguments against a 

residential exemption were simplicity (One standard for all "affected" ballasts, whether used in 

residences or businesses.) and the notion that the residential exemption represents a loophole through 

which commercial businesses or their contractors can purchase the residential ballasts for 

commercial building applications. 

6C.3.2.2 Dimmable Systems 

The manufacturers unanimously endorsed an exemption for dimmable systems. The major 

reasons were: 

The market is making the transition toward electronic dimmable ballasts, which capture over half 

the commercial grade market already 

Some applications are not adequately served by electronic ballast technology and an exemption 

allows time for these problems to be solved in an orderly way 

6-64 

6C.3.1 Customer Choice 

There was general agreement that the fixtures most likely to be affected by higher electronic 

ballast prices being passed through were low-end, price sensitive ones sold primarily for residential, 

small commercial, and low usage applications that are not specified by architects or 

engineering/lighting design professionals. The applications include those using decorative lighting 

fixtures, primarily 4-foot fluorescents among the "affected" luminaires. Two potentially negative 

customer impacts of a new standard for these low-end, luminaires are the choice of less efficient 

incandescent or halogen lighting instead of higher cost electronically ballasted fluorescents and the 

choice of higher cost electronically ballasted luminaires for applications that do not show a positive 

payback. Most, not all, of the luminaire manufacturers felt that there would be some setbacks in 

fluorescent market share and some customers hmi by the reduction in choice resulting from a new 

standard, but to the extent that any attempted to quantify these impacts, the impacts were judged to 

be small. In summary the opinions ranged from no impact to slightly negative as suggested above. 

6C.3.2 Exemption Issues 

6C.3.2.1 Residential Applications. 

We asked the manufacturers for comment on both a general exemption for residential 

applications and for a second option wherein the exemption would be limited to luminaires which 

used T8 lamps. Those manufacturers that offered opinions on the residential exemption agreed that 

limiting the exemption· to luminaires using T8 lamps is tantamount to denying the residential 

exemption because the T8 magnetic ballast has no significant price advantage. The residential 

exemption was overwhelmingly, although not unanimously, endorsed. Some thought that since the 

residential market is largely magnetic, the changeover to electronic would upset the residential 

market more than it would the commercial market that is about 60% electronic already. This could 

result in some shortages of electronic ballasts, and could exacerbate the problems associated with 

consumer choice summarized in Section 4.3.1. Some felt that a residential exemption is important 

to maintaining a smooth transition toward electronic ballasts. The minority arguments against a 

residential exemption were simplicity (One standard for all "affected" ballasts, whether used in 

residences or businesses.) and the notion that the residential exemption represents a loophole through 

which commercial businesses or their contractors can purchase the residential ballasts for 

commercial building applications. 

6C.3.2.2 Dimmable Systems 

The manufacturers unanimously endorsed an exemption for dimmable systems. The major 

reasons were: 

The market is making the transition toward electronic dimmable ballasts, which capture over half 

the commercial grade market already 

Some applications are not adequately served by electronic ballast technology and an exemption 

allows time for these problems to be solved in an orderly way 

6-64 
6C.3.2.3 Cold Temperature Applications

Although some manufacturers pointed out that the T8/electronic instant start system is

operable at low temperatures down to about 0 degrees F, there are some cold temperature storage

and other applications that operate at lower than that. An exemption for low temperature applications

would affect very little of the market but has the advantage of preserving that part of the market for

fluorescent lighting.

6C.3.2.4 Electromagnetic Interference

The manufacturers unanimously endorsed an exemption for applications subject to

interference from high frequency electromagnetic radiation from fluorescent lighting systems. The

consensus is that the complexity of this issue, which involves many industries (both manufacturers

and users of communications equipment and sensors) with conflicting uses for the available

frequencies, will ensure a long period of discussions before general agreement is reached on which

uses will employ which frequencies. Most manufacturers feel that a decade will be required to solve

this problem. Meanwhile standard 461 requiring magnetic ballasts for fluorescent systems used in

operating rooms and other less formalized barriers to electronic ballast use make an exemption for

applications sensitive to electromagnetic interference desirable.

6C.3.3 Global Market Competition

Much of the export market for U.S. manufacturers is to North America and to other regions,

such as Saudi Arabia, use "affected" magnetic ballasts in fluorescent fixtures. European markets,

however, do not in general use those ballasts that would be affected by the proposed standard. The

major concern of luminaire manufacturers is that a substantial reduction in production of "affected"

magnetic ballasts will cause prices of "affected but exempt" and other export ballasts made in the

same facilities to go up because of reduced economies of scale. Although domestic luminaire

manufacturers throughout the industry would be affected in the same way by this increase in ballast

prices, some foreign manufacturers would gain a cost advantage by continuing to use their current

suppliers who would be unaffected by the standard. U.S. domestic luminaire manufacturers

theoretically could purchase ballasts from these same foreign suppliers, but they feel that shipping

and other costs associated with importing components would increase their costs above those oftheir

foreign competitors. There is also some fear that some large j obs for which linear fluorescent fixtures

are a key component, their reduced ability to compete for the key component will cause them to lose

the entire job including other fixture types for which they are price competitive. Finally, although

the export market is a small part of most domestic manufacturers' businesses, they see it as an

important market with potential for growth if they can remain competitive in price.

6-65

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

6C.3.2.3 Cold Temperature Applications 

Although some manufacturers pointed out that the T8/electronic instant start system is 

operable at low temperatures down to about 0 degrees F, there are some cold temperature storage 

and other applications that operate at lower than that. An exemption for low temperature applications 

would affect very little of the market but has the advantage of preserving that part of the market for 

fluorescent lighting. 

6C.3.2.4 Electromagnetic Interference 

The manufacturers unanimously endorsed an exemption for applications subject to 

interference from high frequency electromagnetic radiation from fluorescent lighting systems. The 

consensus is that the complexity of this issue, which involves many industries (both manufacturers 

and users of communications equipment and sensors) with conflicting uses for the available 

frequencies, will ensure a long period of discussions before general agreement is reached on which 

uses will employ which frequencies. Most manufacturers feel that a decade will be required to solve 

this problem. Meanwhile standard 461 requiring magnetic ballasts for fluorescent systems used in 

operating rooms and other less formalized ban-iers to electronic ballast use make an exemption for 

applications sensitive to electromagnetic interference desirable. 

6C.3.3 Global Market Competition 

Much of the expol1 market for U.S. manufacturers is to North America and to other regions, 

such as Saudi Arabia, use "affected" magnetic ballasts in fluorescent fixtures. European markets, 

however, do not in general use those ballasts that would be affected by the proposed standard. The 

major concern ofluminaire manufacturers is that a substantial reduction in production of "affected" 

magnetic ballasts will cause prices of "affected but exempt" and other export ballasts made in the 

same facilities to go up because of reduced economies of scale. Although domestic luminaire 

manufacturers throughout the industry would be affected in the same way by this increase in ballast 

prices, some foreign manufacturers would gain a cost advantage by continuing to use their cun-ent 

suppliers who would be unaffected by the standard. U.s. domestic luminaire manufacturers 

theoretically could purchase ballasts from these same foreign suppliers, but they feel that shipping 

and other costs associated with imp0l1ing components would increase their costs above those of their 

foreign competitors. There is also some fear that some large jobs for which linear fluorescent fixtures 

are a key component, their reduced ability to COli1pete for the key component will cause them to lose 

the entire job including other fixture types for which they are price competitive. Finally, although 

the export market is a small part of most domestic manufacturers' businesses, they see it as an 

important market with potential for growth if they can remain competitive in price. 

6-65 

6C.3.2.3 Cold Temperature Applications 

Although some manufacturers pointed out that the T8/electronic instant start system is 

operable at low temperatures down to about 0 degrees F, there are some cold temperature storage 

and other applications that operate at lower than that. An exemption for low temperature applications 

would affect very little of the market but has the advantage of preserving that part of the market for 

fluorescent lighting. 

6C.3.2.4 Electromagnetic Interference 

The manufacturers unanimously endorsed an exemption for applications subject to 

interference from high frequency electromagnetic radiation from fluorescent lighting systems. The 

consensus is that the complexity of this issue, which involves many industries (both manufacturers 

and users of communications equipment and sensors) with conflicting uses for the available 

frequencies, will ensure a long period of discussions before general agreement is reached on which 

uses will employ which frequencies. Most manufacturers feel that a decade will be required to solve 

this problem. Meanwhile standard 461 requiring magnetic ballasts for fluorescent systems used in 

operating rooms and other less formalized ban-iers to electronic ballast use make an exemption for 

applications sensitive to electromagnetic interference desirable. 

6C.3.3 Global Market Competition 

Much of the expol1 market for U.S. manufacturers is to North America and to other regions, 

such as Saudi Arabia, use "affected" magnetic ballasts in fluorescent fixtures. European markets, 

however, do not in general use those ballasts that would be affected by the proposed standard. The 

major concern ofluminaire manufacturers is that a substantial reduction in production of "affected" 

magnetic ballasts will cause prices of "affected but exempt" and other export ballasts made in the 

same facilities to go up because of reduced economies of scale. Although domestic luminaire 

manufacturers throughout the industry would be affected in the same way by this increase in ballast 

prices, some foreign manufacturers would gain a cost advantage by continuing to use their cun-ent 

suppliers who would be unaffected by the standard. U.s. domestic luminaire manufacturers 

theoretically could purchase ballasts from these same foreign suppliers, but they feel that shipping 

and other costs associated with imp0l1ing components would increase their costs above those of their 

foreign competitors. There is also some fear that some large jobs for which linear fluorescent fixtures 

are a key component, their reduced ability to COli1pete for the key component will cause them to lose 

the entire job including other fixture types for which they are price competitive. Finally, although 

the export market is a small part of most domestic manufacturers' businesses, they see it as an 

important market with potential for growth if they can remain competitive in price. 

6-65 
6C.3.4 Manufacturer Financial and Employment Impacts

The potential contributing factors to luminaire manufacturer financial performance and

employment level covered by the interviews were

® Availability of sufficient electronic ballasts under a new energy-efficiency standard,

® Loss of a price premium associated with electronic ballasts, which would become the commodity

product, and

® Changes in profitability and employment as a result of a new cost structure and/or changes in

revenues.

A majority of interviewees expect that electronic ballasts will be available in sufficient

supply to serve the market under a new standard . A significant minority, however, felt that the shift

from magnetic to electronic ballasts required would be beyond the ability of electronic ballast

manufacturers to produce , particularly during the first year. Those who expect no availability

problems cited the current over capacity in electronic ballasts, and those who do expect problems

in availability suggest that the current over capacity is not sufficient to guarantee adequate supplies

at stable prices during the first year or two under a new standard.

The manufacturers agreed that the T12 commodity product provides a low cost choice that

would be lost under a new standard, and that this could lower margins by putting pressure on the

price of T8 systems. Most also agreed , however, that the T8 and T5 would not become the new

commodity and premium products respectively . Instead, product differentiation would depend on

variations among T8 systems produced through capabilities such as dimmability and controls. T5,

although emerging as an important advance, is still in the early stages of development and will be

applied to niche markets until the price of the lamp comes down. Generally the expectation is that

T5 systems will take a decade to mature, much in the same manner as happened with T8. Most

luminaire manufacturers will not significantly change their development or production of T5 systems

as the result of a new energy efficiency standard.

The expected impact on profitability or cash flow varied among the eight responding

manufacturers which were evenly divided in number between those expecting no or minimal impacts

and those expecting negative cash flow impacts. We estimated approximate net present value

reductions in cash flows for the four manufacturers reporting changes related to a new energy

efficiency standard. Three different rationales were presented in support of diminshed profitability

and value.

One rationale suggested that current markups on electronic fixtures is higher than on

magnetic , although this difference is narrowing , and that a new standard would eliminate the margin

premium on electronics prematurely. This would reduce cash flow in the standard case from that of

the base case and result in a lower value for the firm . A second emphasizes the price sensitivity of

non-specification grade luminaires that results in low sales of electronic luminaires in one or twolamp fixtures. Thus in this case electronic fixtures contribute very little to profit even though they

command a premium markup. A new standard would raise profits if the margin could be maintained,

6-66

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

6C.3.4 Manufacturer Financial and Employment Impacts 

The potential contributing factors to luminaire manufacturer financial perfonnance and 

employment level covered by the interviews were 

Availability of sufficient electronic ballasts under a new energy-efficiency standard, 

Loss of a price premium associated with electronic ballasts, which would become the commodity 

product, and 

• Changes in profitability and employment as a result of a new cost structure and/or changes in 

revenues. 

A majority of interviewees expect that electronic ballasts will be available in sufficient 

supply to serve the market under a new standard. A significant minority, however, felt that the shift 

from magnetic to electronic ballasts required would be beyond the ability of electronic ballast 

manufacturers to produce, particularly during the first year. Those who expect no availability 

problems cited the current over capacity in electronic ballasts, and those who do expect problems 

in availability suggest that the current over capacity is not sufficient to guarantee adequate supplies 

at stable prices during the first year or two under a new standard. 

The manufacturers agreed that the TI2 commodity product provides a low cost choice that 

would be lost under a new standard, and that this could lower margins by putting pressure on the 

price of T8 systems. Most also agreed, however, that the T8 and T5 would not become the new 

commodity and premium products respectively. Instead, product differentiation would depend on 

variations among T8 systems produced through capabilities such as dimmability and controls. T5, 

although emerging as an important advance, is still in the early stages of development and will be 

applied to niche markets until the price of the lamp comes down. Generally the expectation is that 

T5 systems will take a decade to mature, much in the same manner as happened with T8. Most 

luminaire manufacturers will not significantly change their development or production ofT5 systems 

as the result of a new energy efficiency standard. 

The expected impact on profitability or cash flow varied among the eight responding 

manufacturers which were evenly divided in number between those expecting no or minimal impacts 

and those expecting negative cash flow impacts. We estimated approximate net present value 

reductions in cash flows for the four manufacturers reporting changes related to a new energy 

efficiency standard. Three different rationales were presented in support of diminshed profitability 

and value. 

One rationale suggested that current markups on electronic fixtures is higher than on 

magnetic, although this difference is narrowing, and that a new standard would eliminate the margin 

premium on electronics prematurely. This would reduce cash flow in the standard case from that of 

the base case and result in a lower value for the firm. A second emphasizes the price sensitivity of 

non-specification grade luminaires that results in low sales of electronic luminaires in one or twolamp fixtures. Thus in this case electronic fixtures contribute very little to profit even though they 

command a premium markup. A new standard would raise profits if the margin could be maintained, 

6-66 

6C.3.4 Manufacturer Financial and Employment Impacts 

The potential contributing factors to luminaire manufacturer financial perfonnance and 

employment level covered by the interviews were 

Availability of sufficient electronic ballasts under a new energy-efficiency standard, 

Loss of a price premium associated with electronic ballasts, which would become the commodity 

product, and 

• Changes in profitability and employment as a result of a new cost structure and/or changes in 

revenues. 

A majority of interviewees expect that electronic ballasts will be available in sufficient 

supply to serve the market under a new standard. A significant minority, however, felt that the shift 

from magnetic to electronic ballasts required would be beyond the ability of electronic ballast 

manufacturers to produce, particularly during the first year. Those who expect no availability 

problems cited the current over capacity in electronic ballasts, and those who do expect problems 

in availability suggest that the current over capacity is not sufficient to guarantee adequate supplies 

at stable prices during the first year or two under a new standard. 

The manufacturers agreed that the TI2 commodity product provides a low cost choice that 

would be lost under a new standard, and that this could lower margins by putting pressure on the 

price of T8 systems. Most also agreed, however, that the T8 and T5 would not become the new 

commodity and premium products respectively. Instead, product differentiation would depend on 

variations among T8 systems produced through capabilities such as dimmability and controls. T5, 

although emerging as an important advance, is still in the early stages of development and will be 

applied to niche markets until the price of the lamp comes down. Generally the expectation is that 

T5 systems will take a decade to mature, much in the same manner as happened with T8. Most 

luminaire manufacturers will not significantly change their development or production ofT5 systems 

as the result of a new energy efficiency standard. 

The expected impact on profitability or cash flow varied among the eight responding 

manufacturers which were evenly divided in number between those expecting no or minimal impacts 

and those expecting negative cash flow impacts. We estimated approximate net present value 

reductions in cash flows for the four manufacturers reporting changes related to a new energy 

efficiency standard. Three different rationales were presented in support of diminshed profitability 

and value. 

One rationale suggested that current markups on electronic fixtures is higher than on 

magnetic, although this difference is narrowing, and that a new standard would eliminate the margin 

premium on electronics prematurely. This would reduce cash flow in the standard case from that of 

the base case and result in a lower value for the firm. A second emphasizes the price sensitivity of 

non-specification grade luminaires that results in low sales of electronic luminaires in one or twolamp fixtures. Thus in this case electronic fixtures contribute very little to profit even though they 

command a premium markup. A new standard would raise profits if the margin could be maintained, 

6-66 
but it is highly likely that instead the market would force the prices of the electronic fixtures down

significantly and the margin would turn out to be lower after than before the standard. The third

situation is the case where the margin is actually higher on magnetic fixtures because of lower costs

for acquiring and installing the more mature magnetic technology. Here a new standard would

substitute a lower margin revenue stream for a high one. Applying these rationales to the

manufacturers that exhibit them allows a rough estimate of the change in cash flow of the standard

case from the base case.

The aggregated "worst case" change in net present value for the four firms is negative in the

range $9-18 million ($13.5± 4.5 million), assuming that the current premium margin for

electronically ballasted luminaires remains constant in the base case. This is unlikely, however, as

the recent trend has been toward parity in margins between electronic and magnetic. Assuming this

convergence continues without a new standard, the negative impact on value would be less. If the

convergence were to be complete by the implementation date of a new standard , the impacts

attributed to price margin differences would disappear and the total impacts reduce to about one third

of the "worst case", or negative $3-6 million.

In addition, manufacturers reported significant other costs and business disruptions associated

with potential new ballast standards. There were concerns expressed that a standard would divert

resources from new product and technology introduction and result in lost opportunities. Also some

luminaire manufacturers look to their ballast manufacturer allies to develop special ballast products

for their luminaires, and to the extent that the ballast manufacturers are distracted by changes

imposed by new standards, they cannot attend to technical assistance to luminaire manufacturers.

Some luminaire manufacturers also estimated significant costs associated with changes in

product literature, business processes, product testing and evaluation, and information management

systems required by new product offerings emanating from a new standard. These costs total

approximately $1 million.

Thus a likely range of costs to luminaire manufacturers brought about by a new energy

efficiency standard for ballasts is approximately $4-7 million.

Nearly all the manufacturers saw no significant impact on their employment levels as a result

of a new standard. Their production levels would not change as much as profitability. No

manufacturer suggested any quantitative employment impact.

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

but it is highly likely that instead the market would force the prices of the electronic fixtures down 

significantly and the margin would turn out to be lower after than before the standard. The third 

situation is the case where the margin is actually higher on magnetic fixtures because oflower costs 

for acquiring and installing the more mature magnetic technology. Here a new standard would 

substitute a lower margin revenue stream for a high one. Applying these rationales to the 

manufacturers that exhibit them allows a rough estimate of the change in cash flow ofthe standard 

case from the base case. 

The aggregated "worst case" change in net present value for the four firnls is negative in the 

range $9-18 million ($13.5± 4.5 million), assuming that the current premium margin for 

electronically ballasted luminaires remains constant in the base case. This is unlikely, however, as 

the recent trend has been toward parity in margins between electronic and magnetic. Assuming this 

convergence continues without a new standard, the negative impact on value would be less. If the 

convergence were to be complete by the implementation date of a new standard, the impacts 

attributed to price margin differences would disappear and the total impacts reduce to about one third 

ofthe "worst case", or negative $3-6 million. 

In addition, manufacturers reported significant other costs and business disruptions associated 

with potential new ballast standards. There were concerns expressed that a standard would divert 

resources from new product and technology introduction and result in lost opportunities. Also some 

luminaire manufacturers look to their ballast manufacturer allies to develop special ballast products 

for their luminaires, and to the extent that the ballast manufacturers are distracted by changes 

imposed by new standards, they cannot attend to technical assistance to luminaire manufacturers. 

Some luminaire manufacturers also estimated significant costs associated with changes in 

product literature, business processes, product testing and evaluation, and information management 

systems required by new product offerings emanating from a new standard. These costs total 

approximately $1 million. 

Thus a likely range of costs to luminaire manufacturers brought about by a new energy 

efficiency standard for ballasts is approximately $4-7 million. 

Nearly all the manufacturers saw no significant impact on their employment levels as a result 

of a new standard. Their production levels would not change as much as profitability. No 

manufacturer suggested any quantitative employment impact. 

6-67 

but it is highly likely that instead the market would force the prices of the electronic fixtures down 

significantly and the margin would turn out to be lower after than before the standard. The third 

situation is the case where the margin is actually higher on magnetic fixtures because oflower costs 

for acquiring and installing the more mature magnetic technology. Here a new standard would 

substitute a lower margin revenue stream for a high one. Applying these rationales to the 

manufacturers that exhibit them allows a rough estimate of the change in cash flow ofthe standard 

case from the base case. 

The aggregated "worst case" change in net present value for the four firnls is negative in the 

range $9-18 million ($13.5± 4.5 million), assuming that the current premium margin for 

electronically ballasted luminaires remains constant in the base case. This is unlikely, however, as 

the recent trend has been toward parity in margins between electronic and magnetic. Assuming this 

convergence continues without a new standard, the negative impact on value would be less. If the 

convergence were to be complete by the implementation date of a new standard, the impacts 

attributed to price margin differences would disappear and the total impacts reduce to about one third 

ofthe "worst case", or negative $3-6 million. 

In addition, manufacturers reported significant other costs and business disruptions associated 

with potential new ballast standards. There were concerns expressed that a standard would divert 

resources from new product and technology introduction and result in lost opportunities. Also some 

luminaire manufacturers look to their ballast manufacturer allies to develop special ballast products 

for their luminaires, and to the extent that the ballast manufacturers are distracted by changes 

imposed by new standards, they cannot attend to technical assistance to luminaire manufacturers. 

Some luminaire manufacturers also estimated significant costs associated with changes in 

product literature, business processes, product testing and evaluation, and information management 

systems required by new product offerings emanating from a new standard. These costs total 

approximately $1 million. 

Thus a likely range of costs to luminaire manufacturers brought about by a new energy 

efficiency standard for ballasts is approximately $4-7 million. 

Nearly all the manufacturers saw no significant impact on their employment levels as a result 

of a new standard. Their production levels would not change as much as profitability. No 

manufacturer suggested any quantitative employment impact. 

6-67 
6D. IMPACT ON LAMP MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY

6D.1 Introduction

Three major manufacturers, GE Lighting, OSRAM Sylvania, Inc., and Philips Lighting

Company dominate the market for linear fluorescent lamps in the U.S. Together these three

manufactureres serve approximately 90% of the market. As trade allies of the fluorescent ballast

manufacturing industry, they may exerience an impact from a new energy-efficiency standard applied

to fluorescent lamp ballasts. Some ballast and lamp industry sources and others have speculated that

a new energy-efficiency standard for ballasts would substantially accelerate the transition from T 12

lamps to T8, thus having an impact on lamp manufacturers as well as ballast manufacturers.

The Department, through Arthur D. Little, Inc., initiated confidential discussions with lamp

manufacturers to invite their views on how a new standard might affect their businesses.

One lamp manufacturer, OSRAM Sylvania, had suggested in, a Department Workshop with other

stakeholders that a new standard is not needed because the market is accomplishing the transition

to more energy-efficient systems on its own. But if a new standard is promulgated in any case, it

should apply the standard only to ballasts sold to luminaire manufactureres for the new construction

and major rennovation markets. The OSRAM Sylvania proposal suggests that ballasts sold through

distribution channels for the replacement and retrofit markets be exempt from the standard. The

written proposal' and subsequent comments provide the reasons for segmenting the market in this

way. Briefly, the proposal indicates that magnetic ballasts are required to serve the replacement

market because the existing 34W energy saver T12 lamp is incompatible with high frequency

electronic ballasts, and that the retrofit market is focused on energy efficiency improvements and is

already nearly 100% T8/electronic ballast systems. In addition, the need to accommodate a sudden

transformation in the replacement market from T12 to T8 lamps could cause a negative impact on

lamp manufacturers.

Arthur D. Little invited representatives from each of the other two major lamp manufacturers

to discuss their reactions to the OSRAM Sylvania proposal, and to estimate the impact that a new

ballast standard might have on them. One manufacturer chose not to participate in the discussions,

so the following results are based on talks with two major manufacturers and a review of the

literature.

' "Response to Federal Register Notice October 30, 1998 seeking further comments on revised

standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts", #34, Letter from Peter Bleasby, OSRAM Sylvania, to U.S.

Department of Energy, December 14, 1998.

s "Response to Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Workshop, June 1, 1999", Letter from Peter Bleasby,

OSRAM Sylvania to U.S. Department of Energy, June 21, 1999.

6-68

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

6D. IMPACT ON LAMP MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY 

6D.l Introduction 

Three major manufacturers, GE Lighting, OSRAM Sylvania, Inc., and Philips Lighting 

Company dominate the market for linear fluorescent lamps in the U.S. Together these three 

manufactureres serve approximately 90% of the market. As trade allies of the fluorescent ballast 

manufacturing industry, they may exerience an impact from a new energy-efficiency standard applied 

to fluorescent lamp ballasts. Some ballast and lamp industry sources and others have speculated that 

a new energy-efficiency standard for ballasts would substantially accelerate the transition from TI2 

lamps to T8, thus having an impact on lamp manufacturers as well as ballast manufacturers. 

The Department, through Arthur D. Little, Inc., initiated confidential discussions with lamp 

manufacturers to invite their views on how a new standard might affect their businesses. 

One lamp manufacturer, OSRAM Sylvania, had suggested in a Department Workshop with other 

stakeholders that a new standard is not needed because the market is accomplishing the transition 

to more energy-efficient systems on its own. But if a new standard is promulgated in any case, it 

should apply the standard only to ballasts sold to luminaire manufactureres for the new construction 

and major rennovation markets. The OSRAM Sylvania proposal suggests that ballasts sold through 

distribution channels for the replacement and retrofit markets be exempt from the standard. The 

written proposaf and subsequent comment8 provide the reasons for segmenting the market in this 

way. Briefly, the proposal indicates that magnetic ballasts are required to serve the replacement 

market because the existing 34W energy saver TI2 lamp is incompatible with high frequency 

electronic ballasts, and that the retrofit market is focused on energy efficiency improvements and is 

already nearly 100% T8/electronic ballast systems. In addition, the need to accommodate a sudden 

transformation in the replacement market from TI2 to T8 lamps could cause a negative impact on 

lamp manufacturers. 

Arthur D. Little invited representatives from each of the other two major lamp manufacturers 

to discuss their reactions to the OSRAM Sylvania proposal, and to estimate the impact that a new 

ballast standard might have on them. One manufacturer chose not to participate in the discussions, 

so the following results are based on talks with two major manufacturers and a review of the 

literature. 

7 "Response to Federal Register Notice October 30, 1998 seeking further comments on revised 

standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts", #34, Letter from Peter Bleasby, OSRAM Sylvania, to U.S. 

Department of Energy, December 14, 1998. 

8 "Response to Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Workshop, June 1, 1999", Letter from Peter Bleasby, 

OSRAM Sylvania to U.S. Department of Energy, June 21,1999. 

6-68 

6D. IMPACT ON LAMP MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY 

6D.l Introduction 

Three major manufacturers, GE Lighting, OSRAM Sylvania, Inc., and Philips Lighting 

Company dominate the market for linear fluorescent lamps in the U.S. Together these three 

manufactureres serve approximately 90% of the market. As trade allies of the fluorescent ballast 

manufacturing industry, they may exerience an impact from a new energy-efficiency standard applied 

to fluorescent lamp ballasts. Some ballast and lamp industry sources and others have speculated that 

a new energy-efficiency standard for ballasts would substantially accelerate the transition from TI2 

lamps to T8, thus having an impact on lamp manufacturers as well as ballast manufacturers. 

The Department, through Arthur D. Little, Inc., initiated confidential discussions with lamp 

manufacturers to invite their views on how a new standard might affect their businesses. 

One lamp manufacturer, OSRAM Sylvania, had suggested in a Department Workshop with other 

stakeholders that a new standard is not needed because the market is accomplishing the transition 

to more energy-efficient systems on its own. But if a new standard is promulgated in any case, it 

should apply the standard only to ballasts sold to luminaire manufactureres for the new construction 

and major rennovation markets. The OSRAM Sylvania proposal suggests that ballasts sold through 

distribution channels for the replacement and retrofit markets be exempt from the standard. The 

written proposaf and subsequent comment8 provide the reasons for segmenting the market in this 

way. Briefly, the proposal indicates that magnetic ballasts are required to serve the replacement 

market because the existing 34W energy saver TI2 lamp is incompatible with high frequency 

electronic ballasts, and that the retrofit market is focused on energy efficiency improvements and is 

already nearly 100% T8/electronic ballast systems. In addition, the need to accommodate a sudden 

transformation in the replacement market from TI2 to T8 lamps could cause a negative impact on 

lamp manufacturers. 

Arthur D. Little invited representatives from each of the other two major lamp manufacturers 

to discuss their reactions to the OSRAM Sylvania proposal, and to estimate the impact that a new 

ballast standard might have on them. One manufacturer chose not to participate in the discussions, 

so the following results are based on talks with two major manufacturers and a review of the 

literature. 

7 "Response to Federal Register Notice October 30, 1998 seeking further comments on revised 

standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts", #34, Letter from Peter Bleasby, OSRAM Sylvania, to U.S. 

Department of Energy, December 14, 1998. 

8 "Response to Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Workshop, June 1, 1999", Letter from Peter Bleasby, 

OSRAM Sylvania to U.S. Department of Energy, June 21,1999. 

6-68 
6D.2 Results

There was strong agreement that a new standard would accelerate the shift in market share

from T 12 to T8 lamps. Although any forecast of the quantitative impact of this shift depends to some

extent on the assumptions made, an estimate of 45-50 million additional T8 lamps required to serve

the 19 million additional electronic ballasts brought into service under a new standard effective 2003

is reasonable. This is about 1/3 the size of the entire current production of about 140 million lamps.

The manufacturers further agreed that the current transition to T8 lamps is being handled , well and

that any acceleration in the transition must be served while retaining enough T12 capacity to serve

the replacement market. The replacement market for T12 lamps is large, over 85% of the 1998

market of 340 million T12 lamps and more than 8 times the size of the 35 million unit replacement

market for T8 lamps. The lamp manufacturing industry can gear up to serve the increase in OEM

demand for T8 lamps with a 3-4 year lead-time. But to serve the increased replacement market at the

same time would require acceleration in capacity expansion for T8 production and early retirement

of T12 capacity, which cause severe economic penalties.

A new high-speed production line for T8 requires an investment of approximately $40

million for a 45-million lamp per year capacity. Early retirement of an equivalent capacity of T12

production would cost about half that amount assuming it is about 50% depreciated. Lamp

manufacturing industry operating margins would not change much over the long run. As a first

simplistic approximation , then, the cost to the lamp manufacturing industry to accommodate a new

ballast standard is approximately $20±10 million, less the portion of that capacity serving the OEM

luminaire manufacturers. The lamp manufacturers can serve this OEM market as a normal course

of business given a 3-4 year lead-time. Currently about two thirds of T8 lamps serve the OEM

market and one-third the replacement market . If this split remains the same, the lamp industry would

experience a loss in value of about 1/3 x ($20+10) or $ 3.3-10 million. There would also be a cost

for accelerating the T8 production capacity a number of years ahead of that required for supplying

the replacement market at today's growth rate. This issue was not fully explored.

Since the total production of fluorescent lamps is not significantly affected by the proposed

standard, employment impacts are limited to changes in productivity and are minimal across the

industry.

In summary, the major cost to lamp manufacturers to accommodate a new energy efficiency

standard is the early retirement of production capacity now dedicated to producing T12 lamps. The

impact is approximately $3.3-10 million in lost industry value.

Several other issues were explored with the manufacturers.

® There was agreement on the incompatibility of T8 & T12

® Neither lamp will operate correctly on the opposing ballast. This makes the spot

replacements of T8/electronic in an otherwise T12/magnetic installation a potential

maintenance nightmare , because it is not obvious to subsequent lamp maintenance personnel

6-69

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

6D.2 Results 

There was strong agreement that a new standard would accelerate the shift in market share 

from TI2 to T8lamps. Although any forecast of the quantitative impact of this shift depends to some 

extent on the assumptions made, an estimate of 45-50 million additional T8lamps required to serve 

the 19 million additional electronic ballasts brought into service under a new standard effective 2003 

is reasonable. This is about 113 the size ofthe entire CUlTent production of about 140 million lamps. 

The manufacturers further agreed that the current transition to T8 lamps is being handledwell and 

that any acceleration in the transition must be served while retaining enough TI2 capacity to serve 

the replacement market. The replacement market for TI2 lamps is large, over 85% of the 1998 

market of340 million T12lamps and more than 8 times the size of the 35 million unit replacement 

market for T8 lamps. The lamp manufacturing industry can gear up to serve the increase in OEM 

demand for T8lamps with a 3-4 year lead-time. But to serve the increased replacement market at the 

same time would require acceleration in capacity expansion for T8 production and early retirement 

ofTl2 capacity, which cause severe economic penalties. 

A new high-speed production line for T8 requires an investment of approximately $40 

million for a 45-million lamp per year capacity. Early retirement of an equivalent capacity of TI2 

production would cost about half that amount assuming it is about 50% depreciated. Lamp 

manufacturing industry operating margins would not change much over the long run. As a first 

simplistic approximation, then, the cost to the lamp manufacturing industry to accommodate a new 

ballast standard is approximately $20± 1 0 million, less the pOliion of that capacity serving the OEM 

luminaire manufacturers. The lamp manufacturers can serve this OEM market as a normal course 

of business given a 3-4 year lead-time. Currently about two thirds of T8 lamps serve the OEM 

market and one-third the replacement market. If this sp I it remains the same, the lamp industry would 

experience a loss in value of about 113 x ($20±10) or $3.3-10 million. There would also be a cost 

for accelerating the T8 production capacity a number of years ahead of that required for supplying 

the replacement market at today's growth rate. This issue was not fully explored. 

Since the total production of fluorescent lamps is not significantly affected by the proposed 

standard, employment impacts are limited to changes in productivity and are minimal across the 

industry. 

In summary, the major cost to lamp manufacturers to accommodate a new energy efficiency 

standard is the early retirement of production capacity now dedicated to producing Tl2lamps. The 

impact is approximately $3.3-10 million in lost industry value. 

Several other issues were explored with the manufacturers. 

• There was agreement on the incompatibility ofT8 & T12 

• Neither lamp will operate correctly on the opposing ballast. This makes the spot 

replacements of T8/electronic in an otherwise TI2/magnetic installation a potential 

maintenance nightmare, because it is not obvious to subsequent lamp maintenance personnel 

6-69 

6D.2 Results 

There was strong agreement that a new standard would accelerate the shift in market share 

from TI2 to T8lamps. Although any forecast of the quantitative impact of this shift depends to some 

extent on the assumptions made, an estimate of 45-50 million additional T8lamps required to serve 

the 19 million additional electronic ballasts brought into service under a new standard effective 2003 

is reasonable. This is about 113 the size ofthe entire CUlTent production of about 140 million lamps. 

The manufacturers further agreed that the current transition to T8 lamps is being handledwell and 

that any acceleration in the transition must be served while retaining enough TI2 capacity to serve 

the replacement market. The replacement market for TI2 lamps is large, over 85% of the 1998 

market of340 million T12lamps and more than 8 times the size of the 35 million unit replacement 

market for T8 lamps. The lamp manufacturing industry can gear up to serve the increase in OEM 

demand for T8lamps with a 3-4 year lead-time. But to serve the increased replacement market at the 

same time would require acceleration in capacity expansion for T8 production and early retirement 

ofTl2 capacity, which cause severe economic penalties. 

A new high-speed production line for T8 requires an investment of approximately $40 

million for a 45-million lamp per year capacity. Early retirement of an equivalent capacity of TI2 

production would cost about half that amount assuming it is about 50% depreciated. Lamp 

manufacturing industry operating margins would not change much over the long run. As a first 

simplistic approximation, then, the cost to the lamp manufacturing industry to accommodate a new 

ballast standard is approximately $20± 1 0 million, less the pOliion of that capacity serving the OEM 

luminaire manufacturers. The lamp manufacturers can serve this OEM market as a normal course 

of business given a 3-4 year lead-time. Currently about two thirds of T8 lamps serve the OEM 

market and one-third the replacement market. If this sp I it remains the same, the lamp industry would 

experience a loss in value of about 113 x ($20±10) or $3.3-10 million. There would also be a cost 

for accelerating the T8 production capacity a number of years ahead of that required for supplying 

the replacement market at today's growth rate. This issue was not fully explored. 

Since the total production of fluorescent lamps is not significantly affected by the proposed 

standard, employment impacts are limited to changes in productivity and are minimal across the 

industry. 

In summary, the major cost to lamp manufacturers to accommodate a new energy efficiency 

standard is the early retirement of production capacity now dedicated to producing Tl2lamps. The 

impact is approximately $3.3-10 million in lost industry value. 

Several other issues were explored with the manufacturers. 

• There was agreement on the incompatibility ofT8 & T12 

• Neither lamp will operate correctly on the opposing ballast. This makes the spot 

replacements of T8/electronic in an otherwise TI2/magnetic installation a potential 

maintenance nightmare, because it is not obvious to subsequent lamp maintenance personnel 

6-69 
that the ballast within the luminaire has been changed. Furthermore, there is no market

developed for T 12 electronic ballasts because (1) it is not economically viable, and (2) there

is a mismatch between electronic ballasts and the most popular 34 watt energy saving T12

lamp. Thus the replacement market should be allowed to replace magnetic ballasts with

magnetic.

There should be a general exemption where low EMI ballasts are needed or required. Some

progress is being made toward solving electromagnetic interference problems, but new

problems are being discovered as well.

® Exemptions should be made for low temperature and dimming applications.

® There was some disagreement about the residential exemption centered mainly on the extent

of the problem of crossover by small commercial businesses and some contractors using

residential fixtures in commercial applications. Although this probably would happen, some

in the industry feel that this is a minor problem while others believe that if a new standard

is to exempt residential applications, there should be some provision to see that the

exemption is not abused. Restricting the exemption to fixtures with T8 lamps, however, is

tantamount to removing the exemption in practice.

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

that the ballast within the luminaire has been changed. Furthermore, there is no market 

developed for T 12 electronic ballasts because (1) it is not economically viable, and (2) there 

is a mismatch between electronic ballasts and the most popular 34 watt energy saving TI2 

lamp. Thus the replacement market should be allowed to replace magnetic ballasts with 

magnetic. 

.. There should be a general exemption where low EMI ballasts are needed or required. Some 

progress is being made toward solving electromagnetic interference problems, but new 

problems are being discovered as well. 

.. Exemptions should be made for low temperature and dimming applications. 

.. There was some disagreement about the residential exemption centered mainly on the extent 

of the problem of crossover by small commercial businesses and some contractors using 

residential fixtures in commercial applications. Although this probably would happen, some 

in the industry feel that this is a minor problem while others believe that if a new standard 

is to exempt residential applications, there should be some provision to see that the 

exemption is not abused. Restricting the exemption to fixtures with T8 lamps, however, is 

tantamount to removing the exemption in practice. 

6-70 

that the ballast within the luminaire has been changed. Furthermore, there is no market 

developed for T 12 electronic ballasts because (1) it is not economically viable, and (2) there 

is a mismatch between electronic ballasts and the most popular 34 watt energy saving TI2 

lamp. Thus the replacement market should be allowed to replace magnetic ballasts with 

magnetic. 

.. There should be a general exemption where low EMI ballasts are needed or required. Some 

progress is being made toward solving electromagnetic interference problems, but new 

problems are being discovered as well. 

.. Exemptions should be made for low temperature and dimming applications. 

.. There was some disagreement about the residential exemption centered mainly on the extent 

of the problem of crossover by small commercial businesses and some contractors using 

residential fixtures in commercial applications. Although this probably would happen, some 

in the industry feel that this is a minor problem while others believe that if a new standard 

is to exempt residential applications, there should be some provision to see that the 

exemption is not abused. Restricting the exemption to fixtures with T8 lamps, however, is 

tantamount to removing the exemption in practice. 

6-70 
CHAPTER 7. IMPACTS OF TRIAL STANDARDS FOR FLUORESCENT LAMP

BALLASTS ON ELECTRIC UTILITIES

7.1 SUMMARY

The effects of proposed fluorescent ballast energy-efficiency standards on the electric utility

industry were analyzed using a variant of the Energy Information Administration (ETA) National

Energy Modeling System (NEMS) called NEMS-BRS, together with some exogenous calculations. t,

NEMS was used by the EIA to produce the 1999 Annual Energy Outlook (AE099), and NEMSBRS is used to provide some key equivalent inputs to our standards analysis.' Because electric utility

restructuring is well under way, we can no longer assume the historical cost recovery regulation of

utilities, which was the basis of previous utility impact analyses. Therefore, our electric utility

analysis consists of a comparison between model results for a case comparable to the AE099

Reference Case, as reported in the AE099, and policy cases incorporating each of the ballast

standards scenarios. Because the policy standards effects are small compared to the total size of the

power sector, NEMS-BRS is not used directly. Instead, exploratory runs are conducted to estimate

marginal effects, which are then used to calculate the small effects on utilities resulting from each

standards scenario. The reduced electricity demand from ballast efficiency standards lowers

generation from both coal and natural gas, but, because natural gas is more frequently the marginal

fuel, it is usually affected to a greater degree.

7.2 PURPOSE OF THE ANALYSIS

The requirement that the effects of proposed standards on electric utilities be analyzed has

a long history. Analysis of the effects of proposed standards on the electric utility industry has

historically taken the form of estimated fuel savings and capital cost savings relative to the likely

reduction in revenues implied by lower electricity sales. In the short term, ratepayers of traditional

utilities gained because of reduced energy use at fixed prices, but any imbalance between revenue

and costs disappeared in the long run as traditional regulation allowed utilities to recover costs. In

a restructured industry, however, only local distribution companies will be permitted to recoup costs,

and prices are not rigid in the short run, so the basis of our analysis must change. Using the AE099

assumptions regarding the spread of restructuring allows us to use NEMS-BRS to estimate the

tFor further information about NEMS , please refer to the U.S. Department of Energy , Energy Information Administration . National

Energy Model System: An Overview 1998. DOE/EIA-0581(98), February 1998.

2EIA approves use of the name NEMS to describe only an AEO version of the model without any modification to code or data.

Because our analysis entails some minor code modifications, and the model is run under various policy scenarios that deviate from

AEO assumptions, the name NEMS-BRS refers to the model used here.

3U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 1999 : with Projections Through 2020.

DOE/EIA-0383(99), December 1998.

7-1

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

CHAPTER 7. IMPACTS OF TRIAL STANDARDS FOR FLUORESCENT LAMP 

BALLASTS ON ELECTRIC UTILITIES 

7.1 SUMMARY 

The effects of proposed fluorescent ballast energy-efficiency standards on the electric utility 

industry were analyzed using a variant of the Energy Information Administration (EIA) National 

Energy Modeling System (NEMS) called NEMS-BRS, together with some exogenous calculations. I, 

2' NEMS was used by the EIA to produce the 1999 Annual Energy Outlook (AE099), and NEMSBRS is used to provide some key equivalent inputs to our standards analysis. 3 Because electric utility 

restlUcturing is well under way, we can no longer assume the historical cost recovery regulation of 

utilities, which was the basis of previous utility impact analyses. Therefore, our electric utility 

analysis consists of a comparison between model results for a case comparable to the AE099 

Reference Case, as reported in the AE099, and policy cases incorporating each of the ballast 

standards scenarios. Because the policy standards effects are small compared to the total size of the 

power sector, NEMS-BRS is not used directly. Instead, exploratory runs are conducted to estimate 

marginal effects, which are then used to calculate the small effects on utilities resulting from each 

standards scenario. The reduced electricity demand from ballast efficiency standards lowers 

generation from both coal and natural gas, but, because natural gas is more frequently the marginal 

fuel, it is usually affected to a greater degree. 

