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 

### 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-factoryjobs 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 Includesjobs from Sub-groups 1 and 2 Does not include potential associatedjobs added in these plants



### OTHER IMPACTS During the manufacturer interviews additional relevant industry issues were discussed: Impact ofthe decline in magnetic ballast shipments on Sub-group 1 Differential impacts on the two sub-groups withregards to their abilityto compete in the marketplace, after an electronic ballast standard is implemented Global competition Cumulative impacts ofregulations Each ofthese issues is discussed in greater detail in the following sections.



### 6A.2.S.1 Impact ofthe Decline in Magnetic Ballast Shipments on Sub-group 1 The decline in shipments ofmagnetic 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 aggressivelypursued 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-factoryjobs 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 Includesjobs from Sub-groups 1 and 2 Does not include potential associatedjobs added in these plants



### OTHER IMPACTS During the manufacturer interviews additional relevant industry issues were discussed: Impact ofthe decline in magnetic ballast shipments on Sub-group 1 Differential impacts on the two sub-groups withregards to their abilityto compete in the marketplace, after an electronic ballast standard is implemented Global competition Cumulative impacts ofregulations Each ofthese issues is discussed in greater detail in the following sections.



### 6A.2.S.1 Impact ofthe Decline in Magnetic Ballast Shipments on Sub-group 1 The decline in shipments ofmagnetic 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 aggressivelypursued cost savings to remain competitive, including continual product redesigns and stronger business management controls



### 6-31Some 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 attractivefor 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 Some have aggressivelytried to maintain or increase market share to minimize or offset the impact ofthe 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 thatthey continuallyre-adjust to optimize the production mix between their current plants in order to remain cost competitive. In addition, all manufacturers in Sub-group I planto continueproducing magnetic ballasts until the electronic ballast standard comes into effect.



### 6A.2.S.2 DifferentialImpacts onthe Two Sub-groups with Regardsto theirAbility 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 statedthatOEMs and distributorsprefer "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 manufacturerin Sub-group 2 intends tobeginproduction ofmagnetic ballasts. This couldpotentiallyexert downwardpressure on magnetic ballastmargins, pushingthem 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 ofcompetitive 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 ofmagnetic ballast manufacturing has movedjustsouth ofthe Mexicanborderinthe past decade. Lowerlabor 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 ofsuccessful 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 aggressivelytried to maintain or increase market share to minimize or offset the impact ofthe 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 thatthey continuallyre-adjust to optimize the production mix between their current plants in order to remain cost competitive. In addition, all manufacturers in Sub-group I planto continueproducing magnetic ballasts until the electronic ballast standard comes into effect.



### 6A.2.S.2 DifferentialImpacts onthe Two Sub-groups with Regardsto theirAbility 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 statedthatOEMs and distributorsprefer "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 manufacturerin Sub-group 2 intends tobeginproduction ofmagnetic ballasts. This couldpotentiallyexert downwardpressure on magnetic ballastmargins, pushingthem 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 ofcompetitive 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 ofmagnetic ballast manufacturing has movedjustsouth ofthe Mexicanborderinthe past decade. Lowerlabor 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 ofsuccessful new entrants in the electronic ballast market. Most manufacturers in Sub-group 1 expected one or more major new players once an

6-32electronic 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 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 ofnew 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 ofexisting relations with OEMs and distributors as a barrier to new market entrants seeking to gain a large market share. The potential impacts ofa new market entrant were captured in the "new entrant" scenario.



### 6A.2.S.4 Cumulative Impact ofRegulations 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 ofenergy efficiency standards on small motors would limit the availability ofcapital for both its ballast and motor businesses.



### 6B. IMPACTON SUPPLIERSTOTHE FLUORESCENTLAMPBALLASTINDUSTRY New energy-efficiency standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts will significantly alter the product mix ofballast shipments among magnetic, cathode cutout, and electronic types. Because magnetic and electronic ballast types differ significantly in their materials requirements, these changes inproductmixwill substantially affectthe sales of ballastindustrysuppliers and trade allies. This chapter documents the financial and employment impacts that ballast industry suppliers might experience as a result ofa new energy efficiency standard for ballasts. We performed a detailed analysis ofthe impacts ofan electronic ballast standard on ballast manufacturer suppliers. The methodologyused for ballast suppliers was essentiallythe same as was used for the ballast manufacturers. The analysis includes a quantitative evaluation ofmanufacturer cash flows based on the GRIM spreadsheet. The information necessary for GRIM was collected during detailed interviews withballast suppliers. The interview guide used to structure and organize the interview discussion invited supplier interviewees to discuss:

.. The nature ofmaterials and components they produce for ballast production • The level offinancial importance ofthese products to the plant orprofit center

.. Financial impacts ofchanges in ballast energy efficiency standards on the plant or profit center • Employment impacts ofa new ballast energy efficiency standard, and

.. Recent market trends and their impacts. Ballastmanufacturers identifiedkey supplier firms, and a numberofadditional supplier fimls were identified through their attendance at one ormore 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 ofnew 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 ofexisting relations with OEMs and distributors as a barrier to new market entrants seeking to gain a large market share. The potential impacts ofa new market entrant were captured in the "new entrant" scenario.



### 6A.2.S.4 Cumulative Impact ofRegulations 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 ofenergy efficiency standards on small motors would limit the availability ofcapital for both its ballast and motor businesses.



### 6B. IMPACTON SUPPLIERSTOTHE FLUORESCENTLAMPBALLASTINDUSTRY New energy-efficiency standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts will significantly alter the product mix ofballast shipments among magnetic, cathode cutout, and electronic types. Because magnetic and electronic ballast types differ significantly in their materials requirements, these changes inproductmixwill substantially affectthe sales of ballastindustrysuppliers and trade allies. This chapter documents the financial and employment impacts that ballast industry suppliers might experience as a result ofa new energy efficiency standard for ballasts. We performed a detailed analysis ofthe impacts ofan electronic ballast standard on ballast manufacturer suppliers. The methodologyused for ballast suppliers was essentiallythe same as was used for the ballast manufacturers. The analysis includes a quantitative evaluation ofmanufacturer cash flows based on the GRIM spreadsheet. The information necessary for GRIM was collected during detailed interviews withballast suppliers. The interview guide used to structure and organize the interview discussion invited supplier interviewees to discuss:

.. The nature ofmaterials and components they produce for ballast production • The level offinancial importance ofthese products to the plant orprofit center

.. Financial impacts ofchanges in ballast energy efficiency standards on the plant or profit center • Employment impacts ofa new ballast energy efficiency standard, and

.. Recent market trends and their impacts. Ballastmanufacturers identifiedkey supplier firms, and a numberofadditional supplier fimls were identified through their attendance at one ormore 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
6-33to 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 plastic insulators (Shieldmate

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 servingelectronicballastapplicationsparticipated in interviews. Four ofthese 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 servingelectronicballastapplicationsparticipated in interviews. Four ofthese 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 

### 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 electronicballasts, although in some casesthe individual companies are different. Tothe 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 supplierplantpersonnel to gather more detailed financial and employment infoffilation from them.



### 68.1.1 Cost ofMaterials for Magnetic Ballast Anestimatedbill ofmaterials for a 2F40T12 magnetic ballast, developedthrough discussions with ballastmanufacturers, had a distribution ofcosts amongmaterial categories as shown in Figure 6B.l. The interviews with suppliers yielded a second distribution ofprices charged by suppliers for the same categories ofmaterials. The interviewresults are shown in Figure 6B.2. Comparison ofthe figures indicates reasonable agreementbetweenthe benchmark andthe interviewresults 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 % ofthe average ballast cost ofmaterials. 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 byballast 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% ofthecapacitors 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 neededto supply31.5 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 ofthe assumptions and consistent with 100% coverage ofwire suppliers. Some ofthe same suppliers can serve the electronic ballast market, which requires only about one fourth the magnet wire per ballast for a smallernumber ofballasts. Finallywire connectors are used in place ofleadwire 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 electronicballasts, although in some casesthe individual companies are different. Tothe 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 supplierplantpersonnel to gather more detailed financial and employment infoffilation from them.



### 68.1.1 Cost ofMaterials for Magnetic Ballast Anestimatedbill ofmaterials for a 2F40T12 magnetic ballast, developedthrough discussions with ballastmanufacturers, had a distribution ofcosts amongmaterial categories as shown in Figure 6B.l. The interviews with suppliers yielded a second distribution ofprices charged by suppliers for the same categories ofmaterials. The interviewresults are shown in Figure 6B.2. Comparison ofthe figures indicates reasonable agreementbetweenthe benchmark andthe interviewresults 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 % ofthe average ballast cost ofmaterials. 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 byballast 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% ofthecapacitors 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 neededto supply31.5 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 ofthe assumptions and consistent with 100% coverage ofwire suppliers. Some ofthe same suppliers can serve the electronic ballast market, which requires only about one fourth the magnet wire per ballast for a smallernumber ofballasts. Finallywire connectors are used in place ofleadwire 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

6-35were 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 

### 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 electronicballastmanufacturerspurchase finished cases, andthe industry supplyingthese 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 bypro-rating the values for the above industries representingthe 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 electronicballastmanufacturerspurchase finished cases, andthe industry supplyingthese 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 bypro-rating the values for the above industries representingthe 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

6-36Capacitors 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 Capacitors 16% Other 15% Steel case & CRM.. 24%

wire 33% 

### Figure 6B.2 Suppliers' Distribution ofRevenues
Two secondarysupplierindustries, wire enamel andmetallized film, provided some datathat was used to supplement the employment impact estimates.
The high fraction ofsupplier 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 ofmaterials 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 ofcosts 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 ofMaterials for "Affected" Magnetic Ballasts

6-37 Capacitors 16% Other 15% Steel case & CRM.. 24%

wire 33% 

### Figure 6B.2 Suppliers' Distribution ofRevenues
Two secondarysupplierindustries, wire enamel andmetallized film, provided some datathat was used to supplement the employment impact estimates.
The high fraction ofsupplier 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 ofmaterials 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 ofcosts 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 ofMaterials for "Affected" Magnetic Ballasts

6-37Some 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 Some ofthe capacitors, magnet wire, and lead wire contributingto 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 ofthe supplier analysis, data from these sources was useful in establishing reliable values for industry-wide financial and employment variables. In categorieswhere few supplierswere interviewed, captive suppliercostdatawas also aggregated with supplier data to maintain confidentiality. Only a very small fraction ofthe cost ofmaterials for "affected" magnetic ballasts can be attributed to sources outsidethe U.S. This amounted to only about 0.25 million capacitorsproduced 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 ofthe 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 ofcapacitors for "affected"magneticballasts are the ballast manufacturers themselves, and the profitability of these plants or profit centers tends to depend heavilyon 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 capacitortype andproduces a greatervariety ofcapacitors serving smaller, verycompetitive markets in addition to magnetic and/or electronic ballasts. This non-captive segment regards the "affected" capacitors as favorable products. This is because theygenerally are ordered in larger quantities with longer production runs than most other capacitors and thereby provide stability to the use ofcapital and laborthat allows them to better compete for the smaller orders that make up much ofthe other 90% oftheir 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. Amongthe non-captive suppliers, magnet wire sales account for a wide range in fractions oftotal plant sales, from under 5%to about 25%. Industry participants at the low end ofthis range expect to accommodate a continued decline in industry shipmentswith smallreductions in income and losses in employment. Plantsmore 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 atelectronicballastsbutare considered alongwith suppliers