7.2 PURPOSE OF THE ANALYSIS 

The requirement that the effects of proposed standards on electric utilities be analyzed has 

a long history. Analysis of the effects of proposed standards on the electric utility industry has 

historically taken the form of estimated fuel savings and capital cost savings relative to the likely 

reduction in revenues implied by lower electricity sales. In the short teml, ratepayers of traditional 

utilities gained because of reduced energy use at fixed prices, but any imbalance between revenue 

and costs disappeared in the long run as traditional regulation allowed utilities to recover costs. In 

a restructured industry, however, only local distribution companies will be permitted to recoup costs, 

and prices are not rigid in the short run, so the basis of our analysis must change. Using the AE099 

assumptions regarding the spread of restructuring allows us to use NEMS-BRS to estimate the 

IForfurther information about NEMS, please refer to the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. National 

Energy Model System: An Overview 1998. DOE/EIA-0581(98), Februruy 1998. 

2ElA approves use of the name NEMS to describe only an AEO version of the model without any modification to code or data. 

Because our analysis entails some minor code modifications, and the model is run under various policy scenarios that deviate from 

AEO assumptions, the name NEMS-BRS refers to the model used here. 

3U.S. Depru"tment of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 1999: 'with Projection.I' Through 2020. 

DOE/EIA-0383(99), December 1998. 

7-1 

CHAPTER 7. IMPACTS OF TRIAL STANDARDS FOR FLUORESCENT LAMP 

BALLASTS ON ELECTRIC UTILITIES 

7.1 SUMMARY 

The effects of proposed fluorescent ballast energy-efficiency standards on the electric utility 

industry were analyzed using a variant of the Energy Information Administration (EIA) National 

Energy Modeling System (NEMS) called NEMS-BRS, together with some exogenous calculations. I, 

2' NEMS was used by the EIA to produce the 1999 Annual Energy Outlook (AE099), and NEMSBRS is used to provide some key equivalent inputs to our standards analysis. 3 Because electric utility 

restlUcturing is well under way, we can no longer assume the historical cost recovery regulation of 

utilities, which was the basis of previous utility impact analyses. Therefore, our electric utility 

analysis consists of a comparison between model results for a case comparable to the AE099 

Reference Case, as reported in the AE099, and policy cases incorporating each of the ballast 

standards scenarios. Because the policy standards effects are small compared to the total size of the 

power sector, NEMS-BRS is not used directly. Instead, exploratory runs are conducted to estimate 

marginal effects, which are then used to calculate the small effects on utilities resulting from each 

standards scenario. The reduced electricity demand from ballast efficiency standards lowers 

generation from both coal and natural gas, but, because natural gas is more frequently the marginal 

fuel, it is usually affected to a greater degree. 

7.2 PURPOSE OF THE ANALYSIS 

The requirement that the effects of proposed standards on electric utilities be analyzed has 

a long history. Analysis of the effects of proposed standards on the electric utility industry has 

historically taken the form of estimated fuel savings and capital cost savings relative to the likely 

reduction in revenues implied by lower electricity sales. In the short teml, ratepayers of traditional 

utilities gained because of reduced energy use at fixed prices, but any imbalance between revenue 

and costs disappeared in the long run as traditional regulation allowed utilities to recover costs. In 

a restructured industry, however, only local distribution companies will be permitted to recoup costs, 

and prices are not rigid in the short run, so the basis of our analysis must change. Using the AE099 

assumptions regarding the spread of restructuring allows us to use NEMS-BRS to estimate the 

IForfurther information about NEMS, please refer to the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. National 

Energy Model System: An Overview 1998. DOE/EIA-0581(98), Februruy 1998. 

2ElA approves use of the name NEMS to describe only an AEO version of the model without any modification to code or data. 

Because our analysis entails some minor code modifications, and the model is run under various policy scenarios that deviate from 

AEO assumptions, the name NEMS-BRS refers to the model used here. 

3U.S. Depru"tment of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 1999: 'with Projection.I' Through 2020. 

DOE/EIA-0383(99), December 1998. 

7-1 
overall effect of standards on the industry .' We assess the impact of standards on utilities by

reporting several key industry parameters , notably electricity sales, generation, and capacity.

7.3 ASSUMPTIONS

NEMS-BRS has several advantages that have led to its adoption as the source for basic

forecasting appliance energy-efficiency standards analysis. NEMS -BRS relies upon a set of wellknown, transparent assumptions. The comprehensiveness of NEMS-BRS permits modeling of

interactions among the various energy supply and demand sectors and the economy as a whole, so

it produces a sophisticated picture of the effect of standards. Perhaps most importantly, because it

explicitly simulates dispatch and capacity expansion of the industry, NEMS-BRS provides accurate

estimation of marginal effects, which yield better indicators of actual effects than estimates based

on industry wide average values.

The utility analysis uses the assumptions of AEO99 and treats ballast efficiency standards as

deviations in policy. Because the analysis reduces demand by only half a percent or less of total U.S.

electricity generation in any given year, its effect can not be detected directly by simulations.

Therefore, simulation runs are done for larger reductions in demand and results are interpolated

between AE099 and these runs. We assume that the effects measured are linear within the range of

interpolation (i.e., close to the origin). This issue is discussed further below.

Deviations from some of these assumptions have also been explored through two scenarios

that represent alternative futures based on the Low and High Economic Growth cases of AE099.

The AE099 Reference Case assumes a moderate rate of economic growth, 2.1 % per year from 1997

to 2020. The growth assumptions for each case are based on macroeconomic forecasts prepared by

DR IMcGraw-Hill. These cases demonstrate the effects of alternative growth assumptions on energy

markets. The Low Economic Growth case is based on lower growth rates for population , labor force,

and productivity, which raises prices and interest rates and lowers growth in industrial output.

Economic output in the Low case increases by 1.5% a year from 1997 through 2020 .The High case

incorporates higher growth rates for population , labor force , and labor productivity, which lowers

inflation and interest rates and increases projected economic output to 2.6% a year.5

7.4 METHODS

NEMS is a large, multi-sectoral, partial equilibrium model of the U.S. energy sector that has

been developed over several years by the EIA, primarily for the purpose of preparing the Annual

Energy Outlook. NEMS produces a commonly referred to baseline forecast for the U.S . through

2020 and is available in the public domain. The NEMS -BRS model used for appliance standards

analysis is based on the AE099 version of NEMS with minor modifications.

4 EIA assumptions on restructuring are explained on pages 14-15 and pages 24-29 of the AE099.

5 Please see pages 39 and 45 of the AE099 for more details on growth assumptions.

7-2

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

overall effect of standards on the industry.4 We assess the impact of standards on utilities by 

reporting several key industry parameters, notably electricity sales, generation, and capacity. 

7.3 ASSUMPTIONS 

NEMS-BRS has several advantages that have led to its adoption as the source for basic 

forecasting appliance energy-efficiency standards analysis. NEMS-BRS relies upon a set of wellknown, transparent assumptions. The comprehensiveness of NEMS-BRS permits modeling of 

interactions among the various energy supply and demand sectors and the economy as a whole, so 

it produces a sophisticated picture of the effect of standards. Perhaps most importantly, because it 

explicitly simulates dispatch and capacity expansion ofthe industry, NEMS-BRS provides accurate 

estimation of marginal effects, which yield better indicators of actual effects than estimates based 

on industry wide average values. 

The utility analysis uses the assumptions of AE099 and treats ballast efficiency standards as 

deviations in policy. Because the analysis reduces demand by only half a percent or less oftotal U.S. 

electricity generation in any given year, its effect can not be detected directly by simulations. 

Therefore, simulation runs are done for larger reductions in demand and results are interpolated 

between AE099 and these runs. We assume that the effects measured are linear within the range of 

interpolation (i.e., close to the origin). This issue is discussed further below. 

Deviations from some ofthese assumptions have also been explored through two scenarios 

that represent alternative futures based on the Low and High Economic Growth cases of AE099. 

The AE099 Reference Case assumes a moderate rate of economic growth, 2.1 % per year from 1997 

to 2020. The growth assumptions for each case are based on macroeconomic forecasts prepared by 

DR1IMcGraw-Hill. These cases demonstrate the effects of alternative growth assumptions on energy 

markets. The Low Economic Growth case is based on lower growth rates for population, labor force, 

and productivity, which raises prices and interest rates and lowers growth in industrial output. 

Economic output in the Low case increases by 1.5% a year from 1997 through 2020. The High case 

incorporates higher growth rates for population, labor force, and labor productivity, which lowers 

inflation and interest rates and increases projected economic output to 2.6% a year.5 

7.4 METHODS 

NEMS is a large, multi-sectoral, partial equilibrium model ofthe U.S. energy sector that has 

been developed over several years by the EIA, primarily for the purpose of preparing the Annual 

Energy Outlook. NEMS produces a commonly refened to baseline forecast for the U.S. through 

2020 and is available in the public domain. The NEMS-BRS model used for appliance standards 

analysis is based on the AE099 version ofNEMS with minor modifications. 

4 ErA assumptions on restructuring are explained on pages 14-15 and pages 24-29 of the AE099. 

5 Please see pages 39 and 45 of the AE099 for more details on growth assumptions. 

7-2 

overall effect of standards on the industry.4 We assess the impact of standards on utilities by 

reporting several key industry parameters, notably electricity sales, generation, and capacity. 

7.3 ASSUMPTIONS 

NEMS-BRS has several advantages that have led to its adoption as the source for basic 

forecasting appliance energy-efficiency standards analysis. NEMS-BRS relies upon a set of wellknown, transparent assumptions. The comprehensiveness of NEMS-BRS permits modeling of 

interactions among the various energy supply and demand sectors and the economy as a whole, so 

it produces a sophisticated picture of the effect of standards. Perhaps most importantly, because it 

explicitly simulates dispatch and capacity expansion ofthe industry, NEMS-BRS provides accurate 

estimation of marginal effects, which yield better indicators of actual effects than estimates based 

on industry wide average values. 

The utility analysis uses the assumptions of AE099 and treats ballast efficiency standards as 

deviations in policy. Because the analysis reduces demand by only half a percent or less oftotal U.S. 

electricity generation in any given year, its effect can not be detected directly by simulations. 

Therefore, simulation runs are done for larger reductions in demand and results are interpolated 

between AE099 and these runs. We assume that the effects measured are linear within the range of 

interpolation (i.e., close to the origin). This issue is discussed further below. 

Deviations from some ofthese assumptions have also been explored through two scenarios 

that represent alternative futures based on the Low and High Economic Growth cases of AE099. 

The AE099 Reference Case assumes a moderate rate of economic growth, 2.1 % per year from 1997 

to 2020. The growth assumptions for each case are based on macroeconomic forecasts prepared by 

DR1IMcGraw-Hill. These cases demonstrate the effects of alternative growth assumptions on energy 

markets. The Low Economic Growth case is based on lower growth rates for population, labor force, 

and productivity, which raises prices and interest rates and lowers growth in industrial output. 

Economic output in the Low case increases by 1.5% a year from 1997 through 2020. The High case 

incorporates higher growth rates for population, labor force, and labor productivity, which lowers 

inflation and interest rates and increases projected economic output to 2.6% a year.5 

7.4 METHODS 

NEMS is a large, multi-sectoral, partial equilibrium model ofthe U.S. energy sector that has 

been developed over several years by the EIA, primarily for the purpose of preparing the Annual 

Energy Outlook. NEMS produces a commonly refened to baseline forecast for the U.S. through 

2020 and is available in the public domain. The NEMS-BRS model used for appliance standards 

analysis is based on the AE099 version ofNEMS with minor modifications. 

4 ErA assumptions on restructuring are explained on pages 14-15 and pages 24-29 of the AE099. 

5 Please see pages 39 and 45 of the AE099 for more details on growth assumptions. 

7-2 
NEMS-BRS produces the baseline forecasts for many aspects of this appliance standards

analysis, including commercial electricity prices. Because the AE099 version of NEMS forecasts

only to the year 2020, we had to use a method for extrapolating price data to 2030 . The method that

we adopted uses the EIA approach to forecast fuel prices for the Federal Energy Management

Program (FEMP). Electricity prices are held constant at 2020 levels, from 2020 to 2030.

NEMS-BRS policy runs are executed by reducing electricity consumption in the lighting end

use of the NEMS-BRS Commercial Demand Module. The load shape effects of improved lighting

efficiency are thereby replicated as well as possible.

As mentioned above, the magnitude of energy reduction that would be required for NEMSBRS to produce stable results safely out of the range of numerical noise is larger than the most

rigorous efficiency standard by at least a factor of two. Therefore, we estimated results in the range

of the standard levels effects using interpolation. Energy use in the Commercial Demand Module

lighting load is reduced by levels of approximately 2.96, 5.92, 11.83, and 17.75 times the level of

the most extreme standard (2b). They were chosen to be roughly equivalent to 50, 100, 200, and 300

TWh, respectively, in the peak savings year for the standard before 2020. This simulation and

interpolation process is carried out separately for the a and b cases; the a cases are modeled on

standard 2a. Figure 7-1 shows an example of the interpolation approach for gas generation . The size

of the energy reduction is plotted on the x-axis against the reduction in gas generation for each

reported year. In general, results for the various NEMS-BRS runs are reasonably stable and linear,

with the unreliable ("noisy") results appearing below the peak savings of 50 TWh in 2020 , or roughly

2 to 3 times the impact of standard 2b. The figure shows simple linear regressions forced through the

origin because a zero change must be the case with no standard in place. Figure 7-2 shows a close-up

ofthe interpolated points for standards 2a and 5a. The horizontal lines illustrate the calculated values

for the difference in gas generation between the AE099 prediction for 2015 and the standards level

prediction for 2015. These regressions appear stable, so estimating results via interpolation towards

zero seems justified. A similar approach was used to find the drop in generation from other fuels and

in installed generating capacity in each reported year.

7.5 RESULTS

Table 7-1 shows the results from a NEMS-BRS run comparable to the published AE099

Reference Case, with results for the 12 trial standard scenarios presented in the parallel Tables 7-2

through 7- 13. Although energy savings from the proposed ballast standards continue through 2030,

the effects of these savings are reported through 2020 because this is the NEMS -BRS time horizon.

Each table shows forecasts using interpolated results as described above for commercial energy sales

and total U.S. electric generation and installed capacity. As expected, gas-fired generation is more

affected by the standard levels than coal-fired generation . This effect reflects the peaking nature of

the ballast end use, and the fact that gas generation, in general, is used to serve this peak. However,

effects of standards on installed capacity are small relative to the energy savings.'

6Capacity factor, a ratio of generation to installed capacity, is an indicator of the robustness of the forecast. The implied

capacity factors of the displaced capacity in this forecast are within reasonable limits.

7-3

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

NEMS-BRS produces the baseline forecasts for many aspects of this appliance standards 

analysis, including commercial electricity prices. Because the AE099 version ofNEMS forecasts 

only to the year 2020, we had to use a method for extrapolating price data to 2030 . The method that 

we adopted uses the EIA approach to forecast fuel prices for the Federal Energy Management 

Program (FEMP). Electricity prices are held constant at 2020 levels, from 2020 to 2030. 

NEMS-BRS policy runs are executed by reducing electricity consumption in the lighting end 

use ofthe NEMS-BRS Commercial Demand Module. The load shape effects of improved lighting 

efficiency are thereby replicated as well as possible. 

As mentioned above, the magnitude of energy reduction that would be required for NEMSBRS to produce stable results safely out of the range of numerical noise is larger than the most 

rigorous efficiency standard by at least a factor of two. Therefore, we estimated results in the range 

of the standard levels effects using interpolation. Energy use in the Commercial Demand Module 

lighting load is reduced by levels of approximately 2.96,5.92, 11.83, and 17.75 times the level of 

the most extreme standard (2b). They were chosen to be roughly equivalent to 50, 100,200, and 300 

TWh, respectively, in the peak savings year for the standard before 2020. This simulation and 

interpolation process is carried out separately for the a and b cases; the a cases are modeled on 

standard 2a. Figure 7 -1 shows an example of the interpolation approach for gas generation. The size 

of the energy reduction is plotted on the x-axis against the reduction in gas generation for each 

reported year. In general, results for the various NEMS-BRS runs are reasonably stable and linear, 

with the unreliable ("noisy") results appearing below the peak savings of 50 TWh in 2020, or roughly 

2 to 3 times the impact of standard 2b. The figure shows simple linear regressions forced through the 

origin because a zero change must be the case with no standard in place. Figure 7 -2 shows a close-up 

ofthe interpolated points for standards 2a and 5a. The hOlizontallines illustrate the calculated values 

for the difference in gas generation between the AE099 prediction for 2015 and the standards level 

prediction for 2015. These regressions appear stable, so estimating results via interpolation towards 

zero seems justified. A similar approach was used to find the drop in generation from other fuels and 

in installed generating capacity in each repOlied year. 

7.5 RESULTS 

Table 7-1 shows the results from a NEMS-BRS run comparable to the published AE099 

Reference Case, with results for the 12 trial standard scenarios presented in the parallel Tables 7-2 

through 7-13. Although energy savings from the proposed ballast standards continue through 2030, 

the effects ofthese savings are reported through 2020 because this is the NEMS-BRS time horizon. 

Each table shows forecasts using interpolated results as described above for commercial energy sales 

and total u.s. electric generation and installed capacity. As expected, gas-fired generation is more 

affected by the standard levels than coal-fired generation. This effect reflects the peaking nature of 

the ballast end use, and the fact that gas generation, in general, is used to serve this peak. However, 

effects of standards on installed capacity are small relative to the energy savings.6 

6Capacity factor, a ratio of generation to installed capacity, is an indicator ofthe robustness of the forecast. The implied 

capacity factors of the displaced capacity in this forecast are within reasonable limits. 

7-3 

NEMS-BRS produces the baseline forecasts for many aspects of this appliance standards 

analysis, including commercial electricity prices. Because the AE099 version ofNEMS forecasts 

only to the year 2020, we had to use a method for extrapolating price data to 2030 . The method that 

we adopted uses the EIA approach to forecast fuel prices for the Federal Energy Management 

Program (FEMP). Electricity prices are held constant at 2020 levels, from 2020 to 2030. 

NEMS-BRS policy runs are executed by reducing electricity consumption in the lighting end 

use ofthe NEMS-BRS Commercial Demand Module. The load shape effects of improved lighting 

efficiency are thereby replicated as well as possible. 

As mentioned above, the magnitude of energy reduction that would be required for NEMSBRS to produce stable results safely out of the range of numerical noise is larger than the most 

rigorous efficiency standard by at least a factor of two. Therefore, we estimated results in the range 

of the standard levels effects using interpolation. Energy use in the Commercial Demand Module 

lighting load is reduced by levels of approximately 2.96,5.92, 11.83, and 17.75 times the level of 

the most extreme standard (2b). They were chosen to be roughly equivalent to 50, 100,200, and 300 

TWh, respectively, in the peak savings year for the standard before 2020. This simulation and 

interpolation process is carried out separately for the a and b cases; the a cases are modeled on 

standard 2a. Figure 7 -1 shows an example of the interpolation approach for gas generation. The size 

of the energy reduction is plotted on the x-axis against the reduction in gas generation for each 

reported year. In general, results for the various NEMS-BRS runs are reasonably stable and linear, 

with the unreliable ("noisy") results appearing below the peak savings of 50 TWh in 2020, or roughly 

2 to 3 times the impact of standard 2b. The figure shows simple linear regressions forced through the 

origin because a zero change must be the case with no standard in place. Figure 7 -2 shows a close-up 

ofthe interpolated points for standards 2a and 5a. The hOlizontallines illustrate the calculated values 

for the difference in gas generation between the AE099 prediction for 2015 and the standards level 

prediction for 2015. These regressions appear stable, so estimating results via interpolation towards 

zero seems justified. A similar approach was used to find the drop in generation from other fuels and 

in installed generating capacity in each repOlied year. 

7.5 RESULTS 

Table 7-1 shows the results from a NEMS-BRS run comparable to the published AE099 

Reference Case, with results for the 12 trial standard scenarios presented in the parallel Tables 7-2 

through 7-13. Although energy savings from the proposed ballast standards continue through 2030, 

the effects ofthese savings are reported through 2020 because this is the NEMS-BRS time horizon. 

Each table shows forecasts using interpolated results as described above for commercial energy sales 

and total u.s. electric generation and installed capacity. As expected, gas-fired generation is more 

affected by the standard levels than coal-fired generation. This effect reflects the peaking nature of 

the ballast end use, and the fact that gas generation, in general, is used to serve this peak. However, 

effects of standards on installed capacity are small relative to the energy savings.6 

6Capacity factor, a ratio of generation to installed capacity, is an indicator ofthe robustness of the forecast. The implied 

capacity factors of the displaced capacity in this forecast are within reasonable limits. 

7-3 
Table 7-1. Reference Forecast

NEVIS-EPCA Results: AE099 Reference

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Comrnercial-Sector Enerev Consumption r

Electricity Sales (TWh) 1,081 1,162 1,248 1,332 1,384

Total U.S. Electric Generation2

;Coal (TWh) 1,990 2,037 2,092 2,204 2,348

Gas (TWh) 547 858 1,149 1,441 1,588

Petroleum (TWh) 109 44 35 33 31

;Nuc1ear (TWh) 660 631 554 419 359

Renewables (TWh) 423 433 446 461 483

Total (TWh)3 3,729 4,003 4,276 4,558 4,809

.Installed Generating Capacity 4

;Coal (GW) 315.2 315.0 318.9 326.2 343.5

(Other Fossil (GW)5 301.5 369.7 397.3 470.1 513.5

Nuclear (GW) 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9

Renewables (GW) 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4

Total (GW) 6 808.7 871.0 890.7 955.0 1,011.3

Comparable to Table A8 of AE099: Electricity Sales by Sector

2Comparable to Table A8 of AE099: Electric Generators and Cogenerators

3Excludes "Other Gaseous Fuels" coeenerators and "Other" coeenerators

4Comnarable to Table A9 of AE099: Electric Generators and Cogenerators Capability

5lncludes "Other Gaseous Fuels" coeenerators

'Excludes Pumped Storage and Fuel Cells

Commercial energy sales fall for each proposed standard compared to the AE099 Reference

Case. The decrease in sales is proportional to the amount of energy that the National Energy

Savings (NES) model predicts will be saved by each standard, ranging from just over 0.2% to nearly

1.3% of total commercial electricity sales in the peak savings year reported. Total U.S. generation

decreases relative to the AE099 baseline in each standards case, from just under 0.4% of total U.S.

electric generation in the peak savings year of the maximum savings case (standard 2b) to just over

0.06% in the peak year of the smallest savings case (standard 5a). Total installed capacity is also

slightly reduced in each standard level scenario, by just under 0.4% in the final year of the maximum

savings case. Logically, the reduction in generation should approximately match, or be slightly

higher than, the reduction in sales. In some cases, however, for example in 2020 for standard 3a, the

change in generation does not match the decrease in sales (plus delivery losses). This apparent

inconsistency is a result of either changes in system dispatch or inaccuracy in the interpolation

method.

7-4

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table 7-1. Reference Forecast r .... z ....... ;o; ....... ,. ..... , ....... ;.r ..... :.-.. y.o: ..-;.;o;oy ........ ;.;oy.-;.; .... ;.;o;o; .... ;.;.;.'.;.;0;.;0;.;0:;.;0 .. ; ••• ;.;.; ... : ..... ;0;0;.;.-.. ;.-..... ' ......... ;0; ...... ;.-.. .. ;.;o; ••• ;.;o~.;.;o;o;o;o;o;o;.;o; ••• :.;o •• : ..... ;.;o •• ;.;o;o;.;.;.;.-.o;.;.;o:.;o:.;o;.;~;./..:.;.;.:o;o;o;.;o;o;.;.;.;o;.: ....... :.;o;.:.:.: .... ;.-.. ;0;01 

!NEMS-EPCA Results: AE099 Reference ! r.·.·.wmmmmNmm ... wm ........... w .... m.wN .... m.w.·.·r·'.·.·.·.·mN.·.·.·.·m.·.·.·.w.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.W.WN.·.·.WN.· ........................... wu ....... w .. .w"' .. m.wmmm"'j 

1 Commercial-Sector Enerev conSlln:~tio:?OO 2005 2010 2015 2020 ! 

1Electricity Sales (TWh) ; 1,081 1,162 1,248 1,332 1,384 I 

I. 2 11 I 

iTotal u.s. Electric Generation l ! 

;Coal (TWh) 1 1,990 2,037 2,092 2,204 2,348 ) 

iGas(TWh) ~: 547 858 1,149 1,441 1,588 i 

lPetroleum (TWh) ~~ 109 44 35 33 31 ! 

lNuc1ear (TWh) ! 660 631 554 419 359 ! ~Renewables (TWh) l 423 433 446 461 483 i ; 3:! ~ :Total (TWh) :: 3,729 4,003 4,276 4,558 4,809 ) 

IInstalled Generatinz Capacitv 4 I I 

koal (GW) l 315.2 315.0 318.9 326.2 343.5 j 

!Other 

~.: 

Fossil(GW)5 ! . 301.5 369.7 397.3 470.1 513 .. 5 ! 

~ 

;Nuclear (GW) ~ 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 ; 

IRenewables (GW) ! 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 ! ; 6 1: :~ ; Total(GW) :: 808.7 871.0 890.7 955.0 1.011.3 I ; ~ j 

;:--.. :.-..... :.;.:-: .......: .... ;.:.;.-.. "'/..:o" .. ::O,"..:o;.;o;o;.;.:o;.;o:.;.:.;o;o:-:.:.;.y .. ;.; .... :-: ..... ;r. .... ;.;o;.;o;.:.;.:.;.r:-.. :.;-:.:.;-:.-..: .... :-:.;.;.: .... :--.. :-::.;0;.:.;0;.;.; .... ;.;.:.; .... ;.;0;.;.;.:.;.:.;.:.;.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:-:-:.:.:.:':':':':':-;':':':0:.:-:.:":';'-,,:':-:-:':':':0:':':0:':':':':':0:-:0:';.:.;.:j 

'Comparable to Table A8 of AE099: Electricitv Sales bv Sector 

2Comparable to Table A8 of AE099: Electric Generators and Cogenerators 

3Exc1udes "Other Gaseous Fuels" cogenerators and "Other" cogenerators 

4Comparable to Table A9 of AE099: Electric Generators and Cogenerators Capability 

5Inc1udes "Other Gaseous Fuels" cogenerators 

{'Excludes Pumped Storage and Fuel Cells 

Commercial energy sales fall for each proposed standard compared to the AE099 Reference 

Case. The decrease in sales is proportional to the amount of energy that the National Energy 

Savings (NES) model predicts will be saved by each standard, ranging from just over 0.2% to nearly 

1.3% of total commercial electricitY sales in the peak savings year reported. Total U.S. generation 

decreases relative to the AE099 baseline in each standards case, from just under 0.4% of total U.S. 

electric generation in the peak savings year ofthe maximum savings case (standard 2b) to just over 

0.06% in the peak year of the smallest savings case (standard Sa). Total installed capacity is also 

slightly reduced in each standard level scenario, by just under 0.4% in the final year ofthe maximum 

savings case. Logically, the reduction in generation should approximately match, or be slightly 

higher than, the reduction in sales, In some cases, however, for example in 2020 for standard 3a, the 

change in generation does not match the decrease in sales (plus delivery losses). This apparent 

inconsistency is a result of either changes in system dispatch or inaccuracy in the interpolation 

method. 

7-4 

Table 7-1. Reference Forecast r .... z ....... ;o; ....... ,. ..... , ....... ;.r ..... :.-.. y.o: ..-;.;o;oy ........ ;.;oy.-;.; .... ;.;o;o; .... ;.;.;.'.;.;0;.;0;.;0:;.;0 .. ; ••• ;.;.; ... : ..... ;0;0;.;.-.. ;.-..... ' ......... ;0; ...... ;.-.. .. ;.;o; ••• ;.;o~.;.;o;o;o;o;o;o;.;o; ••• :.;o •• : ..... ;.;o •• ;.;o;o;.;.;.;.-.o;.;.;o:.;o:.;o;.;~;./..:.;.;.:o;o;o;.;o;o;.;.;.;o;.: ....... :.;o;.:.:.: .... ;.-.. ;0;01 

!NEMS-EPCA Results: AE099 Reference ! r.·.·.wmmmmNmm ... wm ........... w .... m.wN .... m.w.·.·r·'.·.·.·.·mN.·.·.·.·m.·.·.·.w.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.W.WN.·.·.WN.· ........................... wu ....... w .. .w"' .. m.wmmm"'j 

1 Commercial-Sector Enerev conSlln:~tio:?OO 2005 2010 2015 2020 ! 

1Electricity Sales (TWh) ; 1,081 1,162 1,248 1,332 1,384 I 

I. 2 11 I 

iTotal u.s. Electric Generation l ! 

;Coal (TWh) 1 1,990 2,037 2,092 2,204 2,348 ) 

iGas(TWh) ~: 547 858 1,149 1,441 1,588 i 

lPetroleum (TWh) ~~ 109 44 35 33 31 ! 

lNuc1ear (TWh) ! 660 631 554 419 359 ! ~Renewables (TWh) l 423 433 446 461 483 i ; 3:! ~ :Total (TWh) :: 3,729 4,003 4,276 4,558 4,809 ) 

IInstalled Generatinz Capacitv 4 I I 

koal (GW) l 315.2 315.0 318.9 326.2 343.5 j 

!Other 

~.: 

Fossil(GW)5 ! . 301.5 369.7 397.3 470.1 513 .. 5 ! 

~ 

;Nuclear (GW) ~ 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 ; 

IRenewables (GW) ! 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 ! ; 6 1: :~ ; Total(GW) :: 808.7 871.0 890.7 955.0 1.011.3 I ; ~ j 

;:--.. :.-..... :.;.:-: .......: .... ;.:.;.-.. "'/..:o" .. ::O,"..:o;.;o;o;.;.:o;.;o:.;.:.;o;o:-:.:.;.y .. ;.; .... :-: ..... ;r. .... ;.;o;.;o;.:.;.:.;.r:-.. :.;-:.:.;-:.-..: .... :-:.;.;.: .... :--.. :-::.;0;.:.;0;.;.; .... ;.;.:.; .... ;.;0;.;.;.:.;.:.;.:.;.:.;.:.:.:.:.:.;.:.:-:-:.:.:.:':':':':':-;':':':0:.:-:.:":';'-,,:':-:-:':':':0:':':0:':':':':':0:-:0:';.:.;.:j 

'Comparable to Table A8 of AE099: Electricitv Sales bv Sector 

2Comparable to Table A8 of AE099: Electric Generators and Cogenerators 

3Exc1udes "Other Gaseous Fuels" cogenerators and "Other" cogenerators 

4Comparable to Table A9 of AE099: Electric Generators and Cogenerators Capability 

5Inc1udes "Other Gaseous Fuels" cogenerators 

{'Excludes Pumped Storage and Fuel Cells 

Commercial energy sales fall for each proposed standard compared to the AE099 Reference 

Case. The decrease in sales is proportional to the amount of energy that the National Energy 

Savings (NES) model predicts will be saved by each standard, ranging from just over 0.2% to nearly 

1.3% of total commercial electricitY sales in the peak savings year reported. Total U.S. generation 

decreases relative to the AE099 baseline in each standards case, from just under 0.4% of total U.S. 

electric generation in the peak savings year ofthe maximum savings case (standard 2b) to just over 

0.06% in the peak year of the smallest savings case (standard Sa). Total installed capacity is also 

slightly reduced in each standard level scenario, by just under 0.4% in the final year ofthe maximum 

savings case. Logically, the reduction in generation should approximately match, or be slightly 

higher than, the reduction in sales, In some cases, however, for example in 2020 for standard 3a, the 

change in generation does not match the decrease in sales (plus delivery losses). This apparent 

inconsistency is a result of either changes in system dispatch or inaccuracy in the interpolation 

method. 

7-4 
An example of each of the results under the Low and High Economic Growth side cases is

presented for the largest effect case of the b pattern (standard 2b) as Tables 7-14 and 7-15. For the

Low Growth standards case, savings have a slightly larger impact than in the reference 2b case while

the High Growth standards case results in a slightly lower impact for each of the reported industry

parameters.

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

An example of each of the results under the Low and High Economic Growth side cases is 

presented for the largest effect case of the b pattern (standard 2b) as Tables 7-14 and 7-15. For the 

Low Growth standards case, savings have a slightly larger impact than in the reference 2b case while 

the High Growth standards case results in a slightly lower impact for each ofthe reported industry 

parameters. 

7-5 

An example of each of the results under the Low and High Economic Growth side cases is 

presented for the largest effect case of the b pattern (standard 2b) as Tables 7-14 and 7-15. For the 

Low Growth standards case, savings have a slightly larger impact than in the reference 2b case while 

the High Growth standards case results in a slightly lower impact for each ofthe reported industry 

parameters. 

7-5 
5

0 2000

E 2005

2010

X2015

2020

- - - 2005 Regression

2010 Regression

- ' - ' 2015 Regression

.. " . - -2020 Regression

-250

100 200

Peak Decrement Level (TWh)

Figure 7-1. Standards Level 2a Difference in Gas Generation

7-6

300

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

no std std 

0~~~~~t=======9F================~========~========~------~ 

50 100 200 300 

-50+-----------~~~~~~----------------------------~~~~--~~~~------------------------~ 

see Figure 7-2 

-100+-------------------------------~~~~----------------------------------------------~ 

-150 ~2000 

--B--2005 

--A--201O 

--*-2015 

-200 ---*-2020 

- - - 2005 Regression 

- •. - 2010 Regression 

- - - - 2015 Regression 

..... -2020 Re ression 

~50~========~====~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~------------~--~ 

Peak Decrement Level (TWh) 

Figure 7-1. Standards Level2a Difference in Gas Generation 

7-6 

no std std 

0~~~~~t=======9F================~========~========~------~ 

50 100 200 300 

-50+-----------~~~~~~----------------------------~~~~--~~~~------------------------~ 

see Figure 7-2 

-100+-------------------------------~~~~----------------------------------------------~ 

-150 ~2000 

--B--2005 

--A--201O 

--*-2015 

-200 ---*-2020 

- - - 2005 Regression 

- •. - 2010 Regression 

- - - - 2015 Regression 

..... -2020 Re ression 

~50~========~====~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~------------~--~ 

Peak Decrement Level (TWh) 

Figure 7-1. Standards Level2a Difference in Gas Generation 

7-6 
0

-2.1

-7.2

-10

-20

-30 1

401

-50 -

std 5a=2.91 std 2a=9.96

2000

E3 2005

2010

X 2015

2020

- - - 2005 Regression

2010 Regression

-' -' 2015 Regression

- ' ' - - -2020 Regression

20

Peak Decrement Level (TWh)

30

Figure 7-2. An Example of the Interpolation of Standards Levels 2a and 5a

40 50

7-7

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

std 5a=2.91 std 2a=9.96 20 30 40 

-7.2 f------~:::__=""""'t_ 

.. - .... 

-10+---------~~~~~~-------------------=~--~~--~~~~~~ 

~0+-----------------------------------------~~--------~~~~~~--------------------------------------4 

-30 ~2000 

--e-2005 

---ts--20 10 

--*--2015 

-40 ----*-2020 

- - - 2005 Regression 

- •• - 2010 Regression 

_. _. 2015 Regression 

••••• ·2020 Re ression 

_50L:=======.===-~~=.~==~~~------~~~~~~~.~--~--

Peak Decrement Level (TWh) 

Figure 7-2. An Example ofthe interpolation of Standards Levels 2a and Sa 

7-7 

..... 

std 5a=2.91 std 2a=9.96 20 30 40 

-7.2 f------~:::__=""""'t_ 

.. - .... 

-10+---------~~~~~~-------------------=~--~~--~~~~~~ 

~0+-----------------------------------------~~--------~~~~~~--------------------------------------4 

-30 ~2000 

--e-2005 

---ts--20 10 

--*--2015 

-40 ----*-2020 

- - - 2005 Regression 

- •• - 2010 Regression 

_. _. 2015 Regression 

••••• ·2020 Re ression 

_50L:=======.===-~~=.~==~~~------~~~~~~~.~--~--

Peak Decrement Level (TWh) 

Figure 7-2. An Example ofthe interpolation of Standards Levels 2a and Sa 

7-7 

..... 
Table 7-2. Standards Level la Forecast

?NEVIS-NAECA Results: Standards Level Difference from AE099 Reference

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) 1,081 1,160 1,243 1,326 1,380

Total U.S. Electric Generation

,Coal (TWh) 1,990 2,036 2,091 2,202 2,345

Gas (TWh) 547 856 1,145 1,437 1,587

Petroleum (TWh) 109 44 35 33 31

Nuclear (TWh) 660 631 554 419 359

Renewables (TWh) 423 433 446 461 483

Total (TWh)rr'. 3,729 4,001 4,271 4,552 4,805

Installed Generating Capacity;:

Coal (GW) 315.2 315.0 318.8 326.0

Other Fossil (GW) 301.5 369.7 396.5 469.1

Nuclear (GW) 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4

Renewables (GW) 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3

343.1

512.9

48.9

105.4

Total (GW) 808 7571:0589:7 953 7»1,010;3,-.,,»,,.»,..,»k.. ;0 1:3;1c0

Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) 0.0 -2.2 -4.9 -6.0

Total U.S. Electric Generation

Coal (TWh)

Gas (TWh)

Petroleum (TWh)

Nuclear (TWh)

Renewables (TWh)

Total (TWh)

nstalled Generating Capacity'.

Coal ((-i W)

Other Fossil (GW)

Nuclear (OW)

Renewables (GW)

2020

-4.2

0.0 -0.7 -1.1 -1.8 -3.0

0.0 -1.5 -4.0 -4.4 -1.3

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 -2.2 -5.1 -6.1 -4.3

0.0 0.0 -0.1 =0.2 -0.4

0.0 0.0 -0.8 -1.0 -0.6

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table 7-2. Standards Levella Forecast ~"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... $ ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... l 

!NEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level ~ Difference from AE099 Reference ! 

r""""""'"''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''T'''''''''''''''''''''''''",,,,,,,,,,,,,w,,,,,,,,,,,w""""-''''''''''''''''''''''''''''l'''''''='''-''''''''''"""'''''''''=''''''''''='f''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''""'''''''''''''''''''''''1 

i ! 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 ~l ~ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1 

lCommercial-Sector Energy Corsumption i1 Commercial-Sector Energy CO!Jsumption ! 

jElectricity Sales (TWh) I 1,081 1,160 1,243 1,326 1,380 I Electricity Sales (TWh) ~ 0.0 -2.2 -4.9 -6.0 -4.2 I 

f ~ ~ ~ ~ lTotal U.S. Electric Generatiol1§ § Total U.S. Electric Generation~ 1 

1Coal (TWh) ! 1,990 2,036 2,091 2,202 2,345 :1 Coal (TWh) ~ 0.0 -0.7 -1.1 -1.8 -3.0 ; 

loas (TWh) I 547 856 1,145 1,437 1,587 I Oas (TWh) 1: 0.0 -1.5 -4.0 -4.4 -1.3 ! 

(petroleum (TWh) ! 109 44 35 33 31 :~ Petroleum (TWh) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ) 

~Nuclear (TWh) i 660 631 554 419 359 ij Nuclear (TWh) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! 

lRenewables (TWh) i 423 433 446 461 483 ~~ Renewables (TWh) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 i 

lTotal 

,~' 

(TWh) ! 3,729 4,001 4,271 4,552 4,805 ~ Total (TWh) § 0.0 -2.2 -5.1 -6.1 -4.3 ! '.. t~ ~ i i~ § v ~ 

1Installed Generating Capacity! i1 Installed Generating Capacity i ; ~Coal(OW) § 315.2 315.0 318.8 326.0 343.1 il Coal(OW) :j 0.0 0.0 -0.1 ~0.2 -0.4 ! 

lather Fossil (OW) ~ 301.5 369.7 396.5 469.1 512.9 ~ Other Fossil (OW) Ii 0.0 0.0 -0.8 -1.0 -0.6 I 

lNuclear(OW) i 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 ~1 Nuclear(OW) ~l 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! ~ ~ :<::: ~ 

lRenewables (OW) I 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 ~1 Renewables (OW) :1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 \ 

i.!.Qlt\lJQ1YJ.w.,..",'w .. .,,..,..,..,..w",,..,,,,L.~,Q§~lw ... ~11iLJt~,?)",w2.~J.J,J.,.QIQJ",,,,, . .,"w.w.l.,JS?~.L(Q,WJ",,,w .. """'w,""""'''''',..,..wl'w.,..Q,&,..",..Jt!L,,,,.;:liL.,,, .. JJ .. ,..w.,,~tQ,..,..,.."w .. .w.J 

7-8 

Table 7-2. Standards Levella Forecast ~"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... $ ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... l 

!NEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level ~ Difference from AE099 Reference ! 

r""""""'"''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''T'''''''''''''''''''''''''",,,,,,,,,,,,,w,,,,,,,,,,,w""""-''''''''''''''''''''''''''''l'''''''='''-''''''''''"""'''''''''=''''''''''='f''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''""'''''''''''''''''''''''1 

i ! 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 ~l ~ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1 

lCommercial-Sector Energy Corsumption i1 Commercial-Sector Energy CO!Jsumption ! 

jElectricity Sales (TWh) I 1,081 1,160 1,243 1,326 1,380 I Electricity Sales (TWh) ~ 0.0 -2.2 -4.9 -6.0 -4.2 I 

f ~ ~ ~ ~ lTotal U.S. Electric Generatiol1§ § Total U.S. Electric Generation~ 1 

1Coal (TWh) ! 1,990 2,036 2,091 2,202 2,345 :1 Coal (TWh) ~ 0.0 -0.7 -1.1 -1.8 -3.0 ; 

loas (TWh) I 547 856 1,145 1,437 1,587 I Oas (TWh) 1: 0.0 -1.5 -4.0 -4.4 -1.3 ! 

(petroleum (TWh) ! 109 44 35 33 31 :~ Petroleum (TWh) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ) 

~Nuclear (TWh) i 660 631 554 419 359 ij Nuclear (TWh) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! 

lRenewables (TWh) i 423 433 446 461 483 ~~ Renewables (TWh) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 i 

lTotal 

,~' 

(TWh) ! 3,729 4,001 4,271 4,552 4,805 ~ Total (TWh) § 0.0 -2.2 -5.1 -6.1 -4.3 ! '.. t~ ~ i i~ § v ~ 

1Installed Generating Capacity! i1 Installed Generating Capacity i ; ~Coal(OW) § 315.2 315.0 318.8 326.0 343.1 il Coal(OW) :j 0.0 0.0 -0.1 ~0.2 -0.4 ! 

lather Fossil (OW) ~ 301.5 369.7 396.5 469.1 512.9 ~ Other Fossil (OW) Ii 0.0 0.0 -0.8 -1.0 -0.6 I 

lNuclear(OW) i 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 ~1 Nuclear(OW) ~l 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! ~ ~ :<::: ~ 

lRenewables (OW) I 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 ~1 Renewables (OW) :1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 \ 

i.!.Qlt\lJQ1YJ.w.,..",'w .. .,,..,..,..,..w",,..,,,,L.~,Q§~lw ... ~11iLJt~,?)",w2.~J.J,J.,.QIQJ",,,,, . .,"w.w.l.,JS?~.L(Q,WJ",,,w .. """'w,""""'''''',..,..wl'w.,..Q,&,..",..Jt!L,,,,.;:liL.,,, .. JJ .. ,..w.,,~tQ,..,..,.."w .. .w.J 

7-8 
Table 7-3. Standards Level lb Forecast

' 1Y.. 1Y.:V.1V\LU+:4.U.LLL^p\+.LLLnY[0.L++\LY.h*^\V?\+J:,LILLYALLIY•.1rr,.,Y,YO}}:.,\iLY.\Upw".UhL++}:^LYAU:.\'•:vLU:SO:aY•}\titi.U:,L^\Y.:.:•>;vU\n1+,r:,:;,i11'.:.%.p}},itihY.:UU:..1V:a»^.1+\^}41111111\\\11,?:iNti lii\t itl\1t \?:Aiii^?TYtiM111LLULY.\•: titir,C

NEMS-I`T CA Results: Standards Level ifference from AE099 Reference

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

:Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption i; Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh)

Total U.S. Electric GenerationE:

1,081 1,159 1,241 1,322 1,375 Electricity Sales (TWh)

Total U.S. Electric Generation

0.0 -2.7 -6.6 -9.6 -8.9

Coal (TWh) 1,990 2,036 2,091 2,201 2,343 ; Coal (TWh) 0.0 -0.9 -0.9 -2.5 -5.0

Gas (TWh) 547 856 1,143 1,434 1,584 E; Gas (TWh) 0.0 -1.9 -6.0 -7.2 -4.0

Petroleum (TWh) 109 44 35 33 31 Petroleum (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Nuclear (TWh) 660 631 554 419 359 Nuclear (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Renewables (TWh) 423 433 446 461 483 Renewables (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

iTotal (TWh) 3,729 4,000 4,269 4,548 4,800 Total (T)Vh) 0.0

Installed Generating Capacity

-2.8 -6.9 -9.8 -9.1

#Coal (GW) 315.2 315.0 318.8 325.9 342.8 Coal (GW) 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.3 -0.7

Other Fossil (GW) 301.5 369.7 396.2 468.5 512.2 •.: Other Fossil (GW) 0.0 0.0 -1.1 -1.6 -1.3

Nuclear (GW) 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 Nuclear (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

:Renewables (GW) 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 E? Renewables (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

:`:Tni,,1 ft:\x11 Qf1Q '7 Q71 C QR0 c OSZ I 1 8101 ` T,-t,1 tt_w1

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table 7-3. Standards Levellb Forecast r'·:;..x.;.., ... x.;..,-.:x ...... ;:..-.. .......... : .... :;..-.:-.-...... :-:-;..-.:a.-..-..-..-..x" ............ ;.:-.......... :;.. ... :o:..-..-.:.:0. .. :0: ....... :-.... -.: ..... :>. ..... ;:.:.:.:0:0::0.-.;..-.: .... ;.:.: ..... ,......... :....... :-:0: .. -.:;... :-.. ...... :-:0:-.... x ............ :.:..-.: .......... -.:-.. :o:-.x.:ox.x.xx ...... -.:-..x.:o:.:o~<:o. .. x ...... " •.:.:o:-x.:.......... : .... :.:o:o:.;...;:o;;.:..x.: .. -.x-.: ............ :... :o:.. ...... :... :.:... .............................. -...-................. X'o;.:: ........ :-.. ................... ;..-.: .. »:-. ................... x .. -..-.»;.;..-...-.:o: .......... -..-.. ........... -..-..-...-...-.;.:.;.: ... : .............. ;................ : ....... :0:.. ...... ;.:.: ................. 1 

!NEMS-NAECA 

~ .. 'I: .... ; .... ;.;>;.x ...... .:-......... ;o;..;O;' .......... ...:.:.-... x.;.; .... ;.,;O'; .. 'I: ....... ;..: .. 'I:..:

Results: ·;.,;.,;..:.,;0.; ..... 1..:..: ................ ...: .. -.;·;·;..; Standards ....... ,;..;.,; ................ ·;..: ............... -..:..:..:..; .. ...:..:..: Level .. -..:.,;.;..:..:.;.,;-.; ...... ..:..:..:.:-...;.; .. -..: .. -..:.,;.;.:-. ....... -.:. ..... -.x·;..:..: .... ;·;.,;.,;o.;"' .. l ~ ...... ;.-. ............... Difference .;-. ...... · ..·:-............... ..: .... · .. ·;· ........ ·;·; from .. ·x·;..: .................. ·;>x-;..:..: AE099 .. ·x..:1 ........ -..: ........ ..: .. Reference ·;·; ..... ·;.. ......... .,; ........ ;..: ..... ·;-;..:..: .... ;... ;O'; .. .,;.,;·;-;..: .. -..-..-... ~ ......... x.,; .. .,; .. -.;.o;o~.,;.,;.~~.;o..,;.~.~.,; .... X"~~ ........ ;.,; ...... .,;.;~ ~ 

! ! 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020! ~ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 I 

ICommercial-Sector Energy Consumption i: Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption l 

:!Electricity Sales (TWh) !i 1,081 1,159 1,241 1,322 1,375 !i Electricity Sales (TWh) ii 0.0 -2.7 -6.6 -9.6 -8.9 l 

ITotal u.s. Electric Generationl I Total U.S. Electric Generation ', ...... :~ :t ......I 

ICoal (TWh) i~ 1,990 2,036 2,091 2,201 2,343 ; Coal (TWh) 0.0 -0.9 -0.9 -2.5 -5.0 l 

bas (TWh) ii 547 856 1,143 1,434 1,584 ii Gas (TWh) 0.0 -1.9 -6.0 -7.2 -4.0 l 

!Petroleum(TWh) ii 109 44 35 33 31 ; Petroleum(TWh) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 i1 

1~:~~:~~:dWh) II ~~~ ~~~ !!: :~~ !~~ II ~:~~~~~~~Wh) ~ ~:~ ~:~ ~:~ ~:~ ~:~ I 

:,Total (TWh) :: 3,729 4,000 4,269 4,548 4,800 :: Total (TWh) ~ 0.0 -2.8 -6.9 -9.8 -9.1 l 

~:~;,;,;,"""ro,,"g Capad,y 1315.2 315.0 318.8 325.9 342.8 I ~:::l:;';';,m=,,"g Capad", I 0.0 0.0 .0.1 .0.3 -0.7 I ~~Other Fossil (GW) ~ 301.5 369.7 396.2 468.5 512.2 ~~ Other Fossil (GW) ii 0.0 0.0 -1.1 -1.6 -1.3 l 

i!Nuclear (GW) ; 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 ; Nuclear (GW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 l ~Renewables (GW) ii 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 i! Renewables (aW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 

l1:g.!!.!:!..i9WJ. ... "."""'." ...... "' ... '''''.''''.,,,J .... §Q.~.] .. '''~ILL.~,§.2§.,,,221.L.l,,QQ,2J .. ,,,, .... ,,.""".j ..... .r9.!.<,l.I..J9W.L ... "' ... "'."."""'., .. 'w."' .... L .. "J1&..,,,,,,Q.:Qw., .. ,,~,LL, ....... ;1,2 .. ".w.:&..:,Q""' .. ""'.,,, ..... j 

7-9 

Table 7-3. Standards Levellb Forecast r'·:;..x.;.., ... x.;..,-.:x ...... ;:..-.. .......... : .... :;..-.:-.-...... :-:-;..-.:a.-..-..-..-..x" ............ ;.:-.......... :;.. ... :o:..-..-.:.:0. .. :0: ....... :-.... -.: ..... :>. ..... ;:.:.:.:0:0::0.-.;..-.: .... ;.:.: ..... ,......... :....... :-:0: .. -.:;... :-.. ...... :-:0:-.... x ............ :.:..-.: .......... -.:-.. :o:-.x.:ox.x.xx ...... -.:-..x.:o:.:o~<:o. .. x ...... " •.:.:o:-x.:.......... : .... :.:o:o:.;...;:o;;.:..x.: .. -.x-.: ............ :... :o:.. ...... :... :.:... .............................. -...-................. X'o;.:: ........ :-.. ................... ;..-.: .. »:-. ................... x .. -..-.»;.;..-...-.:o: .......... -..-.. ........... -..-..-...-...-.;.:.;.: ... : .............. ;................ : ....... :0:.. ...... ;.:.: ................. 1 

!NEMS-NAECA 

~ .. 'I: .... ; .... ;.;>;.x ...... .:-......... ;o;..;O;' .......... ...:.:.-... x.;.; .... ;.,;O'; .. 'I: ....... ;..: .. 'I:..:

Results: ·;.,;.,;..:.,;0.; ..... 1..:..: ................ ...: .. -.;·;·;..; Standards ....... ,;..;.,; ................ ·;..: ............... -..:..:..:..; .. ...:..:..: Level .. -..:.,;.;..:..:.;.,;-.; ...... ..:..:..:.:-...;.; .. -..: .. -..:.,;.;.:-. ....... -.:. ..... -.x·;..:..: .... ;·;.,;.,;o.;"' .. l ~ ...... ;.-. ............... Difference .;-. ...... · ..·:-............... ..: .... · .. ·;· ........ ·;·; from .. ·x·;..: .................. ·;>x-;..:..: AE099 .. ·x..:1 ........ -..: ........ ..: .. Reference ·;·; ..... ·;.. ......... .,; ........ ;..: ..... ·;-;..:..: .... ;... ;O'; .. .,;.,;·;-;..: .. -..-..-... ~ ......... x.,; .. .,; .. -.;.o;o~.,;.,;.~~.;o..,;.~.~.,; .... X"~~ ........ ;.,; ...... .,;.;~ ~ 

! ! 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020! ~ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 I 

ICommercial-Sector Energy Consumption i: Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption l 

:!Electricity Sales (TWh) !i 1,081 1,159 1,241 1,322 1,375 !i Electricity Sales (TWh) ii 0.0 -2.7 -6.6 -9.6 -8.9 l 

ITotal u.s. Electric Generationl I Total U.S. Electric Generation ', ...... :~ :t ......I 

ICoal (TWh) i~ 1,990 2,036 2,091 2,201 2,343 ; Coal (TWh) 0.0 -0.9 -0.9 -2.5 -5.0 l 

bas (TWh) ii 547 856 1,143 1,434 1,584 ii Gas (TWh) 0.0 -1.9 -6.0 -7.2 -4.0 l 

!Petroleum(TWh) ii 109 44 35 33 31 ; Petroleum(TWh) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 i1 

1~:~~:~~:dWh) II ~~~ ~~~ !!: :~~ !~~ II ~:~~~~~~~Wh) ~ ~:~ ~:~ ~:~ ~:~ ~:~ I 

:,Total (TWh) :: 3,729 4,000 4,269 4,548 4,800 :: Total (TWh) ~ 0.0 -2.8 -6.9 -9.8 -9.1 l 

~:~;,;,;,"""ro,,"g Capad,y 1315.2 315.0 318.8 325.9 342.8 I ~:::l:;';';,m=,,"g Capad", I 0.0 0.0 .0.1 .0.3 -0.7 I ~~Other Fossil (GW) ~ 301.5 369.7 396.2 468.5 512.2 ~~ Other Fossil (GW) ii 0.0 0.0 -1.1 -1.6 -1.3 l 

i!Nuclear (GW) ; 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 ; Nuclear (GW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 l ~Renewables (GW) ii 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 i! Renewables (aW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 

l1:g.!!.!:!..i9WJ. ... "."""'." ...... "' ... '''''.''''.,,,J .... §Q.~.] .. '''~ILL.~,§.2§.,,,221.L.l,,QQ,2J .. ,,,, .... ,,.""".j ..... .r9.!.<,l.I..J9W.L ... "' ... "'."."""'., .. 'w."' .... L .. "J1&..,,,,,,Q.:Qw., .. ,,~,LL, ....... ;1,2 .. ".w.:&..:,Q""' .. ""'.,,, ..... j 

7-9 
Table 7-4. Standards Level 2a Forecast

HEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level Difference from AE099 Reference :<a:i'.nc:':w.v::w.wy,..\w.w.w>..,.^;.^^>.uw^.w>;..w+.: v>^.w.^. +>wvyww:w'»s^.v'vw.w.w.^y:.>.;..a\\':wi':i\'[[[vi\t\?n^.v\ttis.+.\\\:\::\w:.?.+::+^\\+.':\4 '. :\\\!::v\\\w.'vR Sn i+s.\+ai».w.\+.u:\':+.+.+>.w.\\+saa.\i'..i+x'.+.:.»?.'::w^::w'..a^>y>aw'.+: e:+>y;.a>`sv^wx:\\+.uw.\u>.t^+.\\v>.i?.i.\\\\\\\v+.

2000 2005

;Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh)

..Total U.S. Electric Generation..

Coal (TWh)

;Gas (TWh)

;Petroleum (TWh)

-.Nuclear (TWh)

Renewables (TWh)

,Total(TWh)

1,081 1,158

2010 2015 2020 2000 2005 2010

1,240 1,322

,990 2,036 2,090 2,201

547 856 1,142 1,434

109 44 35 33

660 631 554 419

423 433 446 461

3,729 3,999 4,268 4,548

EInstalled Generating Capacity M1

Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption

2015 2020

1,377 Electricity Sales (TWh) 0.0 -3.7 -7.9 -9.8 -6.8

Total U.S. Electric Generation •'•.

2,343 Coal(TWh) 0.0 -1.2 -1.8 -2.9 -4.9

1,586 ? Gas (TWh) 0.0 -2.5 -6.5 -7.2 -2.1

31 Petroleum (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

359 Nuclear (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

483 Renewables(TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4,802 Total (TWh) 0.0 -3.7 -8.3 -10.1 -7.0

,Coal (GW) 315.2 315. 0 318.7 325.9 342.8

:Other Fossil (GW) -. 301. 5 369. 7 395.9 468.4 512.5

Nuclear (GW) 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9

Renewables (GW) 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4

Total,(GW) 808.7 871..Q 889. 1 952.9 1 0096 _,,.,,,.

Installed Generating Capacity

Coal (GW} 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.3 -0.7

Other Fossil (GW) 0.0 0.0 -1.4 -1.7 -1.0

Nuclear (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Renewables (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total (GW).. 0 0 .. 0 0 1 6 -2.1 - 1 .7

7-10

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table 7-4. Standards Level2a Forecast ;. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .,.;. ................ v. ...................................................... ..,.. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ ~ 

INEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level I Difference from AE099 Reference I 

lCommercial-Sector Energy Consumption ~! Commercial-Sector Energy COIJsumption I 

IElectricity Sales (TWh) ~ 1,081 1,158 1,240 1,322 1,377 ~ Electricity Sales (TWh) l: 0.0 -3.7 -7.9 -9.8 -6.8 i 

ITotal US. Electric Generation! I Total Us. Electric Generation I I I~:I(~~) 11'~!~ 2,~~~ ~:~!~ ~:!~~ ~:~:~ I ~:IA~) I ~:~ ~~:~ ~~:~ ~~:~ ~~:~ I 

iPetroleum(TWh) :! 109 44 35 33 31 ~ Petroleum(TWh) !! 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 i 

INuclear(TWh) :: 660 631 554 419 359 ii Nuclear(TWh) !! 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 

!Renewables (TWh) 1 423 433 446 461 483 ~i Renewables (TWh) :I .... :i ...0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 l .::-:. 

~Total (TWll) l 3,729 3,999 4,268 4,548 4,802 !! Total (TWh) 0.0 -3.7 -8.3 -10.1 -7.0 l 

. 

IInstalled Generating Capacity I I Installed Generating Capacity! I 

!coal (GW) I 315.2 315.0 318.7 325.9 342.8 ~ Coal (GW) ~! 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.3 -0.7 I 

lather Fossil (GW) ! 301.5 369.7 395.9 468.4 512.5 !! Other Fossil (GW) 1 0.0 0.0 -1.4 -1.7 -1.0 i 

iNuclear(GW) 1 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 l~ Nuclear(GW) I 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 j 

!Renewables (GW) ~! 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 ~! Renewables (GW) 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 i !I9.t~IJ9.F..i, ........ " .. , .................. l.,,§Q§2, ... §1.L.Q .. ,Jl.~.9..,L, .. 9..~7.:2 .. LQQ2.,.9 ........ , .... ,." .. t,.I9.!~L{o'Wl.,., .. , .. ,., ... , ... " ... ,., ..... J ....... Q..Q ........ Q,Q ... " .. :.L§ .... ,";J:.!., .. , .. ::l;Z ..... , ...... , .. , . .! 

7-10 

Table 7-4. Standards Level2a Forecast ;. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .,.;. ................ v. ...................................................... ..,.. ........................................................................................................................................................................................................ ~ 

INEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level I Difference from AE099 Reference I 

lCommercial-Sector Energy Consumption ~! Commercial-Sector Energy COIJsumption I 

IElectricity Sales (TWh) ~ 1,081 1,158 1,240 1,322 1,377 ~ Electricity Sales (TWh) l: 0.0 -3.7 -7.9 -9.8 -6.8 i 

ITotal US. Electric Generation! I Total Us. Electric Generation I I I~:I(~~) 11'~!~ 2,~~~ ~:~!~ ~:!~~ ~:~:~ I ~:IA~) I ~:~ ~~:~ ~~:~ ~~:~ ~~:~ I 

iPetroleum(TWh) :! 109 44 35 33 31 ~ Petroleum(TWh) !! 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 i 

INuclear(TWh) :: 660 631 554 419 359 ii Nuclear(TWh) !! 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 

!Renewables (TWh) 1 423 433 446 461 483 ~i Renewables (TWh) :I .... :i ...0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 l .::-:. 

~Total (TWll) l 3,729 3,999 4,268 4,548 4,802 !! Total (TWh) 0.0 -3.7 -8.3 -10.1 -7.0 l 

. 

IInstalled Generating Capacity I I Installed Generating Capacity! I 

!coal (GW) I 315.2 315.0 318.7 325.9 342.8 ~ Coal (GW) ~! 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.3 -0.7 I 

lather Fossil (GW) ! 301.5 369.7 395.9 468.4 512.5 !! Other Fossil (GW) 1 0.0 0.0 -1.4 -1.7 -1.0 i 

iNuclear(GW) 1 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 l~ Nuclear(GW) I 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 j 

!Renewables (GW) ~! 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 ~! Renewables (GW) 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 i !I9.t~IJ9.F..i, ........ " .. , .................. l.,,§Q§2, ... §1.L.Q .. ,Jl.~.9..,L, .. 9..~7.:2 .. LQQ2.,.9 ........ , .... ,." .. t,.I9.!~L{o'Wl.,., .. , .. ,., ... , ... " ... ,., ..... J ....... Q..Q ........ Q,Q ... " .. :.L§ .... ,";J:.!., .. , .. ::l;Z ..... , ...... , .. , . .! 

7-10 
Table 7-5. Standards Level 2b Forecast

NEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level Difference from AE099 Reference

2000 2005

;Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption

2010 2015 2020 2000 2005

Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption

2010 2015 2020

-Electricity Sales (TWh)

,Total U.S. Electric Generation;

1,081 1,158 1,237 1,316 1,370 Electricity Sales (TWh)

Total U.S. Electric Generation

0.0 -4.4 -10.8 -15.7 -14.5

,.Coal (TWh) 1,990 2,036 2,091 2,200 2,340 Coal (TWh) 0.0 -1.5 -1.4 -4.2 -8.2

Gas (TWh) 547 855 1,139 1,429 1,581 Gas (TWh) 0.0 -3.0 -9.9 -11.8 -6.6

Petroleum (TWh) 109 44 35 33 31 Petroleum (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Nuclear (TWh) 660 631 554 419 359 Nuclear (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Renewables (TWh) 423 433 446 461 483 Renewables (TWh) ti 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total(TWh) 3,729 3,998 4,265 4,542 4,794 Total (TWh) 0.0 -4.5 -11.3 -16.0 -14.9

Installed Generating Capacity Installed Generating Capacity y

Coal (GW) 315.2 315.0 318.7 325.8 342.4 Coal (GW) 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -1.1

Other Fossil (GW) 301.5 369.6 395.5 467.4 511.3 Other Fossil (GW) 0.0 -0.1 -1.8 -2.7 -2.2

Nuclear (G W) 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 Nuclear (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Renewables (GW) 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 Renewables (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

7-11

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table 7-5. Standards Level 2b Forecast r .... ·x .. ~ .................. ;o.-.;.;. .............. x .. .;. ..... "-............... ~ .... ; ............ ;..-.~; ...................... ".:-.;""' ..... ;,..-.;,.....,; .. ·;ox·;,.........,;·,;·;,... ;,..-.,;· ................ ;.;-;·; .............. ·;,..........• ;o..... ;o; • .;o.;-......... x ........ .;-...... .;-.x ..... ;.;o..... ;.;v .... x ..... x .. x.;"§..: .................... ;,.; .................................. .:-..-.;,.; ........ -..; ................................ ;........................ ; ............. ; .......................... ;-; .............. .;0...... ;,... ;,.; .................. ;-., .. ;0..... ;0............................. ...: .............. -..; .......... ·;·;.;-; ..... ;0.; .... • ..... • ......... • .......... '1 

!NEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level ~ Difference from AE099 Reference ! r··h"''''''''''.'''.", .. "''''''' ..... '''.'''.'''.'''''.w·l''wow ... w ... ,,,w.,,'''''' ... , .. "'''w.,,''''''''''''''''''.,,''''.''' ... ,,,.ow··············1· .. ,,''''., .. ,''''' ..... ,''''''''''.,,'''''''''''''''''''''w·r··'··''''''''''''''·, .. ,"""""''''.w .. ow.,,'''''', .... 'w.,,'''.,'''''.w ... ,,''''''''.j 

! ~ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 ~ § 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1 

jCommercial-Sector Energy COlJsumption ~ Commercial-Sector Energy Co':!sumption ! 

IElectricity Sales (TWh) ~ 1,081 1,158 1,237 1,316 1,370 ~ Electricity Sales (TWh) ~ 0.0 -4.4 -10.8 -15.7 -14.5 ; 

!Total US. Electric Generationl I Total US. Electric Generation I I 

lCoal (TWh) ~ 1,990 2,036 2,091 2,200 2,340 ~ Coal (TWh) ~ 0.0 -1.5 -1.4 -4.2 -8.2 ! 

iaas (TWh) ~ 547 855 1,139 1,429 1,581 ~ aas (TWh) ~ 0.0 -3.0 -9.9 -11.8 -6.6 ! 

iPetroleum(TWh) ~ 109 44 35 33 31 ~ Petroleum(TWh) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 i 

::-: 

[Nuclear (TWh) ~ 660 631 554 419 359 ~ Nuclear (TWh) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! :~ ~ ~ 

[Renewables (TWh) ~ 423 433 446 461 483 !l Renewables (TWh) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! 

[Total (TWh) g 3,729 3,998 4,265 4,542 4,794 ~ Total (TWh) § 0.0 -4.5 -11.3 -16.0 -14.9 ~ 

jIl1stalled Generating Capacity I ~ Installed Generating Capacity I I 

jCoal (OW) !: 315.2 315.0 318.7 325.8 342.4 ~ Coal (OW) ~ 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -1.1 ! 

jOther Fossil (OW) ~ 301.5 369.6 395.5 467.4 511.3 ~ Other Fossil (OW) ~ 0.0 -0.1 -1.8 -2.7 -2.2 ; 

INuclear (OW) ~ 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 il Nuclear (OW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! 

lRenewables (OW) , 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 ~ Renewables (OW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! 

b.:9.!.~.L(9."W.L ....... "'".w.w"'".'w ....... w."'. . .. §1.{t2 ...... ,~.§~.L ..... ?.~L2.J.>QQ§J2 .... w.'''w., .. w ... 1. .. .I9..!illJ9."W.l ...... , .... "w.w ............... w."w .... Jw ... j,~,Q .... "' ..... ~.Q.:.1. .. w.,,~.~.,.Q .... w .... :::1J. ...... , .... ,~}.,1", ...... 'w ............ J 

7-11 

Table 7-5. Standards Level 2b Forecast r .... ·x .. ~ .................. ;o.-.;.;. .............. x .. .;. ..... "-............... ~ .... ; ............ ;..-.~; ...................... ".:-.;""' ..... ;,..-.;,.....,; .. ·;ox·;,.........,;·,;·;,... ;,..-.,;· ................ ;.;-;·; .............. ·;,..........• ;o..... ;o; • .;o.;-......... x ........ .;-...... .;-.x ..... ;.;o..... ;.;v .... x ..... x .. x.;"§..: .................... ;,.; .................................. .:-..-.;,.; ........ -..; ................................ ;........................ ; ............. ; .......................... ;-; .............. .;0...... ;,... ;,.; .................. ;-., .. ;0..... ;0............................. ...: .............. -..; .......... ·;·;.;-; ..... ;0.; .... • ..... • ......... • .......... '1 

!NEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level ~ Difference from AE099 Reference ! r··h"''''''''''.'''.", .. "''''''' ..... '''.'''.'''.'''''.w·l''wow ... w ... ,,,w.,,'''''' ... , .. "'''w.,,''''''''''''''''''.,,''''.''' ... ,,,.ow··············1· .. ,,''''., .. ,''''' ..... ,''''''''''.,,'''''''''''''''''''''w·r··'··''''''''''''''·, .. ,"""""''''.w .. ow.,,'''''', .... 'w.,,'''.,'''''.w ... ,,''''''''.j 

! ~ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 ~ § 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1 

jCommercial-Sector Energy COlJsumption ~ Commercial-Sector Energy Co':!sumption ! 

IElectricity Sales (TWh) ~ 1,081 1,158 1,237 1,316 1,370 ~ Electricity Sales (TWh) ~ 0.0 -4.4 -10.8 -15.7 -14.5 ; 

!Total US. Electric Generationl I Total US. Electric Generation I I 

lCoal (TWh) ~ 1,990 2,036 2,091 2,200 2,340 ~ Coal (TWh) ~ 0.0 -1.5 -1.4 -4.2 -8.2 ! 

iaas (TWh) ~ 547 855 1,139 1,429 1,581 ~ aas (TWh) ~ 0.0 -3.0 -9.9 -11.8 -6.6 ! 

iPetroleum(TWh) ~ 109 44 35 33 31 ~ Petroleum(TWh) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 i 

::-: 

[Nuclear (TWh) ~ 660 631 554 419 359 ~ Nuclear (TWh) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! :~ ~ ~ 

[Renewables (TWh) ~ 423 433 446 461 483 !l Renewables (TWh) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! 

[Total (TWh) g 3,729 3,998 4,265 4,542 4,794 ~ Total (TWh) § 0.0 -4.5 -11.3 -16.0 -14.9 ~ 

jIl1stalled Generating Capacity I ~ Installed Generating Capacity I I 

jCoal (OW) !: 315.2 315.0 318.7 325.8 342.4 ~ Coal (OW) ~ 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -1.1 ! 

jOther Fossil (OW) ~ 301.5 369.6 395.5 467.4 511.3 ~ Other Fossil (OW) ~ 0.0 -0.1 -1.8 -2.7 -2.2 ; 

INuclear (OW) ~ 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 il Nuclear (OW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! 

lRenewables (OW) , 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 ~ Renewables (OW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! 

b.:9.!.~.L(9."W.L ....... "'".w.w"'".'w ....... w."'. . .. §1.{t2 ...... ,~.§~.L ..... ?.~L2.J.>QQ§J2 .... w.'''w., .. w ... 1. .. .I9..!illJ9."W.l ...... , .... "w.w ............... w."w .... Jw ... j,~,Q .... "' ..... ~.Q.:.1. .. w.,,~.~.,.Q .... w .... :::1J. ...... , .... ,~}.,1", ...... 'w ............ J 

7-11 
Table 7-6. Standards Level 3a Forecast

EMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level Difference from AE099 Reference

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

'Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) 1,081 1,159 1,242 1,324 1,378

Total U.S. Electric Generation;?

Coa1(TWh) 1,990 2,036 2,090 2,202 2,344

Gas (TWh) : 547 856 1,143 1,435 1,586

Petroleum (TWh) 109 44 35 33 31

:'Nuclear (TWh) 660 631 554 419 359

Renewab1es (TWh) 423 433 446 461 483

Total (TWh) 3,729 4,000 4,269 4,549 4,803

Installed Generating Capacity

Coal (GW) E 315.2 315.0

Other Fossil (GW) 301.5 369.7

Nuclear (GW) 94.8 87.4

318.7

396.1

74.2

Renewables (GW) 97.2 98.9 100.3

Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) 0.0 -2.6 -6.4 -8.3 -6.4

Total U.S. Electric Generation

Coal (TWh)

Gas (TWh)

Petroleum (TWh)

Nuclear (TWh)

Renewables (TWh)

Total (TWh)

0.0 -1.0 -1.5 -2.4 -4.1

0.0 -2.1 -5.5 -6.1 -1.8

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 -3.1 -7.0 -8.5 -5.9

Installed Generating Capacity

325.9 342.9 Coal (GW) 0.0

468.6 512.7 Other Fossil (GW) 0.0

56.4 48.9 Nuclear (GW)

102.3 105.4 Renewables (GW)

0.0 -0.2

0.0 -1.2

0.0 0.0 0.0

-0.3 -0.6

-1.5 -0.8

0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

T9ta1 (GW)»:, ::,,,,.808:5871„0 889;4 953.21,009.9Total,(C,WI.....»»»»»,.»............19:0,:.»,»0.;0,,,.»»1;3,.,,,»;

7-12

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104
Table 7-7. Standards Level 3b Forecast

EMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level Difference from AE099 Reference

2000 2005

Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption

2010 2015 2020 2000 2005

Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption

2010 2015 2020

Electricity Sales (TWh)

"Total U.S. Electric Generation

1,081 1,159 1,239 1,318 1,370 w^ Electricity Sales (TWh)

Total U.S. Electric Generation"

0.0 -3.2 -8.8 -13.8 -14.0

Coal (TWh) 1,990 2,036 2,091 2,200 2,341 Coal (TWh) 0.0 -1.3 -1.3 -3.7 -7.4

Gas (TWh) 547 855 1,140 1,430 1,582 Gas (TWh) 0.0 -2.7 -8.8 -10.6 -5.9

"Petroleum (TWh) 109 44 35 33 31 Petroleum (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

:Nuclear (TWh) 660 631 554 419 359 Nuclear (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

"Renewables (TWh) 423 433 446 461 483 Renewables (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total (TWh) 3,729 3,999 4,266 4,544 4,796 Total (TWh) 0.0 -4.0 -10.1 -14.3 -13.3

Installed Generating Capacity i Installed Generating Capacity

Coal (GW) 315.2 315.0 318.7 325.8 342.5 Coal (GW) 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -1.0

"Other Fossil (GW) 301.5 369.7 395.6 467.7 511.5 Other Fossil (GW) 0.0 0.0 -1.7 -2.4 -2.0

"Nuclear(GW) 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 Nuclear(GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Renewables (GW) •, 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 Renewables (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total.(GW),,:..,..:,:...,:::::...:::,:,,::::...:.::508.7 ..871.0 __.858:9,,::952:2 1,OOS.3 .:..:::.:......,:.. Total (GW),,,,,..,,::,:,.,,..:.:::::::,,:::..:•`.•,:::,::9..^::,:..,,.^:^,.,,,..1:§.,:,:,:,^.5:::::,:.3:x:::...::,::::::,,

7-13

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table 7-7. Standards Level3b Forecast o;-.-.;.., ........... ~ .................... :-.. ................. ~ ... :-:.... :-:....... :-..-.;:.:-:.. .... -.:.: ......... :-:.:-.. ........ "<'.-.:>:.:-.. ...... :-............. -.:.:-.. ...... :.::-. ...... : ......... :............. -.:o:.;.:............................... ;.:-............................................ ""X>:-. ...... :.»:;............. :-............. :................. "< ...... -.x.;: ....... »x :-. .•. :" .. """-................ "*-~ ........ -.:-:.:-:..-.:-.. .......... ;....... :....... »:-....................... :.;: ........ :-:..'X.:.. ..................................... -.;....................................................... ;.;.................... :-:-.">:-. .... x ............ :-...... :-:-. ...... ;.:-:-.................... ;.:-:-...... : ................. :-:-."»>. ................................ -.».... "'; 

INEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level Difference from AE099 Reference I 

IElectricit

[==r;~o y Sales (TWh) 11,081 1,159 1,239 1,318 1,370 I I~=-l Electricity Sales (TWh) I 0.0 -3.2 -8.8 -13.8 -14.0 I 

~~ (~,r"'" G"""a"'"ll '::: 2,::: ;:::: ;::~ ~::: i ~~ ~~l"",ric G"""ro"," I :: ::~ ::: _ ;:; :;: I 

!Petroleum(TWh) ; 109 44 35 33 31 ~ Petroleum(TWh) ~: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 , 

:iNuclear(TWh) ; 660 631 554 419 359 ~ Nuclear(TWh) 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 !.' 

~Renewables (TWh) ! 423 433 446 461 483 .~ Renewables (TWh) .' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

ITotal(TWh) ~i 3,729 3,999 4,266 4,544 4,796 I Total(TWh) l 0.0 -4.0 -10.1 -14.3 -13.3 I 

IInstalled Generating Capacity I t Installed Generating Capacity II [ 

ICoal(GW) 1 315.2 315.0 318.7 325.8 342.5 1i Coal(GW) :: 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -1.0 I 

IOther Fossil (GW) 1 301.5 369.7 395.6 467.7 511.5 ~ Other Fossil (GW) ! 0.0 0.0 -1.7 -2.4 -2.0 ! 

!Nuclear (GW) I 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 ~ Nuclear (GW) ! 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E 

!Renewables (GW) I 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 ~ Renewables (GW) ; 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! 

!I!:Uf.l.!,{QW.L .... ".", .. "." ....... w ...w."." ..... .J.,JQ.!;!.:.L, .. .!;!.7JJL .. J.§.§.:2".2i~1 .... LQQRJ. .... '''''."".,,,.,,1 .. ,IR!i.l.L{Q:w.:~,"'''.'''''''''''''''''''' ... '''''''.l"" . .JULw.,,,QJ,.''',;JJL.,,, .. .::.f..&, .. "".~JJ", .... ".",,,,,,,J 

7-13 

Table 7-7. Standards Level3b Forecast o;-.-.;.., ........... ~ .................... :-.. ................. ~ ... :-:.... :-:....... :-..-.;:.:-:.. .... -.:.: ......... :-:.:-.. ........ "<'.-.:>:.:-.. ...... :-............. -.:.:-.. ...... :.::-. ...... : ......... :............. -.:o:.;.:............................... ;.:-............................................ ""X>:-. ...... :.»:;............. :-............. :................. "< ...... -.x.;: ....... »x :-. .•. :" .. """-................ "*-~ ........ -.:-:.:-:..-.:-.. .......... ;....... :....... »:-....................... :.;: ........ :-:..'X.:.. ..................................... -.;....................................................... ;.;.................... :-:-.">:-. .... x ............ :-...... :-:-. ...... ;.:-:-.................... ;.:-:-...... : ................. :-:-."»>. ................................ -.».... "'; 

INEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level Difference from AE099 Reference I 

IElectricit

[==r;~o y Sales (TWh) 11,081 1,159 1,239 1,318 1,370 I I~=-l Electricity Sales (TWh) I 0.0 -3.2 -8.8 -13.8 -14.0 I 

~~ (~,r"'" G"""a"'"ll '::: 2,::: ;:::: ;::~ ~::: i ~~ ~~l"",ric G"""ro"," I :: ::~ ::: _ ;:; :;: I 

!Petroleum(TWh) ; 109 44 35 33 31 ~ Petroleum(TWh) ~: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 , 

:iNuclear(TWh) ; 660 631 554 419 359 ~ Nuclear(TWh) 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 !.' 

~Renewables (TWh) ! 423 433 446 461 483 .~ Renewables (TWh) .' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

ITotal(TWh) ~i 3,729 3,999 4,266 4,544 4,796 I Total(TWh) l 0.0 -4.0 -10.1 -14.3 -13.3 I 

IInstalled Generating Capacity I t Installed Generating Capacity II [ 

ICoal(GW) 1 315.2 315.0 318.7 325.8 342.5 1i Coal(GW) :: 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -1.0 I 

IOther Fossil (GW) 1 301.5 369.7 395.6 467.7 511.5 ~ Other Fossil (GW) ! 0.0 0.0 -1.7 -2.4 -2.0 ! 

!Nuclear (GW) I 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 ~ Nuclear (GW) ! 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 E 

!Renewables (GW) I 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 ~ Renewables (GW) ; 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! 

!I!:Uf.l.!,{QW.L .... ".", .. "." ....... w ...w."." ..... .J.,JQ.!;!.:.L, .. .!;!.7JJL .. J.§.§.:2".2i~1 .... LQQRJ. .... '''''."".,,,.,,1 .. ,IR!i.l.L{Q:w.:~,"'''.'''''''''''''''''''' ... '''''''.l"" . .JULw.,,,QJ,.''',;JJL.,,, .. .::.f..&, .. "".~JJ", .... ".",,,,,,,J 

7-13 
Table 7-8. Standards Level 4a Forecast

NEMS N CA Results: Standards Level

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) w 1,081 1,159 1,241 1,323 1,377

Total U.S. Electric Generation`

:Coal (TWh) 1,990 2,036 2,090

Gas (TWh) 547 856 1,143

Petroleum (TWh) 109 44 35

Nuclear (TWh) 660 631 554

Renewables (TWh) 423 433 446

Total (TWh) 3,729 4,000 4,268

Difference from AE099 Reference

k

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) 0.0 -2.9 -7.3 -9.2 -6.9

Total US Electric Generation K

2,201 2,343 ti Coal (TWh) 0.0 -1.1 -1.7 -2.7 -4.6

1,434 1,586 Gas (TWh) 0.0 -2.3 -6.1 -6.7 -2.0

33 31 Petroleum (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

419 359 Nuclear (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

461 483 Renewables (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4,549 4,802 z Total (TWh) 0.0 -3.5 -7.8 -9.4 -6.6

4' .

'Installed Generating Capacity;': Installed Generating Capacity

Coal (GW) 315.2 315.0 318.7 325.9 342.8 Coal (GW) 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.3 -0.7

Other Fossil (GW) 301.5 369.7 396.0 468.5 512.6 Other Fossil (GW) 0.0 0.0 -1.3 -1.6 -0.9

Nuclear (GW) 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 Nuclear (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Renewables (OW) 97.2 98. 9 100. 3 102. 3 105.4 ti Renewables (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total_{CW).,..,,,,,,,,,..,,,.,,,,,,..,,,,,,,,, 808.7 871. 0 889.2 953. 1 1.009.7 Total(GW),,..,,..,,,..,,..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,., .........,,,,,. ,..,,,;1,.9...,,,.,;

7-14

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table 7-8. Standards Level4a Forecast ~",-..",,,,~,:':,:"-"-':-"'''''''-'::,,'''''''''''''''''''':-)<\o. ........................ :... :.: .. -.:..''.:'>.v.............. ;.......................... -.::<<-=>:.. ................ "< .... ;........................... -.:: ........ ""<>.v....... -.:.:-:-x .. ..,... ;... :.:.............. :................................................. ;... ». ........ :...... :..-.: ..................... r .................. ""*="--.. :... :...................... -.: .. -.o..-..... "oX ........................ -.::.:...: ................ :............ :..~ ......... :........ v.......................... x ...... -.:: ..... -.:: ...... "«o......: ......... :.. ....... :.."'< ............... :-:.:.: ...........,.,,:................... -.:.::o:: .... : ......... ~ ........ -.:: .. -.... :.:.:... :........... x .. -.~ 

INEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level ~ Difference from AE099 Reference I 

ICommercial-Sector Energy Consumption :l Commercial-Sector Energy Corsumption l 

IElectricity Sales (TWb) ~ 1,081 1,159 1,241 1,323 1,377 ~ Electricity Sales (TWh) ~ 0.0 -2.9 -7.3 -9.2 -6.9 l 

ITotal u.s. Electric GeneratioJ I Total U.S. Electric GeneratioJ I .:. ~ ~ S ~ 

!Coal (TWh) ~ 1,990 2,036 2,090 2,201 2,343 f Coal (TWb) ~ 0.0 -1.1 -1.7 -2.7 -4.6 ! 

lOas (TWh) ~ 547 856 1,143 1,434 1,586 :1 Oas (TWh) ~ 0.0 -2.3 -6.1 -6.7 -2.0 ! 

lpetroleum (TWh) I 109 44 35 33 31 :1 Petroleum (TWh) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! 

jNuclear (TWh) f 660 631 554 419 359 ~ Nuclear (TWh) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 :1 

lRenewables (TWh) ~ 423 433 446 461 483 ~ Renewables (TWb) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 l 

!Total (TWIl) '3,729 4,000 4,268 4,549 4,802 I Total (TWh) I 0.0 -3.5 -7.8 -9.4 -6.6 I 

fInstalled Generating Capacity j: ~. Installed Generating Capacity ~ :: 

(Coal (OW) ~ 315.2 315.0 318.7 325.9 342.8 ~ Coal (OW):: 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.3 -0.7: 

lOther Fossil (OW) ~ 301.5 369.7 396.0 468.5 512.6 ~ Other Fossil (OW) ~ 0.0 0.0 -1.3 -1.6 -0.9 i 

!Nuclear (OW) ~ 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 :l Nuclear (OW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! 

lRenewables (OW) ~ 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 ~ Renewables (OW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! 

h5?!f\L(.qW.L •.... "".v"."."." •• ""1.§.Qlu..,,§11:.Q,,,,~.§.2,~.,,.2~11J.,QQ.?L .•..... "v" .• 1.:rQ!i!!JQ:w.L." ...... " ... ".".""".".J.".",Q,Q.""'"Q:Q,,,,,,,~L~"" .... ~L9. .. ,,, .• :UL,,,, •.... ,,., . ..1 

7-14 

Table 7-8. Standards Level4a Forecast ~",-..",,,,~,:':,:"-"-':-"'''''''-'::,,'''''''''''''''''''':-)<\o. ........................ :... :.: .. -.:..''.:'>.v.............. ;.......................... -.::<<-=>:.. ................ "< .... ;........................... -.:: ........ ""<>.v....... -.:.:-:-x .. ..,... ;... :.:.............. :................................................. ;... ». ........ :...... :..-.: ..................... r .................. ""*="--.. :... :...................... -.: .. -.o..-..... "oX ........................ -.::.:...: ................ :............ :..~ ......... :........ v.......................... x ...... -.:: ..... -.:: ...... "«o......: ......... :.. ....... :.."'< ............... :-:.:.: ...........,.,,:................... -.:.::o:: .... : ......... ~ ........ -.:: .. -.... :.:.:... :........... x .. -.~ 

INEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level ~ Difference from AE099 Reference I 

ICommercial-Sector Energy Consumption :l Commercial-Sector Energy Corsumption l 

IElectricity Sales (TWb) ~ 1,081 1,159 1,241 1,323 1,377 ~ Electricity Sales (TWh) ~ 0.0 -2.9 -7.3 -9.2 -6.9 l 

ITotal u.s. Electric GeneratioJ I Total U.S. Electric GeneratioJ I .:. ~ ~ S ~ 

!Coal (TWh) ~ 1,990 2,036 2,090 2,201 2,343 f Coal (TWb) ~ 0.0 -1.1 -1.7 -2.7 -4.6 ! 

lOas (TWh) ~ 547 856 1,143 1,434 1,586 :1 Oas (TWh) ~ 0.0 -2.3 -6.1 -6.7 -2.0 ! 

lpetroleum (TWh) I 109 44 35 33 31 :1 Petroleum (TWh) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! 

jNuclear (TWh) f 660 631 554 419 359 ~ Nuclear (TWh) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 :1 

lRenewables (TWh) ~ 423 433 446 461 483 ~ Renewables (TWb) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 l 

!Total (TWIl) '3,729 4,000 4,268 4,549 4,802 I Total (TWh) I 0.0 -3.5 -7.8 -9.4 -6.6 I 

fInstalled Generating Capacity j: ~. Installed Generating Capacity ~ :: 

(Coal (OW) ~ 315.2 315.0 318.7 325.9 342.8 ~ Coal (OW):: 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.3 -0.7: 

lOther Fossil (OW) ~ 301.5 369.7 396.0 468.5 512.6 ~ Other Fossil (OW) ~ 0.0 0.0 -1.3 -1.6 -0.9 i 

!Nuclear (OW) ~ 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 :l Nuclear (OW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! 

lRenewables (OW) ~ 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 ~ Renewables (OW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! 

h5?!f\L(.qW.L •.... "".v"."."." •• ""1.§.Qlu..,,§11:.Q,,,,~.§.2,~.,,.2~11J.,QQ.?L .•..... "v" .• 1.:rQ!i!!JQ:w.L." ...... " ... ".".""".".J.".",Q,Q.""'"Q:Q,,,,,,,~L~"" .... ~L9. .. ,,, .• :UL,,,, •.... ,,., . ..1 

7-14 
Table 7-9. Standards Level 4b Forecast

NF MS-NAECA 1 esultsStandards Level Difference from AE®99 Reference

i«•xu:x<s+n^-:s..-n'•xu.-:vtiovo.^.^.3•:v^:c::.v::wti4^x:^^.rin':^>:•.':<.:<axcvw:+:+w::Y+`.v:.:v::x::s:M1•.:v:.:vet-.:nv':<:'^+:sntit:.::s.^x<sxci+::^^:tixo.'•.ti++'•r..::.':tc:<•nscc:•.^.^•.:sv:'•:o..a::<:ka.^::u ^.w::cxv^.:wvwu.x3-:.max.vwu:;':vu^x+.^.'s:+.^.•.^.aviR.•.xvw: xuvaa:v::::.