6-38 Some ofthe capacitors, magnet wire, and lead wire contributingto 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 ofthe supplier analysis, data from these sources was useful in establishing reliable values for industry-wide financial and employment variables. In categorieswhere few supplierswere interviewed, captive suppliercostdatawas also aggregated with supplier data to maintain confidentiality. Only a very small fraction ofthe cost ofmaterials for "affected" magnetic ballasts can be attributed to sources outsidethe U.S. This amounted to only about 0.25 million capacitorsproduced 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 ofthe 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 ofcapacitors for "affected"magneticballasts are the ballast manufacturers themselves, and the profitability of these plants or profit centers tends to depend heavilyon 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 capacitortype andproduces a greatervariety ofcapacitors serving smaller, verycompetitive markets in addition to magnetic and/or electronic ballasts. This non-captive segment regards the "affected" capacitors as favorable products. This is because theygenerally are ordered in larger quantities with longer production runs than most other capacitors and thereby provide stability to the use ofcapital and laborthat allows them to better compete for the smaller orders that make up much ofthe other 90% oftheir 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. Amongthe non-captive suppliers, magnet wire sales account for a wide range in fractions oftotal plant sales, from under 5%to about 25%. Industry participants at the low end ofthis range expect to accommodate a continued decline in industry shipmentswith smallreductions in income and losses in employment. Plantsmore 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 atelectronicballastsbutare considered alongwith 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. 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 importantcustomerswhopurchase stampedparts in very large quantities. Dependence on "affected" magnetic ballastpatisranged fromjust over30 to nearly 100% amongtheparticipants in thismarket, and these plants are highly dependent on sales of"affected"ballastproducts for survival in the short term. Thermal protectors: These components are supplied to the "affected" ballasts almost exclusivelyby one supplierwhich dominatesthe them1a1 protectorindustry. Although the "affected" ballast applications account for a small portion ofplant 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% oftheirproduction capacity is allocated to ballast components. This market is importantto themprimarilybecause 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 ofthat component perballasttimes the fraction ofthe market served by domestic suppliers. The domestic and foreign market shares were estimated by industry sources for each ballast component separately. Many ofthe supplier industries for "affected" magnetic ballast production also supply their electronic ballast equivalents, although in some cases the production facilities are different. A new energyefficiencystandard atthe electronicballast level couldprovide newmarkets for some ofthese supplier industries. We have estimated the extent to which these new market opportunities can mitigate the elimination ofthe $83 million in "affected" magnetic ballast componentrevenues. 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 importantcustomerswhopurchase stampedparts in very large quantities. Dependence on "affected" magnetic ballastpatisranged fromjust over30 to nearly 100% amongtheparticipants in thismarket, and these plants are highly dependent on sales of"affected"ballastproducts for survival in the short term. Thermal protectors: These components are supplied to the "affected" ballasts almost exclusivelyby one supplierwhich dominatesthe them1a1 protectorindustry. Although the "affected" ballast applications account for a small portion ofplant 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% oftheirproduction capacity is allocated to ballast components. This market is importantto themprimarilybecause 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 ofthat component perballasttimes the fraction ofthe market served by domestic suppliers. The domestic and foreign market shares were estimated by industry sources for each ballast component separately. Many ofthe supplier industries for "affected" magnetic ballast production also supply their electronic ballast equivalents, although in some cases the production facilities are different. A new energyefficiencystandard atthe electronicballast level couldprovide newmarkets for some ofthese supplier industries. We have estimated the extent to which these new market opportunities can mitigate the elimination ofthe $83 million in "affected" magnetic ballast componentrevenues. The following paragraphs illustrate the estimation procedure using capacitors as an example.

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

### SrI d t'

e ecte ectromc a as UpPJ ler n us nes "AFFECTED" ELECTRONIC MAGNETIC SUPPLIER INDUSTRY REVENU ESTIMATE REVENUE PER ESTIMATED 1997 EPER D 1997 BALLAST SALES l BALLAST SALES l $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: Therevenue perballast for capacitors used in magneticballasts is taken from the cost ofmaterials 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 ofcapacitors are produced in captive plants owned and operated by ballast manufacturers and a small number are manufactured outside ofthe domestic U.S. The focus ofthe 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 ofthese exclusions is to reduce the shipments of"affected"magneticballastcapacitors in 1997 to those requiredto serve about5million "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 ofcapacitorsperaverage electronic ballastreplacingthe 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 Americanplants are offoreign origin. In addition, some film capacitors are manufacturedbycaptive capacity. We exclude these foreign and captive capacitors from the domestic sales reported inTable 6B.2. Therevenue in $ millions providedthe domestic supplierindustryby a given electronic ballast manufacturer is: MFGR} = 23.6xl06x mktshare} xfractiol1_domestic} xfractiol1_l1oncaptive} x capyrice

6-40 Table 6B.2 Estimated Financial Factors for Domestic "Affected" Magnetic Ballast and SIdEI . B II t 

### SrI d t'

e ecte ectromc a as UpPJ ler n us nes "AFFECTED" ELECTRONIC MAGNETIC SUPPLIER INDUSTRY REVENU ESTIMATE REVENUE PER ESTIMATED 1997 EPER D 1997 BALLAST SALES l BALLAST SALES l $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: Therevenue perballast for capacitors used in magneticballasts is taken from the cost ofmaterials 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 ofcapacitors are produced in captive plants owned and operated by ballast manufacturers and a small number are manufactured outside ofthe domestic U.S. The focus ofthe 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 ofthese exclusions is to reduce the shipments of"affected"magneticballastcapacitors in 1997 to those requiredto serve about5million "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 ofcapacitorsperaverage electronic ballastreplacingthe 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 Americanplants are offoreign origin. In addition, some film capacitors are manufacturedbycaptive capacity. We exclude these foreign and captive capacitors from the domestic sales reported inTable 6B.2. Therevenue in $ millions providedthe domestic supplierindustryby a given electronic ballast manufacturer is: MFGR} = 23.6xl06x mktshare} xfractiol1_domestic} xfractiol1_l1oncaptive} x capyrice

6-40Performing 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 Perfonningthis calculationfor each manufacturer and each capacitortype and summingover 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 ofcapacitors 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 ifthe standard year is 2003.
The estimation procedure can be summarized as a simple three-step process: " Detennine the cost ofeach 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 perballast" in Table 6B.2 represents the total cost perballast of the components in each supplier industry grouping, and the sales amount represents the revenue received by U.S. domestic suppliers.
The domestic content orrevenue perballast has been shown for magnetic ballasts in Figure 6B.3. The equivalent discussion ofmaterials 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 thatwould replace them in the event ofan electronic standard. Each supplier industrywas considered separately and the results combined into the five groups shown in Table 6B.2. The industries included in the analysis included four types ofcapacitors, magnet wire, leadwire, wire connectors, thennalprotectors, 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 usedto characterize the financial value ofthe industries is the netpresent 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 ofan 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 Perfonningthis calculationfor each manufacturer and each capacitortype and summingover 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 ofcapacitors 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 ifthe standard year is 2003.
The estimation procedure can be summarized as a simple three-step process: " Detennine the cost ofeach 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 perballast" in Table 6B.2 represents the total cost perballast of the components in each supplier industry grouping, and the sales amount represents the revenue received by U.S. domestic suppliers.
The domestic content orrevenue perballast has been shown for magnetic ballasts in Figure 6B.3. The equivalent discussion ofmaterials 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 thatwould replace them in the event ofan electronic standard. Each supplier industrywas considered separately and the results combined into the five groups shown in Table 6B.2. The industries included in the analysis included four types ofcapacitors, magnet wire, leadwire, wire connectors, thennalprotectors, 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 usedto characterize the financial value ofthe industries is the netpresent 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 ofan 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.

6-41Table 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 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 ofchange 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% ofthat level in 2027 while electronic substitutes increase proportionally. The standard case in this scenario repeats this rate ofdecline 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 industryNPVs 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 partbecause ofa highermarket 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 ofchange 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% ofthat level in 2027 while electronic substitutes increase proportionally. The standard case in this scenario repeats this rate ofdecline 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 industryNPVs 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 partbecause ofa highermarket 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
6-42electronic 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 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofcomponent or material from two or more sources and by calculating an estimated labor cost per unit to compare with the total cost ofthe material. We were able to estimate reasonable and internally consistent values for labor content in terms ofseconds oflabor per ballast served and thereby estimate the approximate labor hours or number offull timejob equivalents associated with serving "affected" magnetic ballasts. We used these estimates in conjunction with those provided directly bythe suppliers interviewed to detennine the employment levels associated with "affected" materials as ofa reference year, 1998.
We assumed 1997 employment levels to decline by 3% and 5% for each ofthe 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. Thejobs lost and gained represent a snapshot taken in the standard year 2003. The associated impact shown in the tables representsjobs
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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofcomponent or material from two or more sources and by calculating an estimated labor cost per unit to compare with the total cost ofthe material. We were able to estimate reasonable and internally consistent values for labor content in terms ofseconds oflabor per ballast served and thereby estimate the approximate labor hours or number offull timejob equivalents associated with serving "affected" magnetic ballasts. We used these estimates in conjunction with those provided directly bythe suppliers interviewed to detennine the employment levels associated with "affected" materials as ofa reference year, 1998.
We assumed 1997 employment levels to decline by 3% and 5% for each ofthe 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. Thejobs lost and gained represent a snapshot taken in the standard year 2003. The associated impact shown in the tables representsjobs
6-43unrelated 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 L