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

;Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh)

Total U.S. Electric Generation

1,081 1,158 1,238 1,317 1,369 Electricity Sales (TWh)

Total U.S. Electric Generation

0.0 -3.6 -10.1 -15.1 -14.7

Coal (TWh) 1,990 2,036 2,091 2,200 2,340 Coal (TVA) 0.0 -1.4 -1.4 -4.0 -8.0

Gas (TWh) 547 855 1,139 1,430 1,582 Gas (TWh) 0.0 -2.9 -9.5 -11.5 -6.4

Petroleum (TWh) 109 44 35 33 31 Petroleum (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Nuclear (TWh) 660 631 554 419 359 Nuclear (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Renewables (TWh) 423 433 446 461 483 Renewables (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total (TWh)

Installed Generating Capacity

3,729 3,999 4,265 4,543 4,795

ti

Total (TWh)

Installed Generating Capacity;?

0.0 -4.4 -10.9 -15.5 -14.4

,Coal (GW) 315.2 315.0 318.7 325.8 342.4 Coal (GW) 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -1.1

'Other Fossil (GW) 301.5 369.6 395.5 467.5 511.4 Other Fossil (GW) 0.0 -0.1 -1.8 -2.6 -2.1

Nuclear (GW) 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 Nuclear (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Renewables (GW) 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 Renewables (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

7-15

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table 7-9. Standards Level4b Forecast ~ ...... :...... "«>.x.:-::..... :.... :-.-...-.: ... ",:.:.:-:.:... ............ :.:<>. ..... "<>.., .................. ;..,">:>. ........ :-..-.»;.., ..... ;.: ...... Xt».";" ..... :.;:.;..":-................ ;.;-... ». .. :-:-; ... ~:-. ..................................... ,........ "*-...... "<>.. .. :-:-. ....... »......... v..:-:;.,. ........... :.... x ·;.:.."':>:-. ............ -.:-.-.:r' .......................... »....... x ... »:...... -.x"""....-»........... : .... : ......... :-.. :-........ X>x-:-.............. :.,.. ;.::0;.. .......... :-:-. .. :-;....... =-.............. :-:-.. »:-........ -..:.:0:-. .......... :-...... :-:-. .........:................. ,.......... :-....... ~ ............................... »..-.:..-.; ............................................. : ....... l 

INEMs-NAECA Results: Standards Level .~ Difference from AE099 Reference ~ r"""""·'·"w'."~w"".""'''.'''''.'.''.'m''''''r''''w.'''''''.'''''w''"''''''''''''.'~''''''w'.'''.''''w'''''''v'''''w''''·''''·'''r'''''·'<''''''w"·"'·'·"""""""·""·""'''''·''''''·'l''·'''''''''''''''''·''''''''''''-""""'''''''.'''''''''.''.''.''''~m'''''''''·''''l 

I ~ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 11 % 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1 

lCommercial-Sector Energy Consumption !: Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption 1 

!ElectriCity Sales (TWh) 11,081 1,158 1,238 1,317 1,369 I Electricity Sales (TWh) I 0.0 -3.6 -10.1 -15.1 -14.7 t 

~Total U.S. Electric Generation~ ~ Total U.S. Electric Generation~ j 

!coal (TWh) ~: 1,990 2,036 2,091 2,200 2,340 t Coal (TWh) l 0.0 -1.4 -1.4 -4.0 -8.0 ~ 

loas (TWh) ~j 547 855 1,139 1,430 1,582 ~ Oas (TWh) i 0.0 -2.9 -9.5 -1l.5 -6.4! 

lPetroleum (TWh) ~ 109 44 35 33 31 .i Petroleum (TWh) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 

lNuc1ear(TWh) ~j 660 631 554 419 359 ~ Nuclear(TWh) jj 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 !. 

lRenewables (TWh) ~ 423 433 446 461 483 ~ Renewables (TWh) i 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 

hotal (TWh) I 3,729 3,999 4,265 4,543 4,795 i Total (TWh) ~ 0.0 -4.4 -10.9 -15.5 -14.4 I 

IInstalled Generating Capacity I I Installed Generating Capacity I I 

ICoal (OW) 11 315.2 315.0 318.7 325.8 342.4 ) Coal (OW) ! 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -1.1 l 

IOther Fossil (OW) ij 301.5 369.6 395.5 467.5 511.4 ~ Other Fossil (OW) ~ 0.0 -0.1 -1.8 -2.6 -2.1 j 

!Nuc1ear (OW) 1 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 ~ Nuclear (OW) 1j 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 ~Renewables (OW) :: 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 i, Renewables (OW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 j 

IIQ!il:!..(C.IW..L,,"" ........... w., ... ~"' ...... , .. , ....... l,,~Q1!.:.z., .. ,.~2Q.,.2 .. ",§.§.~)",,2.~JJLL..Q,Q,§.,.!...' .. w.~m."".'''1. ... .IQ~H .. Q.W.Lm ... ''" ... ' .. 'wm.w.~ ... ''''''j''"m.'Q'Q'''''''::..Q.:,L,,,,,~l&,,,,,,~},!L, .. ,,,:JJ,,""w.""'''' .. ! 

7-15 

Table 7-9. Standards Level4b Forecast ~ ...... :...... "«>.x.:-::..... :.... :-.-...-.: ... ",:.:.:-:.:... ............ :.:<>. ..... "<>.., .................. ;..,">:>. ........ :-..-.»;.., ..... ;.: ...... Xt».";" ..... :.;:.;..":-................ ;.;-... ». .. :-:-; ... ~:-. ..................................... ,........ "*-...... "<>.. .. :-:-. ....... »......... v..:-:;.,. ........... :.... x ·;.:.."':>:-. ............ -.:-.-.:r' .......................... »....... x ... »:...... -.x"""....-»........... : .... : ......... :-.. :-........ X>x-:-.............. :.,.. ;.::0;.. .......... :-:-. .. :-;....... =-.............. :-:-.. »:-........ -..:.:0:-. .......... :-...... :-:-. .........:................. ,.......... :-....... ~ ............................... »..-.:..-.; ............................................. : ....... l 

INEMs-NAECA Results: Standards Level .~ Difference from AE099 Reference ~ r"""""·'·"w'."~w"".""'''.'''''.'.''.'m''''''r''''w.'''''''.'''''w''"''''''''''''.'~''''''w'.'''.''''w'''''''v'''''w''''·''''·'''r'''''·'<''''''w"·"'·'·"""""""·""·""'''''·''''''·'l''·'''''''''''''''''·''''''''''''-""""'''''''.'''''''''.''.''.''''~m'''''''''·''''l 

I ~ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 11 % 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 1 

lCommercial-Sector Energy Consumption !: Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption 1 

!ElectriCity Sales (TWh) 11,081 1,158 1,238 1,317 1,369 I Electricity Sales (TWh) I 0.0 -3.6 -10.1 -15.1 -14.7 t 

~Total U.S. Electric Generation~ ~ Total U.S. Electric Generation~ j 

!coal (TWh) ~: 1,990 2,036 2,091 2,200 2,340 t Coal (TWh) l 0.0 -1.4 -1.4 -4.0 -8.0 ~ 

loas (TWh) ~j 547 855 1,139 1,430 1,582 ~ Oas (TWh) i 0.0 -2.9 -9.5 -1l.5 -6.4! 

lPetroleum (TWh) ~ 109 44 35 33 31 .i Petroleum (TWh) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 

lNuc1ear(TWh) ~j 660 631 554 419 359 ~ Nuclear(TWh) jj 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 !. 

lRenewables (TWh) ~ 423 433 446 461 483 ~ Renewables (TWh) i 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 

hotal (TWh) I 3,729 3,999 4,265 4,543 4,795 i Total (TWh) ~ 0.0 -4.4 -10.9 -15.5 -14.4 I 

IInstalled Generating Capacity I I Installed Generating Capacity I I 

ICoal (OW) 11 315.2 315.0 318.7 325.8 342.4 ) Coal (OW) ! 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -1.1 l 

IOther Fossil (OW) ij 301.5 369.6 395.5 467.5 511.4 ~ Other Fossil (OW) ~ 0.0 -0.1 -1.8 -2.6 -2.1 j 

!Nuc1ear (OW) 1 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 ~ Nuclear (OW) 1j 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 ~Renewables (OW) :: 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 i, Renewables (OW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 j 

IIQ!il:!..(C.IW..L,,"" ........... w., ... ~"' ...... , .. , ....... l,,~Q1!.:.z., .. ,.~2Q.,.2 .. ",§.§.~)",,2.~JJLL..Q,Q,§.,.!...' .. w.~m."".'''1. ... .IQ~H .. Q.W.Lm ... ''" ... ' .. 'wm.w.~ ... ''''''j''"m.'Q'Q'''''''::..Q.:,L,,,,,~l&,,,,,,~},!L, .. ,,,:JJ,,""w.""'''' .. ! 

7-15 
Table 7-10. Standards Level 5a Forecast „K,,,,.,,;,.,,;ti..,,,,:hk..,,,,;;;,..,.,,,.>,,

NEIVIS-N CA Results: Standards Level Difference from 099 Reference

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) 1,081 1,161 1,246 1,329 1,382 Electricity Sales (TWh) 0.0 -1.1 -2.3 -2.9 -2.0

Total U.S. Electric Generation; Total U.S. Electric Generation

Coal (TWh) 1,990 2,037 2,091 2,203 2,347 Coal (TWh) 0.0 -0.4 -0.5 -0.8 -1.4

;Gas (TWh) 547 857 1,147 1,439 1,587 Gas (TWh) 0.0 -0.7 -1.9 -2.1 -0.6

Petroleum (TWh) 109 44 35 33 31 Petroleum (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Nuclear (TWh) 660 631 554 419 359 Nuclear (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Renewables (TWh) 423 433 446 461 483 '•, Renewables (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total (T)Mh) 3,729 4,002 4,274 4,555 4,807 Total (TWh) 0.0 -1.1 -2.4 -2.9 -2.0

Installed Generating Capacity

Coal (GW) 315 2 315 0 318 8 326 1 343.3

Installed Generating Capacity

Coal (GW) 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2

:Other Fossil (GW) 301.5 369.7 396.9 469.6 513.2 Other Fossil (GW) 0.0 0.0 -0.4 -0.5 -0.3

Nuclear (GW) 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 Nuclear (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Renewables (GW) 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 Renewables (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

890.2 954.4 1,010.8 i Total (GW2,,..,,.:.,,,,,,,-.,•:.,,,,..,,...,,-:.,,,,,,-., Q;0 ::5 -0.6-0.5

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table 7-10. Standards Level Sa Forecast ~-.;.; • .-; .... ;o;o; ......... o;.o;O;""";""''''X'';'';';';';';';O;'''''·''''X''''~'''''''''>;.'''''"''' .. ;v .... ·•• :·;o;o;o; .... o;o;o....;. .. -.:. .. ..:. .. ..:.. -.;· .................... -.;·;·; .. -.;o;. .. -.:.... , .... -..:..:. .... xo; .. xo;·;·;o.··.;·; .. -.;, .. -.;·;~ .. o;o;·;o;o;·.·.,· .. -.;, ........................... o;o; ..... o;·;-;o. ... f .. ;O' ................. ~ ................................. ;'O;O;'o;o;o;.· ....... -.; ..... xo; ........ x.; ............... -.;,..-.;,.;.; .....• ;0. .................... -.;.0;0. ........... 0;0;0;0;0;.;.0;0. .. ;0;0; ..... .. , -.;..;.;.;0; .. -.;. ..... -..:.0;..;0;.0;0;0;0;0;.0;O; ................ -.;.O;>;O;O' ... O;O;O;'O; ..... -..:.··:·;O; ..... O; .............. -.;. ........ ~1 

~ ::. ~ 

\NEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level ~ Difference from AE099 Reference ! 

! ~ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 ~ ~ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 l 

!Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption ~ Commercial-Sector Energy Co~.mmption l 

!Electricity Sales (TWh) ! 1,081 1,161 1,246 1,329 1,382 ~ Electricity Sales (TWh) ~ 0.0 -1.1 -2.3 -2.9 -2.0 ! 

!Total U.S. Electric Generation! I Total U.s. Electric GeneratioJ I 

koal 

~:: 

(TWh) ! 1,990 2,037 2,091 2,203 2,347 ~ ~:: Coal (TWh) ~ 0.0 -0.4 -0.5 -0.8 -1.4 l 

~ ~Oas (TWh) :: 547 857 1,147 1,439 1,587:: Oas (TWh) ii 0.0 -0.7 -1.9 -2.1 -0.6 l 

!Petroleum (TWh) ~ 109 44 35 33 31 ! Petrolewn (TWh) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 l 

jNuclear(TWh) !! 660 631 554 419 359 ~ Nuclear(TWh) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 

!Renewables (TWh) ii 423 433 446 461 483 ~ Renewables (TWh) i: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 

lTotal (TWh) ~j 3,729 4,002 4,274 4,555 4,807 ~ Total (TWh) ! 0.0 -1.1 -2.4 -2.9 -2.0 1 

IInstalled Generating Capacity I I Installed Generating Capacity I I 

\coal (OW) ii 315.2 315.0 318.8 326.1 343.3 ii Coal (OW) ~ 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 1 

iOther Fossil (OW) i! 301.5 369.7 396.9 469.6 513.2 ~ Other Fossil (OW) ~ 0.0 0.0 -0.4 -0.5 -0.3 1 

!Nuclear (OW) ! 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 ~ Nuclear (OW) ! 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 l ~Renewables (OW) ~ 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 ;~ Renewables (OW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~ 

iIP..!!!!,{QYl.L.", .. "'''w ... , .. 'w .... .w."",JJiQ.§,l.w .. §.7J.J.l., .. ,,§.2Q,l ...... 21~ttJ.)..Q1QJ:Lw.,,,"w.,,.w.tJ;:~t~L(gW.L.w ... ,,"'w.w~"' .. wu.w . .J .. "w.Jl,Q"w ... , . ..Q,Q.w.''':::Q,~."""~{L§.w ... ,,,~Q.:1"w ... ,,''''''wJ 

7-16 

Table 7-10. Standards Level Sa Forecast ~-.;.; • .-; .... ;o;o; ......... o;.o;O;""";""''''X'';'';';';';';';O;'''''·''''X''''~'''''''''>;.'''''"''' .. ;v .... ·•• :·;o;o;o; .... o;o;o....;. .. -.:. .. ..:. .. ..:.. -.;· .................... -.;·;·; .. -.;o;. .. -.:.... , .... -..:..:. .... xo; .. xo;·;·;o.··.;·; .. -.;, .. -.;·;~ .. o;o;·;o;o;·.·.,· .. -.;, ........................... o;o; ..... o;·;-;o. ... f .. ;O' ................. ~ ................................. ;'O;O;'o;o;o;.· ....... -.; ..... xo; ........ x.; ............... -.;,..-.;,.;.; .....• ;0. .................... -.;.0;0. ........... 0;0;0;0;0;.;.0;0. .. ;0;0; ..... .. , -.;..;.;.;0; .. -.;. ..... -..:.0;..;0;.0;0;0;0;0;.0;O; ................ -.;.O;>;O;O' ... O;O;O;'O; ..... -..:.··:·;O; ..... O; .............. -.;. ........ ~1 

~ ::. ~ 

\NEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level ~ Difference from AE099 Reference ! 

! ~ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 ~ ~ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 l 

!Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption ~ Commercial-Sector Energy Co~.mmption l 

!Electricity Sales (TWh) ! 1,081 1,161 1,246 1,329 1,382 ~ Electricity Sales (TWh) ~ 0.0 -1.1 -2.3 -2.9 -2.0 ! 

!Total U.S. Electric Generation! I Total U.s. Electric GeneratioJ I 

koal 

~:: 

(TWh) ! 1,990 2,037 2,091 2,203 2,347 ~ ~:: Coal (TWh) ~ 0.0 -0.4 -0.5 -0.8 -1.4 l 

~ ~Oas (TWh) :: 547 857 1,147 1,439 1,587:: Oas (TWh) ii 0.0 -0.7 -1.9 -2.1 -0.6 l 

!Petroleum (TWh) ~ 109 44 35 33 31 ! Petrolewn (TWh) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 l 

jNuclear(TWh) !! 660 631 554 419 359 ~ Nuclear(TWh) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 

!Renewables (TWh) ii 423 433 446 461 483 ~ Renewables (TWh) i: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 

lTotal (TWh) ~j 3,729 4,002 4,274 4,555 4,807 ~ Total (TWh) ! 0.0 -1.1 -2.4 -2.9 -2.0 1 

IInstalled Generating Capacity I I Installed Generating Capacity I I 

\coal (OW) ii 315.2 315.0 318.8 326.1 343.3 ii Coal (OW) ~ 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.2 1 

iOther Fossil (OW) i! 301.5 369.7 396.9 469.6 513.2 ~ Other Fossil (OW) ~ 0.0 0.0 -0.4 -0.5 -0.3 1 

!Nuclear (OW) ! 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 ~ Nuclear (OW) ! 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 l ~Renewables (OW) ~ 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 ;~ Renewables (OW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ~ 

iIP..!!!!,{QYl.L.", .. "'''w ... , .. 'w .... .w."",JJiQ.§,l.w .. §.7J.J.l., .. ,,§.2Q,l ...... 21~ttJ.)..Q1QJ:Lw.,,,"w.,,.w.tJ;:~t~L(gW.L.w ... ,,"'w.w~"' .. wu.w . .J .. "w.Jl,Q"w ... , . ..Q,Q.w.''':::Q,~."""~{L§.w ... ,,,~Q.:1"w ... ,,''''''wJ 

7-16 
Table 7-11. Standards Level 5b Forecast

HEMS-NAECAResults: Standards Level Difference from AE099 Reference

2000 2005 2010 2015

Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption

.Electricity Sales (TWh) 1,081 1,161 1,245 1,327

Total U.S. Electric Generation

'Coal (TWh) 1,990 2,037 2,092 2,203

Gas (TWh) 547 857 1,146 1,438

Petroleum (TWh) 109 44 35 33

Nuclear (TWh) 660 631 554 419

Renewables (TWh) 423 433 446 461

Total (TWh) 3,729 4,002 4,273 4,553

Installed Generating Capacity;

Coal (GW)

iOther Fossil (GW)

;Nuclear (G W)

Renewables (GW)

315.0 318.8 326.1 343.2 Coal (GW) 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.3

369.7 396.8 469.3 512.9 Other Fossil (GW) 0.0 0.0 -0.5 -0.8 -0.6

87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 Nuclear (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

'•. Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption

1,380 Electricity Sales (TWh) 0.0 -1.3 -3.2 -4.6 -4.2

Total U.S. Electric Generation;

.2,346 Coal (TWh) 0.0 -0.4 -0.4 -1.2 -2.4

1,586 Gas(TWh) 0.0 -0.9 -2.9 -3.4 -1.9

31 Petroleum (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

359 Nuclear (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

483 Renewables(TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

4,805 Total (TWh) 0.0 -1.3 -3.3 -4.6 -4.3

Installed Generating Capacity ii

315.2

301.5

94.8

ti 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 Renewables (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

808;7.

,,

871:0,..

890;1954. 1 1;01 ,,,,-»%, ,,Q;o0;0 :w6;:9» :1;0

7-17

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table 7-11. Standards Leve15b Forecast 

lNEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level '. Difference from AE099 Reference ! 

! 1 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 ! 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 i 

[Commercial-Sector Energy Corsumption Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption 1 

lElectricity Sales (TWh) ~ 1,081 1,161 1,245 1,327 1,380 Electricity Sales (TWb) I 0.0 -1.3 -3.2 -4.6 -4.2 I 

ITotal U.S. Electric Generation! Total U.S. Electric Generation ~ I 

lCoal (TWb) ! 1,990 2,037 2,092 2,203 ,2,346 Coal (TWh) 1 0.0 -0.4 -0.4 -1.2 -2.4 ! ~aas (TWh) ~: 547 857 1,146 1,438 1,586 aas (TWh) ! 0.0 -0.9 -2.9 -3.4 -1.9 j 

IPetroleum(TWh) ! 109 44 35 33 31 Petroleum (TWh) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 

lNuclear(TWh) ~ 660 631 554 419 359 Nuc1ear{TWh) :::1: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 i 

IRenewables (TWb) ~~ 423 433 446 461 483 Renewables (TWh) ,0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 l 

lTotal (TWb) I 3,729 4,002 4,273 4,553 4,805 Total (TWh) l 0.0 -1.3 -3.3 -4.6 -4.3 I 

!Installed Generating Capacity 1 Installed Generating Capacity I I 

!coal caW) ~~ 315.2 315.0 318.8 326.1 343.2 Coal caw) I 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.3 j 

lOther Fossil caW) ~ 301.5 369.7 396.8 469.3 512.9 Other Fossil (aw) ~ 0.0 0.0 -0.5 -0.8 -0.6 ~ 

jNuc1ear(aW) ~ 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 Nuclear (aW) 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 

IRenewables caW) j 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 " Renewables (aW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! !I9.t~L(Q:Wl,w ...... ",,"","'''w.,,,,,,,,,,,,.l,§Q.§,I .. ,,§ILQ., ... ",~5?Q.J.",J~1.:1J,QIQ.iL.w., .... w ...",J."IQ!~lJQ.JY.t.",w","."'w.w .. ~,,,,.",w»I,,,,JtQ,,,,,,JtQ.,,,,,,~.!L.f?,,,,,,",.::.Q.,2"w .... ~ljL,,»w,woW ... ,J 

7-17 

Table 7-11. Standards Leve15b Forecast 

lNEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level Difference from AE099 Reference ! 

! 1 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 ! 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 i 

[Commercial-Sector Energy Corsumption Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption 1 

lElectricity Sales (TWh) ~ 1,081 1,161 1,245 1,327 1,380 Electricity Sales (TWb) I 0.0 -1.3 -3.2 -4.6 -4.2 I 

ITotal U.S. Electric Generation! Total U.S. Electric Generation ~ I 

lCoal (TWb) ! 1,990 2,037 2,092 2,203 ,2,346 Coal (TWh) 1 0.0 -0.4 -0.4 -1.2 -2.4 ! ~aas (TWh) ~: 547 857 1,146 1,438 1,586 aas (TWh) ! 0.0 -0.9 -2.9 -3.4 -1.9 j 

IPetroleum(TWh) ! 109 44 35 33 31 Petroleum (TWh) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 

lNuclear(TWh) ~ 660 631 554 419 359 Nuc1ear{TWh) :::1: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 i 

IRenewables (TWb) ~~ 423 433 446 461 483 Renewables (TWh) ,0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 l 

lTotal (TWb) I 3,729 4,002 4,273 4,553 4,805 Total (TWh) l 0.0 -1.3 -3.3 -4.6 -4.3 I 

!Installed Generating Capacity 1 Installed Generating Capacity I I 

!coal caW) ~~ 315.2 315.0 318.8 326.1 343.2 Coal caw) I 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.1 -0.3 j 

lOther Fossil caW) ~ 301.5 369.7 396.8 469.3 512.9 Other Fossil (aw) ~ 0.0 0.0 -0.5 -0.8 -0.6 ~ 

jNuc1ear(aW) ~ 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 Nuclear (aW) 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 

IRenewables caW) j 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 " Renewables (aW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! !I9.t~L(Q:Wl,w ...... ",,"","'''w.,,,,,,,,,,,,.l,§Q.§,I .. ,,§ILQ., ... ",~5?Q.J.",J~1.:1J,QIQ.iL.w., .... w ...",J."IQ!~lJQ.JY.t.",w","."'w.w .. ~,,,,.",w»I,,,,JtQ,,,,,,JtQ.,,,,,,~.!L.f?,,,,,,",.::.Q.,2"w .... ~ljL,.»w.w-w ... ,J 

7-17 
Table 7-12. Standards Level 6a Forecast

NEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level Difference frown AE®99 Reference

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

lCommercial-Sector Energy Consumption Commercial-Sector EnergyConsumption

Electricity Sales (TWh) 1,081 1,160 1,243 1,325 1,379 Electricity Sales (TWh) 0.0 -2.5 -5.4 -6.6 -4.6

`Total U.S. Electric Generation;:

'.Coal (TWh) 1,990 2,036 2,091 2,202 2,345

Total U.S. Electric Generation

Coal (TWh) 0.0 -0.8 -1.2 -2.0 -3.3

Gas (TWh) 547 856 1,145 1,436 1,587 Gas (TWh) 0.0 -1.7 -4.4 -4.9 -1.4

"Petroleum (TWh) 109 44 35 33 31 Petroleum (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

;Nuclear (TWh) 660 631 554 419 359 Nuclear (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Renewables (TWh) 423 433 446 461 483 Renewables (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

?Total (TWh) 3,729 4,000 4,270 4,551 4,804 Total (TWh) 0.0 -2.5 -5.6 -6.8 -4.7

:j I^i

installed Generating Capacity;: Installed Generating Capacity'

Coa1(GW) 315.2 315.0 318.8 326.0 343.0 Coal (GW) 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.5

Other Fossil (GW) 301.5 369.7 396.4 468.9 512.8 Other Fossil (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.9 1.2 0.7

Nuclear (GW) 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 Nuclear (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Renewables (OW) 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 Renewables (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

7-18

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table 7-12. Standards Level6a Forecast ;:;:o;,';N~';:o. ... -..;..; .. ,.. :-:.;.-:.;o;..;o;.o;..:,.;.o;..;.;...... ;;>;.o;.'i.""'-';'o;..;o;:>;:o.-..;. ........ ,........ ; .... ; .. -..;. .. -..;.0;. .. '•• :.;.-:.. ..;..;.;. .... ;... .................................................. -.;..; ....,.. ........ , ..... ;;>;, .. ".;0N;O;'·;:O" ... :·;·:,.;.O;' .. -.... :.-. ...... ; ....................... ;..··.;·;·;'O;'·;O;'·;·; .. -.;. ..... -..;.·;o;o~ ...... ,..... ·;.............. .;-:.-:.-;. ....... ;............... ;o;,o; .. -..;.o;. .. -..;. .. v;:.. .......... -...-.;,o;.o;.·;o;.· ......... -..;. ........... -v;. .. -..x .. -..;. .. -.;. ..... xo;. ............................ -.;.o;, ....... ;.o.-..;.o;, ... ·;,.;.· .. ·;o;.o;.o;, ....... ;.......... o;o;. ..... -.;. ......... ;.o;.·;;o;....... ;... .. ;ox·;;o.. ;:.;:o............. -.;. ..... x .. x ..... x· .... ~ 

INEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level I Difference from AE099 Reference ! 

I'~~~:~I ~Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption ~ Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption I 

lElectricity Sales (TWh) ~ 1,081 1,160 1,243 1,325 1,379 !j Electricity Sales (TWh) ! 0.0 -2.5 -5.4 -6.6 -4.6 1 

ITotal u.s. Electric GeneratioJ I Total u.s. Electric Generation I I 

!coal (TWh) I 1,990 2,036 2,091 2,202 2,345 ~ Coal (TWh) i 0.0 -0.8 -1.2 -2.0 -3.3 1 

loas (TWh) l 547 856 1,145 1,436 1,587 @ Oas (TWh) ; 0.0 -1.7 -4.4 -4.9 -1.4 I 

!Petroleum (TWh) l 109 44 35 33 31 jj Petroleum (TWh) :~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! 

lNuclear (TWh) ~ 660 631 554 419 359 1: Nuclear (TWh) ~: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 l 

lRenewables (TWh) ! 423 433 446 461 483 ~ Renewables (TWh) .... :f:.:~ :: ... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 

!rotal (TWh) I 3,729 4,000 4,270 4,551 4,804 ~ Total (TWh) 0.0 -2.5 -5.6 -6.8 -4.7 l ~ ~ ::: ~ 

IInstalled Generating Capaciry I I Installed Generating Capacity l I ~Coal (OW) i 315.2 315.0 318.8 326.0 343.0 ~ Coal (OW) j: 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.5 I 

lather Fossil (OW) 1 301.5 369.7 396.4 468.9 512.8 ~ Other Fossil (OW) 1 0.0 0.0 -0.9 -1.2 -0.7 ! 

!Nuclear (OW) l 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 ~ Nuclear (OW) :j 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 

lRenewables (OW) l 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 ~ Renewables (OW) ! 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! 

b::.2!.!!l£Q)Ytw.w ..... w ••• 'w."' .. , . .w."." ..... L,~,Q.§.]w.,§.z.L!L.J~.§.~t(L"2,~}&J)21QJ",,,,"w.w.w.,L,:rS!.1!!J.JQ.w.L ....... .w., .. w.w." ......... "w.w..Jw.,,,.Q, ... Q,,,w.wQ.J.L,w .. ;J.J,,,,,,,~l.1w.w.,~1,f.hw ..... "' ...w.,j 

7-18 

Table 7-12. Standards Level6a Forecast ;:;:o;,';N~';:o. ... -..;..; .. ,.. :-:.;.-:.;o;..;o;.o;..:,.;.o;..;.;...... ;;>;.o;.'i.""'-';'o;..;o;:>;:o.-..;. ........ ,........ ; .... ; .. -..;. .. -..;.0;. .. '•• :.;.-:.. ..;..;.;. .... ;... .................................................. -.;..; ....,.. ........ , ..... ;;>;, .. ".;0N;O;'·;:O" ... :·;·:,.;.O;' .. -.... :.-. ...... ; ....................... ;..··.;·;·;'O;'·;O;'·;·; .. -.;. ..... -..;.·;o;o~ ...... ,..... ·;.............. .;-:.-:.-;. ....... ;............... ;o;,o; .. -..;.o;. .. -..;. .. v;:.. .......... -...-.;,o;.o;.·;o;.· ......... -..;. ........... -v;. .. -..x .. -..;. .. -.;. ..... xo;. ............................ -.;.o;, ....... ;.o.-..;.o;, ... ·;,.;.· .. ·;o;.o;.o;, ....... ;.......... o;o;. ..... -.;. ......... ;.o;.·;;o;....... ;... .. ;ox·;;o.. ;:.;:o............. -.;. ..... x .. x ..... x· .... ~ 

I'~~~ 

INEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level I Difference from AE099 Reference ! 2:-::~1 ~Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption ~ Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption I 

lElectricity Sales (TWh) ~ 1,081 1,160 1,243 1,325 1,379 !j Electricity Sales (TWh) ! 0.0 -2.5 -5.4 -6.6 -4.6 1 

ITotal u.s. Electric GeneratioJ I Total u.s. Electric Generation I I 

!coal (TWh) I 1,990 2,036 2,091 2,202 2,345 ~ Coal (TWh) i 0.0 -0.8 -1.2 -2.0 -3.3 1 

loas (TWh) l 547 856 1,145 1,436 1,587 @ Oas (TWh) ; 0.0 -1.7 -4.4 -4.9 -1.4 I 

!Petroleum (TWh) l 109 44 35 33 31 jj Petroleum (TWh) :~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! 

lNuclear (TWh) ~ 660 631 554 419 359 1: Nuclear (TWh) ~: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 l 

lRenewables (TWh) ! 423 433 446 461 483 ~ Renewables (TWh) .... :f:.:~ :: ... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 

!rotal (TWh) I 3,729 4,000 4,270 4,551 4,804 ~ Total (TWh) 0.0 -2.5 -5.6 -6.8 -4.7 l ~ ~ ::: ~ 

IInstalled Generating Capaciry I I Installed Generating Capacity l I ~Coal (OW) i 315.2 315.0 318.8 326.0 343.0 ~ Coal (OW) j: 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.2 -0.5 I 

lather Fossil (OW) 1 301.5 369.7 396.4 468.9 512.8 ~ Other Fossil (OW) 1 0.0 0.0 -0.9 -1.2 -0.7 ! 

!Nuclear (OW) l 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 ~ Nuclear (OW) :j 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 

lRenewables (OW) l 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 ~ Renewables (OW) ! 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 ! 

b::.2!.!!l£Q)Ytw.w ..... w ••• 'w."' .. , . .w."." ..... L,~,Q.§.]w.,§.z.L!L.J~.§.~t(L"2,~}&J)21QJ",,,,"w.w.w.,L,:rS!.1!!J.JQ.w.L ....... .w., .. w.w." ......... "w.w..Jw.,,,.Q, ... Q,,,w.wQ.J.L,w .. ;J.J,,,,,,,~l.1w.w.,~1,f.hw ..... "' ...w.,j 

7-18 
Table 7-13. Standards Level 6b Forecast

HEMS-INCA Results: Standards Level Difference from AE099 Reference

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 E•, 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption Commercial-Sector Energy Consumption

Total U.S. Electric Generations '• Total U.S. Electric Generation

Coal(TWh) 1,990 2,036 2,091 2,201 2,342 >'. Coal (TWh) 0.0 -1.0 -0.9 -2.8 -5.6

Gas (TWh) 547 856 1,142 1,433 1,584 Gas (TWh) 0.0 -2.1 -6.7 -8.0 -4.5

Petroleum (TWh) 109 44 35 33 31 Petroleum (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Nuclear (TWh) 660 631 554 419 359 Nuclear (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Renewables (TWh) 423 433 446 461 483 ti Renewables (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total (TWh) 3,729 4,000 4,268 4,547 4,799 Total (TWh) 0.0 -3.1 -7.6 -10.8 -10.1

Installed Generating Capacity

;Coal (GW) 315.2 315.0 318.8 325.9 342.7

Installed Generating Capacity

Coal (GW) 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.3 -0.8

Other Fossil (GW) 301.5 369.7 396.0 468.3 512.0 Other Fossil (GW) 0.0 0.0 -1.3 -1.8 -1.5

Nuclear (GW) 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 Nuclear (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

;Renewables (GW) 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 Renewables (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

7-19

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table 7-13. Standards Level6b Forecast ...................................... ·.vo· ........... · ....................... · ..... · ... · ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. v. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 

~ ~ 

~ ~ 

INEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level Difference from AE099 Reference 1 r». ... ;.x.;...-...»...... »...... "<-.. .... ~·x-."Q:.: ............. ».............. ;... .. x .. -... .... -... .... -...-.: .... »:-: ..... :-:.~:..-... .. :O:.:.:·:·:.:-:... :·;... .......... ;.... ;.... :-:.:-... x"" .. -... .......:·;.... ». .. ;.... ;.:-: .... :.:-:-;.... :o: .... ;.;.: .... ;... .. ;... .. :·:·;.;... ................ ;.x·:·;:..:·:·;.:·;..x ::-.... ">. ...... ;.:-.. .. =-. ... ;.::-:-. ...................... ">:·:-:.......... -..:-.................. ;... ..... :... ............... :-:o:-.. ........ v.-.. :-;...r:... :... :>:>:... .......... ;.>. ........................ :.;... ...... ;.::-.. ............ -.: ........ ;.;... .. =-.... v..... :............... ;... .. :....... :-:... :................ ;... .. :-.. .............................................................. :-.. .............. ~ 

I ! 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 I 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 i 

!Commercial-Sector Energy C0!1sumption Commercial-Sector Energy COf!sumption 1 

!Electricity Sales (TWh) II 1,081 1,159 1,241 1,321 1,374 Electricity Sales (TWh) ~ 0.0 -3.0 -7.4 -10.7 -9.8 j 

ITotal U.S. Electric Generation! Total U.S. Electric Generation I I 

koal (TWh) ii 1,990 2,036 2,091 2,201 2,342 Coal (TWh) ~ 0.0 -1.0 -0.9 -2.8 -5.6 l 

!aas (TWh) ; 547 856 1,142 1,433 1,584 aas (TWh) ~ 0.0 -2.1 -6.7 -8.0 -4.5 j 

iiPetroleum(TWh) ; 109 44 35 33 31 Petroleum(TWh) :~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 

!Nuclear(TWh) ! 660 631 554 419 359 Nuclear(TWh) .':,.::~.: : i.. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 j !Renewables (TWh) ii 423 433 446 461 483 Renewables (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 

hotal (TWh) ii 3,729 4,000 4,268 4,547 4,799 Total (TWh) 0.0 -3.1 -7.6 -10.8 -10.1 1 

Ilnstalled Generating Capacity I Installed Generating Capacity I i 

koal (aw) % 315.2 315.0 318.8 325.9 342.7 Coal (aW) ~ 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.3 -0.8 l 

!Other Fossil (aW) ~ 301.5 369.7 396.0 468.3 512.0 Other Fossil (aW) ! 0.0 0.0 -1.3 -1.8 -1.5 I 

iNuclear (aW) ; 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 Nuclear (aW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 l 

!Renewables (aW) i 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 ~ Renewables (aW) ! 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 l !:f.!~!~l .. (Qw.) .. w ............................ l.§Q.~:.7. ... .'il7.J.:Q •...• f1~9.:J ... 9..~1:.2 .. !.,.Q.Q2:L ............. J .. .Tg.t.~)..JQ:w.) ................................. L ..•.. Q,Q ••..•••. Q.& ....... ;.!.:1 ....... :*,1 ...... ~~:l ................. l 

7-19 

Table 7-13. Standards Level6b Forecast ...................................... ·.vo· ........... · ....................... · ..... · ... · ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. v. .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 

~ ~ 

~ ~ 

INEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level Difference from AE099 Reference 1 r». ... ;.x.;...-...»...... »...... "<-.. .... ~·x-."Q:.: ............. ».............. ;... .. x .. -... .... -... .... -...-.: .... »:-: ..... :-:.~:..-... .. :O:.:.:·:·:.:-:... :·;... .......... ;.... ;.... :-:.:-... x"" .. -... .......:·;.... ». .. ;.... ;.:-: .... :.:-:-;.... :o: .... ;.;.: .... ;... .. ;... .. :·:·;.;... ................ ;.x·:·;:..:·:·;.:·;..x ::-.... ">. ...... ;.:-.. .. =-. ... ;.::-:-. ...................... ">:·:-:.......... -..:-.................. ;... ..... :... ............... :-:o:-.. ........ v.-.. :-;...r:... :... :>:>:... .......... ;.>. ........................ :.;... ...... ;.::-.. ............ -.: ........ ;.;... .. =-.... v..... :............... ;... .. :....... :-:... :................ ;... .. :-.. .............................................................. :-.. .............. ~ 

I ! 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 I 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 i 

!Commercial-Sector Energy C0!1sumption Commercial-Sector Energy COf!sumption 1 

!Electricity Sales (TWh) II 1,081 1,159 1,241 1,321 1,374 Electricity Sales (TWh) ~ 0.0 -3.0 -7.4 -10.7 -9.8 j 

ITotal U.S. Electric Generation! Total U.S. Electric Generation I I 

koal (TWh) ii 1,990 2,036 2,091 2,201 2,342 Coal (TWh) ~ 0.0 -1.0 -0.9 -2.8 -5.6 l 

!aas (TWh) ; 547 856 1,142 1,433 1,584 aas (TWh) ~ 0.0 -2.1 -6.7 -8.0 -4.5 j 

iiPetroleum(TWh) ; 109 44 35 33 31 Petroleum(TWh) :~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 

!Nuclear(TWh) ! 660 631 554 419 359 Nuclear(TWh) .':,.::~.: : i.. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 j !Renewables (TWh) ii 423 433 446 461 483 Renewables (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 

hotal (TWh) ii 3,729 4,000 4,268 4,547 4,799 Total (TWh) 0.0 -3.1 -7.6 -10.8 -10.1 1 

Ilnstalled Generating Capacity I Installed Generating Capacity I i 

koal (aw) % 315.2 315.0 318.8 325.9 342.7 Coal (aW) ~ 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.3 -0.8 l 

!Other Fossil (aW) ~ 301.5 369.7 396.0 468.3 512.0 Other Fossil (aW) ! 0.0 0.0 -1.3 -1.8 -1.5 I 

iNuclear (aW) ; 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 48.9 Nuclear (aW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 l 

!Renewables (aW) i 97.2 98.9 100.3 102.3 105.4 ~ Renewables (aW) ! 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 l !:f.!~!~l .. (Qw.) .. w ............................ l.§Q.~:.7. ... .'il7.J.:Q •...• f1~9.:J ... 9..~1:.2 .. !.,.Q.Q2:L ............. J .. .Tg.t.~)..JQ:w.) ................................. L ..•.. Q,Q ••..•••. Q.& ....... ;.!.:1 ....... :*,1 ...... ~~:l ................. l 

7-19 
Table 7-14. Standard Level 2b Low Economic Growth Utility Forecast

HEMS-EPCAResults: Standard Level Difference from AE099 Low Economic Growth

2000 2005

Commercial Sector Energy Consumption

2010 2015 2020 2000 2005

Commercial Sector Energy Consumption

2010 2015 2020

Electricity Sales (TWh)

.Total U.S. Electric Generations

1080 1149 1217 1277 1313 Electricity Sales (TWh)

Total U.S. Electric Generation

0.0 -4.4 -10.8 -15.7 -14.5

,Coal (TWh) 1982 1999 2056 2125 2189 Coal (TWh) 0.0 -1.3 -3.7 -4.8 -6.4

,Gas (TWh) 541 796 1015 1266 1407 s Gas (TWh) 0.0 -3.2 -8.3 -11.5 -7.5

Petroleum (TWh) 110 43 33 30 28 Petroleum (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Nuclear (TWh) 660 627 551 411 343 Nuclear (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

:Renewables (TWh) 423 432 440 449 460 Renewables (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total (TWh)

Installed Generating Capacity

3716 3896 4095 4281 4427 Total (TWh)

Installed Generating Capacity

0.0 -4.5 -12.0 -16.3 -13.9

:Coal (GW) 315.1 314.6 315.3 319.3 326.6 Coal (GW) 0.0 0.0 -0.4 -0.6 -0.9

;Other Fossil (GW) 300.8 355.4 368.2 430.6 464.3 Other Fossil (GW) 0.0 0.0 -1.5 -2.6 -2.4

;Nuclear (GW) 94.8 86.6 73.4 55.3 47.0 Nuclear (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Renewables (GW) 97.1 98.7 99.7 100.9 102.6 Renewables (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

7-20

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

~ .. !.~Q!~~7.:1~1~~~ .. §!!J!J!!:!J!..1~Y~! .. ~~~!?. .. 1!!l!~~E~~q~~~~m!£~.G.:!~~lY!.tt.!l!!.!i!x~~f~~.!~.~~@~! .. v.w.w.~~~~~~~~~~~~~·.~~~w.~~~~·.~w.~~~·.~~~~~·.~~~~w.w.~w.w.·.·"",~~·.~~w.w.·.~·.~~~~~w.·.~~~·.·.~ ~ ~ ~ iNEMS-EPCA Results: Standard Level ~ Difference from AE099 Low Economic Growth l {;: .......... -.:«.:o:.. ... -.:.....:: .. -.:.....::.:.:.. ................ -.: ...... -.:o:.: .. -.:..-.:.. .................................. -.:..... -.:..-.:..-.~-.: ............. -.:..-.:... :.............. -.:....... -.:......................................... -.:-:.: ................... :..-.:0................................ -.:-:............. -.:............. ...:: .. -.:.: ....................... :0:-:0: ........ :0:.::--.. :............. :0:0......::.:0: ...... -.:..-.;.::.:........ -.: .................. -..:0. ......................................... -":O'-.:....... :O' .. : .... :..................... ":-. ... ~ ............ "«o..".:""».................. :O' .... -.:........... :........ -.:o:o............ ..,:: ............ :.~.: ............:: ............:: ...... -.:o.-.:..................... ...:: ........................ :o............ -.:............................ -.:~ 