### OST 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 

### 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"magneticballasts bynon-captive plants. This implied ahigherlabor 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"magneticballasts bynon-captive plants. This implied ahigherlabor content 6-44for 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 for the non-captive plants than for the captive plants and suggested a higher expected labor cost per capacitor than reported by the Census ofManufactuers. 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 capacitorjobs associated with supplying electronic ballasts, and this implies gains of37 or 34 in 2003jobs assumingthe 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 underthe 5% scenario in the year before the standard year. On the electronic side, each ballast uses about one-fourth the magnet wire ofthe 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 employmentin magnet and lead wire production changes propoliionalto sales, employment serving the new electronic market would be 86 jobs magnetic x 3.82 revenue electronic/26.4 revenue magnetic = 12.4jobs. This discounts to 11 and 10jobs gained in 2003 under the 3 & 5% scenarios Thermal Protector, Metal Clamps, Potting/impregnation: These industries arerelativelysmall 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% ofits 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 notuse the type ofclamps this industryproduces. 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 onejob lost. Steel Cases and CRML Steel: Steel suppliers used labor per "affected" magnetic ballast served in an amount representing approximately 72jobs 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 perpound ofproduct similar to those supplying magneticballastmanufacturing, butthe amount ofCRML steelperballastandthe number ofballasts 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 ofthe 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. Thatis, we assume that for the most partthe same suppliers will supportboth ballasttypes. 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 ofManufactuers. 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 capacitorjobs associated with supplying electronic ballasts, and this implies gains of37 or 34 in 2003jobs assumingthe 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 underthe 5% scenario in the year before the standard year. On the electronic side, each ballast uses about one-fourth the magnet wire ofthe 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 employmentin magnet and lead wire production changes propoliionalto sales, employment serving the new electronic market would be 86 jobs magnetic x 3.82 revenue electronic/26.4 revenue magnetic = 12.4jobs. This discounts to 11 and 10jobs gained in 2003 under the 3 & 5% scenarios Thermal Protector, Metal Clamps, Potting/impregnation: These industries arerelativelysmall 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% ofits 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 notuse the type ofclamps this industryproduces. 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 onejob lost. Steel Cases and CRML Steel: Steel suppliers used labor per "affected" magnetic ballast served in an amount representing approximately 72jobs 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 perpound ofproduct similar to those supplying magneticballastmanufacturing, butthe amount ofCRML steelperballastandthe number ofballasts 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 ofthe 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. Thatis, we assume that for the most partthe same suppliers will supportboth ballasttypes. 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 This discounts to 13 and 14jobs under the 5 and 3% scenarios. There is a recently emerging plastic case competitor industry that could capture a significant share ofthe 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 ofsteel cases. Metallized Film: This industry is a supplier to capacitorplants 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 notreport on ithere. Ourinterviews did determine areasonable estimate ofexpected employment impact, however, and that estimate is included as a direct impact in Tables 6B.5 and 6B.6. Our estimate ofthe laborcontent ofpolypropylene 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 anew, butmuch smaller, marketfor the film. Industry sources estimatethat 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 mightreplace. Assuming the high-end value of8%, the number of newjobs 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% ofrevenue at a rate of$12.50 per hour. This yielded an estimate ofapproximately 50 jobs, which reduced to 44 and 40 under the 3% and 5% scenarios. The same assumptions on the electronic'supplier revenue produced the potentialjob gains of9 and 8 shown in Tables 6B.5 and 6B.6. In summary, the expected employment impact ofan electronic ballast standard on supplier industries is a loss of340jobs assuming the 3% scenario or 313 assuming the 5% scenario. Ifthe supplier industries maintain their 1997 market shares ofelectronic ballast components, there is a potential for gainingback 87jobsunder the 3 % scenario or 80 under the 5% scenario. These results lead to a net loss of233-253 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 ofRecent Market Trends Based on 1998 sales figures, shipments of corrected power factor magnetic ballasts have decreasedover20% sincethepeakyearof 1994, accordingto Census datapublishedthrough 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 onhowanew energyefficiency standardwould affecttheirbusinesses. This sectionbriefly summarizes the answers to those questions as presentedbythe interviewed supplierrepresentatives. "Affected" capacitor sales have decreased in recent years to about 60% ofthe peak ofthis decade andthe industry has survived through consolidation and by developing othermarkets. While one majorballast manufacturer stopped buying capacitors on the open market in favor ofrelying on
6-46 This discounts to 13 and 14jobs under the 5 and 3% scenarios. There is a recently emerging plastic case competitor industry that could capture a significant share ofthe 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 ofsteel cases. Metallized Film: This industry is a supplier to capacitorplants 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 notreport on ithere. Ourinterviews did determine areasonable estimate ofexpected employment impact, however, and that estimate is included as a direct impact in Tables 6B.5 and 6B.6. Our estimate ofthe laborcontent ofpolypropylene 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 anew, butmuch smaller, marketfor the film. Industry sources estimatethat 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 mightreplace. Assuming the high-end value of8%, the number of newjobs 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% ofrevenue at a rate of$12.50 per hour. This yielded an estimate ofapproximately 50 jobs, which reduced to 44 and 40 under the 3% and 5% scenarios. The same assumptions on the electronic'supplier revenue produced the potentialjob gains of9 and 8 shown in Tables 6B.5 and 6B.6. In summary, the expected employment impact ofan electronic ballast standard on supplier industries is a loss of340jobs assuming the 3% scenario or 313 assuming the 5% scenario. Ifthe supplier industries maintain their 1997 market shares ofelectronic ballast components, there is a potential for gainingback 87jobsunder the 3 % scenario or 80 under the 5% scenario. These results lead to a net loss of233-253 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 ofRecent Market Trends Based on 1998 sales figures, shipments of corrected power factor magnetic ballasts have decreasedover20% sincethepeakyearof 1994, accordingto Census datapublishedthrough 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 onhowanew energyefficiency standardwould affecttheirbusinesses. This sectionbriefly summarizes the answers to those questions as presentedbythe interviewed supplierrepresentatives. "Affected" capacitor sales have decreased in recent years to about 60% ofthe peak ofthis decade andthe industry has survived through consolidation and by developing othermarkets. While one majorballast manufacturer stopped buying capacitors on the open market in favor ofrelying on
6-46captive 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 captive production, another reduced its domestic in-house production in favor ofoutsourcing part ofits 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 enterthat can absorb production lostfrom reduced ballastindustrypurchases. The capacitorindustryis diversified among other applications for capacitors, including motors, HID lamp ballasts, power factor correction, microwave ovens, and other applications. All ofthese applications, however, are highly competitive, mature markets. The only apparentgrowth market, electronic lamp ballasts, isperceivec 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% ofthe 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 impactof reduced shipments of"affected"magneticballasts onthe magnet and leadwire industry has been mixed. One major ballast manufacturer has reduced its in-house wire manufacturing in favor ofoutsourcing while another has curtailed its outside purchases ofwire in favor ofpreserving its in-house production. The net reduction in captive manufacturing ofmagnet and leadwire has provided some opportunities for outside suppliers to increase sales, butthisbenefit has accrued primarilyto 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 ballastmarketwould leadto layoffs attheold-line firms and threaten the survival ofnewcomer 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 of2002 ifa standard year of2003 is established. Specialty steel sales have decreased and consolidation ofthe markethas allowedthe current participants to survive by increasing market share. Loss ofthe "affected" magnetic ballast market would lead to lowerrevenues 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 ofthe "affected" magnetic ballast market. Small firms in the industrywould face greatercompetition as larger, low-costproducers compete for niche markets formerly left to small producers.
The metallized film industry has investigated new markets and has gained a share ofthe

6-47 captive production, another reduced its domestic in-house production in favor ofoutsourcing part ofits 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 enterthat can absorb production lostfrom reduced ballastindustrypurchases. The capacitorindustryis diversified among other applications for capacitors, including motors, HID lamp ballasts, power factor correction, microwave ovens, and other applications. All ofthese applications, however, are highly competitive, mature markets. The only apparentgrowth market, electronic lamp ballasts, isperceivec 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% ofthe 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 impactof reduced shipments of"affected"magneticballasts onthe magnet and leadwire industry has been mixed. One major ballast manufacturer has reduced its in-house wire manufacturing in favor ofoutsourcing while another has curtailed its outside purchases ofwire in favor ofpreserving its in-house production. The net reduction in captive manufacturing ofmagnet and leadwire has provided some opportunities for outside suppliers to increase sales, butthisbenefit has accrued primarilyto 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 ballastmarketwould leadto layoffs attheold-line firms and threaten the survival ofnewcomer 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 of2002 ifa standard year of2003 is established. Specialty steel sales have decreased and consolidation ofthe markethas allowedthe current participants to survive by increasing market share. Loss ofthe "affected" magnetic ballast market would lead to lowerrevenues 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 ofthe "affected" magnetic ballast market. Small firms in the industrywould face greatercompetition as larger, low-costproducers compete for niche markets formerly left to small producers.
The metallized film industry has investigated new markets and has gained a share ofthe

6-47capacitor 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. capacitor market supplying the electronic ballast industry. But electronic ballast capacitors use less than 10% as much film as capacitors for "affected" magnetic ballasts. Servingthe electronic ballast capacitorindustry is highly competitive, andwell overhalfofthepolypropylene film capacitorsused 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 ofnewcomer plants that are not sufficiently diversified.



### 6:8.2 Impacts on Suppliers to Electronic Ballast Production
We limited our investigation ofthe industries which supplythe electronic ballast industryto 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 ballastproduction. 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 ofMaterials
The estimatedcostof materials for an electronicballast substitute forthe "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 ofa 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. Servingthe electronic ballast capacitorindustry is highly competitive, andwell overhalfofthepolypropylene film capacitorsused 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 ofnewcomer plants that are not sufficiently diversified.



### 6:8.2 Impacts on Suppliers to Electronic Ballast Production
We limited our investigation ofthe industries which supplythe electronic ballast industryto 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 ballastproduction. 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 ofMaterials
The estimatedcostof materials for an electronicballast substitute forthe "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 ofa new energy efficiency standard on domestic supplier industries, we estimated the fraction produced domestically for each industry group represented in Figure 6B.4.

6-48Other Ferrite Cores 10% 5% Steel Case & C RML 12%

Magnet & PC Board, Lead Wire, Thermal Connectors r?<:' Protectors, 2% Pottin g 12/o T i t rans s ors 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. 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 ofMaterials for Electronic Ballasts

We found that about 70% ofthe revenue for components used in electronic ballasts go to foreign suppliers. This is inpartbecause a substantial numberofelectronicballasts are manufactured outside NorthAmerica, and in partbecause large, low-cost electronic componentmanufacturingplants have been setup overseasto serve the industries producingpersonal computers and consumer electronics products. We have extractedthe foreign-produced portions ofthecomponents 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, whichprovide components andmaterials for both electronic and magneticballasts. Reorganizingthe 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 ofMaterials for Electronic Ballasts

We found that about 70% ofthe revenue for components used in electronic ballasts go to foreign suppliers. This is inpartbecause a substantial numberofelectronicballasts are manufactured outside NorthAmerica, and in partbecause large, low-cost electronic componentmanufacturingplants have been setup overseasto serve the industries producingpersonal computers and consumer electronics products. We have extractedthe foreign-produced portions ofthecomponents 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, whichprovide components andmaterials for both electronic and magneticballasts. Reorganizingthe 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.

6-49Film 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%

:''::'; Magnet & Lead Ferrite Cores 8% 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 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 ofCost 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 About70% oftheDomesticMaterials Costfor Electronic BallastsAreAssociated 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 ofCost 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 About70% oftheDomesticMaterials Costfor Electronic BallastsAreAssociated 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 continue through 2003 when the new market for electronic ballasts stimulated by a new standard would emerge. Ourinterviewswith manufacturers and suppliers have indicatedthatthesetrends will continue as physical size reductions, foreign competition, and market growth for electronic ballasts exert their impacts.

T bi 6B 7 

### Eft d F'

. IF 

### t £ D

a e 

# . s (rna e manCla ac ors or f EI t . B II tS omes IC ec romc a as 

### rId t' uppller n us 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 separatelyfor PC boards andbobbins andcombined 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
Weestimatedemploymentimpacts on the printed circuitboardandinjection-moldedbobbins industries in the same way as described in Section 3.3.4 for the suppliers ofcomponents 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 addedto 33 in 1997,which comparedreasonablywith 37jobsestimated from industry revenues and standard laborrates. The remaining "otherelectronic" supplier industries: transistors,

6-51 continue through 2003 when the new market for electronic ballasts stimulated by a new standard would emerge. Ourinterviewswith manufacturers and suppliers have indicatedthatthesetrends will continue as physical size reductions, foreign competition, and market growth for electronic ballasts exert their impacts.

T bi 6B 7 

### Eft d F'

. IF 

### t £ D

a e 

# . s (rna e manCla ac ors or f EI t . B II tS omes IC ec romc a as 

### rId t' uppller n us 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 separatelyfor PC boards andbobbins andcombined 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
Weestimatedemploymentimpacts on the printed circuitboardandinjection-moldedbobbins industries in the same way as described in Section 3.3.4 for the suppliers ofcomponents 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 addedto 33 in 1997,which comparedreasonablywith 37jobsestimated from industry revenues and standard laborrates. The remaining "otherelectronic" supplier industries: transistors,

6-51diodes, 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 J

### OBS 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. 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 ofrevenues and hourly laborrates. The 1997 employment level derived this way was 37jobs, which amounted to 30 and 26 potentialjobs gained under the 3% and 5% scenarios, respectively.

T bi 6B9 E .

a e 

# . shmate dEmpJoyment I 

### £ EI mpacts or . B II S ectromc a ast 

## r I uppller ndustnes POTENTIAL JOBS GAINED INDUSTRY 3% Scenario 5% Scenario PC Board, Bobbins 27 23 Other Electronic 30 26 TOTAL 57 49

6B.3 COMBINEDFINANCIALAND EMPLOYMENTIMPACTS FORALL SUPPLIERS In this section we combine the results from Section 3.3 which considered suppliers to both "affected"magnetic and electronicballastmanufacturers withthose from Section 3.4thatconsidered suppliers now serving only the electronic ballast manufacturers to present the overall impacts on supplier industries.

6B.3.1 Financial Impacts Tables 6B.l0 and6B.ll summarizethe reference and worstcases, respectively. The reference case assumes that U.S. domestic suppliers will maintain their 1997 market shares of electronic ballastproduction ifa newballast 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 ofa $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 sharehas alreadytakenplace, thereference case results shown in Table 6B.l0 are unlikelyto be realized, but, on the otherhand domestic suppliers canbe expected to retain a portion oftheirmarket 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 ofrevenues and hourly laborrates. The 1997 employment level derived this way was 37jobs, which amounted to 30 and 26 potentialjobs gained under the 3% and 5% scenarios, respectively.

T bi 6B9 E .

a e 

# . shmate dEmpJoyment I 

### £ EI mpacts or . B II S ectromc a ast 

## r I uppller ndustnes POTENTIAL JOBS GAINED INDUSTRY 3% Scenario 5% Scenario PC Board, Bobbins 27 23 Other Electronic 30 26 TOTAL 57 49

6B.3 COMBINEDFINANCIALAND EMPLOYMENTIMPACTS FORALL SUPPLIERS In this section we combine the results from Section 3.3 which considered suppliers to both "affected"magnetic and electronicballastmanufacturers withthose from Section 3.4thatconsidered suppliers now serving only the electronic ballast manufacturers to present the overall impacts on supplier industries.

6B.3.1 Financial Impacts Tables 6B.l0 and6B.ll summarizethe reference and worstcases, respectively. The reference case assumes that U.S. domestic suppliers will maintain their 1997 market shares of electronic ballastproduction ifa newballast 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 ofa $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 sharehas alreadytakenplace, thereference case results shown in Table 6B.l0 are unlikelyto be realized, but, on the otherhand domestic suppliers canbe expected to retain a portion oftheirmarket 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, 199 8-2015 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 & Im p regnating 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 & Im pre gnatin g 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 Table6B.10 EstimatedNpv in $Millionsfor SupplierIndustries,AssumingDomestic 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

Table6B.11 EstimatedNPVin $MiHions for SupplierIndustries,AssumingForeign Suppliers Capture AU the New Electronic Ballast Market (Worst Case 5% Scenario, 1998-2015 3% Scenario, 1998-2027 INDUSTRY Base Standar 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 underthe 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 expectedjob losses are about 340 under the 3% scenario and about 313 under the 5% scenario. The potential forjob gains from the increasedproduction ofelectronic replacements is approximately 144 and 129 underthe 3% and 5% scenarios. The resultant netjob losses for the reference case conditions are 196 and 184. The

6-53 Table6B.10 EstimatedNpv in $Millionsfor SupplierIndustries,AssumingDomestic 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

Table6B.11 EstimatedNPVin $MiHions for SupplierIndustries,AssumingForeign Suppliers Capture AU the New Electronic Ballast Market (Worst Case 5% Scenario, 1998-2015 3% Scenario, 1998-2027 INDUSTRY Base Standar 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 underthe 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 expectedjob losses are about 340 under the 3% scenario and about 313 under the 5% scenario. The potential forjob gains from the increasedproduction ofelectronic replacements is approximately 144 and 129 underthe 3% and 5% scenarios. The resultant netjob losses for the reference case conditions are 196 and 184. The

6-53worst 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 

### worst case condition, wherein all the new electronic ballastproduction 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 ballastproduction 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

6-54Table 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 Table 6B.14 Estimated Employment Impacts for Supplier Industries Assuming Foreign S 

## r C All h N EI . B 

## n M k

upplers apture t e ew ectromc a ast 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 LUMINAIRE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
6C.1 Summary New energy-efficiency standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts will significantly alter the product mix ofballast 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 industrytrade allies, includingthe luminaire manufacturers. Luminaire manufacturing is a $7 billion peryear industry in the U.S. that employs about 60,000 people. The "affected" linear four and eightfoot fluorescent fixtures portion oftheindustry ships approximately $1.4billion of product annually.
Arthur D. Little perfornled an analysis ofthe 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 ofthe major manufacturers oflinear fluorescent luminaires serving commercial and industrial users. Ballastmanufacturers and the literature review identified key luminaire manufacturer firms, and a number ofadditional finns were identified through their attendance at one or more ballastworkshops at the Department and/or their correspondence with the Depmtment on ballast efficiency issues. The eight manufacturers interviewedrepresent over60% offluorescent luminaire sales and over 80% of the linearfluorescent 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 suggestedthatthere are four broad issues ofconcern to them.

e Customer choicewill be reducedbya standard and some luminaire purchaserswill be forced to selecthigher cost options than they otherwise would, and some will choose higher energy consumptive options (incandescent or halogen) than fluorescent. The interview results suggestthat the directions ofthese impacts are negative as suggestedbut thatthe impacts are
6-55 Table 6B.14 Estimated Employment Impacts for Supplier Industries Assuming Foreign S 

## r C All h N EI . B 

## n M k

upplers apture t e ew ectromc a ast 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 LUMINAIRE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
6C.1 Summary New energy-efficiency standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts will significantly alter the product mix ofballast 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 industrytrade allies, includingthe luminaire manufacturers. Luminaire manufacturing is a $7 billion peryear industry in the U.S. that employs about 60,000 people. The "affected" linear four and eightfoot fluorescent fixtures portion oftheindustry ships approximately $1.4billion of product annually.
Arthur D. Little perfornled an analysis ofthe 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 ofthe major manufacturers oflinear fluorescent luminaires serving commercial and industrial users. Ballastmanufacturers and the literature review identified key luminaire manufacturer firms, and a number ofadditional finns were identified through their attendance at one or more ballastworkshops at the Department and/or their correspondence with the Depmtment on ballast efficiency issues. The eight manufacturers interviewedrepresent over60% offluorescent luminaire sales and over 80% of the linearfluorescent 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 suggestedthatthere are four broad issues ofconcern to them.

e Customer choicewill be reducedbya standard and some luminaire purchaserswill be forced to selecthigher cost options than they otherwise would, and some will choose higher energy consumptive options (incandescent or halogen) than fluorescent. The interview results suggestthat the directions ofthese impacts are negative as suggestedbut thatthe impacts are
6-55not 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 not easily quantifiable and are small overall.

.. Exemptions forresidential, dimming, and coldtemperature applications, andfor applications exhibiting problems with electromagnetic interference from high frequency electronically ballasted lighting. The manufacturers were generallyin 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 bypurchasing the residential product. In general, the exemptions have the advantage ofsofteningthe abrupt impact ofthe 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 ofconcern to a small number ofmanufacturers who have substantial export business (nearly all export less than 5% oftheir shipments) or who are actively seeking to expand their export business.

.. Direct financial and employment impacts due to possible short-term shortages ofelectronic ballasts, loss of the price premium for electronic ballast/T8 luminaires, or differences in profitability between the mix ofelectronic and magnetic-based luminaires in the base case from that for the standard case. A majority ofthe 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. Abouthalfofthe manufacturers expected no or minimal impacts on profitability from a new standard while the remaining expected a range ofnegative impacts. The impacts were attributed to differences in profitability between base case and standard product mixes and to direct costs associatedwith changes inproductliterature, business processes,producttesting andevaluation, and informationmanagement systems requiredbynewproductofferings emanatingfrom anew standard. The aggregated "worstcase" change in netpresentvalue due toprofitability changes for the industry is negative in the range $9-18 million, assuming that the current premium margin for electronically ballasted luminairesremains constant in the base case. This is unlikely, however, as the recenttrend 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, andto the extentthatthe ballastmanufacturers are distractedbychanges imposedbynew standards, they cannot attend to technical assistance to luminaire manufacturers

6-56 not easily quantifiable and are small overall.

.. Exemptions forresidential, dimming, and coldtemperature applications, andfor applications exhibiting problems with electromagnetic interference from high frequency electronically ballasted lighting. The manufacturers were generallyin 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 bypurchasing the residential product. In general, the exemptions have the advantage ofsofteningthe abrupt impact ofthe 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 ofconcern to a small number ofmanufacturers who have substantial export business (nearly all export less than 5% oftheir shipments) or who are actively seeking to expand their export business.