.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ 

% ~ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020! ~ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 I 

lCommercial Sector Energy CO/FlUmp/ion I Commercial Sector Energy Consumption 1 

;Electricity Sales (TWb) ! 1080 1149 1217 1277 1313 !~ Electricity Sales (TWh) ~ 0.0 -4.4 -10.8 -15.7 -14.5 l 

1 ~ ~~ ~ ~ !Total us. Electric Generation} :: Total Us. Electric Generation! 1 

jCoal{TWh) I 1982 1999 2056 2125 2189 i Coal(TWb) ~ 0.0 -1.3 -3.7 -4.8 -6.4 I 

;aas{TWh) ! 541 796 1015 1266 1407 ~: aas{TWh) ~ 0.0 -3.2 -8.3 -11.5 -7.5 :~ 

lPetroleum (TWb) j 110 43 33 30 28 :: Petroleum (TWh) :1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 

!Nuclear (TWh) :1 660 627 551 411 343 \: Nuclear (TWb) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 

lRenewables (TWb) i 423 432 440 449 460 ! Renewables (TWh) :1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 l 

!Total (TWb) I 3716 3896 4095 4281 4427 II Total (TWb) . ~ 0.0 -4.5 -12.0 -16.3 -13.9 I 

V nstalled Generating Capacity ~ ! Installed Generating Capacity I ! ~Coal (aW) ! 315.1 314.6 315.3 319.3 326.6 \ Coal (aW) j 0.0 0.0 -0.4 -0.6 -0.9 l 

IOther Fossil (aw) j 300.8 355.4 368.2 430.6 464.3 ~ Other Fossil (aW) ~ 0.0 0.0 -1.5 -2.6 -2.4 I 

iNuclear caW) ! 94.8 86.6 73.4 55.3 47.0 :: Nuclear (aW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 

lRenewables (aW) ~ 97.1 98.7 99.7 100.9 102.6 ! Renewables (aW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 

!.TQ1~...(Q:w1. ... , .. , .. , .. ''''''w ... ''''''''w.,J"~J2Z&,,,~.?2J ... "''1~JHi.m5?.Q§J""21.QJ"w ....... w"'" ...... J,,,I9.ti.!.!.LQ.wl ...... "'''''w.'''''''w.'''''"J",,,jLQm .. ,,JML,w.d.-:2,,,,,,,:.~ .. ,Z ... '''',":,~,J. .. w.w •.• w. •• ",J 

7-20 

~ .. !.~Q!~~7.:1~1~~~ .. §!!J!J!!:!J!..1~Y~! .. ~~~!?. .. 1!!l!~~E~~q~~~~m!£~.G.:!~~lY!.tt.!l!!.!i!x~~f~~.!~.~~@~! .. v.w.w.~~~~~~~~~~~~~·.~~~w.~~~~·.~w.~~~·.~~~~~·.~~~~w.w.~w.w.·.·"",~~·.~~w.w.·.~·.~~~~~w.·.~~~·.·.~ ~ ~ ~ iNEMS-EPCA Results: Standard Level ~ Difference from AE099 Low Economic Growth l {;: .......... -.:«.:o:.. ... -.:.....:: .. -.:.....::.:.:.. ................ -.: ...... -.:o:.: .. -.:..-.:.. .................................. -.:..... -.:..-.:..-.~-.: ............. -.:..-.:... :.............. -.:....... -.:......................................... -.:-:.: ................... :..-.:0................................ -.:-:............. -.:............. ...:: .. -.:.: ....................... :0:-:0: ........ :0:.::--.. :............. :0:0......::.:0: ...... -.:..-.;.::.:........ -.: .................. -..:0. ......................................... -":O'-.:....... :O' .. : .... :..................... ":-. ... ~ ............ "«o..".:""».................. :O' .... -.:........... :........ -.:o:o............ ..,:: ............ :.~.: ............:: ............:: ...... -.:o.-.:..................... ...:: ........................ :o............ -.:............................ -.:~ 

.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ 

% ~ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020! ~ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 I 

lCommercial Sector Energy CO/FlUmp/ion I Commercial Sector Energy Consumption 1 

;Electricity Sales (TWb) ! 1080 1149 1217 1277 1313 !~ Electricity Sales (TWh) ~ 0.0 -4.4 -10.8 -15.7 -14.5 l 

1 ~ ~~ ~ ~ !Total us. Electric Generation} :: Total Us. Electric Generation! 1 

jCoal{TWh) I 1982 1999 2056 2125 2189 i Coal(TWb) ~ 0.0 -1.3 -3.7 -4.8 -6.4 I 

;aas{TWh) ! 541 796 1015 1266 1407 ~: aas{TWh) ~ 0.0 -3.2 -8.3 -11.5 -7.5 :~ 

lPetroleum (TWb) j 110 43 33 30 28 :: Petroleum (TWh) :1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 

!Nuclear (TWh) :1 660 627 551 411 343 \: Nuclear (TWb) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 

lRenewables (TWb) i 423 432 440 449 460 ! Renewables (TWh) :1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 l 

!Total (TWb) I 3716 3896 4095 4281 4427 II Total (TWb) . ~ 0.0 -4.5 -12.0 -16.3 -13.9 I 

V nstalled Generating Capacity ~ ! Installed Generating Capacity I ! ~Coal (aW) ! 315.1 314.6 315.3 319.3 326.6 \ Coal (aW) j 0.0 0.0 -0.4 -0.6 -0.9 l 

IOther Fossil (aw) j 300.8 355.4 368.2 430.6 464.3 ~ Other Fossil (aW) ~ 0.0 0.0 -1.5 -2.6 -2.4 I 

iNuclear caW) ! 94.8 86.6 73.4 55.3 47.0 :: Nuclear (aW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I 

lRenewables (aW) ~ 97.1 98.7 99.7 100.9 102.6 ! Renewables (aW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 

!.TQ1~...(Q:w1. ... , .. , .. , .. ''''''w ... ''''''''w.,J"~J2Z&,,,~.?2J ... "''1~JHi.m5?.Q§J""21.QJ"w ....... w"'" ...... J,,,I9.ti.!.!.LQ.wl ...... "'''''w.'''''''w.'''''"J",,,jLQm .. ,,JML,w.d.-:2,,,,,,,:.~ .. ,Z ... '''',":,~,J. .. w.w •.• w. •• ",J 

7-20 
T;able7-15. Standard Level 2b it h Economic Growth Utility Forecast„ ^Y x 4 „R^R R

>I^EMS-SPCA Results: Standard Level IDifference from AE®99 High,Economic Growth

1 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020

ECommercial Sector Energy Consumption Cornrnercial Sector Energy Consumption

;Electricity Sales (TWh)

Total U.S. Electric Generation

1081 1167 1259 1351 1422 Electricity Sales (TWh)

Total U.S. Electric Generation

0.0 -4.4 -10.8 15.7 -14.5

;Coal (TWh) 1993 2064 2146 2301 2545 Coal (TWh) 0.0 -1.4 -2.5 -4.6 -11.3

Gas (TWh) 557 927 1251 1576 1705 Gas (TWh) 0.0 -3.1 -8.8 -11.5 -3.5

:Petroleum (TWh) 108 44 35 34 32 Petroleum (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

.Nuclear (TWh) 660 631 554 419 373 Nuclear (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

ERenewables (TWh) 424 437 454 480 517 Renewables (TWh) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

,'Total (TWh)

Installed Generating Capacity

3742 4103 4441 4811 5171 Total (TWh)

Installed Generating Capacity

0.0 -4.5 -11.3 -16.1 -14.8

Coal (GW) 315.2 315.3 321.9 335.0 365.7 Coal (GW) 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.5 -1.5

Other Fossil (GW) 303.4 385.4 426.0 506.9 554.0 Other Fossil (GW) 0.0 0.0 -1.9 -2.5 -2.0

,.Nuclear (GW) 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 50.8 Nuclear (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Renewables (GW) 97.3 99.2 101.4 104.8 109.9 Renewables (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

7-21

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

;~!!!2t~~.1:1.§.~~x~~!!!!.~Jtr!1~1!:~Y~~!x~R~HJg!!"E.£,~Jl~J!!.l£,~Q!:~~~!~h!J!!!!!Y,,~Qr~~~!~,t~"'~'~~~'~h~'h'~~~~"'~X~~~X~X~"""""X·X~'v.~X~'X~~'X·~~~'~~"~""'v."~~'~.W.v.'X~~~~~""~ ~ ~ ~ 

tNt;M.§~::E~.~.A~R~~§.!I!!~~~ .. ~~~t~!l~l!(!!~~~.~~YJ~!~w~""" ...... """wN .•. """"'w.t .. ~!!!ff~.r~,!!~,~"fr..Rm .. A!f,Q22"mg!t,E.£.g!!~m!~"Q,!:9~J!!,w.""""w~ I II 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 I I 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 I 

!Commercial Sector Energy Co~sumption ~ Commercial Sector Energy Consumption I 

!Electricity Sales (TWh) ~ 1081 1167 1259 1351 1422 ! Electricity Sales (TWh) ~ 0.0 -4.4 -10.8 -15.7 -14.5 I ": ~ :: ~ ~ 

lTotal u.s. Electric Generationi I Total U.S. Electric Generation~ 1 

lcoal (TWh) t 1993 2064 2146 2301 2545 ~ Coal (TWh) ~ 0.0 -1.4 -2.5 -4.6 -11.3 1 

jaas (TWh) il 557 927 1251 1576 1705 ! aas (TWh) ~ 0.0 -3.1 -8.8 -11.5 -3.5 I 

!petroleum (TWh) il 108 44 35 34 32 ~ Petroleum (TWh) § 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 

iNuclear (TWh) ~ 660 631 554 419 373 ~ Nuclear (TWh) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 t 

lRenewables (TWh) & 424 437 454 480 517 11 Renewables (TWh) .t :! ...... : ....... :,:0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 

!Total (TWh) ~ 3742 4103 4441 4811 5171 ~ Total (TWh): 0.0 -4.5 -11.3 -16.1 -14.8 I 

IInstalled Generating Capacity I I Installed Generating Capacity t I 

iCoal (aW) ~ 315.2 315.3 321.9 335.0 365.7 ~ Coal (aW) ~ 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.5 -1.5 I 

lOther Fossil (aW) ~ 303.4 385.4 426.0 506.9 554.0 ! Other Fossil (aW) ~ 0.0 0.0 -1.9 -2.5 -2.0 l 

!"; 

iNuclear (aW) ~ 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 50.8 ~ Nuclear (aW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I $ ~ ), 

iRenewables (aW) ~ 97.3 99.2 101.4 104.8 109.9 ! Renewables (aW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 

tn~t~L{Q.w..L .. , .. , .. , ...... '''' ............ '''w ........ J ..... §JQ,2.. ..... ,~,~,Z.J.",5gJ:~,JQQ.~ .. ,.LL@.QJ.,,'w.w.""' .. j .. ,.:rgt\!L(~IWL ....... , . .w""",.,w,.,w,,," ....... v ••• J ... w ••• ,Q& ... w., ... ,QJLw ... ~*,&., ... w •• ;1.Q .. , .. w .. ;.1.§.w .. mm.w.w.J 

7-21 

;~!!!2t~~.1:1.§.~~x~~!!!!.~Jtr!1~1!:~Y~~!x~R~HJg!!"E.£,~Jl~J!!.l£,~Q!:~~~!~h!J!!!!!Y,,~Qr~~~!~,t~"'~'~~~'~h~'h'~~~~"'~X~~~X~X~"""""X·X~'v.~X~'X~~'X·~~~'~~"~""'v."~~'~.W.v.'X~~~~~""~ ~ ~ ~ 

tNt;M.§~::E~.~.A~R~~§.!I!!~~~ .. ~~~t~!l~l!(!!~~~.~~YJ~!~w~""" ...... """wN .•. """"'w.t .. ~!!!ff~.r~,!!~,~"fr..Rm .. A!f,Q22"mg!t,E.£.g!!~m!~"Q,!:9~J!!,w.""""w~ I II 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 I I 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 I 

!Commercial Sector Energy Co~sumption ~ Commercial Sector Energy Consumption I 

!Electricity Sales (TWh) ~ 1081 1167 1259 1351 1422 ! Electricity Sales (TWh) ~ 0.0 -4.4 -10.8 -15.7 -14.5 I ": ~ :: ~ ~ 

lTotal u.s. Electric Generationi I Total U.S. Electric Generation~ 1 

lcoal (TWh) t 1993 2064 2146 2301 2545 ~ Coal (TWh) ~ 0.0 -1.4 -2.5 -4.6 -11.3 1 

jaas (TWh) il 557 927 1251 1576 1705 ! aas (TWh) ~ 0.0 -3.1 -8.8 -11.5 -3.5 I 

!petroleum (TWh) il 108 44 35 34 32 ~ Petroleum (TWh) § 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 

iNuclear (TWh) ~ 660 631 554 419 373 ~ Nuclear (TWh) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 t 

lRenewables (TWh) & 424 437 454 480 517 11 Renewables (TWh) .t :! ...... : ....... :,:0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 

!Total (TWh) ~ 3742 4103 4441 4811 5171 ~ Total (TWh): 0.0 -4.5 -11.3 -16.1 -14.8 I 

IInstalled Generating Capacity I I Installed Generating Capacity t I 

iCoal (aW) ~ 315.2 315.3 321.9 335.0 365.7 ~ Coal (aW) ~ 0.0 0.0 -0.1 -0.5 -1.5 I 

lOther Fossil (aW) ~ 303.4 385.4 426.0 506.9 554.0 ! Other Fossil (aW) ~ 0.0 0.0 -1.9 -2.5 -2.0 l 

!"; 

iNuclear (aW) ~ 94.8 87.4 74.2 56.4 50.8 ~ Nuclear (aW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 I $ ~ ), 

iRenewables (aW) ~ 97.3 99.2 101.4 104.8 109.9 ! Renewables (aW) ~ 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1 

tn~t~L{Q.w..L .. , .. , .. , ...... '''' ............ '''w ........ J ..... §JQ,2.. ..... ,~,~,Z.J.",5gJ:~,JQQ.~ .. ,.LL@.QJ.,,'w.w.""' .. j .. ,.:rgt\!L(~IWL ....... , . .w""",.,w,.,w,,," ....... v ••• J ... w ••• ,Q& ... w., ... ,QJLw ... ~*,&., ... w •• ;1.Q .. , .. w .. ;.1.§.w .. mm.w.w.J 

7-21 
APPENDIX A. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

A.1 ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS SUMMARY

The ballast trial standard levels set minimum Ballast Efficacy Factor (BEF) values. BEF is

a measure of ballast system performance or efficacy. This factor is defined as:

BEF = Percent Ballast Factor/Input Power

The BEF is defined as the ballast factor in percent divided by the ballast input power in

Watts. The ballast factor (BF) for a specific ballast is the ratio of the light output of a lamp tested

on the specific ballast to the light output of the same lamp tested on a "reference" ballast under

identical environmental conditions. The data set reproduced in Section A.3 below was used to

determine BEF and wattage values for each lamp/ballast combination.

The method used to select technology option values for BEF, BF, and ANSI Watts ` from the

data was different for different technology options as described below.

Baseline (energy-efficient magnetic) and cathode cutout. The BEF value used for the baseline

option was the average value of the BEF computed from the data set. BF values for this technology

option were chosen to be typical of current models ( 1), (2). Once the values for BEF and BF were

selected, the power was computed from these values with the formula : Watts = BF/BEF. It was

assumed that this calculated power is equivalent to the ANSI Watts of a ballast that has both its BEF

and BF values equal to the selected BEF and BF . A ballast with this exact combination of BEF, BF

and ANSI Watts may not presently exist in the market. The linear relationship observed between

measured values of BF and input Watts supports the assumption that a ballast with the calculated

values of BF, Watts, and BEF could be manufactured.

Electronic rapid start and electronic instant start. For these technology options,

"representative" ballasts were first chosen from the data set. The ballast whose BEF is closest to the

median but on the high side of 50% was usually selected from the data, since no real ballast had a

BEF that exactly placed it at the median. The one exception was for 4-lamp F32T8 electronic

instant start ballasts, where the ballast below the median was chosen since a comparison to the other

ballasts in that class showed that the BF for the ballast on the high side of the median was

abnormally low. The BF and ANSI Watts for each "representative" ballast were selected from the

data set for use in the energy calculations. These ballasts exist in the market.

1 Watts as measured by test procedures established by the American National Standards Institute.

A-1

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

APPENDIX A. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION 

A.1 ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS SUMMARY 

The ballast trial standard levels set minimum Ballast Efficacy Factor (BEF) values. BEF is 

a measure of ballast system performance or efficacy. This factor is defined as: 

BEF = Percent Ballast Factor/Input Power 

The BEF is defined as the ballast factor in percent divided by the ballast input power in 

Watts. The ballast factor (BF) for a specific ballast is the ratio of the light output of a lamp tested 

on the specific ballast to the light output of the same lamp tested on a "reference" ballast under 

identical environmental conditions. The data set reproduced in Section A.3 below was used to 

determine BEF and wattage values for each lamp/ballast combination. 

The method used to select technology option values for BEF, BF, and ANSI Watts 1 from the 

data was different for different technology options as described below. 

Baseline (energy-efficient magnetic) and cathode cutout. The BEF value used for the baseline 

option was the average value of the BEF computed from the data set. BF values for this technology 

option were chosen to be typical of current models (1), (2). Once the values for BEF and BF were 

selected, the power was computed from these values with the formula: Watts = BF/BEF. It was 

assumed that this calculated power is equivalent to the ANSI Watts of a ballast that has both its BEF 

and BF values equal to the selected BEF and BF. A ballast with this exact combination ofBEF, BF 

and ANSI Watts may not presently exist in the market. The linear relationship observed between 

measured values of BF and input Watts supports the assumption that a ballast with the calculated 

values ofBF, Watts, and BEF could be manufactured. 

Electronic rapid start and electronic instant start. For these technology options, 

"representative" ballasts were first chosen from the data set. The ballast whose BEF is closest to the 

median but on the high side of 50% was usually selected from the data, since no real ballast had a 

BEF that exactly placed it at the median. The one exception was for 4-lamp F32T8 electronic 

instant start ballasts, where the ballast below the median was chosen since a comparison to the other 

ballasts in that class showed that the BF for the ballast on the high side of the median was 

abnormally low. The BF and ANSI Watts for each "representative" ballast were selected from the 

data set for use in the energy calculations. These ballasts exist in the market. 

1 Watts as measured by test procedures established by the American National Standards Institute. 

A-I 

APPENDIX A. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION 

A.1 ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS SUMMARY 

The ballast trial standard levels set minimum Ballast Efficacy Factor (BEF) values. BEF is 

a measure of ballast system performance or efficacy. This factor is defined as: 

BEF = Percent Ballast Factor/Input Power 

The BEF is defined as the ballast factor in percent divided by the ballast input power in 

Watts. The ballast factor (BF) for a specific ballast is the ratio of the light output of a lamp tested 

on the specific ballast to the light output of the same lamp tested on a "reference" ballast under 

identical environmental conditions. The data set reproduced in Section A.3 below was used to 

determine BEF and wattage values for each lamp/ballast combination. 

The method used to select technology option values for BEF, BF, and ANSI Watts 1 from the 

data was different for different technology options as described below. 

Baseline (energy-efficient magnetic) and cathode cutout. The BEF value used for the baseline 

option was the average value of the BEF computed from the data set. BF values for this technology 

option were chosen to be typical of current models (1), (2). Once the values for BEF and BF were 

selected, the power was computed from these values with the formula: Watts = BF/BEF. It was 

assumed that this calculated power is equivalent to the ANSI Watts of a ballast that has both its BEF 

and BF values equal to the selected BEF and BF. A ballast with this exact combination ofBEF, BF 

and ANSI Watts may not presently exist in the market. The linear relationship observed between 

measured values of BF and input Watts supports the assumption that a ballast with the calculated 

values ofBF, Watts, and BEF could be manufactured. 

Electronic rapid start and electronic instant start. For these technology options, 

"representative" ballasts were first chosen from the data set. The ballast whose BEF is closest to the 

median but on the high side of 50% was usually selected from the data, since no real ballast had a 

BEF that exactly placed it at the median. The one exception was for 4-lamp F32T8 electronic 

instant start ballasts, where the ballast below the median was chosen since a comparison to the other 

ballasts in that class showed that the BF for the ballast on the high side of the median was 

abnormally low. The BF and ANSI Watts for each "representative" ballast were selected from the 

data set for use in the energy calculations. These ballasts exist in the market. 

1 Watts as measured by test procedures established by the American National Standards Institute. 

A-I 
The explanation for these different methods is that the technology options representing wellestablished technologies should be based on the average properties of current market products, while

technology options representing newer technologies should be based on the properties of an actual

ballast that is characteristic of that technology option in the market.

NEMA then reviewed these selections and suggested adjustments to many ofthe wattage and

BF values. The analysis adopts these adjustments, most of which are very small. Therefore, in some

cases, there is not an exact correspondence between the ballast data sets in Section A.3 and the

values used in the analysis.

Normalized Fixture Watts

Described below are the details of applying power input corrections to the ANSI Watts used

for each technology option. A correction was applied to ANSI Watts for 3- and 4-lamp ballast

technology options to account for thermal effects on power input. We would have also applied a

correction factor for the thermal effects on light output, but for the options presented in this chapter,

the factor was 1 (no effect). The correction factors were derived from empirical data described later

in this Appendix.

A BF power correction was also applied to each technology option in all classes to

"normalize" (equalize) light output to the baseline option (the energy-efficient magnetic ballast).

The rationale for adjusting the Watts for the thermal effect on light output and for the ballast factor

impact is that the technology options must be compared assuming equivalent light output to the

baseline.

The following equation performs the corrections described above. Normalized Fixture Watts

(NFW) represent the wattage of the lamp/ballast combination in the fixture, installed in a plenum,

and normalized to a baseline BF as shown in the following equation:

where:

Normalized Fixture Watts = ANSI Watts • WTF/LTF • BF,/ BF,

WTF is the Wattage Thermal Factor that corrects the ANSI Watts to actual Watts

used when the ballast is installed in a fixture and a ceiling plenum.

LTF is the Light Output Thermal Factor that adjusts the wattage for the change in

light output when the ballast is installed in a fixture and ceiling plenum.

BF,, is the ballast factor for the baseline technology option. BF, is the ballast factor

of technology option n and BF0 /BFn is referred to as the normalization factor.

Baseline Ballast Factors

A-2

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

The explanation for these different methods is that the technology options representing wellestablished technologies should be based on the average properties of current market products, while 

technology options representing newer technologies should be based on the properties of an actual 

ballast that is characteristic ofthat technology option in the market. 

NEMA then reviewed these selections and suggested adjustments to many of the wattage and 

BF values. The analysis adopts these adjustments, most of which are very small. Therefore, in some 

cases, there is not an exact correspondence between the ballast data sets in Section A.3 and the 

values used in the analysis. 

Normalized Fixture Watts 

Described below are the details of applying power input corrections to the ANSI Watts used 

for each technology option. A correction was applied to ANSI Watts for 3- and 4-lamp ballast 

technology options to account for thermal effects on power input. We would have also applied a 

correction factor for the thermal effects on light output, but for the options presented in this chapter, 

the factor was I (no effect). The correction factors were derived from empirical data described later 

in this Appendix. 

A BF power correction was also applied to each technology option in all classes to 

"normalize" (equalize) light output to the baseline option (the energy-efficient magnetic ballast). 

The rationale for adjusting the Watts for the thermal effect on light output and for the ballast factor 

impact is that the technology options must be compared assuming equivalent light output to the 

baseline. 

The following equation perfonns the corrections described above. Normalized Fixture Watts 

(NFW) represent the wattage ofthe lamp/ballast combination in the fixture, installed in a plenum, 

and normalized to a baseline BF as shown in the following equation: 

Normalized Fixture Watts = ANSI Watts· WTF/LTF . BFo/ BFn 

where: 

WTF is the Wattage Thermal Factor that corrects the ANSI Watts to actual Watts 

used when the ballast is installed in a fixture and a ceiling plenum. 

LTF is the Light Output Thennal Factor that adjusts the wattage for the change in 

light output when the ballast is installed in a fixture and ceiling plenum. 

BFa is the ballast factor for the baseline technology option. BFn is the ballast factor 

oftechnology option n and BFa / BFn is referred to as the normalization factor. 

Baseline Ballast Factors 

A-2 

The explanation for these different methods is that the technology options representing wellestablished technologies should be based on the average properties of current market products, while 

technology options representing newer technologies should be based on the properties of an actual 

ballast that is characteristic ofthat technology option in the market. 

NEMA then reviewed these selections and suggested adjustments to many of the wattage and 

BF values. The analysis adopts these adjustments, most of which are very small. Therefore, in some 

cases, there is not an exact correspondence between the ballast data sets in Section A.3 and the 

values used in the analysis. 

Normalized Fixture Watts 

Described below are the details of applying power input corrections to the ANSI Watts used 

for each technology option. A correction was applied to ANSI Watts for 3- and 4-lamp ballast 

technology options to account for thermal effects on power input. We would have also applied a 

correction factor for the thermal effects on light output, but for the options presented in this chapter, 

the factor was I (no effect). The correction factors were derived from empirical data described later 

in this Appendix. 

A BF power correction was also applied to each technology option in all classes to 

"normalize" (equalize) light output to the baseline option (the energy-efficient magnetic ballast). 

The rationale for adjusting the Watts for the thermal effect on light output and for the ballast factor 

impact is that the technology options must be compared assuming equivalent light output to the 

baseline. 

The following equation perfonns the corrections described above. Normalized Fixture Watts 

(NFW) represent the wattage ofthe lamp/ballast combination in the fixture, installed in a plenum, 

and normalized to a baseline BF as shown in the following equation: 

Normalized Fixture Watts = ANSI Watts· WTF/LTF . BFo/ BFn 

where: 

WTF is the Wattage Thermal Factor that corrects the ANSI Watts to actual Watts 

used when the ballast is installed in a fixture and a ceiling plenum. 

LTF is the Light Output Thennal Factor that adjusts the wattage for the change in 

light output when the ballast is installed in a fixture and ceiling plenum. 

BFa is the ballast factor for the baseline technology option. BFn is the ballast factor 

oftechnology option n and BFa / BFn is referred to as the normalization factor. 

Baseline Ballast Factors 

A-2 
The baseline ballast factors used in the analysis are shown in Chapter 3, Table 3.5 and

described in section 3.4.

Thermal Factor Power Input and Light Output Correction Factors

Performance data are available for some but not all of the lamp-ballast system combinations

covered in this report under typical luminaire operating conditions . The available data from the

Advanced Lighting Guidelines (3), the work of Bleeker and Veenstra ( 4), and National Lighting

Product Information Program published data (5) have been used to derive the values in Table A.1

for 3- and 4-lamp ballast systems. This table lists the thermal correction factors for power input and

light output (WTF and LTF). The WTF for a particular ballast system is the ratio of the power input

for a recessed static enclosed luminaire at the operating temperature to the power input for a

suspended open luminaire at 250C with the same lamp/ballast system. The suspended open

luminaire power input and light output are assumed to be identical to the values obtained under the

ANSI test conditions. The thermal factors for the recessed static enclosed luminaire type are

assumed to be representative of the thermal factors for the "average" luminaire type, since parabolic

recessed luminaires tend to have higher thermal factors (less wattage change) and wraparound

luminaires tend to have lower thermal factors (greater wattage change). The LTF is the

corresponding ratio for light output, and is applied to the fixture wattage. Since we only analyzed

T12/ES and T8 lamps, the LTFs were 1 and therefore there was no adjustment in this TSD.

Table A.1 Thermal Correction Factors

Lame-ballast combination Technology Option WTF LTF

3-F40T12 Electronic RS 0.93 0.94

3-F40T12/ES Electronic RS 0.98 1

3-F40T 12 Magnetic 0.91 NA

3-1740T12/ES Magnetic 0.96 NA

3-F40T12 Cathode Cutout 0.91 NA

3-F40T12/ES Cathode Cutout 0.96 NA

3-F32T8 Electronic RS 0.95 1

3-F32T8 Electronic IS 0.95

3-F32T8 Magnetic 0.93 NA

4-F40T12 Electronic RS 0.93 0.94

4-F40T12/ES Electronic RS 0.98 NA

4-F40T12 Magnetic 0.91 NA

4-F40T 12/ES Magnetic 0.96 NA

4-F40T12 Cathode Cutout 0.91 NA

4-F40T12/ES Cathode Cutout 0.96 NA

4-F32T8 Electronic RS 0.95 1

4-F32T8 Electronic IS 0.95 1

4-F32T8 Magnetic 0.93 NA

4-F32T8 Cathode Cutout 0.93 NA

NA: LTFs are not used in the LCC analysis

Thermal corrections are applied only to the input power and light output for 3- and 4-lamp

A-3

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

The baseline ballast factors used in the analysis are shown in Chapter 3, Table 3.5 and 

described in section 3.4. 

Thermal Factor Power Input and Light Output Correction Factors 

Perfonnance data are available for some but not all ofthe lamp-ballast system combinations 

covered in this report under typical luminaire operating conditions. The available data from the 

Advanced Lighting Guidelines (3), the work of Bleeker and Veenstra (4), and National Lighting 

Product Infonnation Program published data (5) have been used to derive the values in Table A.I 

for 3- and 4-lamp ballast systems. This table lists the thermal correction factors for power input and 

light output (WTF and LTF). The WTF for a particular ballast system is the ratio of the power input 

for a recessed static enclosed luminaire at the operating temperature to the power input for a 

suspended open luminaire at 25°C with the same lamplballast system. The suspended open 

luminaire power input and light output are assumed to be identical to the values obtained under the 

ANSI test conditions. The thermal factors for the recessed static enclosed luminaire type are 

assumed to be representative of the thennal factors for the "average" luminaire type, since parabolic 

recessed luminaires tend to have higher thennal factors (less wattage change) and wraparound 

luminaires tend to have lower thennal factors (greater wattage change). The LTF is the 

corresponding ratio for light output, and is applied to the fixture wattage. Since we only analyzed 

TI2/ES and T8 lamps, the LTFs were I and therefore there was no adjustment in this TSD. 

Table A.l Thermal Correction Factors 

Lamp~ballast combination Technolmtv GDtion WTF LTF 

3-F40Tl2 Electronic RS 0.93 0.94 

3-F40Tl2/ES Electronic RS 0.98 1 

3-F40Tl2 Magnetic 0.91 NA 

3-F40Tl2/ES Magnetic 0.96 NA 

3-F40Tl2 Cathode Cutout 0.91 NA 

3-F40Tl2/ES Cathode Cutout 0.96 NA 

3-F32T8 Electronic RS 0.95 1 

3-F32T8 Electronic IS 0.95 1 

3-F32T8 Magnetic 0.93 NA 

4-F40Tl2 Electronic RS 0.93 0.94 

4-F40Tl21ES Electronic RS 0.98 NA 

4-F40Tl2 Magnetic 0.91 NA 

4-F40Tl21ES Magnetic 0.96 NA 

4-F40Tl2 Cathode Cutout 0.91 NA 

4-F40Tl21ES Cathode Cutout 0.96 NA 

4-F32T8 Electronic RS 0.95 1 

4-F32T8 Electronic IS 0.95 1 

4-F32T8 Magnetic 0.93 NA 

4-F32T8 Cathode Cutout 0.93 NA 

NA: LTFs are not used in the LCC analysis 

Thennal corrections are applied only to the input power and light output for 3- and 4-lamp 

A-3 

The baseline ballast factors used in the analysis are shown in Chapter 3, Table 3.5 and 

described in section 3.4. 

Thermal Factor Power Input and Light Output Correction Factors 

Perfonnance data are available for some but not all ofthe lamp-ballast system combinations 

covered in this report under typical luminaire operating conditions. The available data from the 

Advanced Lighting Guidelines (3), the work of Bleeker and Veenstra (4), and National Lighting 

Product Infonnation Program published data (5) have been used to derive the values in Table A.I 

for 3- and 4-lamp ballast systems. This table lists the thermal correction factors for power input and 

light output (WTF and LTF). The WTF for a particular ballast system is the ratio of the power input 

for a recessed static enclosed luminaire at the operating temperature to the power input for a 

suspended open luminaire at 25°C with the same lamplballast system. The suspended open 

luminaire power input and light output are assumed to be identical to the values obtained under the 

ANSI test conditions. The thermal factors for the recessed static enclosed luminaire type are 

assumed to be representative of the thennal factors for the "average" luminaire type, since parabolic 

recessed luminaires tend to have higher thennal factors (less wattage change) and wraparound 

luminaires tend to have lower thennal factors (greater wattage change). The LTF is the 

corresponding ratio for light output, and is applied to the fixture wattage. Since we only analyzed 

TI2/ES and T8 lamps, the LTFs were I and therefore there was no adjustment in this TSD. 

Table A.l Thermal Correction Factors 

Lamp~ballast combination Technolmtv GDtion WTF LTF 

3-F40Tl2 Electronic RS 0.93 0.94 

3-F40Tl2/ES Electronic RS 0.98 1 

3-F40Tl2 Magnetic 0.91 NA 

3-F40Tl2/ES Magnetic 0.96 NA 

3-F40Tl2 Cathode Cutout 0.91 NA 

3-F40Tl2/ES Cathode Cutout 0.96 NA 

3-F32T8 Electronic RS 0.95 1 

3-F32T8 Electronic IS 0.95 1 

3-F32T8 Magnetic 0.93 NA 

4-F40Tl2 Electronic RS 0.93 0.94 

4-F40Tl21ES Electronic RS 0.98 NA 

4-F40Tl2 Magnetic 0.91 NA 

4-F40Tl21ES Magnetic 0.96 NA 

4-F40Tl2 Cathode Cutout 0.91 NA 

4-F40Tl21ES Cathode Cutout 0.96 NA 

4-F32T8 Electronic RS 0.95 1 

4-F32T8 Electronic IS 0.95 1 

4-F32T8 Magnetic 0.93 NA 

4-F32T8 Cathode Cutout 0.93 NA 

NA: LTFs are not used in the LCC analysis 

Thennal corrections are applied only to the input power and light output for 3- and 4-lamp 

A-3 
luminaires. For l- and 2-lamp luminaires, the elevation in ambient temperature is sufficiently small

that there is little change in lumen output and input power from the ANSI values. The resulting

normalized fixture Watts used in the engineering analysis are shown in Chapter 3.

A.2 LAMP PRICES

Lamp prices are calculated from the manufacturer lamp price lists and from the February

1994 Defense General Supply Center/Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) price catalog(6). For the

commercial/industrial sector, an estimated typical discount of40 percent for large end-user purchases

was determined from a survey of lamp price databases and from distributor and supplier price quotes

and interviews. For the federal government purchases, the DLA catalog price was used. The lamp

price is calculated assuming that 95 % of lamp purchases are at the price in the Lamp Price Schedule

less 40%, and 5 % of lamp purchases are at the DLA catalog price. Where no DLA catalog price is

available for a lamp, 100% of purchases are at the price in the Lamp Price Schedule less 40%.

Table A.2 Lamp Prices Used in the Analysis

Lam Type Unit Price

F40T 12/ES $1.64

F32T8/RE70 $2.61

F96T 12/ES $2.94

F96T12/HO/ES 6.89

A.3 BEF, BF, AND POWER CONSUMPTION DATA

Table A.3 is a summary of computed BEFs based on the data submitted by the National

Association of Electrical Manufacturers (NEMA), the New York State Energy Office (NYSEO), and

the Seattle Lighting Design Lab (SLDL). These data are listed in Tables A.4 through A.39. The

abbreviations ES, EEM, CC, ERS, and EIS represent: energy saver, energy-efficient magnetic,

cathode cutout, electronic rapid start, and electronic instant start ballasts, respectively. The BEFs

in Table A.3 are computed values representing the 10, 50 (median), and 90 percentile rankings for

each class. As an example of interpreting the table, 10 percent of the ballasts in the database for the

1-F40 Cathode Cutout ballast will have BEFs below 1.91, 50 percent below 1.94, and 90 percent

below 1.97. In cases where the BEFs are identical at all levels, only one data point was available.

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

luminaires. For 1- and 2-lamp luminaires, the elevation in ambient temperature is sufficiently small 

that there is little change in lumen output and input power from the ANSI values. The resulting 

normalized fixture Watts used in the engineering analysis are shown in Chapter 3. 

A.2 LAMP PRICES 

Lamp prices are calculated from the manufacturer lamp price lists and from the February 

1994 Defense General Supply Center/Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) price catalog(6). For the 

commercial/industrial sector, an estimated typical discount of 40 percent for large end -user purchases 

was determined from a survey oflamp price databases and from distributor and supplier price quotes 

and interviews. For the federal government purchases, the DLA catalog price was used. The lamp 

price is calculated assuming that 95 % oflamp purchases are atthe price in the Lamp Price Schedule 

less 40%, and 5 % oflamp purchases are at the DLA catalog price. Where no DLA catalog price is 

available for a lamp, 100% of purchases are at the price in the Lamp Price Schedule less 40%. 

T a bi e A2L . amp P' rIces U se d' III th e A I . nalYSlS 

LamoTvoe Unit Price 

F40Tl2/ES $1.64 

F32T8/RE70 $2.61 

F96Tl2/ES $2.94 

F96T 12IHO/ES $6.89 

A.3 BEF, BF, AND POWER CONSUMPTION DATA 

Table A.3 is a summary of computed BEFs based on the data submitted by the National 

Association of Electrical Manufacturers (NEMA), the New York State Energy Office (NYSEO), and 

the Seattle Lighting Design Lab (SLDL). These data are listed in Tables AA through A.39. The 

abbreviations ES, EEM, CC, ERS, and EIS represent energy saver, energy-efficient magnetic, 

cathode cutout, electronic rapid stati, and electronic instant start ballasts, respectively. The BEFs 

in Table A.3 are computed values representing the 10, 50 (median), and 90 percentile rankings for 

each class. As an example of interpreting the table, 10 percent of the ballasts in the database for the 

I-F40 Cathode Cutout ballast will have BEFs below 1.91, 50 percent below 1.94, and 90 percent 

below 1.97. In cases where the BEFs are identical at all levels, only one data point was available. 

A-4 

luminaires. For 1- and 2-lamp luminaires, the elevation in ambient temperature is sufficiently small 

that there is little change in lumen output and input power from the ANSI values. The resulting 

normalized fixture Watts used in the engineering analysis are shown in Chapter 3. 

A.2 LAMP PRICES 

Lamp prices are calculated from the manufacturer lamp price lists and from the February 

1994 Defense General Supply Center/Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) price catalog(6). For the 

commercial/industrial sector, an estimated typical discount of 40 percent for large end -user purchases 

was determined from a survey oflamp price databases and from distributor and supplier price quotes 

and interviews. For the federal government purchases, the DLA catalog price was used. The lamp 

price is calculated assuming that 95 % oflamp purchases are atthe price in the Lamp Price Schedule 

less 40%, and 5 % oflamp purchases are at the DLA catalog price. Where no DLA catalog price is 

available for a lamp, 100% of purchases are at the price in the Lamp Price Schedule less 40%. 

T a bi e A2L . amp P' rIces U se d' III th e A I . nalyslS 

Lamp Type Unit Price 

F40Tl2/ES $1.64 

F32T8/RE70 $2.61 

F96Tl2/ES $2.94 

F96T 12IHO/ES $6.89 

A.3 BEF, BF, AND POWER CONSUMPTION DATA 

Table A.3 is a summary of computed BEFs based on the data submitted by the National 

Association of Electrical Manufacturers (NEMA), the New York State Energy Office (NYSEO), and 

the Seattle Lighting Design Lab (SLDL). These data are listed in Tables AA through A.39. The 

abbreviations ES, EEM, CC, ERS, and EIS represent energy saver, energy-efficient magnetic, 

cathode cutout, electronic rapid stati, and electronic instant start ballasts, respectively. The BEFs 

in Table A.3 are computed values representing the 10, 50 (median), and 90 percentile rankings for 

each class. As an example of interpreting the table, 10 percent of the ballasts in the database for the 

I-F40 Cathode Cutout ballast will have BEFs below 1.91, 50 percent below 1.94, and 90 percent 

below 1.97. In cases where the BEFs are identical at all levels, only one data point was available. 