.. Direct financial and employment impacts due to possible short-term shortages ofelectronic ballasts, loss of the price premium for electronic ballast/T8 luminaires, or differences in profitability between the mix ofelectronic and magnetic-based luminaires in the base case from that for the standard case. A majority ofthe 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. Abouthalfofthe manufacturers expected no or minimal impacts on profitability from a new standard while the remaining expected a range ofnegative impacts. The impacts were attributed to differences in profitability between base case and standard product mixes and to direct costs associatedwith changes inproductliterature, business processes,producttesting andevaluation, and informationmanagement systems requiredbynewproductofferings emanatingfrom anew standard. The aggregated "worstcase" change in netpresentvalue due toprofitability changes for the industry is negative in the range $9-18 million, assuming that the current premium margin for electronically ballasted luminairesremains constant in the base case. This is unlikely, however, as the recenttrend 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, andto the extentthatthe ballastmanufacturers are distractedbychanges imposedbynew standards, they cannot attend to technical assistance to luminaire manufacturers

6-56Nearly 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 Nearly all the manufacturers sawno significantimpact on their employment levels as aresult ofa 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 ofballast 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 ofthe 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 ofthe major manufacturers oflinearfluorescent luminaires serving commercial and industrial users. The interview guides used to structure and organize the interview discussion invited manufacturer interviewees to discuss: • Company opinions orpositions 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 ofchanges in ballast energy-efficiency standards Employment impacts ofchanges in ballast energy-efficiency standards
Ballastmanufacturers and the literature review identifiedkeyluminaire manufacturer firms, and a number of additional firms were identified through their attendance at one or more ballast workshops atthe Department and!ortheir correspondence with the Departmentonballast efficiency issues. All ofthese 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 ofAmerica

6-57 Nearly all the manufacturers sawno significantimpact on their employment levels as aresult ofa 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 ofballast 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 ofthe 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 ofthe major manufacturers oflinearfluorescent luminaires serving commercial and industrial users. The interview guides used to structure and organize the interview discussion invited manufacturer interviewees to discuss: • Company opinions orpositions 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 ofchanges in ballast energy-efficiency standards Employment impacts ofchanges in ballast energy-efficiency standards
Ballastmanufacturers and the literature review identifiedkeyluminaire manufacturer firms, and a number of additional firms were identified through their attendance at one or more ballast workshops atthe Department and!ortheir correspondence with the Departmentonballast efficiency issues. All ofthese 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 ofAmerica

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 - Columbia Lighting Corporation Lithonia Lighting Company Peerless Lighting Corporation

- Peerless merged with Lithonia in 1999 Simkar Corporation Arthur D. Little sent letters ofinvitation 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 ofEnergy program manager and enclosed with the invitation letter. Follow-upphone calls determined that one manufacturer'sproduction 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 ofthe 11 manufacturer organizations in the list above. One manufacturer had little or no production of the "affected" luminaires as mentioned above. The manufacturers interviewedrepresent over 60%offluorescentluminaire sales and over 80% of the linearfluorescent fixture market affected by the proposed new energy efficiency standard for ballasts. ' 

### 6C.3 Results The lightingfixture manufacturingindustryhas grown from $4.8billionin shipmentsin 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 halfof 1997 shipments. Figure 6C.l shows this shipment history.4

4 Bureau ofthe Census, Current Industrial Reports,' Electric Lighting Fixtures-l997, 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 ofinvitation 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 ofEnergy program manager and enclosed with the invitation letter. Follow-upphone calls determined that one manufacturer'sproduction 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 ofthe 11 manufacturer organizations in the list above. One manufacturer had little or no production of the "affected" luminaires as mentioned above. The manufacturers interviewedrepresent over 60%offluorescentluminaire sales and over 80% of the linearfluorescent fixture market affected by the proposed new energy efficiency standard for ballasts. ' 

### 6C.3 Results The lightingfixture manufacturingindustryhas grown from $4.8billionin shipmentsin 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 halfof 1997 shipments. Figure 6C.l shows this shipment history.4

4 Bureau ofthe Census, Current Industrial Reports,' Electric Lighting Fixtures-l997, MA36L(97}- 

## r 6-58Figure 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 /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 enteredthe business (excepting consolidations) except in the outdoor lighting classification. In 1995 there were 1096 plants5 manufacturing lighting fixtures in the United States, 1.3% lowerthan in 1994. Most ofthese plants, over 60%, are small and employ fewer than 20 people each. Larger plants employing 50 or more account for about 30% ofthe facilities and many ofthese produce commerciaIlinstitutionallighting fixtures.
The commerciaIlinstitutional segment ofthe market accounts for nearly halfthe total value oflightingfixture shipments, as shown in Figure 6C.2, and is even more importantto 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 enteredthe business (excepting consolidations) except in the outdoor lighting classification. In 1995 there were 1096 plants5 manufacturing lighting fixtures in the United States, 1.3% lowerthan in 1994. Most ofthese plants, over 60%, are small and employ fewer than 20 people each. Larger plants employing 50 or more account for about 30% ofthe facilities and many ofthese produce commerciaIlinstitutionallighting fixtures.
The commerciaIlinstitutional segment ofthe market accounts for nearly halfthe total value oflightingfixture shipments, as shown in Figure 6C.2, and is even more importantto 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 Distribution of Shipments 1997 Outdoor

Ind Residential 17%

Commercial 47%



### Figure 6C.2. The commercial market segment, including institutionalbuildings, 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 ofthese 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 $1.4billion in 1998, which is consistentwith the upper bound of$I.82billion 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 ofAmerica, Hubbell Lighting, and Lithonia Lighting, all ofwhich participated in the interviews. An approximate distribution of the markets served by these companies, including

### H.E. Williams/InfinityLighting and SimkarCorporationthat alsoparticipated, is shown in Figure 6C.3. These manufacturers as a group serve over 80% ofthis market.

6 Bureau ofthe 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 institutionalbuildings, 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 ofthese 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 $1.4billion in 1998, which is consistentwith the upper bound of$I.82billion 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 ofAmerica, Hubbell Lighting, and Lithonia Lighting, all ofwhich participated in the interviews. An approximate distribution of the markets served by these companies, including

### H.E. Williams/InfinityLighting and SimkarCorporationthat alsoparticipated, is shown in Figure 6C.3. These manufacturers as a group serve over 80% ofthis market.

6 Bureau ofthe Census, Current Industrial Reports: Electric Lighting Fixtures-1997, MA36L(97}-1 

### 6-60Table 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 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 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 ofthe export market in commercial and industrial lighting fixtures for the industry in general is shown in Figure 6C.4. Although a small number ofcompanies have substantial sales in foreign markets (onthe order of 1 0% of revenues), mostmanufacturers 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 ofthe export market in commercial and industrial lighting fixtures for the industry in general is shown in Figure 6C.4. Although a small number ofcompanies have substantial sales in foreign markets (onthe order of 1 0% of revenues), mostmanufacturers 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 show export shipments in the 1-5% ofsales 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 ofconcem to them, and the following discussion ofthe 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 andelimination 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 ofelectronic ballasts soon after a standard might take effect, loss ofthe price premium for electronic ballast/T8 luminaires, and differences inprofitabilitybetween the currentmix ofelectronic and magnetic-based luminaires can exhibit impacts on cash flow and employment.

6-63 show export shipments in the 1-5% ofsales 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 ofconcem to them, and the following discussion ofthe 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 andelimination 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 ofelectronic ballasts soon after a standard might take effect, loss ofthe price premium for electronic ballast/T8 luminaires, and differences inprofitabilitybetween the currentmix ofelectronic 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 6C.3.1 Customer Choice There was general agreement that the fixtures most likelyto be affected byhigher electronic ballastpricesbeingpassedthrough were low-end, price sensitive ones soldprimarily 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 ofless efficient incandescent or halogen lighting instead ofhigher cost electronically ballasted fluorescents and the choice ofhigher cost electronicallyballasted luminaires for applications that do not show a positive payback. Most, not all, ofthe 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 werejudged 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 ofelectronic 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 orbusinesses.) andthe notionthatthe residential exemptionrepresents a loopholethrough 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 marketis makingthe transitiontoward electronic dimmableballasts, whichcapture overhalf the commercial grade market already Some applications are not adequately served by electronic ballasttechnology 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 likelyto be affected byhigher electronic ballastpricesbeingpassedthrough were low-end, price sensitive ones soldprimarily 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 ofless efficient incandescent or halogen lighting instead ofhigher cost electronically ballasted fluorescents and the choice ofhigher cost electronicallyballasted luminaires for applications that do not show a positive payback. Most, not all, ofthe 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 werejudged 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 ofelectronic 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 orbusinesses.) andthe notionthatthe residential exemptionrepresents a loopholethrough 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 marketis makingthe transitiontoward electronic dimmableballasts, whichcapture overhalf the commercial grade market already Some applications are not adequately served by electronic ballasttechnology and an exemption allows time for these problems to be solved in an orderly way

6-646C.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 

### 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 otherapplications thatoperate atlowerthanthat. Anexemption for lowtemperature applications would affect very little ofthe market but has the advantage ofpreserving that part ofthe 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 ofthis 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 ofdiscussions before general agreement is reached on which uses will employwhich frequencies. Mostmanufacturers feel that a decade will be requiredto 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 ofthe expol1 market for U.S. manufacturers is to North America and to otherregions, 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 inproduction 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 wouldbe affected in the same waybythis 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 othercosts associated with imp0l1ing components would increasetheircosts above those of their foreign competitors. Thereis also some fear that some largejobsfor whichlinearfluorescent fixtures are a key component, theirreduced abilityto COli1pete for the key componentwill cause themto lose the entirejob 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 ifthey 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 otherapplications thatoperate atlowerthanthat. Anexemption for lowtemperature applications would affect very little ofthe market but has the advantage ofpreserving that part ofthe 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 ofthis 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 ofdiscussions before general agreement is reached on which uses will employwhich frequencies. Mostmanufacturers feel that a decade will be requiredto 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 ofthe expol1 market for U.S. manufacturers is to North America and to otherregions, 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 inproduction 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 wouldbe affected in the same waybythis 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 othercosts associated with imp0l1ing components would increasetheircosts above those of their foreign competitors. Thereis also some fear that some largejobsfor whichlinearfluorescent fixtures are a key component, theirreduced abilityto COli1pete for the key componentwill cause themto lose the entirejob 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 ifthey can remain competitive in price.

6-656C.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 ofnon-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 ofsufficient electronic ballasts under a new energy-efficiency standard, Loss ofaprice premium associated with electronic ballasts, whichwouldbecome the commodity product, and • Changes in profitability and employment as a result ofa 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 marketunder 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 ofT8 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 ofdevelopment and will be applied to niche markets until the price ofthe 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 willnot significantly change theirdevelopmentorproduction ofT5 systems as the result ofa new energy efficiency standard.
The expected impact on profitability or cash flow varied among the eight responding manufacturerswhichwere evenlydivided in numberbetweenthose expectingno orminimal 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 ofdiminshed profitability and value.
One rationale suggested that current markups on electronic fixtures is higher than on magnetic, althoughthis difference is narrowing, andthat anew 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 ofelectronic luminaires in one or twolamp fixtures. Thus in this case electronic fixtures contribute very little to profit even though they command apremium markup. A new standard wouldraise profits if the margin couldbe 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 ofsufficient electronic ballasts under a new energy-efficiency standard, Loss ofaprice premium associated with electronic ballasts, whichwouldbecome the commodity product, and • Changes in profitability and employment as a result ofa 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 marketunder 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 ofT8 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 ofdevelopment and will be applied to niche markets until the price ofthe 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 willnot significantly change theirdevelopmentorproduction ofT5 systems as the result ofa new energy efficiency standard.
The expected impact on profitability or cash flow varied among the eight responding manufacturerswhichwere evenlydivided in numberbetweenthose expectingno orminimal 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 ofdiminshed profitability and value.
One rationale suggested that current markups on electronic fixtures is higher than on magnetic, althoughthis difference is narrowing, andthat anew 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 ofelectronic luminaires in one or twolamp fixtures. Thus in this case electronic fixtures contribute very little to profit even though they command apremium markup. A new standard wouldraise profits if the margin couldbe maintained,

6-66but 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. but it is highly likely that instead the market would force the prices ofthe 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 oflowercosts 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 ofthe 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. Ifthe convergence were to be complete by the implementation date of a new standard, the impacts attributedto price margin differences would disappear andthe total impactsreduce to aboutonethird ofthe "worst case", or negative $3-6 million. Inaddition, manufacturersreported significant othercosts andbusiness disruptions associated with potential new ballast standards. There were concerns expressed that a standard would divert resources from newproduct andtechnology introduction and result in lost opportunities. Also some luminaire manufacturers lookto their ballastmanufacturer allies to develop special ballastproducts 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 productliterature, businessprocesses, producttesting 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 sawno significantimpact ontheir employment levels as aresult 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 ofthe 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 oflowercosts 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 ofthe 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. Ifthe convergence were to be complete by the implementation date of a new standard, the impacts attributedto price margin differences would disappear andthe total impactsreduce to aboutonethird ofthe "worst case", or negative $3-6 million. Inaddition, manufacturersreported significant othercosts andbusiness disruptions associated with potential new ballast standards. There were concerns expressed that a standard would divert resources from newproduct andtechnology introduction and result in lost opportunities. Also some luminaire manufacturers lookto their ballastmanufacturer allies to develop special ballastproducts 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 productliterature, businessprocesses, producttesting 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 sawno significantimpact ontheir employment levels as aresult of a new standard. Their production levels would not change as much as profitability. No manufacturer suggested any quantitative employment impact.

6-676D. 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 

### 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% ofthe market. As trade allies ofthe fluorescent ballast manufacturingindustry, theymayexerience an impactfrom a newenergy-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 ina 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 applythe standard onlyto ballasts soldto luminaire manufactureres for the new construction and majorrennovation markets. The OSRAM Sylvania proposal suggests thatballasts soldthrough 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.
ArthurD. Little invitedrepresentatives from each ofthe othertwo majorlamp 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 ofEnergy, December 14, 1998. 8 "Response to Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Workshop, June 1, 1999", Letter from Peter Bleasby, OSRAM Sylvania to U.S. Department ofEnergy, 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% ofthe market. As trade allies ofthe fluorescent ballast manufacturingindustry, theymayexerience an impactfrom a newenergy-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 ina 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 applythe standard onlyto ballasts soldto luminaire manufactureres for the new construction and majorrennovation markets. The OSRAM Sylvania proposal suggests thatballasts soldthrough 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.
ArthurD. Little invitedrepresentatives from each ofthe othertwo majorlamp 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 ofEnergy, December 14, 1998. 8 "Response to Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Workshop, June 1, 1999", Letter from Peter Bleasby, OSRAM Sylvania to U.S. Department ofEnergy, June 21,1999. 6-686D.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 

### 6D.2 Results
There was strong agreement that a new standard would accelerate the shift in market share from TI2to T8lamps. Although any forecast ofthe quantitative impact ofthis shift depends to some extent on the assumptions made, an estimate of45-50 million additional T8lampsrequiredto serve the 19 million additional electronicballastsbroughtinto service under a new standard effective 2003 is reasonable. This is about 113 the size ofthe entire CUlTent production ofabout 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 capacityto 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 ofthe 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 3-4year lead-time. Butto serve the increasedreplacement market atthe 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 ofan equivalent capacity ofTI2 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 ofthat 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 thereplacement market. Ifthis spI itremains the same, the lamp industrywould experience a loss in value ofabout 113 x ($20±10) or $3.3-10 million. There would also be a cost for accelerating the T8 production capacity a number ofyears ahead ofthat required for supplying the replacement market at today's growth rate. This issue was not fully explored.
Since the total production offluorescent lamps is not significantly affected bythe proposed standard, employment impacts are limited to changes in productivity and are minimal across the industry.
In summary, the major costto lamp manufacturers to accommodate a new energy efficiency standard is the early retirement ofproduction 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 itis not obviousto subsequentlamp maintenancepersonnel

6-69 

### 6D.2 Results
There was strong agreement that a new standard would accelerate the shift in market share from TI2to T8lamps. Although any forecast ofthe quantitative impact ofthis shift depends to some extent on the assumptions made, an estimate of45-50 million additional T8lampsrequiredto serve the 19 million additional electronicballastsbroughtinto service under a new standard effective 2003 is reasonable. This is about 113 the size ofthe entire CUlTent production ofabout 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 capacityto 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 ofthe 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 3-4year lead-time. Butto serve the increasedreplacement market atthe 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 ofan equivalent capacity ofTI2 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 ofthat 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 thereplacement market. Ifthis spI itremains the same, the lamp industrywould experience a loss in value ofabout 113 x ($20±10) or $3.3-10 million. There would also be a cost for accelerating the T8 production capacity a number ofyears ahead ofthat required for supplying the replacement market at today's growth rate. This issue was not fully explored.
Since the total production offluorescent lamps is not significantly affected bythe proposed standard, employment impacts are limited to changes in productivity and are minimal across the industry.
In summary, the major costto lamp manufacturers to accommodate a new energy efficiency standard is the early retirement ofproduction 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 itis not obviousto subsequentlamp maintenancepersonnel

6-69that 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. 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 orrequired. 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 abouttheresidential exemption centered mainly on the extent ofthe problem of crossover by small commercial businesses and some contractors using residential fixtures in commercial applications. Althoughthisprobablywould happen, some in the industry feel that this is a minor problem while others believe that ifa 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 orrequired. 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 abouttheresidential exemption centered mainly on the extent ofthe problem of crossover by small commercial businesses and some contractors using residential fixtures in commercial applications. Althoughthisprobablywould happen, some in the industry feel that this is a minor problem while others believe that ifa 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.

6-70CHAPTER 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 

### CHAPTER 7. IMPACTS OF TRIAL STANDARDS FOR FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLASTS ON ELECTRIC UTILITIES

7.1 SUMMARY The effects ofproposed fluorescent ballast energy-efficiency standards on the electric utility industry were analyzed using a variant ofthe Energy Information Administration (EIA) National EnergyModeling System (NEMS) calledNEMS-BRS, togetherwith some exogenous calculations. I, 2'NEMS was used by the EIA to produce the 1999Annual Energy Outlook (AE099), and NEMSBRS is usedto provide somekey 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 ofthe 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 ofproposed 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 ofestimated fuel savings and capital cost savings relative to the likely reduction in revenues implied by lower electricity sales. In the short teml, ratepayers oftraditional utilities gained because ofreduced 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 arestructured industry, however, only local distribution companies willbepermittedto recoup costs, and prices are notrigid in the short run, so the basis ofour analysis must change. Using the AE099 assumptions regarding the spread ofrestructuring allows us to use NEMS-BRS to estimate the

IForfurther information about NEMS, please refer to the U.S. Department ofEnergy, Energy Information Administration. National Energy Model System: An Overview 1998. DOE/EIA-0581(98), Februruy 1998.
2ElA approves use ofthe 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 ofEnergy, 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 ofproposed fluorescent ballast energy-efficiency standards on the electric utility industry were analyzed using a variant ofthe Energy Information Administration (EIA) National EnergyModeling System (NEMS) calledNEMS-BRS, togetherwith some exogenous calculations. I, 2'NEMS was used by the EIA to produce the 1999Annual Energy Outlook (AE099), and NEMSBRS is usedto provide somekey 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 ofthe 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 ofproposed 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 ofestimated fuel savings and capital cost savings relative to the likely reduction in revenues implied by lower electricity sales. In the short teml, ratepayers oftraditional utilities gained because ofreduced 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 arestructured industry, however, only local distribution companies willbepermittedto recoup costs, and prices are notrigid in the short run, so the basis ofour analysis must change. Using the AE099 assumptions regarding the spread ofrestructuring allows us to use NEMS-BRS to estimate the

IForfurther information about NEMS, please refer to the U.S. Department ofEnergy, Energy Information Administration. National Energy Model System: An Overview 1998. DOE/EIA-0581(98), Februruy 1998.
2ElA approves use ofthe 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 ofEnergy, Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 1999: 'with Projection.I' Through 2020. DOE/EIA-0383(99), December 1998.

7-1overall 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 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 ofwellknown, 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 ofthe effect ofstandards. Perhaps most importantly, because it explicitly simulates dispatch and capacity expansion ofthe industry, NEMS-BRS provides accurate estimation ofmarginal effects, which yield better indicators of actual effects than estimates based on industry wide average values. The utility analysis uses the assumptions ofAE099 and treats ballast efficiency standards as deviations in policy. Because the analysis reduces demandby only halfa percent orless oftotalU.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 ofAE099. The AE099 Reference Case assumes a moderate rate ofeconomic 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 ofalternative growth assumptions on energy markets. The LowEconomic Growth case is based on lowergrowthrates 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 sectorthat has been developed over several years by the EIA, primarily for the purpose ofpreparing 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 ofthe AE099.

5 Please see pages 39 and 45 ofthe 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 ofwellknown, 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 ofthe effect ofstandards. Perhaps most importantly, because it explicitly simulates dispatch and capacity expansion ofthe industry, NEMS-BRS provides accurate estimation ofmarginal effects, which yield better indicators of actual effects than estimates based on industry wide average values. The utility analysis uses the assumptions ofAE099 and treats ballast efficiency standards as deviations in policy. Because the analysis reduces demandby only halfa percent orless oftotalU.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 ofAE099. The AE099 Reference Case assumes a moderate rate ofeconomic 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 ofalternative growth assumptions on energy markets. The LowEconomic Growth case is based on lowergrowthrates 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 sectorthat has been developed over several years by the EIA, primarily for the purpose ofpreparing 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 ofthe AE099.