A-4 
Table A.3 Overview of Ballast Efficacy Factor, (ND=No Data)

Lamp EE Magnetic

10% 50% 90%

Cathode Cutout

10% 50% 90%

Electronic RS

10% 50% 90%

Electronic IS

10% 50% 90%

1 F40 1.82 1.85 1.92 1.91 1.94 1.97 2.29 2.34 2.43 ND ND ND

1F40/ES 2.01 2.09 2.16 2.26 2.26 2.26 2.61 2.71 2.84 ND ND ND

2 F40 1.05 1.07 1.08 1.13 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.19 1.22 ND ND ND

2F40/ES 1.21 1.22 1.22 1.30 1.34 1.37 1.35 1.42 1.45 ND ND ND

3 F40 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.76 0.78 0.81 ND ND ND

3F40/ES ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.90 0.91 0.93 ND ND ND

4F40 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.60 0.61 0.60 ND ND ND

2 F96 0.58 0.59 0.60 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.63 0.65 0.66

2F96/ES 0.69 0.70 0.71 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.77 0.79 0.80

2 F96HO 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.44 ND ND ND

2F96HO/ES 0.42 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.52 ND ND ND

1 F32T8 2.43 2.45 2.46 ND ND ND 2.73 2.88 2.96 2.84 2.95 2.99

2 F32T8 1.26 1.28 1.29 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.40 1.43 1.49 1.47 1.5 1.53

3 F32T8 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.92 0.97 1.01 1.01 1.03 1.04

4 F32T8 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.72 0.72 0.73 0.77 0.77 0.78

Table A.4 NEMA Data for 1-Lam F40T12 EEM Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

120 49.5 95 1.92

277 49 94 1.92

120 49.8 93.1 1.869

277 51.2 94.9 1.854

120 51 94.3 1.85

277 50.7 93.3 1.84

120 52 95 1.82

277 52 95 1.82

Table A.5 NEMA Data for 1-Lamp F40T12 CC Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

120

277

45

47

89

89.2

1.978

1.898

A-5

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

T a bI e A3 0 fB II t Effi F t (NDN Dt) · verVlew 0 a as lcacy ac or, = 0 aa 

Lamp EE Magnetic Cathode Cutout Electronic RS Electronic IS 

10% 50% 90% 10% 50% 90% 10% 50% 90% 10% 50% 90% 

1 F40 1.82 1.85 1.92 1.91 1.94 1.97 2.29 2.34 2043 ND ND ND 

IF40/ES 2.01 2.09 2.16 2.26 2.26 2.26 2.61 2.71 2.84 ND ND ND 

2 F40 1.05 1.07 1.08 1.13 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.19 1.22 ND ND ND 

2F40/ES 1.21 1.22 1.22 1.30 1.34 1.37 1.35 1.42 1045 ND ND ND 

3 F40 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.76 0.78 0.81 ND ND ND 

3F40/ES ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.90 0.91 0.93 ND ND ND 

4F40 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.60 0.61 0.60 ND ND ND 

2 F96 0.58 0.59 0.60 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.63 0.65 0.66 

2F96!ES 0.69 0.70 0.71 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.77 0.79 0.80 

2 F96HO 0040 0040 0040 0.42 0042 0.42 0.43 0.43 0044 ND ND ND 

2F96HO/ES 0042 0.45 0046 0.47 0048 0048 0049 0.50 0.52 ND ND ND 

1 F32T8 2.43 2.45 2.46 ND ND ND 2.73 2.88 2.96 2.84 2.95 2.99 

2 F32T8 1.26 1.28 1.29 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.40 1.43 1.49 1.47 1.5 1.53 

3 F32T8 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.92 0.97 1.01 1.01 1.03 1.04 

4F32T8 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.72 0.72 0.73 0.77 0.77 0.78 

T a bI e A 4 NEMA D ttl L · 

a a or - amp F40T12 EEM B a II as t 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 49.5 95 1.92 

277 49 94 1.92 

120 49.8 93.1 1.869 

277 51.2 94.9 1.854 

120 51 94.3 1.85 

277 50.7 93.3 1.84 

120 52 95 1.82 

277 52 95 1.82 

T a bi e A 5 NEMA D ttl L 

· 

a a or - amp F40T12 CC B a II as t 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 45 89 1.978 

277 47 89.2 1.898 

A-5 

T a bI e A3 0 fB II t Effi F t (NDN Dt) · verVlew 0 a as lcacy ac or, = 0 aa 

Lamp EE Magnetic Cathode Cutout Electronic RS Electronic IS 

10% 50% 90% 10% 50% 90% 10% 50% 90% 10% 50% 90% 

1 F40 1.82 1.85 1.92 1.91 1.94 1.97 2.29 2.34 2043 ND ND ND 

IF40/ES 2.01 2.09 2.16 2.26 2.26 2.26 2.61 2.71 2.84 ND ND ND 

2 F40 1.05 1.07 1.08 1.13 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.19 1.22 ND ND ND 

2F40/ES 1.21 1.22 1.22 1.30 1.34 1.37 1.35 1.42 1045 ND ND ND 

3 F40 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.76 0.78 0.81 ND ND ND 

3F40/ES ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.90 0.91 0.93 ND ND ND 

4F40 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.60 0.61 0.60 ND ND ND 

2 F96 0.58 0.59 0.60 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.63 0.65 0.66 

2F96!ES 0.69 0.70 0.71 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.77 0.79 0.80 

2 F96HO 0040 0040 0040 0.42 0042 0.42 0.43 0.43 0044 ND ND ND 

2F96HO/ES 0042 0.45 0046 0.47 0048 0048 0049 0.50 0.52 ND ND ND 

1 F32T8 2.43 2.45 2.46 ND ND ND 2.73 2.88 2.96 2.84 2.95 2.99 

2 F32T8 1.26 1.28 1.29 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.40 1.43 1.49 1.47 1.5 1.53 

3 F32T8 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.92 0.97 1.01 1.01 1.03 1.04 

4F32T8 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.72 0.72 0.73 0.77 0.77 0.78 

T a bI e A 4 NEMA D tIL · 

ata or - amp F40T12 EEM B a II ast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 49.5 95 1.92 

277 49 94 1.92 

120 49.8 93.1 1.869 

277 51.2 94.9 1.854 

120 51 94.3 1.85 

277 50.7 93.3 1.84 

120 52 95 1.82 

277 52 95 1.82 

T a bi e A 5 NEMA D tIL 

· 

ata or - amp F40T12 CC B a II ast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 45 89 1.978 

277 47 89.2 1.898 

A-5 
Table A.6 NEMA Data for 1-barn F40T12 EIS Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

120 36.6 90.9 2.484

120 36.2 88.2 2.436

277 37 89.6 2.422

120 37.6 91 2.41

277 37.4 90 2.407

120 38.4 89.9 2.342

120 36.5 85.4 2.342

277 38 89 2.335

277 40.3 93.7 2.325

277 37.4 86.9 2.324

277 39 87 2.29

120 38 85 2.24

Table A.7 NEMA Data for 1-Lam F40T12/ES EEM Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

277 43.6 85.9 1.97

120 43.7 88.2 2.02

277 41.9 86.5 2.07

277 44.6 92.6 2.08

120 42.3 88.2 2.1

120 43.7 91.3 2.09

277 41 88 2.15

120 40 87 2.18

Table A.8 NYSEO Data for 1-Lamp F'4OT12/ES CC Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

120 36.7 83 2.26

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

T a bi e A 6 . NEMA D ata ~ or 1 L - amp F40T12 ERS B a II ast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 36.6 90.9 2.484 

120 36.2 88.2 2.436 

277 37 89.6 2.422 

120 37.6 91 2.41 

277 37.4 90 2.407 

120 38.4 89.9 2.342 

120 36.5 85.4 2.342 

277 38 89 2.335 

277 40.3 93.7 2.325 

277 37.4 86.9 2.324 

277 39 87 2.29 

120 38 85 2.24 

T a e bl A 7 . NEMA D ata ~ or 1 L - amp F40T12/ES EEM B a II ast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 43.6 85.9 1.97 

120 43.7 88.2 2.02 

277 41.9 86.5 2.07 

277 44.6 92.6 2.08 

120 42.3 88.2 2.1 

120 43.7 91.3 2.09 

277 41 88 2.15 

120 40 87 2.18 

Table A.8 NYSEO Data for I-Lam F40TI2/ES CC Ballast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 36.7 83 2.26 

A-6 

T a bi e A 6 . NEMA D t a a ~ or 1 L - am p F40T12 ERS B a II as t 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 36.6 90.9 2.484 

120 36.2 88.2 2.436 

277 37 89.6 2.422 

120 37.6 91 2.41 

277 37.4 90 2.407 

120 38.4 89.9 2.342 

120 36.5 85.4 2.342 

277 38 89 2.335 

277 40.3 93.7 2.325 

277 37.4 86.9 2.324 

277 39 87 2.29 

120 38 85 2.24 

T a e bl A 7 . NEMA D t a a ~ or 1 L - am~ F40T12/ES EEM B a II as t 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 43.6 85.9 1.97 

120 43.7 88.2 2.02 

277 41.9 86.5 2.07 

277 44.6 92.6 2.08 

120 42.3 88.2 2.1 

120 43.7 91.3 2.09 

277 41 88 2.15 

120 40 87 2.18 

Table A.8 NYSEO Data for I-Lam F40TI2/ES CC Ballast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 36.7 83 2.26 

A-6 
Table AS NEMA Data for 1-Lam F40T12/ES ERS Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

120 30.2 88 2.91

277 30.3 86.3 2.85

277 31.2 88.1 2.82

120 30.4 85.1 2.8

120 31.1 87 2.8

277 29.8 83.2 2.79

277 31.1 84.5 2.72

120 31.3 84.2 2.69

120 33 88.7 2.69

277 34.3 91.6 2.67

120 33 87 2.64

277 34 89 2.62

120 32.4 84.4 2.61

277 32.2 83 2.58

Table A.10 NEMA Data for 2-Lam F4OT12 EEM Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

120 86.2 93.9 1.089

277 87.6 94.7 1.081

120 89 95 1.07

120 90.4 96.6 1.069

120 90.4 96.6 1.069

277 90 95 1.06

277 90 94.8 1.053

277 90 94.8 1.053

Table A.11 NEMA Data for 2-Lam F40T12 CC Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

120 80.9 94.2 1.164

120 68 79 1.16

277 69 80 1.15

120 73.7 85.4 1.159

277 72.5 83.4 1.15

277 81.7 93.5 1.144

120 83 93.8 1.129

277 84.8 93 1.097

277 84.1 74.4 1.13

120 82.9 70.7 1.173

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

T a hI e A 9 NEMA D t:t 1 L F40Tl21ES ERS B n t · 

a a or - amp a as 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 30.2 88 2.91 

277 30.3 86.3 2.85 

277 31.2 88.1 2.82 

120 30.4 85.1 2.8 

120 31.1 87 2.8 

277 29.8 83.2 2.79 

277 31.1 84.5 2.72 

120 31.3 84.2 2.69 

120 33 88.7 2.69 

277 34.3 91.6 2.67 

120 33 87 2.64 

277 34 89 2.62 

120 32.4 84.4 2.61 

277 32.2 83 2.58 

T a hI e A 10 NEMA D t :t 2 L F40T12 EEM B II 

· 

a a or - amp a ast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 86.2 93.9 1.089 

277 87.6 94.7 1.081 

120 89 95 1.07 

120 90.4 96.6 1.069 

120 90.4 96.6 1.069 

277 90 95 1.06 

277 90 94.8 1.053 

277 90 94.8 1.053 

T a hI e A 11 NEMA D t:t 2 L · a a or - amp F40T12 CC B a II as t 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 80.9 94.2 1.164 

120 68 79 1.16 

277 69 80 1.15 

120 73.7 85.4 1.159 

277 72.5 83.4 1.15 

277 81.7 93.5 1.144 

120 83 93.8 1.129 

277 84.8 93 1.097 

277 84.1 74.4 1.13 

120 82.9 70.7 1.173 

A-7 

T a hI e A 9 NEMA D :t 1 L F40Tl21ES ERS B n · 

ata or - amp a ast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 30.2 88 2.91 

277 30.3 86.3 2.85 

277 31.2 88.1 2.82 

120 30.4 85.1 2.8 

120 31.1 87 2.8 

277 29.8 83.2 2.79 

277 31.1 84.5 2.72 

120 31.3 84.2 2.69 

120 33 88.7 2.69 

277 34.3 91.6 2.67 

120 33 87 2.64 

277 34 89 2.62 

120 32.4 84.4 2.61 

277 32.2 83 2.58 

T a hI e A 10 NEMA D :t 2 L F40T12 EEM B II 

· 

ata or - amp a ast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 86.2 93.9 1.089 

277 87.6 94.7 1.081 

120 89 95 1.07 

120 90.4 96.6 1.069 

120 90.4 96.6 1.069 

277 90 95 1.06 

277 90 94.8 1.053 

277 90 94.8 1.053 

T a hI e A 11 NEMA D :t 2 L · ata or - amj) F40T12 CC B a II ast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 80.9 94.2 1.164 

120 68 79 1.16 

277 69 80 1.15 

120 73.7 85.4 1.159 

277 72.5 83.4 1.15 

277 81.7 93.5 1.144 

120 83 93.8 1.129 

277 84.8 93 1.097 

277 84.1 74.4 1.13 

120 82.9 70.7 1.173 

A-7 
Table A.12 NENIA Data for 2-Lamp F'40T12 ERS Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

277 70.8 87.1 1.23

120 71 86 1.22

277 71 86 1.22

120 71.5 87 1.217

277 73.6 89 1.21

277 71.9 85.9 1.195

120 72.2 86.1 1.193

277 71.4 85.2 1.193

120 74.8 89 1.19

277 74.4 88.1 1.184

120 72.2 85.3 1.181

120 72.9 85.9 1.178

120 76.1 89.1 1.171

277 77.9 90.1 1.157

Table A.13 NEMA Data for 2-Lam F40T12/ES EEM Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

120 72 88 1.22

120 74.4 90.6 1.22

120 73 88.8 1.22

277 72.4 87.8 1.21

277 75.5 91.2 1.21

277 73 88 1.21

Table A.14 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F40T12/ES CC Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

120 57.9 79.5 1.37

120 59 81 1.37

277 60 81 1.35

120 66.9 89.8 1.34

277 60.7 80.8 1.33

120 68.7 90.8 1.32

277 68.8 90.3 1.31

277 70 90 1.29

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

T a bi e A 12 NEMA D t ~ 2 L · 

aa or - amp F40T12 ERS B a n ast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 70.8 87.1 1.23 

120 71 86 1.22 

277 71 86 1.22 

120 71.5 87 1.217 

277 73.6 89 1.21 

277 71.9 85.9 1.195 

120 72.2 86.1 1.193 

277 71.4 85.2 1.193 

120 74.8 89 1.19 

277 74.4 88.1 1.184 

120 72.2 85.3 1.181 

120 72.9 85.9 1.178 

120 76.1 89.1 1.171 

277 77.9 90.1 1.157 

T a bi e A 13 NEMA D t ~ 2 L · a a or - amp F40T12/ES EEM B a n ast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 72 88 1.22 

120 74.4 90.6 1.22 

120 73 88.8 ·1.22 

277 72.4 87.8 1.21 

277 75.5 91.2 1.21 

277 73 88 1.21 

T a bi e A 14 NEMA D t ~ 2 L F40T12/ES CC B II · a a or - amp a ast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 57.9 79.5 1.37 

120 59 81 1.37 

277 60 81 1.35 

120 66.9 89.8 1.34 

277 60.7 80.8 1.33 

120 68.7 90.8 1.32 

277 68.8 90.3 1.31 

277 70 90 1.29 

A-8 

T a bi e A 12 NEMA D t ~ 2 L · 

aa or - amp F40T12 ERS B a n as t 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 70.8 87.1 1.23 

120 71 86 1.22 

277 71 86 1.22 

120 71.5 87 1.217 

277 73.6 89 1.21 

277 71.9 85.9 1.195 

120 72.2 86.1 1.193 

277 71.4 85.2 1.193 

120 74.8 89 1.19 

277 74.4 88.1 1.184 

120 72.2 85.3 1.181 

120 72.9 85.9 1.178 

120 76.1 89.1 1.171 

277 77.9 90.1 1.157 

T a bi e A 13 NEMA D t ~ 2 L 

· a a or - amp F40T12/ES EEM B a n as t 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 72 88 1.22 

120 74.4 90.6 1.22 

120 73 88.8 ·1.22 

277 72.4 87.8 1.21 

277 75.5 91.2 1.21 

277 73 88 1.21 

T a bi e A 14 NEMA D t ~ 2 L F40T12/ES CC B II · a a or - amp a ast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 57.9 79.5 1.37 

120 59 81 1.37 

277 60 81 1.35 

120 66.9 89.8 1.34 

277 60.7 80.8 1.33 

120 68.7 90.8 1.32 

277 68.8 90.3 1.31 

277 70 90 1.29 

A-8 
Table A.15 NEMA Data for 2-L,am F40T12/ES ERS Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

277 60 88 1.47

120 60 87 1.45

277 62.9 90.6 1.44

277 63.4 91.3 1.44

120 60.1 86.3 1.44

277 63.2 90.4 1.43

277 65.8 93.5 1.42

120 62.6 87.6 1.4

120 63.8 88.7 1.39

120 64.3 88.7 1.38

120 64.6 88.5 1.37

120 64 86.6 1.35

277 65 87.2 1.34

Table A.16 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F96T12 EEM Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

277 160.4 96.1 0.599

120 156.7 92.8 0.592

120 158 94 0.59

277 158 94 0.59

277 163.2 95.6 0.586

120 160.7 93.1 0.579

Table A.17 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F96T12 EIS Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

277 129 86 0.666

277 136.1 88.8 0.652

277 136.1 88.6 0.651

120 132 86 0.651

277 131.8 85.8 0.651

120 139.2 90 0.647

120 140 88.1 0.629

120 149 91.9 0.617

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

T a bi e A 15 NEMA D t ~ 2 L F40T12IES ERS B n 

· 

a a or - amp a ast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 60 88 1.47 

120 60 87 1.45 

277 62.9 90.6 1.44 

277 63.4 91.3 1.44 

120 60.1 86.3 1.44 

277 63.2 90.4 1.43 

277 65.8 93.5 1.42 

120 62.6 87.6 1.4 

120 63.8 88.7 1.39 

120 64.3 88.7 1.38 

120 64.6 88.5 1.37 

120 64 86.6 1.35 

277 65 87.2 1.34 

T a bI e A 16 NEMA D t ~ 2 L F96T12 EEM B n t 

· 

a a or - amp a as 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 160.4 96.1 0.599 

120 156.7 92.8 0.592 

120 158 94 0.59 

277 158 94 0.59 

277 163.2 95.6 0.586 

120 160.7 93.1 0.579 

T a bi e A 17 NEMA D t ~ 2 L F96T12 EIS B II t · a a or - amp a as 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 129 86 0.666 

277 136.1 88.8 0.652 

277 136.1 88.6 0.651 

120 132 86 0.651 

277 131.8 85.8 0.651 

120 139.2 90 0.647 

120 140 88.1 0.629 

120 149 91.9 0.617 

A-9 

T a bi e A 15 NEMA D t ~ 2 L F40T12IES ERS B n 

· 

a a or - amp a ast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 60 88 1.47 

120 60 87 1.45 

277 62.9 90.6 1.44 

277 63.4 91.3 1.44 

120 60.1 86.3 1.44 

277 63.2 90.4 1.43 

277 65.8 93.5 1.42 

120 62.6 87.6 1.4 

120 63.8 88.7 1.39 

120 64.3 88.7 1.38 

120 64.6 88.5 1.37 

120 64 86.6 1.35 

277 65 87.2 1.34 

T a bI e A 16 NEMA D t ~ 2 L F96T12 EEM B n t 

· 

a a or - amp a as 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 160.4 96.1 0.599 

120 156.7 92.8 0.592 

120 158 94 0.59 

277 158 94 0.59 

277 163.2 95.6 0.586 

120 160.7 93.1 0.579 

T a bi e A 17 NEMA D t ~ 2 L F96T12 EIS B II t · a a or - amp a as 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 129 86 0.666 

277 136.1 88.8 0.652 

277 136.1 88.6 0.651 

120 132 86 0.651 

277 131.8 85.8 0.651 

120 139.2 90 0.647 

120 140 88.1 0.629 

120 149 91.9 0.617 

A-9 
Table A.18 NENIA Data for 2-Lamp F96T12/ES EEM Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

120 125.6 89.5 0.71

277 126.9 89.7 0.71

277 129.6 91.2 0.7

120 127.2 88.3 0.69

120 124 85 0.69

277 124 85 0.69

Table A.19 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F96T12/ES EIS Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

277 111.3 89.1 0.79

120 108 86 0.8

277 108 86 0.8

120 113.4 89.5 0.79

277 113.7 89.4 0.79

277 110.1 86.5 0.79

120 115.7 89.1 0.77

120 122.8 92.9 0.76

Table A.20 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F96T12II0 EEM Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

120 237 95.3 0.402

277 237 97 0.4

277 241.2 96.5 0.4

120 237 96 0.4

277 245.2 97.9 0.399

120 241.2 95.8 0.397

Table A.21 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F96T12HO CC Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

120

277

211.6

219.2

89.8

91.2

0.424

0.416

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

T a bi e A 18 NEMA D ~ 2 L F96T12/ES EEM B n 

· 

ata or - amp a ast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 125.6 89.5 0.71 

277 126.9 89.7 0.71 

277 129.6 91.2 0.7 

120 127.2 88.3 0.69 

120 124 85 0.69 

277 124 85 0.69 

T a bi e A 19 NEMA D t ~ 2 L F96T12/ES EIS B II t · a a or - amp a as 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 111.3 89.1 0.79 

120 108 86 0.8 

277 108 86 0.8 

120 113.4 89.5 0.79 

277 113.7 89.4 0.79 

277 110.1 86.5 0.79 

120 115.7 89.1 0.77 

120 122.8 92.9 0.76 

T a bi e A 20 NEMA D t ~ 2 L F96T12HO EEM B II t · a a or - amp a as 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 237 95.3 0.402 

277 237 97 0.4 

277 241.2 96.5 0.4 

120 237 96 0.4 

277 245.2 97.9 0.399 

120 241.2 95.8 0.397 

T a bi e A 21 NEMA D t ~ 2 L · a a or - amp F96T12HO CC B II as t a 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 211.6 89.8 0.424 

277 219.2 91.2 0.416 

A-lO 

T a bi e A 18 NEMA D t ~ 2 L F96T12/ES EEM B n t · a a or - amp a as 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 125.6 89.5 0.71 

277 126.9 89.7 0.71 

277 129.6 91.2 0.7 

120 127.2 88.3 0.69 

120 124 85 0.69 

277 124 85 0.69 

T a bi e A 19 NEMA D t ~ 2 L F96T12/ES EIS B II t · a a or - amp a as 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 111.3 89.1 0.79 

120 108 86 0.8 

277 108 86 0.8 

120 113.4 89.5 0.79 

277 113.7 89.4 0.79 

277 110.1 86.5 0.79 

120 115.7 89.1 0.77 

120 122.8 92.9 0.76 

T a bi e A 20 NEMA D ~ 2 L F96T12HO EEM B II · ata or - amp a ast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 237 95.3 0.402 

277 237 97 0.4 

277 241.2 96.5 0.4 

120 237 96 0.4 

277 245.2 97.9 0.399 

120 241.2 95.8 0.397 

T a bi e A 21 NEMA D t ~ 2 L · a a or - amp F96T12HO CC B II as t a 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 211.6 89.8 0.424 

277 219.2 91.2 0.416 

A-lO 
Table A.22 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F96T12H® ERS Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

277 205.5 90 0.438

120 195 85 0.435

277 195 85 0.435

120 207.6 89.2 0.43

277 196.3 84.2 0.429

120 194.5 82.6 0.425

Table A.23 NE Data for 2-Lamp F96T12HO/ES EEM Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

120 196.1 89.4 0.46

277 198.4 89.5 0.45

120 204 91 0.45

277 205 91 0.44

277 201.1 84.9 0.42

120 200.7 84.3 0.42

Table A.24 NE Data for 2-Lamp F96T12HO/ES CC Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

120

277

180.8

186.6

86.4

87.7

0.48

0.47

Table A.25 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F96T12HO/ES ERS Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

120 164 85 0.52

277 164 85 0.52

277 176.3 87.9 0.5

120 177.3 87.6 0.49

277 169.4 82.3 0.49

120 169.2 81.2 0.48

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

T a bi e A 22 NEMA D ~ 2 L F96T12HO ERS B II · 

ata or - amp a ast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 205.5 90 0.438 

120 195 85 0.435 

277 195 85 0.435 

120 207.6 89.2 0.43 

277 196.3 84.2 0.429 

120 194.5 82.6 0.425 

T a e bi A 23 NEMA D t ~ 2 L F96T12HO/ES EEM B n t · a a or - amp a as 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 196.1 89.4 0.46 

277 198.4 89.5 0.45 

120 204 91 0.45 

277 205 91 0.44 

277 201.1 84.9 0.42 

120 200.7 84.3 0.42 

T a bi e A 24 NEMA D ~ 2 L · 

ata or - amp F96T12HOIES CC B a II ast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 180.8 86.4 0.48 

277 186.6 87.7 0.47 

T a bi e A 25 NEMA D t ~ 2 L F96T12HOIES ERS B II · a a or - amp a ast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 164 85 0.52 

277 164 85 0.52 

277 176.3 87.9 0.5 

120 177.3 87.6 0.49 

277 169.4 82.3 0.49 

120 169.2 81.2 0.48 

A-ll 

T a bi e A 22 NEMA D ~ 2 L F96T12HO ERS B II · 

ata or - amp a ast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 205.5 90 0.438 

120 195 85 0.435 

277 195 85 0.435 

120 207.6 89.2 0.43 

277 196.3 84.2 0.429 

120 194.5 82.6 0.425 

T a e bi A 23 NEMA D t ~ 2 L F96T12HO/ES EEM B n t · a a or - amp a as 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 196.1 89.4 0.46 

277 198.4 89.5 0.45 

120 204 91 0.45 

277 205 91 0.44 

277 201.1 84.9 0.42 

120 200.7 84.3 0.42 

T a bi e A 24 NEMA D ~ 2 L · 

ata or - amp F96T12HOIES CC B a II ast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 180.8 86.4 0.48 

277 186.6 87.7 0.47 

T a bi e A 25 NEMA D t ~ 2 L F96T12HOIES ERS B II · a a or - amp a ast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 164 85 0.52 

277 164 85 0.52 

277 176.3 87.9 0.5 

120 177.3 87.6 0.49 

277 169.4 82.3 0.49 

120 169.2 81.2 0.48 

A-ll 
Table A.26 NEMA Data for 3-Lam F40T12 ERS Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

277 104.4 90 0.859

120 109.2 88.8 0.813

277 107.1 86 0.803

277 109.8 86.1 0.784

277 109.8 85.7 0.781

120 109 85 0.78

120 108.1 84 0.774

120 114.3 87.8 0.768

120 112.6 86.4 0.767

277 114.3 87.3 0.764

120 114.6 86.5 0.755

Table A.27 NEMA Data for 3-Lam F40T12/ES ERS Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

277 90 86 0.96

277 92.8 86.2 0.93

120 89.1 82.6 0.93

277 94.4 86.6 0.92

277 95.1 86.7 0.91

120 92.8 84.4 0.91

120 94.7 86.1 0.91

120 97.6 88.5 0.91

277 90.6 81.7 0.9

120 99.3 88.6 0.89

Table A.28 SLDL Data for 4-Lamp F40T12 ERS Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

120 146 87 0.6

Table A.29 NEMA Data for 1-Lam F32T8 EEM Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

277 38.6 95.1 2.464

120 38.7 95.1 2.457

120 39.3 95.8 2.44

277 41 95.4 2.43

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

T a bI e A 26 NEMA D t ~ 3 L F40T12 ERS B n t 

· a a or - amp a as 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 104.4 90 0.859 

120 109.2 88.8 0.813 

277 107.1 86 0.803 

277 109.8 86.1 0.784 

277 109.8 85.7 0.781 

120 109 85 0.78 

120 108.1 84 0.774 

120 114.3 87.8 0.768 

120 112.6 86.4 0.767 

277 114.3 87.3 0.764 

120 114.6 86.5 0.755 

T a bi e A 27 NEMA D ~ 3 L F40T12/ES ERS B n 

· 

ata or - amp a ast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 90 86 0.96 

277 92.8 86.2 0.93 

120 89.1 82.6 0.93 

277 94.4 86.6 0.92 

277 95.1 86.7 0.91 

120 92.8 84.4 0.91 

120 94.7 86.1 0.91 

120 97.6 88.5 0.91 

277 90.6 81.7 0.9 

120 99.3 88.6 0.89 

F40T12 ERS Ballast 

Watts BF BEF 

146 87 0.6 

T a bI e A 29 NEMA D t ~ 1 L 

· 

a a or - amp F32T8 EEM B a II as t 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 38.6 95.1 2.464 

120 38.7 95.1 2.457 

120 39.3 95.8 2.44 

277 41 95.4 2.43 

A-12 

T a bI e A 26 NEMA D t ~ 3 L F40T12 ERS B n t 

· a a or - amp a as 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 104.4 90 0.859 

120 109.2 88.8 0.813 

277 107.1 86 0.803 

277 109.8 86.1 0.784 

277 109.8 85.7 0.781 

120 109 85 0.78 

120 108.1 84 0.774 

120 114.3 87.8 0.768 

120 112.6 86.4 0.767 

277 114.3 87.3 0.764 

120 114.6 86.5 0.755 

T a bi e A 27 NEMA D ~ 3 L F40T12/ES ERS B n 

· 

ata or - amp a ast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 90 86 0.96 

277 92.8 86.2 0.93 

120 89.1 82.6 0.93 

277 94.4 86.6 0.92 

277 95.1 86.7 0.91 

120 92.8 84.4 0.91 

120 94.7 86.1 0.91 

120 97.6 88.5 0.91 

277 90.6 81.7 0.9 

120 99.3 88.6 0.89 

F40T12 ERS Ballast 

Watts BF BEF 

146 87 0.6 

T a bI e A 29 NEMA D t ~ 1 L 

· 

a a or - amp F32T8 EEM B a II as t 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 38.6 95.1 2.464 

120 38.7 95.1 2.457 

120 39.3 95.8 2.44 

277 41 95.4 2.43 

A-12 
Table A.30 NEMA Data for 1-Lam F32T8 EIS Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

277 31.9 94 2.974

120 29.8 88.2 2.96

277 27.2 79 2.905

277 29.7 86.1 2.9

120 30 85.5 2.85

120 27 75 2.792

120 31.1 85 2.753

277 32.1 86.3 2.688

Table A.31 NENIA. Data for 1-Lamp F32T8 EIS Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

277 30 90 3.00

277 30 89.7 2.99

120 31 92.4 2.98

120 30.7 91.2 2.97

277 29.1 85 2.92

120 30 89 2.9

120 32.9 89 2.9

277 32.8 88 2.68

Table A.32 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F32T8 EEM Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

120 73.8 95.8 1.298

120 75.3 97.1 1.29

277 76 97.9 1.288

277 74.4 94.6 1.272

120 76 97 1.27

277 77 96 1.25

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Ta bi e A3 .0 NEMA D ata ~ or 1 L - ampF3 2 TSER S Ballast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 31.9 94 2.974 

120 29.8 88.2 2.96 

277 27.2 79 2.905 

277 29.7 86.1 2.9 

120 30 85.5 2.85 

120 27 75 2.792 

120 31.1 85 2.753 

277 32.1 86.3 2.688 

T a bi e A 3 . 1 NEMA D ata ~ or 1 L - amp F32TS EIS B al I ast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 30 90 3.00 

277 30 89.7 2.99 

120 31 92.4 2.98 

120 30.7 91.2 2.97 

277 29.1 85 2.92 

120 30 89 2.9 

120 32.9 89 2.9 

277 32.8 88 2.68 

T a bi e A . 32 NEMA D ata ~ or 2 L - amp F32TS EEM B a II as t 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 73.8 95.8 1.298 

120 75.3 97.1 1.29 

277 76 97.9 1.288 

277 74.4 94.6 1.272 

120 76 97 1.27 

277 77 96 1.25 

A-13 

Ta bi e A3 .0 NEMA D ata ~ or 1 L - ampF3 2 TSER S Ballast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 31.9 94 2.974 

120 29.8 88.2 2.96 

277 27.2 79 2.905 

277 29.7 86.1 2.9 

120 30 85.5 2.85 

120 27 75 2.792 

120 31.1 85 2.753 

277 32.1 86.3 2.688 

T a bi e A 3 . 1 NEMA D ata ~ or 1 L - amp F32TS EIS B al I ast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 30 90 3.00 

277 30 89.7 2.99 

120 31 92.4 2.98 

120 30.7 91.2 2.97 

277 29.1 85 2.92 

120 30 89 2.9 

120 32.9 89 2.9 

277 32.8 88 2.68 

T a bi e A . 32 NEMA D ata ~ or 2 L - amp F32TS EEM B a II as t 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 73.8 95.8 1.298 

120 75.3 97.1 1.29 

277 76 97.9 1.288 

277 74.4 94.6 1.272 

120 76 97 1.27 

277 77 96 1.25 

A-13 
Table A.33 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F32T8 CC Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

120 62.6 85.5 1.366

277 61.8 84.4 1.366

277 62.3 85 1.365

120 61.7 84.2 1.365

Table A.34 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F32T8 ERS Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

277 62.2 94.7 1.523

277 85.5 130 1.465

120 63.8 95.4 1.495

277 60.4 89.7 1.485

120 54.2 80 1.42

120 61 90 1.45

120 89.2 130 1.431

120 61.3 89.2 1.456

277 62 90 1.45

120 61.9 88.8 1.435

277 55.9 80 1.43

120 61.5 88 1.43

277 61.5 88 1.43

277 62.8 88.3 1.406

120 61.6 85.9 1.394

277 63.9 89 1.393

Table A.35 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F32T8 EIS Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

277 58.5 89.8 1.535

120 61.7 94.4 1.53

277 59 90 1.53

277 58.5 88.5 1.513

277 51.4 77.5 1.508

120 58.8 88.6 1.507

120 51.5 77.6 1.507

120 62 93 1.5

277 62 93 1.5

277 58.5 87.7 1.499

277 58.2 87.2 1.498

120 59.3 88.6 1.494

120 59 88 1.5

120 59.4 88.4 1.488

120 59.5 86.4 1.45

277 59.7 86.5 1.45

A-14

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

T I ab eA. 33 NEMA D ata ~ or 2 L - ampF 32 T 8 CC B allast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 62.6 85.5 1.366 

277 61.8 84.4 1.366 

277 62.3 85 1.365 

120 61.7 84.2 1.365 

T a bI e A . 34 N EMA D ata ~ or 2 L - amp F32 T 8 ERS B a II ast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 62.2 94.7 1.523 

277 85.5 130 1.465 

120 63.8 95.4 1.495 

277 60.4 89.7 1.485 

120 54.2 80 1.42 

120 61 90 1.45 

120 89.2 130 1.431 

120 61.3 89.2 1.456 

277 62 90 1.45 

120 61.9 88.8 1.435 

277 55.9 80 1.43 

120 61.5 88 1.43 

277 61.5 88 1.43 

277 62.8 88.3 1.406 

120 61.6 85.9 1.394 

277 63.9 89 1.393 

T a bI e A . 35 NEMA D t a a ~ or 2 L - amp F32T8 EIS B a II as t 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 58.5 89.8 1.535 

120 61.7 94.4 1.53 

277 59 90 1.53 

277 58.5 88.5 1.513 

277 51.4 77.5 1.508 

120 58.8 88.6 1.507 

120 51.5 77.6 1.507 

120 62 93 1.5 

277 62 93 1.5 

277 58.5 87.7 1.499 

277 58.2 87.2 1.498 

120 59.3 88.6 1.494 

120 59 88 1.5 

120 59.4 88.4 1.488 

120 59.5 86.4 1.45 

277 59.7 86.5 1.45 

A-14 

T I ab eA. 33 NEMA D ata ~ or 2 L - ampF 32 T 8 CC B allast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 62.6 85.5 1.366 

277 61.8 84.4 1.366 

277 62.3 85 1.365 

120 61.7 84.2 1.365 

T a bI e A . 34 N EMA D ata ~ or 2 L - amp F32 T 8 ERS B a II ast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 62.2 94.7 1.523 

277 85.5 130 1.465 

120 63.8 95.4 1.495 

277 60.4 89.7 1.485 

120 54.2 80 1.42 

120 61 90 1.45 

120 89.2 130 1.431 

120 61.3 89.2 1.456 

277 62 90 1.45 

120 61.9 88.8 1.435 

277 55.9 80 1.43 

120 61.5 88 1.43 

277 61.5 88 1.43 

277 62.8 88.3 1.406 

120 61.6 85.9 1.394 

277 63.9 89 1.393 

T a bI e A . 35 NEMA D t a a ~ or 2 L - amp F32T8 EIS B a II as t 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 58.5 89.8 1.535 

120 61.7 94.4 1.53 

277 59 90 1.53 

277 58.5 88.5 1.513 

277 51.4 77.5 1.508 

120 58.8 88.6 1.507 

120 51.5 77.6 1.507 

120 62 93 1.5 

277 62 93 1.5 

277 58.5 87.7 1.499 

277 58.2 87.2 1.498 

120 59.3 88.6 1.494 

120 59 88 1.5 

120 59.4 88.4 1.488 

120 59.5 86.4 1.45 

277 59.7 86.5 1.45 

A-14 
Table A.36 ICE Data for 3-barn F32T8 ERS Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

277 75.7 77 1.02

277 90.5 91 1.009

120 86.8 87 1.005

277 94.3 93 0.986

120 96.9 94.1 0.971

120 78.4 76 0.971

120 92.0 88.7 0.964

277 91.8 87.9 0.958

277 95.7 88.1 0.921

120 97.4 88.5 0.909

Table A.37 NE Data for 3-Lamp F32T8 EIS Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

120 87.9 93 1.058

277 86.5 89.7 1.037

277 76.1 78.5 1.032

277 90.9 93.9 1.03

120 90.6 93.3 1.03

277 90.5 93.2 1.03

277 85 88 1.03

120 76 78 1.026

120 87.7 89.8 1.024

120 86 87 1.02

277 88.2 89.7 1.017

277 86.6 87.8 1.015

120 88.3 89 1.008

120 86.1 85.8 0.995

Table A.38 NE Data for 4-Lamp F32T8 EIS Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

120

277

122.8

124.8

89.1

89.5

0.726

0.717

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

T a bi e A 36 NEMA D t t 3 L · 

a a or - amp F32T8 ERS B n as t a 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 75.7 77 1.02 

277 90.5 91 1.009 

120 86.8 87 1.005 

277 94.3 93 0.986 

120 96.9 94.1 0.971 

120 78.4 76 0.971 

120 92.0 88.7 0.964 

277 91.8 87.9 0.958 

277 95.7 88.1 0.921 

120 97.4 88.5 0.909 

T a bI e A 3 NEMA D t 3 L · 7 ata or - amp F32 T 8 EI S B aUast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 87.9 93 1.058 

277 86.5 89.7 1.037 

277 76.1 78.5 1.032 

277 90.9 93.9 1.03 

120 90.6 93.3 1.03 

277 90.5 93.2 1.03 

277 85 88 1.03 

120 76 78 1.026 

120 87.7 89.8 1.024 

120 86 87 1.02 

277 88.2 89.7 1.017 

277 86.6 87.8 1.015 

120 88.3 89 1.008 

120 86.1 85.8 0.995 

T a bi e A 38 NEMA D t 4 L 

· 

ata or - amp F32 T 8 ERS Ballast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 122.8 89.1 0.726 

277 124.8 89.5 0.717 

A-I5 

T a bi e A 36 NEMA D t t 3 L · 

a a or - amp F32T8 ERS B n as t a 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 75.7 77 1.02 

277 90.5 91 1.009 

120 86.8 87 1.005 

277 94.3 93 0.986 

120 96.9 94.1 0.971 

120 78.4 76 0.971 

120 92.0 88.7 0.964 

277 91.8 87.9 0.958 

277 95.7 88.1 0.921 

120 97.4 88.5 0.909 

T a bI e A 3 NEMA D t 3 L · 7 ata or - amp F32 T 8 EI S B aUast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 87.9 93 1.058 

277 86.5 89.7 1.037 

277 76.1 78.5 1.032 

277 90.9 93.9 1.03 

120 90.6 93.3 1.03 

277 90.5 93.2 1.03 

277 85 88 1.03 

120 76 78 1.026 

120 87.7 89.8 1.024 

120 86 87 1.02 

277 88.2 89.7 1.017 

277 86.6 87.8 1.015 

120 88.3 89 1.008 

120 86.1 85.8 0.995 

T a bi e A 38 NEMA D t 4 L 

· 

ata or - amp F32 T 8 ERS Ballast 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

120 122.8 89.1 0.726 

277 124.8 89.5 0.717 

A-I5 
Table A.39 NEMA Data for 4-Lamp F32T8 EIS Ballast

Volts Watts BF BEF

277 112.1 87.7 0.782

277 100 78.1 0.781

277 112.1 87.4 0.78

277 101 79 0.78

120 114.2 89 0.779

120 113.3 88.3 0.779

120 101.2 78.5 0.776

277 108.2 83.6 0.773

120 111 86 0.77

277 111 85 0.77

120 106.9 82.3 0.77

120 101 78 0.77

277 114.1 87.3 0.765

120 113 85.1 0.753

A.4 LIGHTING HOURS DATA

The lighting operating hours used in the engineering analysis were derived from a database

of lighting equipment audits conducted by Xenergy Inc. Extracts of Xenergy's XENCAP database

containing over 32,000 audits for the commercial and industrial sectors were obtained . These were

aggregated to the three-digit zip code level to protect the confidentiality of Xenergy's customers.

This database includes information on building type, building floor space, audit year , building

operating hours, whether the lighting is interior or exterior , average lighting hours for each type of

lighting equipment, and lamp counts. Lighting equipment is identified by its lamp type (including

wattage), the number of lamps per fixture, and, in the case of fluorescent lamps, by its ballast type.

We used a database management program to aggregate the Xenergy data. Data from audit

years 1990-1995 (over 24,000 buildings) were aggregated across these audit years and across all zip

codes to estimate national average lighting hours by Xenergy building type . This aggregation was

done separately for 4-foot systems, 8 -foot systems, and 8-foot high output systems. Only those

lamp/ballast combinations that are considered in the engineering and national energy analyses were

included in the average.

To obtain averages, lighting hours for each of the original Xenergy database records were

weighted by the ballast count associated with each record. Because the Xenergy data reported the

number of fixtures rather than number of ballasts, we made the following assumptions to estimate

ballasts per record. For magnetic ballasts, we assumed that 1- and 2-lamp fixtures contained one

ballast, and that 3 - and 4 - lamp fixtures contained 2 ballasts per fixture. For electronic ballasts, we

assumed one ballast per fixture for all cases (the highest reported number of lamps per fixture was

4). LBNL used the following commercial building types in the analysis : small office , large office,

restaurant, retail, grocery, warehouse , schools, colleges, health , lodging, assembly, and

miscellaneous. For those building types where one LBNL building type corresponded to more than

A-16

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

T a bi e A . 39 NEMA D a a t ~ or 4 L - amp F32T8 EIS B n as t a 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 112.l 87.7 0.782 

277 100 78.l 0.781 

277 112.l 87.4 0.78 

277 101 79 0.78 

120 114.2 89 0.779 

120 113.3 88.3 0.779 

120 101.2 78.5 0.776 

277 108.2 83.6 0.773 

120 III 86 0.77 

277 III 85 0.77 

120 106.9 82.3 0.77 

120 101 78 0.77 

277 114.1 87.3 0.765 

120 113 85.l 0.753 

A.4 LIGHTING HOURS DATA 

The lighting operating hours used in the engineering analysis were derived from a database 

of lighting equipment audits conducted by Xenergy mc. Extracts ofXenergy's XENCAP database 

containing over 32,000 audits for the commercial and industrial sectors were obtained. These were 

aggregated to the three-digit zip code level to protect the confidentiality ofXenergy's customers. 

This database includes information on building type, building floor space, audit year, building 

operating hours, whether the lighting is interior or exterior, average lighting hours for each type of 

lighting equipment, and lamp counts. Lighting equipment is identified by its lamp type (including 

wattage), the number of lamps per fixture, and, in the case of fluorescent lamps, by its ballast type. 

We used a database management program to aggregate the Xenergy data. Data from audit 

years 1990-1995 (over 24,000 buildings) were aggregated across these audit years and across all zip 

codes to estimate national average lighting hours by Xenergy building type. This aggregation was 

done separately for 4-foot systems, 8-foot systems, and 8-foot high output systems. Only those 

lamplballast combinations that are considered in the engineering and national energy analyses were 

included in the average. 

To obtain averages, lighting hours for each of the original Xenergy database records were 

weighted by the ballast count associated with each record. Because the Xenergy data reported the 

number of fixtures rather than number of ballasts, we made the following assumptions to estimate 

ballasts per record. For magnetic ballasts, we assumed that 1- and 2-lamp fixtures contained one 

ballast, and that 3- and 4-lamp fixtures contained 2 ballasts per fixture. For electronic ballasts, we 

assumed one ballast per fixture for all cases (the highest reported number oflamps per fixture was 

4). LBNL used the following commercial building types in the analysis: small office, large office, 

restaurant, retail, grocery, warehouse, schools, colleges, health, lodging, assembly, and 

miscellaneous. For those building types where one LBNL building type corresponded to more than 

A-16 

T a bi e A . 39 NEMA D a a t ~ or 4 L - amp F32T8 EIS B n as t a 

Volts Watts BF BEF 

277 112.l 87.7 0.782 

277 100 78.l 0.781 

277 112.l 87.4 0.78 

277 101 79 0.78 

120 114.2 89 0.779 

120 113.3 88.3 0.779 

120 101.2 78.5 0.776 

277 108.2 83.6 0.773 

120 III 86 0.77 

277 III 85 0.77 

120 106.9 82.3 0.77 

120 101 78 0.77 

277 114.1 87.3 0.765 

120 113 85.l 0.753 

A.4 LIGHTING HOURS DATA 

The lighting operating hours used in the engineering analysis were derived from a database 

of lighting equipment audits conducted by Xenergy mc. Extracts ofXenergy's XENCAP database 

containing over 32,000 audits for the commercial and industrial sectors were obtained. These were 

aggregated to the three-digit zip code level to protect the confidentiality ofXenergy's customers. 

This database includes information on building type, building floor space, audit year, building 

operating hours, whether the lighting is interior or exterior, average lighting hours for each type of 

lighting equipment, and lamp counts. Lighting equipment is identified by its lamp type (including 

wattage), the number of lamps per fixture, and, in the case of fluorescent lamps, by its ballast type. 

We used a database management program to aggregate the Xenergy data. Data from audit 

years 1990-1995 (over 24,000 buildings) were aggregated across these audit years and across all zip 

codes to estimate national average lighting hours by Xenergy building type. This aggregation was 

done separately for 4-foot systems, 8-foot systems, and 8-foot high output systems. Only those 

lamplballast combinations that are considered in the engineering and national energy analyses were 

included in the average. 

To obtain averages, lighting hours for each of the original Xenergy database records were 

weighted by the ballast count associated with each record. Because the Xenergy data reported the 

number of fixtures rather than number of ballasts, we made the following assumptions to estimate 

ballasts per record. For magnetic ballasts, we assumed that 1- and 2-lamp fixtures contained one 

ballast, and that 3- and 4-lamp fixtures contained 2 ballasts per fixture. For electronic ballasts, we 

assumed one ballast per fixture for all cases (the highest reported number oflamps per fixture was 

4). LBNL used the following commercial building types in the analysis: small office, large office, 

restaurant, retail, grocery, warehouse, schools, colleges, health, lodging, assembly, and 

miscellaneous. For those building types where one LBNL building type corresponded to more than 

A-16 
one Xenergy building type, data were combined to get average lighting hours by LBNL building

type.

Next we obtained an average across the commercial sector building types. We used the

Xenergy lighting hours for each commercial building type, weighted by the square footage of each

building type found in the U.S., as reported in CBECS(7). The average lighting hours obtained for

the commercial sector (rounded to the nearest 100) were 3600 for 4-foot lamp ballasts, 3600 for 8-

foot lamp ballasts, and 4000 for 8-foot high output lamp ballasts.

For this analysis, industrial lighting is represented by one building type. We simply used the

average for each ballast type obtained for the Xenergy industrial building type. The average annual

industrial lighting hours (rounded to the nearest 100) for the systems considered in the industrial

sector were 4000 for 8-foot lamp ballasts, and 5000 for 8-foot high output lamp ballasts.

Finally, these hours were adjusted to account for the fact that the hours for magnetic ballasts,

which are affected by standards, tend to be lower than those for the entire ballast stock. In contrast,

electronic ballasts tend to have higher operating hours since users with higher hours would tend to

switch to more efficient ballasts earlier on. The weighted averages of the commercial sector annual

lighting hours for the different lamp-ballast combinations are: 3400 hours for F40T12 and F32T8;

3300 hours for F96T12; and 3700 hours for F96T12HO. The industrial sector annual lighting hours

for the applicable lamp-ballast combinations are: 3700 hours for F96T12 and 4600 hours for

F96T 12HO. The commercial sector hours are used for the F40T12, F32T8, and F96T 12 lamp-ballast

combinations, while the industrial hours are used for the F96T12HO lamp-ballast combinations.

We performed additional analysis and found that for 4-foot commercial ballasts in the

Xenergy data set, there is a significant difference in the lighting hours for magnetic ballasts (annual

average 3600 hours/year) and electronic ballasts (annual average 4100 hours/year). We found

similar results for other ballast types where enough data were available to make a comparison (4-foot

industrial and 8-foot commercial), and for the Green Lights data set. This is consistent with the

proposal that magnetic ballast end users have lower average operating hours because users with

higher hours are more likely to switch to electronic ballasts. For more detail, see Chapter 4.

Since standards would impact only those end users who have not already switched to

electronic ballasts, the distribution and point value that should be used for the analysis are those that

would be representative of magnetic ballast users in the year that a ballast efficiency standard would

go into effect. Simply using the distribution and average values for magnetic ballasts from the

Xenergy data set is not likely to be representative of the lighting hours for magnetic users in the year

standards would be implemented because the Xenergy data were taken at a point in time when only

5% of those surveyed had switched to electronic. Over time, it is expected that the lighting hours

for magnetic users will shift downward, as users with higher lighting hours shift to electronic

ballasts. Lighting hours for electronic ballasts should also shift downward over time, since it is

expected that the earliest adopters will be at the highest hours, and later adopters will have somewhat

lower average hours.

DOE assumed that 50% of the ballasts in the building stock would be electronic at the time

a standard goes into effect leaving 50% as magnetic. The goal, then, was to estimate the distribution

A-17

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

one Xenergy building type, data were combined to get average lighting hours by LBNL building 

type. 

Next we obtained an average across the commercial sector building types. We used the 

Xenergy lighting hours for each commercial building type, weighted by the square footage of each 

building type found in the U.S., as reported in CBECS(7). The average lighting hours obtained for 

the commercial sector (rounded to the nearest 100) were 3600 for 4-foot lamp ballasts, 3600 for 8-

foot lamp ballasts, and 4000 for 8-foot high output lamp ballasts. 

For this analysis, industrial lighting is represented by one building type. We simply used the 

average for each ballast type obtained for the Xenergy industrial building type. The average annual 

industrial lighting hours (rounded to the nearest 100) for the systems considered in the industrial 

sector were 4000 for 8-foot lamp ballasts, and 5000 for 8-foot high output lamp ballasts. 

Finally, these hours were adjusted to account for the fact that the hours for magnetic ballasts, 

which are affected by standards, tend to be lower than those for the entire ballast stock. In contrast, 

electronic ballasts tend to have higher operating hours since users with higher hours would tend to 

switch to more efficient ballasts earlier on. The weighted averages of the commercial sector annual 

lighting hours for the different lamp-ballast combinations are: 3400 hours for F40T12 and F32T8; 

3300 hours for F96T12; and 3700 hours for F96T12HO. The industrial sector annual lighting hours 

for the applicable lamp-ballast combinations are: 3700 hours for F96T12 and 4600 hours for 

F96T 12HO. The commercial sector hours are used for the F40T12, F32T8, and F96T12Iamp-ballast 

combinations, while the industrial hours are used for the F96T12HO lamp-ballast combinations. 

We performed additional analysis and found that for 4-foot commercial ballasts in the 

Xenergy data set, there is a significant difference in the lighting hours for magnetic ballasts (annual 

average 3600 hours/year) and electronic ballasts (annual average 4100 hours/year). We found 

similar results for other ballast types where enough data were available to make a comparison (4-foot 

industrial and 8-foot commercial), and for the Green Lights data set. This is consistent with the 

proposal that magnetic ballast end users have lower average operating hours because users with 

higher hours are more likely to switch to electronic ballasts. For more detail, see Chapter 4. 

Since standards would impact only those end users who have not already switched to 

electronic ballasts, the distribution and point value that should be used for the analysis are those that 

would be representative of magnetic ballast users in the year that a ballast efficiency standard would 

go into effect. Simply using the distribution and average values for magnetic ballasts from the 

Xenergy data set is not likely to be representative of the lighting hours for magnetic users in the year 

standards would be implemented because the Xenergy data were taken at a point in time when only 

5% of those surveyed had switched to electronic. Over time, it is expected that the lighting hours 

for magnetic users will shift downward, as users with higher lighting hours shift to electronic 

ballasts. Lighting hours for electronic ballasts should also shift downward over time, since it is 

expected that the earliest adopters will be at the highest hours, and later adopters will have somewhat 

lower average hours. 

DOE assumed that 50% of the ballasts in the building stock would be electronic at the time 

a standard goes into effect leaving 50% as magnetic. The goal, then, was to estimate the distribution 

A-17 

one Xenergy building type, data were combined to get average lighting hours by LBNL building 

type. 

Next we obtained an average across the commercial sector building types. We used the 

Xenergy lighting hours for each commercial building type, weighted by the square footage of each 

building type found in the U.S., as reported in CBECS(7). The average lighting hours obtained for 

the commercial sector (rounded to the nearest 100) were 3600 for 4-foot lamp ballasts, 3600 for 8-

foot lamp ballasts, and 4000 for 8-foot high output lamp ballasts. 

For this analysis, industrial lighting is represented by one building type. We simply used the 

average for each ballast type obtained for the Xenergy industrial building type. The average annual 

industrial lighting hours (rounded to the nearest 100) for the systems considered in the industrial 

sector were 4000 for 8-foot lamp ballasts, and 5000 for 8-foot high output lamp ballasts. 

Finally, these hours were adjusted to account for the fact that the hours for magnetic ballasts, 

which are affected by standards, tend to be lower than those for the entire ballast stock. In contrast, 

electronic ballasts tend to have higher operating hours since users with higher hours would tend to 

switch to more efficient ballasts earlier on. The weighted averages of the commercial sector annual 

lighting hours for the different lamp-ballast combinations are: 3400 hours for F40T12 and F32T8; 

3300 hours for F96T12; and 3700 hours for F96T12HO. The industrial sector annual lighting hours 

for the applicable lamp-ballast combinations are: 3700 hours for F96T12 and 4600 hours for 

F96T 12HO. The commercial sector hours are used for the F40T12, F32T8, and F96T12Iamp-ballast 

combinations, while the industrial hours are used for the F96T12HO lamp-ballast combinations. 

We performed additional analysis and found that for 4-foot commercial ballasts in the 

Xenergy data set, there is a significant difference in the lighting hours for magnetic ballasts (annual 

average 3600 hours/year) and electronic ballasts (annual average 4100 hours/year). We found 

similar results for other ballast types where enough data were available to make a comparison (4-foot 

industrial and 8-foot commercial), and for the Green Lights data set. This is consistent with the 

proposal that magnetic ballast end users have lower average operating hours because users with 

higher hours are more likely to switch to electronic ballasts. For more detail, see Chapter 4. 

Since standards would impact only those end users who have not already switched to 

electronic ballasts, the distribution and point value that should be used for the analysis are those that 

would be representative of magnetic ballast users in the year that a ballast efficiency standard would 

go into effect. Simply using the distribution and average values for magnetic ballasts from the 

Xenergy data set is not likely to be representative of the lighting hours for magnetic users in the year 

standards would be implemented because the Xenergy data were taken at a point in time when only 

5% of those surveyed had switched to electronic. Over time, it is expected that the lighting hours 

for magnetic users will shift downward, as users with higher lighting hours shift to electronic 

ballasts. Lighting hours for electronic ballasts should also shift downward over time, since it is 

expected that the earliest adopters will be at the highest hours, and later adopters will have somewhat 

lower average hours. 

DOE assumed that 50% of the ballasts in the building stock would be electronic at the time 

a standard goes into effect leaving 50% as magnetic. The goal, then, was to estimate the distribution 

A-17 
of lighting hours for magnetic ballasts at a point when their percentage penetration in buildings is

50%. It was assumed that the overall lighting hours distribution for all ballasts would not change

as the penetration shifts from magnetic to electronic ballasts. Therefore , if electronic ballasts were

to achieve 100% penetration, their lighting hours distribution would be the same as the total

distribution for electronics plus magnetics . Since the electronic ballast distribution is expected to

shift from the curve derived from the Xenergy data, where their penetration is 5%, to the curve for

all ballasts derived from the Xenergy data with 100% penetration of electronics, the assumption was

made that at 50% penetration of electronics, each point in the distribution would be halfway between

the distribution for all ballasts and the distribution for electronics at 5% penetration . The magnetic

lighting hours distribution was then estimated for 50% penetration by subtracting the distribution

estimated for 50% electronic penetration from the distribution for all ballasts.

Using this procedure , the projected average lighting hours for electronic ballasts at 50%

penetration is shifted upward from the overall average by half the amount that the 5% average is

shifted upward. For example, the average lighting hours for Oft commercial electronic ballasts at 5%

penetration is 4100 hours per year, which is 14% higher than the average for all ballasts of 3600

hours per year. The projected lighting hours for 4ft commercial electronic ballasts at 50%

penetration is only 7% higher than the total , or 3900 hours/yr (rounded to nearest 100). At 50%

penetration, the estimated magnetic ballast hours are shifted downward from the total by the same

amount that the electronic ballasts are shifted upward (in this case, 7%) so their estimated operating

hours are 3300 hrs/yr. This value was therefore used as the point estimate of lighting hours for 4 ft

commercial magnetic ballasts in the Life Cycle Cost analysis, and the distribution was used in the

sensitivity analysis.

The same procedure was followed to derive magnetic distributions for 8ft commercial and

4ft industrial ballasts.

For commercial 8ft HO and industrial 8ft and 8ftHO ballasts, there were not enough data on

electronic ballasts to use this approach. For these ballast types, we shifted all points in the total

distribution down by 7% to represent the magnetic distribution. We chose 7% because it is the

average shift we obtained from total to magnetic lighting hours for 4ft commercial, 4ft industrial,

and 8ft commercial.

A.5 LABOR COST DATA

Labor Rates

The hourly labor rate for a journeyman electrician is $50. This rate is based on the Base

Wage listed in the 1995 National Electrical Estimator (8). The Base Wage is then multiplied by

250% (the industry average multiplier which includes fringe benefits, taxes, workers compensation,

overhead, and profit) yielding the fully loaded labor rate.

The hourly labor rate for the electrician 's helper is $29.35. This rate is based on the typical

billing rate for Helpers (average for five trades) in the Means 1994 Electrical Cost Data (9). The

billing rate includes fringe benefits, workers compensation, taxes, overhead and profit.

A-18

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

oflighting hours for magnetic ballasts at a point when their percentage penetration in buildings is 

50%. It was assumed that the overall lighting hours distribution for all ballasts would not change 

as the penetration shifts from magnetic to electronic ballasts. Therefore, if electronic ballasts were 

to achieve 100% penetration, their lighting hours distribution would be the same as the total 

distribution for electronics plus magnetics. Since the electronic ballast distribution is expected to 

shift from the curve derived from the Xenergy data, where their penetration is 5%, to the curve for 

all ballasts derived from the Xenergy data with 100% penetration of electronics, the assumption was 

made that at 50% penetration of electronics, each point in the distribution would be halfway between 

the distribution for all ballasts and the distribution for electronics at 5% penetration. The magnetic 

lighting hours distribution was then estimated for 50% penetration by subtracting the distribution 

estimated for 50% electronic penetration from the distribution for all ballasts. 

Using this procedure, the projected average lighting hours for electronic ballasts at 50% 

penetration is shifted upward from the overall average by half the amount that the 5% average is 

shifted upward. For example, the average lighting hours for 4ft commercial electronic ballasts at 5% 

penetration is 4100 hours per year, which is 14% higher than the average for all ballasts of 3600 

hours per year. The projected lighting hours for 4ft commercial electronic ballasts at 50% 

penetration is only 7% higher than the total, or 3900 hours/yr (rounded to nearest 100). At 50% 

penetration, the estimated magnetic ballast hours are shifted downward from the total by the same 

amount that the electronic ballasts are shifted upward (in this case, 7%) so their estimated operating 

hours are 3300 hrs/yr. This value was therefore used as the point estimate oflighting hours for 4 ft 

commercial magnetic ballasts in the Life Cycle Cost analysis, and the distribution was used in the 

sensitivity analysis. 

The same procedure was followed to derive magnetic distributions for 8ft commercial and 

4ft industrial ballasts. 

For commercial 8ft HO and industrial 8ft and 8ftHO ballasts, there were not enough data on 

electronic ballasts to use this approach. For these ballast types, we shifted all points in the total 

distribution down by 7% to represent the magnetic distribution. We chose 7% because it is the 

average shift we obtained from total to magnetic lighting hours for 4ft commercial, 4ft industrial, 

and 8ft commercial. 

A.S LABORCOSTDATA 

Labor Rates 

The hourly labor rate for a journeyman electrician is $50. This rate is based on the Base 

Wage listed in the 1995 National Electrical Estimator (8). The Base Wage is then multiplied by 

25 0% (the industry average multiplier which includes fringe benefits, taxes, workers compensation, 

overhead, and profit) yielding the fully loaded labor rate. 

The hourly labor rate for the electrician's helper is $29.3 5. This rate js based on the typical 

billing rate for Helpers (average for five trades) in the Means 1994 Electrical Cost Data(9). The 

billing rate includes fringe benefits, workers compensation, taxes, overhead and profit. 

A-18 

oflighting hours for magnetic ballasts at a point when their percentage penetration in buildings is 

50%. It was assumed that the overall lighting hours distribution for all ballasts would not change 

as the penetration shifts from magnetic to electronic ballasts. Therefore, if electronic ballasts were 

to achieve 100% penetration, their lighting hours distribution would be the same as the total 

distribution for electronics plus magnetics. Since the electronic ballast distribution is expected to 

shift from the curve derived from the Xenergy data, where their penetration is 5%, to the curve for 

all ballasts derived from the Xenergy data with 100% penetration of electronics, the assumption was 

made that at 50% penetration of electronics, each point in the distribution would be halfway between 

the distribution for all ballasts and the distribution for electronics at 5% penetration. The magnetic 

lighting hours distribution was then estimated for 50% penetration by subtracting the distribution 

estimated for 50% electronic penetration from the distribution for all ballasts. 

Using this procedure, the projected average lighting hours for electronic ballasts at 50% 

penetration is shifted upward from the overall average by half the amount that the 5% average is 

shifted upward. For example, the average lighting hours for 4ft commercial electronic ballasts at 5% 

penetration is 4100 hours per year, which is 14% higher than the average for all ballasts of 3600 

hours per year. The projected lighting hours for 4ft commercial electronic ballasts at 50% 

penetration is only 7% higher than the total, or 3900 hours/yr (rounded to nearest 100). At 50% 

penetration, the estimated magnetic ballast hours are shifted downward from the total by the same 

amount that the electronic ballasts are shifted upward (in this case, 7%) so their estimated operating 

hours are 3300 hrs/yr. This value was therefore used as the point estimate oflighting hours for 4 ft 

commercial magnetic ballasts in the Life Cycle Cost analysis, and the distribution was used in the 

sensitivity analysis. 

The same procedure was followed to derive magnetic distributions for 8ft commercial and 

4ft industrial ballasts. 

For commercial 8ft HO and industrial 8ft and 8ftHO ballasts, there were not enough data on 

electronic ballasts to use this approach. For these ballast types, we shifted all points in the total 

distribution down by 7% to represent the magnetic distribution. We chose 7% because it is the 

average shift we obtained from total to magnetic lighting hours for 4ft commercial, 4ft industrial, 

and 8ft commercial. 

A.S LABORCOSTDATA 

Labor Rates 

The hourly labor rate for a journeyman electrician is $50. This rate is based on the Base 

Wage listed in the 1995 National Electrical Estimator (8). The Base Wage is then multiplied by 

25 0% (the industry average multiplier which includes fringe benefits, taxes, workers compensation, 

overhead, and profit) yielding the fully loaded labor rate. 

The hourly labor rate for the electrician's helper is $29.3 5. This rate js based on the typical 

billing rate for Helpers (average for five trades) in the Means 1994 Electrical Cost Data(9). The 

billing rate includes fringe benefits, workers compensation, taxes, overhead and profit. 

A-18 
Lamps are assumed to be changed by an electrician 's helper. Ballasts are assumed to be

changed by both electricians and electrician's helpers, at a rate that is the average of the two labor

rates.

Labor Times

The table below lists the labor times to replace fluorescent lamps and ballasts. The lamp

replacement times are a weighted average of time to change lamps under a group relamping and a

spot relamping practice . Group relamping assumes that the fixture and lens are cleaned when the

lamps are replaced. The group relamping percentages are from an LRI survey(10) of luminaire

manufacturers and lighting management companies for various building types. According to this

survey, group relamping occurs an average of 25% of the time for 4-foot systems, 37% for 8 foot

systems, and 31 % for 8-foot HO systems. These percentages are used to calculate an average time

to change. These "Average Relamp Time" values in Table A.40 are used in the analyses for simple

lamp replacement.

When ballasts are changed, the analysis assumes that the lamps are replaced at the same time.

The values for the "Ballast + Lamps Time" to change are used in the analyses. Subtracting the

average relamp time from this time gives the incremental time to change just the ballast, or the

"Ballast Time," although this time is not used in the analyses . For the life-cycle cost analysis, the

tandem-wiring times for 3-lamp fixtures shown below were not used; instead it was assumed that

the labor time was the same as that for a three-lamp fixture that is not tandem-wired.

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Lamps are assumed to be changed by an electrician's helper. Ballasts are assumed to be 

changed by both electricians and electrician's helpers, at a rate that is the average ofthe two labor 

rates. 

Labor Times 

The table below lists the labor times to replace fluorescent lamps and ballasts. The lamp 

replacement times are a weighted average oftime to change lamps under a group relamping and a 

spot relamping practice. Group relamping assumes that the fixture and lens are cleaned when the 

lamps are replaced. The group relamping percentages are from an LRI survey(10) of luminaire 

manufacturers and lighting management companies for various building types. According to this 

survey, group relamping occurs an average of25% of the time for 4-foot systems, 37% for 8 foot 

systems, and 31 % for 8-foot HO systems. These percentages are used to calculate an average time 

to change. These "Average Relamp Time" values in Table AAO are used in the analyses for simple 

lamp replacement. 

When ballasts are changed, the analysis assumes that the lamps are replaced at the same time. 

The values for the "Ballast + Lamps Time" to change are used in the analyses. Subtracting the 

average relamp time from this time gives the incremental time to change just the ballast, or the 

"Ballast Time," although this time is not used in the analyses. For the life-cycle cost analysis, the 

tandem-wiring times for 3-lamp fixtures shown below were not used; instead it was assumed that 

the labor time was the same as that for a three-lamp fixture that is not tandem-wired. 

A-19 

Lamps are assumed to be changed by an electrician's helper. Ballasts are assumed to be 

changed by both electricians and electrician's helpers, at a rate that is the average ofthe two labor 

rates. 

Labor Times 

The table below lists the labor times to replace fluorescent lamps and ballasts. The lamp 

replacement times are a weighted average oftime to change lamps under a group relamping and a 

spot relamping practice. Group relamping assumes that the fixture and lens are cleaned when the 

lamps are replaced. The group relamping percentages are from an LRI survey(10) of luminaire 

manufacturers and lighting management companies for various building types. According to this 

survey, group relamping occurs an average of25% of the time for 4-foot systems, 37% for 8 foot 

systems, and 31 % for 8-foot HO systems. These percentages are used to calculate an average time 

to change. These "Average Relamp Time" values in Table AAO are used in the analyses for simple 

lamp replacement. 

When ballasts are changed, the analysis assumes that the lamps are replaced at the same time. 

The values for the "Ballast + Lamps Time" to change are used in the analyses. Subtracting the 

average relamp time from this time gives the incremental time to change just the ballast, or the 

"Ballast Time," although this time is not used in the analyses. For the life-cycle cost analysis, the 

tandem-wiring times for 3-lamp fixtures shown below were not used; instead it was assumed that 

the labor time was the same as that for a three-lamp fixture that is not tandem-wired. 

A-19 
Table A.40 Replacement Labor Times (minutes) for Fluorescent Lam ps and Ballasts

Lamps Group Relamp Spot Relamp Average Relamp

Time Time Time

1-lamp fixture, 4 foot 13.5 26.5 23.0

2-lamp fixture, 4 foot 14.0 27.0 23.5

3-lamp fixture, 4 foot 14.5 27.5 24.0

4-lamp fixture, 4 foot 15.0 28.0 24.5

1-lamp fixture, 8 foot 10.0 20.0 16.5

2-lamp fixture, 8 foot 10.5 20.5 17.0

1-lamp fixture, 8 foot HO 13.0 26.0 22.0

2-lamp fixture, 8 foot HO 13.5 26.5 22.5

Ballasts Ballast Time Ballast + Lamps Time

1-lamp ballasts, 1 per fixture

EEM and CC 7 30

Electronic 7 30

2-lamp ballasts, 1 per fixture

EEM and CC 6.5 30

Electronic 6.5 30

3-lamp, Electronic, 1 per fixture 11.0 35

3-lamp, Magnetic, 2 per fixture 19.3 43 .3

weighted for tandem fixtures

4-lamp, Electronic, 1 per fixture 10.5 35

4-lamp, Magnetic, 2 per fixture 15.5 40

8-foot, EEM, I per fixture 38 55

8-foot, Electronic, 1 per fixture 38 55

8-foot HO, EEM and CC, 1 per fixture 37.5 60

8-foot HO, Electronic, I per fixture 37.5 60

Lamp Relamp Lifetimes

The relamp lifetime is the average time after which the lamp is changed. It is calculated

as an average of lamp life under spot replacement and group replacement. In spot replacement,

the lamp life is the lamp rated lifetime from manufacturers' catalogs. In group replacement, it is

assumed to be 75% of the lamp rated lifetime. Rated lamp lifetimes are: 20,000 hours for

F40T12, F40T12/ES, and F32T8/RS; 15,000 hours for F32T8/IS; and 12,000 hours for F96T12,

F96T12/ES, F96T12HO, and F96T12/ES lamps.

The percentages of spot and group replacement described in Labor Times above are used

to calculate the average lamp relamp lifetimes. Also, the operation of lamps with cathode cutout

ballasts is assumed to shorten the lamp life by 15%; this percentage is applied to the calculated

relamp lifetime. The resulting relamp times are shown in Table A.41.

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

Table A.40 Replacement Labor Times (minutes) for Fluorescent Lamps and Ballasts 

Lamps 

I-lamp fixture, 4 foot 

2-lamp fixture, 4 foot 

3-1amp fixture, 4 foot 

4-lamp fixture, 4 foot 

I-lamp fixture, 8 foot 

2-lamp fixture, 8 foot 

I-lamp fixture, 8 foot HO 

2-lamp fixture, 8 foot HO 

Ballasts 

I-lamp ballasts, 1 per fixture 

EEMandCC 

Electronic 

2-lamp ballasts, 1 per fixture 

EEMandCC 

Electronic 

3-lamp, Electronic, 1 per fixture 

3-lamp, Magnetic, 2 per fixture 

weighted for tandem fixtures 

4-lamp, Electronic, 1 per fixture 

4-lamp, Magnetic, 2 per fixture 

8-foot, EEM, 1 per fixture 

8-foot, Electronic, 1 per fixture 

8-foot HO, EEM and CC, 1 per fixture 

8-foot HO Electronic 1 oer fixture 

Lamp Relamp Lifetimes 

I 

Group Relamp 

Time 

13.5 

14.0 

14.5 

15.0 

10.0 

10.5 

13.0 

13.5 

Ballast Time 

7 

7 

6.5 

6.5 

11.0 

19.3 

10.5 

15.5 

38 

38 

37.5 

37.5 

Spot Relamp 

Time 

26.5 

27.0 

27.5 

28.0 

20.0 

20.5 

26.0 

26.5 

Average Relamp 

Time 

23.0 

23.5 

24.0 

24.5 

16.5 

17.0 

22.0 

22.5 

Ballast + Lamos Time 

30 

30 

30 

30 

35 

43.3 

35 

40 

55 

55 

60 

60 

The relamp lifetime is the average time after which the lamp is changed. It is calculated 

as an average of lamp life under spot replacement and group replacement. In spot replacement, 

the lamp life is the lamp rated lifetime from manufacturers' catalogs. In group replacement, it is 

assumed to be 75% ofthe lamp rated lifetime. Rated lamp lifetimes are: 20,000 hours for 

F40T12, F40TI2/ES, and F32T8/RS; 15,000 hours for F32T81IS; and 12,000 hours for F96T12, 

F96TI2/ES, F96TI2HO, and F96T12/ES lamps. 

The percentages of spot and group replacement described in Labor Times above are used 

to calculate the average lamp relamp lifetimes. Also, the operation of lamps with cathode cutout 

ballasts is assumed to shorten the lamp life by 15%; this percentage is applied to the calculated 

relamp lifetime. The resulting relamp times are shown in Table A,41. 

A-20 

Table A.40 Replacement Labor Times (minutes) for Fluorescent Lamps and Ballasts 

Lamps 

I-lamp fixture, 4 foot 

2-lamp fixture, 4 foot 

3-lamp fixture, 4 foot 

4-lamp fixture, 4 foot 

I-lamp fixture, 8 foot 

2-lamp fixture, 8 foot 

I-lamp fixture, 8 foot HO 

2-lamp fixture, 8 foot HO 

Ballasts 

I-lamp ballasts, 1 per fixture 

EEMandCC 

Electronic 

2-lamp ballasts, 1 per fixture 

EEMandCC 

Electronic 

3-lamp, Electronic, 1 per fixture 

3-lamp, Magnetic, 2 per fixture 

weighted for tandem fixtures 

4-lamp, Electronic, 1 per fixture 

4-lamp, Magnetic, 2 per fixture 

8-foot, EEM, 1 per fixture 

8-foot, Electronic, 1 per fixture 

8-foot HO, EEM and CC, 1 per fixture 

8-foot HO Electronic 1 per fixture 

Lamp Relamp Lifetimes 

I 

Group Relamp 

Time 

13.5 

14.0 

14.5 

15.0 

10.0 

10.5 

13.0 

13.5 

Ballast Time 

7 

7 

6.5 

6.5 

11.0 

19.3 

10.5 

15.5 

38 

38 

37.5 

37.5 

Spot Relamp 

Time 

26.5 

27.0 

27.5 

28.0 

20.0 

20.5 

26.0 

26.5 

Average Relamp 

Time 

23.0 

23.5 

24.0 

24.5 

16.5 

17.0 

22.0 

22.5 

Ballast + Lamps Time 

30 

30 

30 

30 

35 

43.3 

35 

40 

55 

55 

60 

60 

The relamp lifetime is the average time after which the lamp is changed. It is calculated 

as an average of lamp life under spot replacement and group replacement. In spot replacement, 

the lamp life is the lamp rated lifetime from manufacturers' catalogs. In group replacement, it is 

assumed to be 75% ofthe lamp rated lifetime. Rated lamp lifetimes are: 20,000 hours for 

F40T12, F40TI2/ES, and F32T8/RS; 15,000 hours for F32T81IS; and 12,000 hours for F96T12, 

F96TI2/ES, F96TI2HO, and F96T12/ES lamps. 

The percentages of spot and group replacement described in Labor Times above are used 

to calculate the average lamp relamp lifetimes. Also, the operation of lamps with cathode cutout 

ballasts is assumed to shorten the lamp life by 15%; this percentage is applied to the calculated 

relamp lifetime. The resulting relamp times are shown in Table A,41. 

A-20 
Table A.41. Fluorescent Lamp Relamp Lifetimes

Lamp Lamp Rated

Lifetime

(Hours)

Lamp Relamp

Lifetime, EEM or

ERS Ballast (Hours)

Lamp Relamp

Lifetime, CC

Ballast (Hours)

Lamp Relamp

Lifetime, EIS

Ballast (Hours)

F40T 12, 20,000 19,000 16,150 NA

F40T 12/ES,

F32T8/RS

F32T8/IS 15,000 NA NA 14,000

F96T12, 12,000 11,000 NA 11,000

F96T 12/ES

F96T12HO 12,000 11,000 9,350 NA

F96T 12H0/ES

A.6 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SHARES OF EIGHT FOOT LAMP

BALLASTS

We estimated the fraction of 8-foot and 8-foot HO lamp ballasts found in each building type

by assuming that the density (count per 100 ft2) found for each building type in the Xenergy data set

is representative of all buildings of that type in the U.S., and then multiplying this density times the

U.S. square footage of each building type. The results are shown in Table A42 for 8-foot lamp

ballasts and in Table A43 for 8-foot HO lamp ballasts. We found that for 8-foot lamp ballasts, 26%

are found in the industrial sector and for 8-foot HO 35% are industrial, with the rest in the

commercial sector.

Cable A.42. 8-Foot Lam Ballast Locations by uilding Types

Xenergy % of

Building System Xenergy Systems per US Area, US System % of US

Type Xenergy area, ft2 Counts Systems 100ft2 million ft2* Counts Systems

ASM 24620193 12780 1.7% 0.05 8337 4327621 5.3%

COL 25924413 5675 0.7% 0.02 3068 671602 0.8%

GRC 13065154 61616 8.0% 0.47 767 3617215 4.5%

HLT 44250344 4069 0.5% 0.01 1786 164230 0.2%

IND 163979006 275775 35.7% 0.17 12329 20734544 25.5%

LDG 93648582 9241 1.2% 0.01 2882 284388 0.4%

LGO 139111863 42236 5.5% 0.03 6796 2063346 2.5%

RES 14822407 8157 1.1% 0.06 1494 822171 1.0%

RET 72835256 167723 21.7% 0.23 12479 28736294 35.4%

SCH 126095464 55153 7.1% 0.04 5426 2373283 2.9%

SMO 42786075 33596 4.4% 0.08 5578 4379894 5.4%

WRH 84482979 95784 12.4% 0.11 11504 13042854 16.1%

* Commercial area from CBECS 1992, Industrial from MECS 1994

A-21

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

T able A, 41 . FI uorescent L amp R I e amp L't 1 ebmes ' 

Lamp Lamp Rated Lamp Relamp Lamp Relamp Lamp Relamp 

Lifetime Lifetime, EEM or Lifetime, CC Lifetime, EIS 

(Hours) ERS Ballast (Hours) Ballast (Hours) Ballast (Hours) 

F40T12, 20,000 19,000 16,150 NA 

F40TI2/ES, 

F32T8/RS 

F32T8/IS 15,000 NA NA 14,000 

F96T12, 12,000 11,000 NA 11,000 

F96T12/ES 

F96T12HO 12,000 11,000 9,350 NA 

F96T12HO/ES 

A,6 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SHARES OF EIGHT FOOT LAMP 

BALLASTS 

We estimated the fraction of 8-foot and 8-foot H 0 lamp ballasts found in each building type 

by assuming that the density (count per 100 ft2) found for each building type in the Xenergy data set 

is representative of all buildings of that type in the U.S., and then multiplying this density times the 

U.S. square footage of each building type. The results are shown in Table A42 for 8-foot lamp 

ballasts and in Table A43 for 8-foot HO lamp ballasts. We found that for 8-foot lamp ballasts, 26% 

are found in the industrial sector and for 8-foot HO 35% are industrial, with the rest in the 

commercial sector. 

T a bi e A42 . . 8 F - 00 tL amp B a II as tL oca f Ions b B y Ul 'ld' Ill!! T .'pes 

Xenergy %of 

Building System Xenergy Systems per US Area, US System %ofUS 

Type Xenergy area, ft2 Counts Systems l00ft2 million ft2* Counts Systems 

ASM 24620193 12780 1.7% 0.05 8337 4327621 5.3% 

COL 25924413 5675 0.7% 0.02 3068 671602 0.8% 

GRC 13065154 61616 8.0% 0.47 767 3617215 4.5% 

HLT 44250344 4069 0.5% 0.01 1786 164230 0.2% 

IND 163979006 275775 35.7% 0.17 12329 20734544 25.5% 

LDG 93648582 9241 1.2% 0.01 2882 284388 0.4% 

LGO 139111863 42236 5.5% 0.03 6796 2063346 2.5% 

RES 14822407 8157 1.1% 0.06 1494 822171 1.0% 

RET 72835256 167723 21.7% 0.23 12479 28736294 35.4% 

SCH 126095464 55153 7.1% 0.04 5426 2373283 2.9% 

SMO 42786075 33596 4.4% 0.08 5578 4379894 5.4% 

WRH 84482979 95784 12.4% 0.11 11504 13042854 16.1% 

* Commercial area from CBECS 1992, Industnal from MECS 1994 

A-21 

T a bi e A41 , . FI uorescen tL amp R I e amp L't 1 ebmes ' 

Lamp Lamp Rated Lamp Relamp Lamp Relamp Lamp Relamp 

Lifetime Lifetime, EEM or Lifetime, CC Lifetime, EIS 

(Hours) ERS Ballast (Hours) Ballast (Hours) Ballast (Hours) 

F40T12, 20,000 19,000 16,150 NA 

F40TI2/ES, 

F32T8/RS 

F32T8/IS 15,000 NA NA 14,000 

F96T12, 12,000 11,000 NA 11,000 

F96T12/ES 

F96T12HO 12,000 11,000 9,350 NA 

F96T12HO/ES 

A,6 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL SHARES OF EIGHT FOOT LAMP 

BALLASTS 

We estimated the fraction of 8-foot and 8-foot H 0 lamp ballasts found in each building type 

by assuming that the density (count per 100 ft2) found for each building type in the Xenergy data set 

is representative of all buildings of that type in the U.S., and then multiplying this density times the 

U.S. square footage of each building type. The results are shown in Table A42 for 8-foot lamp 

ballasts and in Table A43 for 8-foot HO lamp ballasts. We found that for 8-foot lamp ballasts, 26% 

are found in the industrial sector and for 8-foot HO 35% are industrial, with the rest in the 

commercial sector. 

T a bi e A42 . . 8 F L - oot am~ B a II ast L ocabons b B y Ul 'ld' 1112'pes T 

Xenergy %of 

Building System Xenergy Systems per US Area, US System %ofUS 

Type Xenergy area, ft2 Counts Systems l00ft2 million ft2 * Counts Systems 

ASM 24620193 12780 1.7% 0.05 8337 4327621 5.3% 

COL 25924413 5675 0.7% 0.02 3068 671602 0.8% 

GRC 13065154 61616 8.0% 0.47 767 3617215 4.5% 

HLT 44250344 4069 0.5% 0.01 1786 164230 0.2% 

IND 163979006 275775 35.7% 0.17 12329 20734544 25.5% 

LDG 93648582 9241 1.2% 0.01 2882 284388 0.4% 

LGO 139111863 42236 5.5% 0.03 6796 2063346 2.5% 

RES 14822407 8157 1.1% 0.06 1494 822171 1.0% 

RET 72835256 167723 21.7% 0.23 12479 28736294 35.4% 

SCH 126095464 55153 7.1% 0.04 5426 2373283 2.9% 

SMO 42786075 33596 4.4% 0.08 5578 4379894 5.4% 

WRH 84482979 95784 12.4% 0.11 11504 13042854 16.1% 

* CommercIal area from CBECS 1992, Industnal from MECS 1994 

A-21 
Table A.43. 8-Foot HO amp Ballast Locations by Building Types

Building

Type Xenergy area, ft2

Xenergy

System

Counts

% of

Xenergy

Systems

Systems per

100ft2

US Area,

million ft2*

US System

Counts

% of US

Systems

ASM 24620193 1074 0.9% 0.0044 8337 363683 3.1%

COL 25924413 620 0.5% 0.0024 3068 73373 0.6%

GRC 13065154 6873 5.7% 0.0526 767 403485 3.4%

HLT 44250344 20 0.0% 0.0000 1786 807 0.0%

IND 163979006 55281 45.6% 0.0337 12329 4156382 35.4%

LDG 93648582 1066 0.9% 0.0011 2882 32806 0.3%

LGO 139111863 8949 7.4% 0.0064 6796 437183 3.7%

RES 14822407 514 0.4% 0.0035 1494 51808 0.4%

RET 72835256 12581 10.4% 0.0173 12479 2155526 18.3%

SCH 126095464 6292 5.2% 0.0050 5426 270750 2.3%

SMO 42786075 3589 3.0% 0.0084 5578 467896 4.0%

WRH 84482979 24502 20.2% 0.0290 11504 3336424 28.4%

A.7 LCC SPREADSHEET DOCUMENTATION

What does the Life Cycle Cost (LCC) spreadsheet do?

LCC spreadsheet (currently LCC_v4.XLS) calculates the life-cycle costs and payback periods of

the lamp/ballast combinations analyzed.

The LCC spreadsheet operates in Excel 97 or Excel 7 (Windows 95). The Excel add-on Crystal Ball

(version 4.0) allows the user to perform uncertainty analysis on key input variables.

What are the worksheets in the workbook?

The workbook LCC_v4.XLS includes the following worksheets:

RESULTS

CALC (T12)

CALC (T8)

Com Elec Price

Ind Elec Price

Ballast Price Dist

Oper Hr Dist

Ballast Life Dist

Elec Price Dist

Default Engr

Setup

contains the summary table of the LCC and payback periods for point values of the

input variables. (Note: Frequency results of LCC and payback periods using

distributions of input variables have to be generated from Crystal Ball runs.)

contains the calculations of the LCC and payback periods for T12 conversions.

contains the calculations of the LCC and payback periods for T8 conversions.

contains the various projections of commercial sector electricity prices (Constant,

AE098 Reference, GR198, AE098 High Growth and AE098 Low Growth).

contains the various projections of industrial sector electricity prices.

defines the distributions of incremental ballast prices.

defines the distributions of annual lighting operating hours.

defines the distributions of ballast lifetimes.

defines the distributions of commercial and industrial electricity prices in 1996.

contains the default engineering and price data.

is used as an interface between user inputs and the rest of the worksheets.

A-22

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

T a bi e A43 0 . 8 F - oot HOL amp Bll ast L a ocatlOns b )y BOld' Ul III 2ypes T 

Xenergy %of 

Building System Xenergy Systems per US Area, US System %ofUS 

Type Xenergy area, ft2 Counts Systems 100m million ft2* Counts Systems 

ASM 24620193 1074 0.9% 0.0044 8337 363683 3.1% 

COL 25924413 620 0.5% 0.0024 3068 73373 0.6% 

GRC 13065154 6873 5.7% 0.0526 767 403485 3.4% 

HLT 44250344 20 0.0% 0.0000 1786 807 0.0% 

IND 163979006 55281 45.6% 0.0337 12329 4156382 35.4% 

LDG 93648582 1066 0.9% 0.0011 2882 32806 0.3% 

LGO 139111863 8949 7.4% 0.0064 6796 437183 3.7% 

RES 14822407 514 0.4% 0.0035 1494 51808 0.4% 

RET 72835256 12581 10.4% 0.0173 12479 2155526 18.3% 

SCH 126095464 6292 5.2% 0.0050 5426 270750 2.3% 

SMO 42786075 3589 3.0% 0.0084 5578 467896 4.0% 

WRH 84482979 24502 20.2% 0.0290 11504 3336424 28.4% 

A.7 LCC SPREADSHEET DOCUMENTATION 

What does the Life Cycle Cost (LCC) spreadsheet do? 

LCC spreadsheet (currently LCC _ v4.xLS) calculates the life-cycle costs and payback periods of 

the lamplballast combinations analyzed. 

The LCC spreadsheet operates in Excel 97 or Excel 7 (Windows 95). The Excel add-on Crystal Ball 

(version 4.0) allows the user to perfonn uncertainty analysis on key input variables. 

What are the worksheets in the workbook? 

The workbook LCC _ v4.XLS includes the following worksheets: 

RESULTS 

CALC (T12) 

CALC (TS) 

Com Elec Price 

Ind Elec Price 

Ballast Price Dist 

Oper Hr Dist 

Ballast Life Dist 

Elec Price Dist 

Default Engr 

Setup 

contains the summary table of the LCC and payback periods for point values of the 

input variables. (Note: Frequency results of LCC and payback periods using 

distributions of input variables have to be generated from Crystal Ball runs.) 

contains the calculations of the LCC and payback periods for T 12 conversions. 

contains the calculations of the LCC and payback periods for T8 conversions. 

contains the various proj ections of commercial sector electricity prices (Constant, 

AE098 Reference, GRI98, AE098 High Growth and AE098 Low Growth). 

contains the various proj ections of industrial sector electricity prices. 

defines the distributions of incremental ballast prices. 

defines the distributions of annual lighting operating hours. 

defines the distributions of ballast lifetimes. 

defines the distributions of commercial and industrial electricity prices in 1996. 

contains the default engineering and price data. 

is used as an interface between user inputs and the rest of the worksheets. 

A-22 

T a bi e A43 0 . 8 F - oot HOL amp Bll ast L a ocatlOns b )y BOld' Ul III 2ypes T 

Xenergy %of 

Building System Xenergy Systems per US Area, US System %ofUS 

Type Xenergy area, ft2 Counts Systems 100m million ft2* Counts Systems 

ASM 24620193 1074 0.9% 0.0044 8337 363683 3.1% 

COL 25924413 620 0.5% 0.0024 3068 73373 0.6% 

GRC 13065154 6873 5.7% 0.0526 767 403485 3.4% 

HLT 44250344 20 0.0% 0.0000 1786 807 0.0% 

IND 163979006 55281 45.6% 0.0337 12329 4156382 35.4% 

LDG 93648582 1066 0.9% 0.0011 2882 32806 0.3% 

LGO 139111863 8949 7.4% 0.0064 6796 437183 3.7% 

RES 14822407 514 0.4% 0.0035 1494 51808 0.4% 

RET 72835256 12581 10.4% 0.0173 12479 2155526 18.3% 

SCH 126095464 6292 5.2% 0.0050 5426 270750 2.3% 

SMO 42786075 3589 3.0% 0.0084 5578 467896 4.0% 

WRH 84482979 24502 20.2% 0.0290 11504 3336424 28.4% 

A.7 LCC SPREADSHEET DOCUMENTATION 

What does the Life Cycle Cost (LCC) spreadsheet do? 