5 Please see pages 39 and 45 ofthe AE099 for more details on growth assumptions. 7-2NEMS-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 of50 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 NEMS-BRS produces the baseline forecasts for many aspects ofthis appliance standards analysis, including commercial electricity prices. Because the AE099 version ofNEMS forecasts onlyto the year 2020, we had to use a method for extrapolating price data to 2030

. The methodthat 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-BRSpolicyruns are executedby reducing electricity consumption in the lighting end use oftheNEMS-BRS Commercial Demand Module. The load shape effects ofimproved lighting efficiency are thereby replicated as well as possible.
As mentioned above, the magnitude ofenergy reduction that would be required for NEMSBRS to produce stable results safely out ofthe range of numerical noise is larger than the most rigorous efficiency standard by at least a factor oftwo. Therefore, we estimated results in the range ofthe standard levels effects using interpolation. Energy use in the Commercial Demand Module lighting load is reduced by levels ofapproximately 2.96,5.92, 11.83, and 17.75 times the level of the most extreme standard (2b). They were chosen to be roughly equivalentto 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 ofthe 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, withthe unreliable ("noisy")results appearingbelowthe peak savings of50 TWhin 2020, orroughly 2 to 3 timesthe impact ofstandard 2b. The figure shows simple linearregressions forced through the origin because a zero change mustbe the case with no standard in place. Figure 7-2 shows a close-up ofthe interpolatedpoints for standards 2a and 5a. The hOlizontallines illustrate the calculatedvalues 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 wasusedto find the drop in generation from otherfuels 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. Eachtable shows forecastsusinginterpolatedresults as described above for commercial energy sales and total 

## u.s. electric generation and installed capacity. As expected, gas-fired generation is more affected bythe 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 ofstandards on installed capacity are small relative to the energy savings. 6

6Capacity factor, a ratio ofgeneration to installed capacity, is an indicatoroftherobustness ofthe forecast. Theimplied capacity factors ofthe displaced capacity in this forecast are within reasonable limits. 7-3 NEMS-BRS produces the baseline forecasts for many aspects ofthis appliance standards analysis, including commercial electricity prices. Because the AE099 version ofNEMS forecasts onlyto the year 2020, we had to use a method for extrapolating price data to 2030

. The methodthat 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-BRSpolicyruns are executedby reducing electricity consumption in the lighting end use oftheNEMS-BRS Commercial Demand Module. The load shape effects ofimproved lighting efficiency are thereby replicated as well as possible.
As mentioned above, the magnitude ofenergy reduction that would be required for NEMSBRS to produce stable results safely out ofthe range of numerical noise is larger than the most rigorous efficiency standard by at least a factor oftwo. Therefore, we estimated results in the range ofthe standard levels effects using interpolation. Energy use in the Commercial Demand Module lighting load is reduced by levels ofapproximately 2.96,5.92, 11.83, and 17.75 times the level of the most extreme standard (2b). They were chosen to be roughly equivalentto 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 ofthe 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, withthe unreliable ("noisy")results appearingbelowthe peak savings of50 TWhin 2020, orroughly 2 to 3 timesthe impact ofstandard 2b. The figure shows simple linearregressions forced through the origin because a zero change mustbe the case with no standard in place. Figure 7-2 shows a close-up ofthe interpolatedpoints for standards 2a and 5a. The hOlizontallines illustrate the calculatedvalues 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 wasusedto find the drop in generation from otherfuels 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. Eachtable shows forecastsusinginterpolatedresults as described above for commercial energy sales and total 

## u.s. electric generation and installed capacity. As expected, gas-fired generation is more affected bythe 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 ofstandards on installed capacity are small relative to the energy savings. 6

6Capacity factor, a ratio ofgeneration to installed capacity, is an indicatoroftherobustness ofthe forecast. Theimplied capacity factors ofthe 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



### 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 ofAE099: Electricitv Sales bv Sector 2Comparable to Table A8 ofAE099: Electric Generators and Cogenerators 3Exc1udes "Other Gaseous Fuels" cogenerators and "Other" cogenerators 4Comparable to Table A9 ofAE099: Electric Generators and Cogenerators Capability 5Inc1udes "Other Gaseous Fuels" cogenerators {'Excludes Pumped Storage and Fuel Cells

Commercial energy sales fall for each proposed standard comparedto 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 fromjust over 0.2% to nearly 1.3% oftotal commercial electricitY sales in the peak savings year reported. Total U.S. generation decreases relative to the AE099 baseline in each standards case, fromjustunder 0.4% oftotal U.S. electric generation in the peak savings year ofthe maximum savings case (standard 2b) tojust over 0.06% in the peak year ofthe smallest savings case (standard Sa). Total installed capacity is also slightlyreduced in each standard level scenario, byjustunder 0.4% in the final year ofthe maximum savings case. Logically, the reduction in generation should approximately match, or be slightly higherthan, 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 ofAE099: Electricitv Sales bv Sector 2Comparable to Table A8 ofAE099: Electric Generators and Cogenerators 3Exc1udes "Other Gaseous Fuels" cogenerators and "Other" cogenerators 4Comparable to Table A9 ofAE099: Electric Generators and Cogenerators Capability 5Inc1udes "Other Gaseous Fuels" cogenerators {'Excludes Pumped Storage and Fuel Cells

Commercial energy sales fall for each proposed standard comparedto 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 fromjust over 0.2% to nearly 1.3% oftotal commercial electricitY sales in the peak savings year reported. Total U.S. generation decreases relative to the AE099 baseline in each standards case, fromjustunder 0.4% oftotal U.S. electric generation in the peak savings year ofthe maximum savings case (standard 2b) tojust over 0.06% in the peak year ofthe smallest savings case (standard Sa). Total installed capacity is also slightlyreduced in each standard level scenario, byjustunder 0.4% in the final year ofthe maximum savings case. Logically, the reduction in generation should approximately match, or be slightly higherthan, 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.

7-4An 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. An example ofeach ofthe results under the Low and High Economic Growth side cases is presented for the largest effect case ofthe b pattern (standard 2b) as Tables 7-14 and 7-15. For the Low Growth standards case, savings have a slightly larger impactthan in thereference 2b case while the High Growth standards case results in a slightly lower impact for each ofthe reported industry parameters.

7-5 An example ofeach ofthe results under the Low and High Economic Growth side cases is presented for the largest effect case ofthe b pattern (standard 2b) as Tables 7-14 and 7-15. For the Low Growth standards case, savings have a slightly larger impactthan in thereference 2b case while the High Growth standards case results in a slightly lower impact for each ofthe reported industry parameters.

7-55

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 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

7-60 -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 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 ofStandards 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 ofStandards 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 

### 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-SectorEnergy Corsumption i1 Commercial-SectorEnergy 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 

# IOas (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-SectorEnergy Corsumption i1 Commercial-SectorEnergy 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 

# IOas (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 

### 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

### Results: Standards Level

### ~ Difference from AE099 Reference

### ~**~**.. 'I:

.... ;
....;.;>;.x
......

.:-.. .......;o;..;O;'

..........

...:.:.-..

. x.;.;

....;.,;O';

..

'I:

.......

;..:
..

'I:..:·;.,;.,;..:.,;0.;..... 1..:..:

................

...: .. -.;·;·;..;

.......

,;..;.,;................ ·;..:............... -..:..:..:..;

.. ...:..:..:

.. -..:.,;.;..:..:.;.,;-.; ...... ..:..:..:.:-...;.; .. -..: .. -..:.,;.;.:-.

....... -.:. ..... -.x·;..:..: .... ;·;.,;.,;o.;"' .. l......;.-.

...............

.;-. ......·

.. ·:-. .............. ..:....·

.. ·;· ........·;·;..·x·;..: ..................·;>x-;..:..: .. ·x..:1

........

-..:........

..:..·;·;..... ·;.. .........

.,;........;..:.....·;-;..:..: ....;..

. ;O';
..

.,;.,;·;-;..:.. -..-..-..

.**~**.........

x.,;..

.,;..**-.;.o;o~.,;.,;.~~.;o..,;.~.~.,;**....**X"~~**........ ;.,;
......**.,;.;~** 

# ! ! 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020!

## ~ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 

# I ICommercial-SectorEnergy Consumption i: Commercial-SectorEnergy 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 

# ITotal 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

### Results: Standards Level

### ~ Difference from AE099 Reference

### ~**~**.. 'I:

.... ;
....;.;>;.x
......

.:-.. .......;o;..;O;'

..........

...:.:.-..

. x.;.;

....;.,;O';

..

'I:

.......

;..:
..

'I:..:·;.,;.,;..:.,;0.;..... 1..:..:

................

...: .. -.;·;·;..;

.......

,;..;.,;................ ·;..:............... -..:..:..:..;

.. ...:..:..:

.. -..:.,;.;..:..:.;.,;-.; ...... ..:..:..:.:-...;.; .. -..: .. -..:.,;.;.:-.

....... -.:. ..... -.x·;..:..: .... ;·;.,;.,;o.;"' .. l......;.-.

...............

.;-. ......·

.. ·:-. .............. ..:....·

.. ·;· ........·;·;..·x·;..: ..................·;>x-;..:..: .. ·x..:1

........

-..:........

..:..·;·;..... ·;.. .........

.,;........;..:.....·;-;..:..: ....;..

. ;O';
..

.,;.,;·;-;..:.. -..-..-..

.**~**.........

x.,;..

.,;..**-.;.o;o~.,;.,;.~~.;o..,;.~.~.,;**....**X"~~**........ ;.,;
......**.,;.;~** 

# ! ! 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020!

## ~ 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 

# I ICommercial-SectorEnergy Consumption i: Commercial-SectorEnergy 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 

# ITotal 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 

### Table 7-4. Standards Level2a Forecast ;. ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .,.;................. v. ...................................................... ..,.. .................................................................................................................................................. ......................................................**~** 

### INEMS-NAECA 

### Results: Standards Level 

# IDifference from AE099 Reference 

# I

lCommercial-SectorEnergy Consumption**~!** Commercial-SectorEnergy 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 

# IInstalled 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 

# IDifference from AE099 Reference 

# I

lCommercial-SectorEnergy Consumption**~!** Commercial-SectorEnergy 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 

# IInstalled 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 

### 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-SectorEnergy COlJsumption**~** Commercial-SectorEnergy 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 

# ITotal 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-SectorEnergy COlJsumption**~** Commercial-SectorEnergy 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 

# ITotal 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

### 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 

### Table 7-7. Standards Level3b Forecast
o;-.-.;..,

...........**~** ....................:-.. .................**~** ... :-:...

. :-:.. .....:-..-.;:.:-:.. .... -.:.:.........:-:.:-.. ........ "<'.-.:>:.:-..

...... :-..
...........

-.:.:-..

......:.::-.

......:

.........:..

...........

-.:o:.;.:..

.............................;.:-. ........................................... ""X>:-.

......:.»:;... ..........:-.

............:..

...............

"<
...... -.x.;:

....... »x :-. .•.:"

.. """-

................**"*-~** ........ -.:-:.:-:..-.:-.. ..........;..

.....:..

.....»:-.

...................... :.;: ........:-:..'X.:..

......................... ............

-.;..

.....................................................;.;.. ..................:-:-.">:-.
.... x............:-. .....:-:-.