LCC spreadsheet (currently LCC _ v4.xLS) calculates the life-cycle costs and payback periods of 

the lamplballast combinations analyzed. 

The LCC spreadsheet operates in Excel 97 or Excel 7 (Windows 95). The Excel add-on Crystal Ball 

(version 4.0) allows the user to perfonn uncertainty analysis on key input variables. 

What are the worksheets in the workbook? 

The workbook LCC _ v4.XLS includes the following worksheets: 

RESULTS 

CALC (T12) 

CALC (TS) 

Com Elec Price 

Ind Elec Price 

Ballast Price Dist 

Oper Hr Dist 

Ballast Life Dist 

Elec Price Dist 

Default Engr 

Setup 

contains the summary table of the LCC and payback periods for point values of the 

input variables. (Note: Frequency results of LCC and payback periods using 

distributions of input variables have to be generated from Crystal Ball runs.) 

contains the calculations of the LCC and payback periods for T 12 conversions. 

contains the calculations of the LCC and payback periods for T8 conversions. 

contains the various proj ections of commercial sector electricity prices (Constant, 

AE098 Reference, GRI98, AE098 High Growth and AE098 Low Growth). 

contains the various proj ections of industrial sector electricity prices. 

defines the distributions of incremental ballast prices. 

defines the distributions of annual lighting operating hours. 

defines the distributions of ballast lifetimes. 

defines the distributions of commercial and industrial electricity prices in 1996. 

contains the default engineering and price data. 

is used as an interface between user inputs and the rest of the worksheets. 

A-22 
How does the user operate the spreadsheet?

The user interacts with the spreadsheet by clicking choices or entering data using the

graphical interface. The entry point to the user interface is the LIST INPUTS menu. The LIST

INPUTS menu can be invoked by clicking the [LIST INPUTS] button on the RESULTS worksheet

or by hitting <CRTL>L from any worksheet.

From the LIST INPUTS menu, the user can then enter the input screens for selecting (1)

Electricity Price Projection, (2) Effective Date of Ballast Standards, (3) Discount Rate and (4)

Ballast Assumptions by clicking the corresponding button.

When inside any one of the four input screens, the user can switch over to any other one or

back to the LIST INPUTS menu by clicking the corresponding button at the bottom.

After making the selections, the user can start the calculation by clicking the

[CALCULATE] button or by hitting <ALT>C. In case the user wants to disregard the selections

that have been made, the setup session can be canceled by clicking the [CANCEL] button in the

LIST INPUTS menu, or the X at the top right of any screen.

On the SETUP worksheet the confirmed choices represents the user-selected values for the

input variables. The temporary choices store the user's choices during the input process. If the user

cancels the set up session, the temporary choices are discarded. When the user clicks the

[CALCULATE] button, the temporary choices are loaded into the confirmed choices.)

To return to the default input values for Ballast Assumptions, click on the [Load Defaults]

button. If new results were previously calculated, another calculation must be done (using

[CALCULATE] or <ALT>C in order to produce the default results. This button affects only the

ballast assumptions inputs; inputs from other menus in LIST INPUTS must be reset individually.

NOTE: Input changes should always be made in the LIST INPUTS menu. The user may view the

impacts on the other worksheets, but editing those sheets could cause calculation errors, especially

if formulae are overwritten.

The exception is the Default Engr worksheet; here the user may change the default

engineering values. For (1) Ballast labor cost, (2) Lamp equipment cost, (3) Fixture watt, (4) ballast

factor and (5) lamp labor cost, any revised value in the Default Engr worksheet will affect the

calculations in the rest of the spreadsheet immediately. For the other revised default values, the

change will only affect the calculations when Load Defaults, and then CALCULATE are clicked

during an input session.

How does the user run the uncertainty analysis?

To run the uncertainty analysis, the EXCEL add-in Crystal Ball must be installed. Without

Crystal Ball, the spreadsheet provides calculations of LCC and payback periods based on point

A-23

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

How does the user operate the spreadsheet? 

The user interacts with the spreadsheet by clicking choices or entering data using the 

graphical interface. The entry point to the user interface is the LIST INPUTS menu. The LIST 

INPUTS menu can be invoked by clicking the [LIST INPUTS] button on the RESULTS worksheet 

or by hitting <CRTL>L from any worksheet. 

From the LIST INPUTS menu, the user can then enter the input screens for selecting (1) 

Electricity Price Projection, (2) Effective Date of Ballast Standards, (3) Discount Rate and (4) 

Ballast Assumptions by clicking the cOlTesponding button. 

When inside anyone ofthe four input screens, the user can switch over to any other one or 

back to the LIST INPUTS menu by clicking the cOlTesponding button at the bottom. 

After making the selections, the user can start the calculation by clicking the 

[CALCULATE] button or by hitting <ALT>C. In case the user wants to disregard the selections 

that have been made, the setup session can be canceled by clicking the [CANCEL] button in the 

LIST INPUTS menu, or the X at the top right of any screen. 

On the SETUP worksheet the confirmed choices represents the user-selected values for the 

input variables. The temporaty choices store the user's choices during the input process. If the user 

cancels the set up session, the temporary choices are discarded. When the user clicks the 

[CALCULATE] button, the temporary choices are loaded into the confirmed choices.) 

To return to the default input values for Ballast Assumptions, click on the [Load Defaults] 

button. If new results were previously calculated, another calculation must be done (using 

[CALCULATE] or <AL T>C in order to produce the default results. This button affects only the 

ballast assumptions inputs; inputs from other menus in LIST INPUTS must be reset individually. 

NOTE: Input changes should always be made in the LIST INPUTS menu. The user mayview the 

impacts on the other worksheets, but editing those sheets could cause calculation elTors, especially 

if formulae are overwritten. 

The exception is the Default Engr worksheet; here the user may change the default 

engineering values. For (1) Ballast labor cost, (2) Lamp equipment cost, (3) Fixture watt, (4) ballast 

factor and (5) lamp labor cost, any revised value in the Default Engr worksheet will affect the 

calculations in the rest of the spreadsheet immediately. For the other revised default values, the 

change will only affect the calculations when Load Defaults, and then CALCULATE are clicked 

during an input session. 

How does the user run the uncertainty analysis? 

To run the uncertainty analysis, the EXCEL add-in Crystal Ball must be installed. Without 

Crystal Ball, the spreadsheet provides calculations of LCC and payback periods based on point 

A-23 

How does the user operate the spreadsheet? 

The user interacts with the spreadsheet by clicking choices or entering data using the 

graphical interface. The entry point to the user interface is the LIST INPUTS menu. The LIST 

INPUTS menu can be invoked by clicking the [LIST INPUTS] button on the RESULTS worksheet 

or by hitting <CRTL>L from any worksheet. 

From the LIST INPUTS menu, the user can then enter the input screens for selecting (1) 

Electricity Price Projection, (2) Effective Date of Ballast Standards, (3) Discount Rate and (4) 

Ballast Assumptions by clicking the cOlTesponding button. 

When inside anyone ofthe four input screens, the user can switch over to any other one or 

back to the LIST INPUTS menu by clicking the cOlTesponding button at the bottom. 

After making the selections, the user can start the calculation by clicking the 

[CALCULATE] button or by hitting <ALT>C. In case the user wants to disregard the selections 

that have been made, the setup session can be canceled by clicking the [CANCEL] button in the 

LIST INPUTS menu, or the X at the top right of any screen. 

On the SETUP worksheet the confirmed choices represents the user-selected values for the 

input variables. The temporaty choices store the user's choices during the input process. If the user 

cancels the set up session, the temporary choices are discarded. When the user clicks the 

[CALCULATE] button, the temporary choices are loaded into the confirmed choices.) 

To return to the default input values for Ballast Assumptions, click on the [Load Defaults] 

button. If new results were previously calculated, another calculation must be done (using 

[CALCULATE] or <AL T>C in order to produce the default results. This button affects only the 

ballast assumptions inputs; inputs from other menus in LIST INPUTS must be reset individually. 

NOTE: Input changes should always be made in the LIST INPUTS menu. The user mayview the 

impacts on the other worksheets, but editing those sheets could cause calculation elTors, especially 

if formulae are overwritten. 

The exception is the Default Engr worksheet; here the user may change the default 

engineering values. For (1) Ballast labor cost, (2) Lamp equipment cost, (3) Fixture watt, (4) ballast 

factor and (5) lamp labor cost, any revised value in the Default Engr worksheet will affect the 

calculations in the rest of the spreadsheet immediately. For the other revised default values, the 

change will only affect the calculations when Load Defaults, and then CALCULATE are clicked 

during an input session. 

How does the user run the uncertainty analysis? 

To run the uncertainty analysis, the EXCEL add-in Crystal Ball must be installed. Without 

Crystal Ball, the spreadsheet provides calculations of LCC and payback periods based on point 

A-23 
values of the assumptions. With Crystal Ball, the user can assign distributions to various

assumptions to generate resulting probability distributions of LCC savings and payback periods.

The spreadsheet provides sample distributions for (1) electricity prices, (2) annual operating

hours, (3) lifetimes, and (4) ballast prices.

The worksheet Elec Price Dist contains the distribution of commercial and industrial

electricity prices in 1996. The original data are from ETA's Electric Utility Sales and Revenue, 1997.

When running the simulation, an electricity price for 1997 is sampled from the distribution along

with an epsilon from the Epsilon distribution. To project the electricity prices into the future, the

energy price projection that the user chooses from the Electricity Price Projection screen is used as

a trend. For example, to use the AE099 Reference electricity price as a trend, the ratios of the prices

in 1998, 1999,... to 2030 relative to the price in 1997 from that forecast are calculated. Then for each

iteration of the simulation, a sampled price from the distribution is used as the base price, and the

prices for 1998 to 2030 are obtained by multiplying the ratios previously calculated by the sampled

price.

These distributions are defined in assumption cells. Click on Cell, Select All Assumptions

to highlight the assumption cells on the worksheet. Click on one of the assumption cells, then select

Cell, Define Assumptions to view the electricity price distribution for the commercial sector. This

is a custom distribution (refer to the Crystal Ball user manual).

Note: Never edit the assumption cells; this will overwrite the formulae. To change the

electricity price distribution, you must alter the raw data in the worksheet, or work with LBNL to

create an alternate distribution. Also, do not edit the cells in a Normalized row.

The worksheet Oper Hr Dist contains operating hour distributions for the 4 ballast types for

the commercial and industrial sectors. When performing the simulation, these distributions are scaled

so that the average operating hours equal those in the user input (Ballast Assumptions). In this way,

the shape of a distribution is retained and the mean of the distribution reflects the operating hours

that the user specifies.

The sample custom distributions are derived from the Xenergy, Inc. database for both

magnetic and electronic ballasts. (LBNL is working on an updated distribution to represent magnetic

ballast hours.) To view a distribution, go to the Operating Hours Distribution highlighted box (upper

right of worksheet), select a product class from the Hours row, and click Cell, Define Assumption.

Note that the two F40T12 distributions are identical; hours for 2-lamp and 1-lamp ballasts are

calculated together. The industrial sector distributions are below the commercial sector ones on the

worksheet.

The worksheet Ballast Life Dist contains the distributions of lifetimes (in hours) for

magnetic and electronic ballasts. (The distribution for cathode cutout is assumed to be the same as

that of magnetic ballasts.) During the simulation, the distributions are scaled (see operating hour

distribution above) so that the mean lifetimes are the same as those specified by the user. These are

Weibull distributions, and are identical for magnetic and electronic ballasts, as suggested by

A-24

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

values of the assumptions. With Crystal Ball, the user can assign distributions to various 

assumptions to generate resulting probability distributions of LCC savings and payback periods. 

The spreadsheet provides sample distributions for (I) electricity prices, (2) annual operating 

hours, (3) lifetimes, and (4) ballast prices. 

The worksheet Elec Price Dist contains the distribution of commercial and industrial 

electricity prices in 1996. The original data are from EIA' s Electric Utility Sales and Revenue, 1997. 

When running the simulation, an electricity price for 1997 is sampled from the distribution along 

with an epsilon from the Epsilon distribution. To project the electricity prices into the future, the 

energy price projection that the user chooses from the Electricity Price Projection screen is used as 

a trend. For example, to use the AE099 Reference electricity price as a trend, the ratios ofthe prices 

in 1998, 1999, ... to 2030 relative to the price in 1997 from that forecast are calculated. Then for each 

iteration of the simulation, a sampled price from the distribution is used as the base price, and the 

prices for 1998 to 2030 are obtained by multiplying the ratios previously calculated by the sampled 

price. 

These distributions are defined in assumption cells. Click on Cell, Select All Assumptions 

to highlightthe assumption cells on the worksheet. Click on one of the assumption cells, then select 

Cell, Define Assumptions to view the electricity price distribution for the commercial sector. This 

is a custom distribution (refer to the Crystal Ball user manual). 

Note: Never edit the assumption cells; this will overwrite the formulae. To change the 

electricity price distribution, you must alter the raw data in the worksheet, or work with LBNL to 

create an alternate distribution. Also, do not edit the cells in a Normalized row. 

The worksheet Oper Hr Dist contains operating hour distributions for the 4 ballast types for 

the commercial and industrial sectors. When perforn1ing the simulation, these distributions are scaled 

so that the average operating hours equal those in the user input (Ballast Assumptions). In this way, 

the shape of a distribution is retained and the mean of the distribution reflects the operating hours 

that the user specifies. 

The sample custom distributions are derived from the Xenergy, Inc. database for both 

magnetic and electronic ballasts. (LBNL is working on an updated distribution to represent magnetic 

ballast hours.) To view a distribution, go to the Operating Hours Distribution highlighted box (upper 

right of worksheet), select a product class from the Hours row, and click Cell, Define Assumption. 

Note that the two F40TI2 distributions are identical; hours for 2-lamp and I-lamp ballasts are 

calculated together. The industrial sector distributions are below the commercial sector ones on the 

worksheet. 

The worksheet Ballast Life Dist contains the distributions of lifetimes (in hours) for 

magnetic and electronic ballasts. (The distribution for cathode cutout is assumed to be the same as 

that of magnetic ballasts.) During the simulation, the distributions are scaled (see operating hour 

distribution above) so that the mean lifetimes are the same as those specified by the user. These are 

Weibull distributions, and are identical for magnetic and electronic ballasts, as suggested by 

A-24 

values of the assumptions. With Crystal Ball, the user can assign distributions to various 

assumptions to generate resulting probability distributions of LCC savings and payback periods. 

The spreadsheet provides sample distributions for (I) electricity prices, (2) annual operating 

hours, (3) lifetimes, and (4) ballast prices. 

The worksheet Elec Price Dist contains the distribution of commercial and industrial 

electricity prices in 1996. The original data are from EIA' s Electric Utility Sales and Revenue, 1997. 

When running the simulation, an electricity price for 1997 is sampled from the distribution along 

with an epsilon from the Epsilon distribution. To project the electricity prices into the future, the 

energy price projection that the user chooses from the Electricity Price Projection screen is used as 

a trend. For example, to use the AE099 Reference electricity price as a trend, the ratios ofthe prices 

in 1998, 1999, ... to 2030 relative to the price in 1997 from that forecast are calculated. Then for each 

iteration of the simulation, a sampled price from the distribution is used as the base price, and the 

prices for 1998 to 2030 are obtained by multiplying the ratios previously calculated by the sampled 

price. 

These distributions are defined in assumption cells. Click on Cell, Select All Assumptions 

to highlightthe assumption cells on the worksheet. Click on one of the assumption cells, then select 

Cell, Define Assumptions to view the electricity price distribution for the commercial sector. This 

is a custom distribution (refer to the Crystal Ball user manual). 

Note: Never edit the assumption cells; this will overwrite the formulae. To change the 

electricity price distribution, you must alter the raw data in the worksheet, or work with LBNL to 

create an alternate distribution. Also, do not edit the cells in a Normalized row. 

The worksheet Oper Hr Dist contains operating hour distributions for the 4 ballast types for 

the commercial and industrial sectors. When perforn1ing the simulation, these distributions are scaled 

so that the average operating hours equal those in the user input (Ballast Assumptions). In this way, 

the shape of a distribution is retained and the mean of the distribution reflects the operating hours 

that the user specifies. 

The sample custom distributions are derived from the Xenergy, Inc. database for both 

magnetic and electronic ballasts. (LBNL is working on an updated distribution to represent magnetic 

ballast hours.) To view a distribution, go to the Operating Hours Distribution highlighted box (upper 

right of worksheet), select a product class from the Hours row, and click Cell, Define Assumption. 

Note that the two F40TI2 distributions are identical; hours for 2-lamp and I-lamp ballasts are 

calculated together. The industrial sector distributions are below the commercial sector ones on the 

worksheet. 

The worksheet Ballast Life Dist contains the distributions of lifetimes (in hours) for 

magnetic and electronic ballasts. (The distribution for cathode cutout is assumed to be the same as 

that of magnetic ballasts.) During the simulation, the distributions are scaled (see operating hour 

distribution above) so that the mean lifetimes are the same as those specified by the user. These are 

Weibull distributions, and are identical for magnetic and electronic ballasts, as suggested by 

A-24 
manufacturers at the June workshop. The mean lifetimes are scaled to user input by the same

process described above, with the ratio shown in the Normalized row.

To view a distribution, go to the highlighted box Ballast Life Distribution, and click on a cell

in the Hours row, and click Cell, Define Assumption. The sample parameters for both magnetic

and electronic ballasts have been set so that the mean lifetime is 50,000 hours. The low value

represents about 5 years (matching an electronic ballast warranty period). The user may adjust the

endpoints (by typing in values or by moving the arrows with the cursor), the scale, or the shape factor

to change the distribution curve.

The worksheet Ballast Price Dist contains the distributions of incremental ballast prices

(magnetic/baseline minus cathode cutout or electronic) for the four ballast types. The distribution

of incremental ballast prices are assumed to be normal distributions. The standard deviation of each

distribution is assumed to be a certain fraction of the mean. The means of the distributions are the

incremental ballast prices calculated from the Ballast Assumptions inputs.

To view a distribution, select a cell in the Incremental Price Distribution and click Cell,

Define Assumptions. To adjust the distribution, change the prices in the Ballast Assumptions

screen ofLIST INPUTS.

How does the user run the Crystal Ball simulation?

To start the Crystal Ball simulation, select Run from the Run menu (on the menu bar). After

each simulation run, the user needs to select Reset (also from the Run menu) before Run can be

selected again.

How are Run Preferences used?

Under the Run menu, the user can specify options for the simulation by selecting Run

Preferences. In particular, one can set the number of iterations in Run Preferences, Trials. A

suggested number of iterations is 2000; a Pentium processor will run the simulation in 1 to 2

minutes. Fewer iterations would produce less robust results, and more iterations would have longer

run times. For other options, please refer to the Crystal Ball user manual.

Can the user perform simulations on specific distributions?

Normally, Crystal Ball will perform the simulations using the distributions of all assumption

cells. In the LCC spreadsheet, this would include the four variables described above, run for all four

ballast classes. However, the user can choose to disable certain assumption cells while leaving

others enabled (for example, studying operating hours and electricity prices, while leaving ballast

prices and ballast lifetimes at their point values). Select Freeze Assumptions from the Cell menu

and choose the assumptions to be disabled, or those to be enabled.

NOTE: The assumption cell CB must always be enabled for the simulation to work properly.

A-25

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

manufacturers at the June workshop. The mean lifetimes are scaled to user input by the same 

process described above, with the ratio shown in the Normalized row. 

To view a distribution, go to the highlighted box Ballast Life Distribution, and click on a cell 

in the Hours row, and click Cell, Define Assumption. The sample parameters for both magnetic 

and electronic ballasts have been set so that the mean lifetime is 50,000 hours. The low value 

represents about 5 years (matching an electronic ballast warranty period). The user may adjust the 

endpoints (by typing in values or by moving the arrows with the cursor), the scale, or the shape factor 

to change the distribution curve. 

The worksheet Ballast Price Dist contains the distributions of incremental ballast prices 

(magnetic/baseline minus cathode cutout or electronic) for the four ballast types. The distribution 

of incremental ballast prices are assumed to be normal distributions. The standard deviation of each 

distribution is assumed to be a certain fraction of the mean. The means of the distributions are the 

incremental ballast prices calculated from the Ballast Assumptions inputs. 

To view a distribution, select a cell in the Incremental Price Distribution and click Cell, 

Define Assumptions. To adjust the distribution, change the prices in the Ballast Assumptions 

screen of LIST INPUTS. 

How does the user run the Crystal Ball simulation? 

To start the Crystal Ball simulation, select Run from the Run menu (on the menu bar). After 

each simulation run, the user needs to select Reset (also from the Run menu) before Run can be 

selected again. 

How are Run Preferences used? 

Under the Run menu, the user can specify options for the simulation by selecting Run 

Preferences. In particular, one can set the number of iterations in Run Preferences, Trials. A 

suggested number of iterations is 2000; a Pentium processor will run the simulation in 1 to 2 

minutes. Fewer iterations would produce less robust results, and more iterations would have longer 

run times. For other options, please refer to the Crystal Ball user manual. 

Can the user perform simulations on specific distributions? 

Normally, Crystal Ball will perform the simulations using the distributions of all assumption 

cells. In the LCC spreadsheet, this would include the four variables described above, run for all four 

ballast classes. However, the user can choose to disable certain assumption cells while leaving 

others enabled (for example, studying operating hours and electricity prices, while leaving ballast 

prices and ballast lifetimes at their point values). Select Freeze Assumptions from the Cell menu 

and choose the assumptions to be disabled, or those to be enabled. 

NOTE: The assumption cell CB must always be enabled for the simulation to work properly. 

A-25 

manufacturers at the June workshop. The mean lifetimes are scaled to user input by the same 

process described above, with the ratio shown in the Normalized row. 

To view a distribution, go to the highlighted box Ballast Life Distribution, and click on a cell 

in the Hours row, and click Cell, Define Assumption. The sample parameters for both magnetic 

and electronic ballasts have been set so that the mean lifetime is 50,000 hours. The low value 

represents about 5 years (matching an electronic ballast warranty period). The user may adjust the 

endpoints (by typing in values or by moving the arrows with the cursor), the scale, or the shape factor 

to change the distribution curve. 

The worksheet Ballast Price Dist contains the distributions of incremental ballast prices 

(magnetic/baseline minus cathode cutout or electronic) for the four ballast types. The distribution 

of incremental ballast prices are assumed to be normal distributions. The standard deviation of each 

distribution is assumed to be a certain fraction of the mean. The means of the distributions are the 

incremental ballast prices calculated from the Ballast Assumptions inputs. 

To view a distribution, select a cell in the Incremental Price Distribution and click Cell, 

Define Assumptions. To adjust the distribution, change the prices in the Ballast Assumptions 

screen of LIST INPUTS. 

How does the user run the Crystal Ball simulation? 

To start the Crystal Ball simulation, select Run from the Run menu (on the menu bar). After 

each simulation run, the user needs to select Reset (also from the Run menu) before Run can be 

selected again. 

How are Run Preferences used? 

Under the Run menu, the user can specify options for the simulation by selecting Run 

Preferences. In particular, one can set the number of iterations in Run Preferences, Trials. A 

suggested number of iterations is 2000; a Pentium processor will run the simulation in 1 to 2 

minutes. Fewer iterations would produce less robust results, and more iterations would have longer 

run times. For other options, please refer to the Crystal Ball user manual. 

Can the user perform simulations on specific distributions? 

Normally, Crystal Ball will perform the simulations using the distributions of all assumption 

cells. In the LCC spreadsheet, this would include the four variables described above, run for all four 

ballast classes. However, the user can choose to disable certain assumption cells while leaving 

others enabled (for example, studying operating hours and electricity prices, while leaving ballast 

prices and ballast lifetimes at their point values). Select Freeze Assumptions from the Cell menu 

and choose the assumptions to be disabled, or those to be enabled. 

NOTE: The assumption cell CB must always be enabled for the simulation to work properly. 

A-25 
What kind of output does Crystal Ball generate?

Crystal Ball collects statistics on user-defined quantities called forecast cells. To define a

forecast cell, select Define Forecast under the Cell menu.

After the simulation has finished, Crystal Ball displays Frequency Charts of the forecast

cells. Currently, the life-cycle cost savings and payback periods are defined as forecast cells.

The frequency charts display the results of the simulations, or trials, performed by Crystal

Ball. Click on any chart to bring it into view. The charts show the low and high endpoints of the

forecasts. To calculate the probability of LCC savings being positive, either type 0 in the box by the

right arrow, or move the arrow key with the cursor to 0 on the scale. The value in the Certainty box

shows the likelihood that the LCC savings will be positive. To calculate the certainty of payback

period being below a certain number of years, choose that value as the high endpoint.

To generate a printout report, select Create Report from the Run menu.

For further information on Crystal Ball outputs, please refer to Understanding the Forecast

Chart in the Crystal Ball manual.

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

What kind of output does Crystal Ball generate? 

Crystal Ball collects statistics on user-defined quantities called forecast cells. To define a 

forecast cell, select Define Forecast under the Cell menu. 

After the simulation has finished, Crystal Ball displays Frequency Charts of the forecast 

cells. Currently, the life-cycle cost savings and payback periods are defined as forecast cells. 

The frequency charts display the results ·of the simulations, or trials, performed by Crystal 

Ball. Click on any chart to bring it into view. The charts show the low and high endpoints of the 

forecasts. To calculate the probability ofLCC savings being positive, either type 0 in the box by the 

right arrow, or move the arrow key with the cursor to 0 on the scale. The value in the Certainty box 

shows the likelihood that the LCC savings will be positive. To calculate the certainty of payback 

period being below a certain number of years, choose that value as the high endpoint. 

To generate a printout report, select Create Report from the Run menu. 

For further information on Crystal Ball outputs, please refer to Understanding the Forecast 

Chart in the Crystal Ball manual. 

A-26 

What kind of output does Crystal Ball generate? 

Crystal Ball collects statistics on user-defined quantities called forecast cells. To define a 

forecast cell, select Define Forecast under the Cell menu. 

After the simulation has finished, Crystal Ball displays Frequency Charts of the forecast 

cells. Currently, the life-cycle cost savings and payback periods are defined as forecast cells. 

The frequency charts display the results ·of the simulations, or trials, performed by Crystal 

Ball. Click on any chart to bring it into view. The charts show the low and high endpoints of the 

forecasts. To calculate the probability ofLCC savings being positive, either type 0 in the box by the 

right arrow, or move the arrow key with the cursor to 0 on the scale. The value in the Certainty box 

shows the likelihood that the LCC savings will be positive. To calculate the certainty of payback 

period being below a certain number of years, choose that value as the high endpoint. 

To generate a printout report, select Create Report from the Run menu. 

For further information on Crystal Ball outputs, please refer to Understanding the Forecast 

Chart in the Crystal Ball manual. 

A-26 
REFERENCES

National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) 1995. 1995 Procedure For

Determining Luminaire Efficacy Ratings For Fluorescent Luminaires, Revision 1. January

1995. NEMA Standards Publication LE5-1993.

2. U.S. Department of Energy. 1993. Advanced Lighting Guidelines: 1993. DOE/EE-0008,

Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Energy.

3. Ibid.

4. Sleeker, N. And W. Veenstra. 1990. The Performance ofFour-Foot Fluorescent Lamps as

a Function of Ambient Temperature on 60 Hz and High Frequency Ballasts. In: 1990

IESNA Annual Conference; Technical Papers, Baltimore, MD. July 29-August 2, 1990.

New York, NY: Illuminating Engineering Society of North America.

5. Lighting Research Center, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. 1995. Lighting Answers.

National Lighting Product Information Program, Vol. 2, No. 3, March 1995.

6. Defense Logistics Agency, February 1994, DSCR - The Supplier Choice forEnergy Efficient

Lighting. Richmond, Virginia.

7. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA) 1994. Commercial

Buildings Characteristics 1992: Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey. Energy

Information Administration, United States Department of Energy. DOE/EIA-0246(92).

8. Tyler, Edward J. 1995. 1995 National Electrical Estimator. Page 5. Craftsman Book

Company.

9. Chang, John H. editor, Means 1994 Electrical Cost Data, 17' Edition, 1993. Inside back

cover, Column H.

10. Lighting Research Institute. 1995. Research for Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory,

Energy Analysis Program, by the Lighting Research Institute under LBNL Subcontract No.

4602810; A. Gough, LRI Principal Investigator, and J. Burke, Burke and Associates

subcontractor to LRI

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

REFERENCES 

1. National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) 1995. 1995 Procedure For 

Determining Luminaire Efficacy Ratings For Fluorescent Luminaires, Revision 1. January 

1995. NEMA Standards Publication LE5-1993. 

2. U.S. Depal1ment of Energy. 1993. Advanced Lighting Guidelines: 1993. DOE/EE-0008, 

Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Energy. 

3. Ibid. 

4. Bleeker, N. And W. Veenstra. 1990. The Performance o/Four-Foot Fluorescent Lamps as 

a Function 0/ Ambient Temperature on 60 Hz and High Frequency Ballasts. In: 1990 

IESNA Annual Conference; Technical Papers, Baltimore, MD. July 29-August 2, 1990. 

New York, NY: Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. 

5. Lighting Research Center, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. 1995. Lighting Answers. 

National Lighting Product Information Program, Vol. 2, No.3, March 1995. 

6. Defense Logistics Agency, February 1994, DSCR - The Supplier Choice/or Energy Efficient 

Lighting. Richmond, Virginia. 

7. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA) 1994. Commercial 

Buildings Characteristics 1992: Commercial BUildings Energy Consumption Survey. Energy 

Information Administration, United States Department of Energy. DOE/EIA-0246(92). 

8. Tyler, Edward J. 1995. 1995 National Electrical Estimator. Page 5. Craftsman Book 

Company. 

9. Chang, John H. editor, Means 1994 Electrical Cost Data, 17tl1 Edition, 1993. Inside back 

cover, Column H. 

10. Lighting Research Institute. 1995. Research for Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 

Energy Analysis Program, by the Lighting Research Institute under LBNL Subcontract No. 

4602810; A. Gough, LRl Principal Investigator, and J. Burke, Burke and Associates 

subcontractor to LRl 

A-27 

REFERENCES 

1. National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) 1995. 1995 Procedure For 

Determining Luminaire Efficacy Ratings For Fluorescent Luminaires, Revision 1. January 

1995. NEMA Standards Publication LE5-1993. 

2. U.S. Depal1ment of Energy. 1993. Advanced Lighting Guidelines: 1993. DOE/EE-0008, 

Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Energy. 

3. Ibid. 

4. Bleeker, N. And W. Veenstra. 1990. The Performance o/Four-Foot Fluorescent Lamps as 

a Function 0/ Ambient Temperature on 60 Hz and High Frequency Ballasts. In: 1990 

IESNA Annual Conference; Technical Papers, Baltimore, MD. July 29-August 2, 1990. 

New York, NY: Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. 

5. Lighting Research Center, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. 1995. Lighting Answers. 

National Lighting Product Information Program, Vol. 2, No.3, March 1995. 

6. Defense Logistics Agency, February 1994, DSCR - The Supplier Choice/or Energy Efficient 

Lighting. Richmond, Virginia. 

7. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA) 1994. Commercial 

Buildings Characteristics 1992: Commercial BUildings Energy Consumption Survey. Energy 

Information Administration, United States Department of Energy. DOE/EIA-0246(92). 

8. Tyler, Edward J. 1995. 1995 National Electrical Estimator. Page 5. Craftsman Book 

Company. 

9. Chang, John H. editor, Means 1994 Electrical Cost Data, 17tl1 Edition, 1993. Inside back 

cover, Column H. 

10. Lighting Research Institute. 1995. Research for Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, 

Energy Analysis Program, by the Lighting Research Institute under LBNL Subcontract No. 

4602810; A. Gough, LRl Principal Investigator, and J. Burke, Burke and Associates 

subcontractor to LRl 

A-27 
APPENDIX B. MARGINAL ENERGY PRICES AND NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS

B.1 COMMERCIAL SECTOR MARGINAL ENERGY PRICES

B,1,1 Background

Previous analyses of the life-cycle costs of and consumer bill savings possible from appliance

energy efficiency standards were based on average energy prices.a Using marginal energy prices in

these analyses is more theoretically sound.' Accordingly, in April 1998 the Advisory Committee on

Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards delivered a letter to the Secretary of Energy recommending,

among other things, that DOE should replace the use of national average energy prices with the full

range of consumer marginal energy rates in its life-cycle cost analyses. Because neither published

nor readily available data existed for consumer marginal energy prices, a major research effort was

required to derive consumer marginal energy price. The full report on this research effort, "Marginal

Energy Prices Report," can be obtained from DOE'.

In the near term, several sources of information were available for research and analysis on

marginal prices. Commercial customers' utility bills could be approximated knowing monthly usage

and likely utility tariff. Monthly usage for a large sample of commercial buildings was available

from a commercial product, the MAISY'w commercial database.' Utility tariff sheets, generally those

applicable during 1997, were available from utility web sites, commercial services, or the utilities

themselves. Data on utility sales and number of customers on various tariffs were available for

investor-owned utilities from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Form 1 filings

made by those utilities. For municipal utilities and co-ops, equivalent tariff-level data were obtained

from either the utility itself or was available from the Rural Utility Service. In the future, given that

restructuring of parts of the energy supply sector will complicate billing, energy pricing information

would best come directly from the customers. Because of the complexity inherent in utility tariffs,

methods to approximate marginal prices that simply subtract fixed costs from average costs did not

constitute a credible method for calculating marginal prices.

B.1.2 Overview

Commercial marginal electricity prices were derived by calculating monthly bills for a

distribution of buildings (with energy usage information) using a set of modeled commercial tariffs.

The sections below describe the utility tariffs that were chosen and modeled for this analysis. The

MAISY® database (acquired from Jackson Associates) provided the source of information for the

building energy and demand levels among buildings of different types.

aAverage energy prices for a consumer were derived by dividing annual energy costs by annual energy consumption.

At the utility level, average energy prices were derived by dividing annual revenues by annual energy sales.

MMarginal prices as discussed here are those prices consumers pay (or save) for their last units of energy used (or

saved). Marginal prices reflect a change in a consumer's bill (that might be associated with new energy efficiency

standards) divided by the corresponding change in the amount of energy the consumer used.

B-1

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

APPENDIX 8. MARGINAL ENERGY PRICES AND NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS 

8.1 COMMERCIAL SECTOR MARGINAL ENERGY PRICES 

B.1.1 Background 

Previous analyses of the life-cycle costs of and consumer bill savings possible from appliance 

energy efficiency standards were based on average energy prices.a Using marginal energy prices in 

these analyses is more theoretically sound. b Accordingly, in April 1998 the Advisory Committee on 

Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards delivered a letter to the Secretary of Energy recommending, 

among other things, that DOE should replace the use of national average energy prices with the full 

range of consumer marginal energy rates in its life-cycle cost analyses. Because neither published 

nor readily available data existed for consumer marginal energy prices, a major research effort was 

required to derive consumer marginal energy price. The full report on this research effort, "Marginal 

Energy Prices Report," can be obtained from DOEl. 

In the near tenn, several sources of information were available for research and analysis on 

marginal prices. Commercial customers' utility bills could be approximated knowing monthly usage 

and likely utility tariff. Monthly usage for a large sample of commercial buildings was available 

from a commercial product, the MAISY'lt commercial database.2 Utility tariff sheets, generally those 

applicable during 1997, were available from utility web sites, commercial services, or the utilities 

themselves. Data on utility sales and number of customers on various tariffs were available for 

investor-owned utilities from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Fonn 1 filings 

made by those utilities. For municipal utilities and co-ops, equivalenttariff-Ievel data were obtained 

from either the utility itself or was available fi.-om the Rural Utility Service. In the future, given that 

restructuring of parts of the energy supply sector will complicate billing, energy pricing infonnation 

would best come directly from the customers. Because of the complexity inherent in utility tariffs, 

methods to approximate marginal prices that simply subtract fixed costs from average costs did not 

constitute a credible method for calculating marginal prices. 

8.1.2 Overview 

Commercial marginal electricity prices were derived by calculating monthly bills for a 

distribution of buildings (with energy usage information) using a set of modeled commercial tariffs. 

The sections below describe the utility tariffs that were chosen and modeled for this analysis. The 

MAISY® database (acquired from Jackson Associates) provided the source of infonnation for the 

building energy and demand levels among buildings of different types. 

"Average energy prices for a consumer were derived by dividing annual energy costs by annual energy consumption. 

At the utility level, average energy prices were derived by dividing annual revenues by annual energy sales. 

bMarginal prices as discussed here are those prices consumers pay (or save) for their last units of energy used (or 

saved). Marginal prices reflect a change in a consumer's bill (that might be associated with new energy efficiency 

standards) divided by the conesponding change in the amount of energy the consumer used. 

B-1 

APPENDIX 8. MARGINAL ENERGY PRICES AND NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS 

8.1 COMMERCIAL SECTOR MARGINAL ENERGY PRICES 

B.1.1 Background 

Previous analyses of the life-cycle costs of and consumer bill savings possible from appliance 

energy efficiency standards were based on average energy prices.a Using marginal energy prices in 

these analyses is more theoretically sound. b Accordingly, in April 1998 the Advisory Committee on 

Appliance Energy Efficiency Standards delivered a letter to the Secretary of Energy recommending, 

among other things, that DOE should replace the use of national average energy prices with the full 

range of consumer marginal energy rates in its life-cycle cost analyses. Because neither published 

nor readily available data existed for consumer marginal energy prices, a major research effort was 

required to derive consumer marginal energy price. The full report on this research effort, "Marginal 

Energy Prices Report," can be obtained from DOEl. 

In the near tenn, several sources of information were available for research and analysis on 

marginal prices. Commercial customers' utility bills could be approximated knowing monthly usage 

and likely utility tariff. Monthly usage for a large sample of commercial buildings was available 

from a commercial product, the MAISY'lt commercial database.2 Utility tariff sheets, generally those 

applicable during 1997, were available from utility web sites, commercial services, or the utilities 

themselves. Data on utility sales and number of customers on various tariffs were available for 

investor-owned utilities from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Fonn 1 filings 

made by those utilities. For municipal utilities and co-ops, equivalenttariff-Ievel data were obtained 

from either the utility itself or was available fi.-om the Rural Utility Service. In the future, given that 

restructuring of parts of the energy supply sector will complicate billing, energy pricing infonnation 

would best come directly from the customers. Because of the complexity inherent in utility tariffs, 

methods to approximate marginal prices that simply subtract fixed costs from average costs did not 

constitute a credible method for calculating marginal prices. 

8.1.2 Overview 

Commercial marginal electricity prices were derived by calculating monthly bills for a 

distribution of buildings (with energy usage information) using a set of modeled commercial tariffs. 

The sections below describe the utility tariffs that were chosen and modeled for this analysis. The 

MAISY® database (acquired from Jackson Associates) provided the source of infonnation for the 

building energy and demand levels among buildings of different types. 

"Average energy prices for a consumer were derived by dividing annual energy costs by annual energy consumption. 

At the utility level, average energy prices were derived by dividing annual revenues by annual energy sales. 

bMarginal prices as discussed here are those prices consumers pay (or save) for their last units of energy used (or 

saved). Marginal prices reflect a change in a consumer's bill (that might be associated with new energy efficiency 

standards) divided by the conesponding change in the amount of energy the consumer used. 

B-1 
This section describes the process for calculating the electricity bills and the marginal

electricity prices for the sampled commercial buildings. The Commercial Tariffs Spreadsheet, or

CTAS, contains a collection of modeled commercial electric utility tariffs, a collection of modeled

commercial buildings, and Visual Basic program modules. Each building was assigned to a group

of applicable tariffs based on building demand and monthly bills were calculated for each tariff for

a calendar year. Then, building energy usage and demands were decremented to account for savings

expected from a new energy efficiency standard, monthly bills were recalculated, and the differences

in bills and energy use used to calculate marginal prices. A brief description of the demand

decrement methodology is included. We also describe the method by which the sampled buildings

were weighted in the analysis. Lastly, we present the results of the commercial analysis.

B.1.3 Sample Tariffs

B.1.3.1 Tariff Collection

For a variety of utilities around the country, we collected commercial tariffs and then

modeled them for use in the bill calculation process. We chose utilities in an attempt to obtain a

sample that is generally representative of commercial customers throughout the nation. In choosing

utilities, the key factors we considered were geographic location, type of ownership (e.g. investor

owned, publicly owned, or cooperatively owned), and size. We chose those factors to capture

regional differences in such issues as climate, the availability of inexpensive sources of energy, the

structure of regulatory oversight, and the scale of operation. Table B. 1 below is a list of the

commercial utility sample used in this analysis. We obtained utility tariffs from the following

sources: utility web sites, a consulting company, and utilities themselves. In order to be able to

properly weight results, we also obtained FERC Form 1 (or equivalent) data for the chosen utilities

showing the number of customers and the sales for each of a utility's tariffs.

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 104

This section describes the process for calculating the electricity bills and the marginal 

electricity prices for the sampled commercial buildings. The Commercial Tariffs Spreadsheet, or 

CTAS, contains a collection of modeled commercial electric utility tariffs, a collection of modeled 

commercial buildings, and Visual Basic program modules. Each building was assigned to a group 

of applicable tariffs based on building demand and monthly bills were calculated for each tariff for 

a calendar year. Then, building energy usage and demands were decremented to account for savings 

expected from a new energy efficiency standard, monthly bills were recalculated, and the differences 

in bills and energy use used to calculate marginal prices. A brief description of the demand 

decrement methodology is included. We also describe the method by which the sampled buildings 

were weighted in the analysis. Lastly, we present the results ofthe commercial analysis. 

B.1.3 Sample Tariffs 

8.1.3.1 Tariff Collection 

For a variety of utilities around the country, we collected commercial tariffs and then 

modeled them for use in the bill calculation process. We chose utilities in an attempt to obtain a 

sample that is generally representative of commercial customers throughout the nation. In choosing 

utilities, the key factors we considered were geographic location, type of ownership (e.g. investor 

owned, publicly owned, or cooperatively owned), and size. We chose those factors to capture 

regional differences in such issues as climate, the availability of inexpensive sources of energy, the 

structure of regulatory oversight, and the scale of operation. Table B.1 below is a list of the 

commercial utility sample used in this analysis. We obtained utility tariffs from the following 

sources: utility web sites, a consulting company, and utilities themselves. In order to be able to 

properly weight results, we also obtained FERC Foml 1 (or equivalent) data for the chosen utilities 

showing the number of customers and the sales for each of a utility's tariffs. 

B-2 

This section describes the process for calculating the electricity bills and the marginal 

electricity prices for the sampled commercial buildings. The Commercial Tariffs Spreadsheet, or 

CTAS, contains a collection of modeled commercial electric utility tariffs, a collection of modeled 

commercial buildings, and Visual Basic program modules. Each building was assigned to a group 

of applicable tariffs based on building demand and monthly bills were calculated for each tariff for 

a calendar year. Then, building energy usage and demands were decremented to account for savings 

expected from a new energy efficiency standard, monthly bills were recalculated, and the differences 

in bills and energy use used to calculate marginal prices. A brief description of the demand 

decrement methodology is included. We also describe the method by which the sampled buildings 

were weighted in the analysis. Lastly, we present the results ofthe commercial analysis. 

B.1.3 Sample Tariffs 

8.1.3.1 Tariff Collection 

For a variety of utilities around the country, we collected commercial tariffs and then 

modeled them for use in the bill calculation process. We chose utilities in an attempt to obtain a 

sample that is generally representative of commercial customers throughout the nation. In choosing 

utilities, the key factors we considered were geographic location, type of ownership (e.g. investor 

owned, publicly owned, or cooperatively owned), and size. We chose those factors to capture 

regional differences in such issues as climate, the availability of inexpensive sources of energy, the 

structure of regulatory oversight, and the scale of operation. Table B.1 below is a list of the 

commercial utility sample used in this analysis. We obtained utility tariffs from the following 

sources: utility web sites, a consulting company, and utilities themselves. In order to be able to 

properly weight results, we also obtained FERC Foml 1 (or equivalent) data for the chosen utilities 

showing the number of customers and the sales for each of a utility's tariffs. 

B-2