......;.:-:-

....................;.:-:-. .....:

.................:-:-."»>.
................................ -.».

... "'; 

### INEMS-NAECA 

### Results: Standards Level Difference from AE099 Reference 

# I

# [==r;~o**I~=-l** IElectricity Sales (TWh) 11,081 1,159 1,239 1,318 1,370 

# I 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 

# ITotal(TWh) 

# l 0.0 -4.0 -10.1 -14.3 -13.3 

# I

IInstalled Generating Capacity

# I t Installed Generating Capacity II [ ICoal(GW) 

### 1315.2 315.0 318.7 325.8 342.5 1i Coal(GW) :: 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -1.0 

### I IOther Fossil (GW) 

## 1301.5 369.7 395.6 467.7 511.5**~** 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

# [==r;~o**I~=-l** IElectricity Sales (TWh) 11,081 1,159 1,239 1,318 1,370 

# I 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 

# ITotal(TWh) 

# l 0.0 -4.0 -10.1 -14.3 -13.3 

# I

IInstalled Generating Capacity

# I t Installed Generating Capacity II [ ICoal(GW) 

### 1315.2 315.0 318.7 325.8 342.5 1i Coal(GW) :: 0.0 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -1.0 

### I IOther Fossil (GW) 

## 1301.5 369.7 395.6 467.7 511.5**~** 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 4 ti Renewables (GW) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3 102 3 105 2 98 9 100 Renewables (OW) 97

. . . . . Total_{CW).,..,,,,,,,,,..,,,.,,,,,,..,,,,,,,,, 808.7 871. 0 889 .2 953. 1 1.009 .7 Total(GW),,..,,..,,,..,,..,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,., .........,,,,,. ,..,,,;1,.9...,,,.,;



### 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-SectorEnergy Consumption :l Commercial-SectorEnergy 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-SectorEnergy Consumption :l Commercial-SectorEnergy 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 

### 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-SectorEnergy Consumption !: Commercial-SectorEnergy Consumption 1 !ElectriCit y 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-SectorEnergy Consumption !: Commercial-SectorEnergy Consumption 1 !ElectriCit y 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 

### 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-SectorEnergy Consumption**~** Commercial-SectorEnergy**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 IInstalled 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-SectorEnergy Consumption**~** Commercial-SectorEnergy**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 IInstalled 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 

### Table 7-11. Standards Leve15b Forecast 

### lNEMS-NAECA Results: Standards Level '. Difference from AE099 Reference 

### ! 

## ! 12000 2005 2010 2015 2020 

## ! 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 

# i [Commercial-SectorEnergy Corsumption Commercial-SectorEnergy 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) 

# I3,729 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 

### ! 

## ! 12000 2005 2010 2015 2020 

## ! 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 

# i [Commercial-SectorEnergy Corsumption Commercial-SectorEnergy 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) 

# I3,729 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 

### 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 

# IDifference from AE099 Reference 

# !

# I'~~~:~I**~Commercial-Sector**Energy Consumption**~** Commercial-SectorEnergy 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 

# ITotal 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 IInstalled 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· ....**~** INEMS-NAECA 

### Results: Standards Level 

# IDifference from AE099 Reference 

# !**I'~~~ 2:-::~1** **~Commercial-Sector**Energy Consumption**~** Commercial-SectorEnergy 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 

# ITotal 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 IInstalled 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 

### 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-SectorEnergy C0!1sumption Commercial-SectorEnergy 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-SectorEnergy C0!1sumption Commercial-SectorEnergy 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

### ~

## ..**!.~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 SectorEnergy 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 SectorEnergy 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

### ;~!!!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 I2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 

# I

!Commercial SectorEnergy**Co~sumption ~**  Commercial SectorEnergy 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 I2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 

# I

!Commercial SectorEnergy**Co~sumption ~**  Commercial SectorEnergy 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

7-21APPENDIX 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 APPENDIX A. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

A.1 ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS SUMMARY The ballast trial standard levels set minimum BallastEfficacyFactor (BEF) values. BEF is a measure ofballast 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 ofa lamp tested on the specific ballast to the light output ofthe 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 usedto selecttechnology option values for BEF, BF, andANSIWatts 1from the data was different for different technology options as described below. 

### Baseline (energy-efficientmagnetic) andcathode cutout. The BEFvalue used forthe baseline option wasthe average value ofthe BEF computed from the data set. BF values for this technology option were chosen to be typical ofcurrent 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 assumedthatthis calculatedpoweris equivalenttothe ANSIWatts ofaballastthat 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 ofBF 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 ballastwhose BEF is closestto the median but on the high side of50% 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 startballasts, where the ballast belowthe 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 BallastEfficacyFactor (BEF) values. BEF is a measure ofballast 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 ofa lamp tested on the specific ballast to the light output ofthe 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 usedto selecttechnology option values for BEF, BF, andANSIWatts 1from the data was different for different technology options as described below. 

### Baseline (energy-efficientmagnetic) andcathode cutout. The BEFvalue used forthe baseline option wasthe average value ofthe BEF computed from the data set. BF values for this technology option were chosen to be typical ofcurrent 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 assumedthatthis calculatedpoweris equivalenttothe ANSIWatts ofaballastthat 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 ofBF 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 ballastwhose BEF is closestto the median but on the high side of50% 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 startballasts, where the ballast belowthe 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-IThe 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.
LTFis 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 The explanation for these differentmethods is thatthe technology options representing wellestablishedtechnologies shouldbebased on the averageproperties ofcurrentmarketproducts, while technology options representing newer technologies should be based on the properties ofan actual ballast that is characteristic ofthattechnology option in the market.
NEMAthenreviewedthese selections and suggested adjustmentsto manyof the wattage and BF values. The analysis adopts these adjustments, most ofwhich 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 Describedbelow are the details ofapplyingpower input correctionstothe ANSIWatts 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, butfor 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 equationperfonnsthe 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. 

### BaselineBallast Factors

A-2 The explanation for these differentmethods is thatthe technology options representing wellestablishedtechnologies shouldbebased on the averageproperties ofcurrentmarketproducts, while technology options representing newer technologies should be based on the properties ofan actual ballast that is characteristic ofthattechnology option in the market.
NEMAthenreviewedthese selections and suggested adjustmentsto manyof the wattage and BF values. The analysis adopts these adjustments, most ofwhich 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 Describedbelow are the details ofapplyingpower input correctionstothe ANSIWatts 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, butfor 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 equationperfonnsthe 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. 

### BaselineBallast Factors

A-2The 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 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 andLight 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 AdvancedLighting Guidelines 

### (3), the work ofBleeker 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 aparticularballast system is the ratio ofthe 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 assumedto be representative ofthethennal 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 andLight 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 AdvancedLighting Guidelines 

### (3), the work ofBleeker 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 aparticularballast system is the ratio ofthe 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 assumedto be representative ofthethennal 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-3luminaires. 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. luminaires. For 1- and 2-lamp luminaires, the elevation in ambienttemperature 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 estimatedtypical discount of 40percentfor large end-userpurchases was determined from a surveyoflampprice databases and from distributor and supplierprice quotes and interviews. For the federal governmentpurchases, the DLA catalogprice was used. The lamp price is calculated assumingthat 95 % oflamppurchases are attheprice in the Lamp Price Schedule less 40%, and 5 % oflamp purchases are atthe DLA catalogprice. Where no DLA catalog price is available for a lamp, 100% ofpurchases are at the price in the Lamp Price Schedule less 40%.


### T bi A2L

a 

### e 

# . amp P' U d' th A I . 

### rIces se III 

### e 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 ofElectricalManufacturers (NEMA), theNewYorkStateEnergyOffice (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 ofthe 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 ambienttemperature 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 estimatedtypical discount of 40percentfor large end-userpurchases was determined from a surveyoflampprice databases and from distributor and supplier price quotes and interviews. For the federal governmentpurchases, the DLA catalogprice was used. The lamp price is calculated assumingthat 95 % oflamppurchases are attheprice in the Lamp Price Schedule less 40%, and 5 % oflamp purchases are atthe DLA catalogprice. Where no DLA catalog price is available for a lamp, 100% ofpurchases are at the price in the Lamp Price Schedule less 40%.


### T bi A2L

a e 

# . amp P' U d' th A I . rIces se III e 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 ofElectricalManufacturers (NEMA), theNewYorkStateEnergyOffice (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 ofthe 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-4Table 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 

### T bI A3 0 fB II t Effi F t (NDN Dt)

a e 

# · 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 

### bI A 4 NEMA D ttl L

a e 

# · a a or 

### - amp F40T12 EEM B II t 

### a as 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 bi A 5 NEMA D ttl L

a e 

# · a a or 

### - amp F40T12 CC B II t 

### a as Volts Watts BF BEF

120 45 89 1.978 277 47 89.2 1.898

A-5 

### T bI A3 0 fB II t Effi F t (NDN Dt)



### a e 

# · 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 

### bI A 4 

### NEMA D tIL



### a 

### e 

# · ata or
- amp F40T12 EEM B II a 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 bi A 5 

### NEMA D tIL



### a e 

# · ata or - amp F40T12 CC B II a ast Volts Watts BF BEF

120 45 89 1.978 277 47 89.2 1.898

A-5Table 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 

### T bi A 6 NEMA D**~** 

### 1 L

a e 

# . ata or - amp 

### F40T12 ERS B II a 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 bl A 7 NEMA D**~** 

### 1 L

a e 

# . ata or - amp F40T12/ES 

### EEM B II a 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 bi A 6 NEMA D t**~** 

### 1 L

a e 

# . a a or
- amp 

### F40T12 ERS B II t 

### a as 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 bl A 7 NEMA D t**~** 

### 1 L

a e 

# . a a or
-**am~** F40T12/ES 

### EEM B II t 

### a as 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-6Table 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 

### T hI A 9 NEMA D 

### t:t 1 L F40Tl21ES ERS B 

## n t



### a 

### e 

# · 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 hI A 10 NEMA D t 

### :t 2 L F40T12 EEM B II

a 

### e 

# · 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 hI A 11 NEMA D 

### t:t 2 L

a 

### e 

# · a a or 

# - amp F40T12 CC B II t 

### a as 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 hI A 9 NEMA D :t 

### 1 L F40Tl21ES ERS B 

## n

a 

### e 

# · 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 hI A 10 NEMA D :t 

### 2 L F40T12 EEM B II

a 

### e 

# · 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 hI A 11 NEMA D :t 

### 2 L

a 

### e 

# · ata or 

# - amj) F40T12 CC B II a 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-7Table 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 

### T bi A 12 NEMA D t**~** 

### 2 L

a e 

# · aa or - amp F40T12 ERS B 

## n a 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 bi A 13 NEMA D t**~** 

### 2 L

a e 

# · a a or - amp F40T12/ES EEM B 

## n a 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 

### bi A 14 NEMA D t**~** 

### 2 L F40T12/ES CC B II

a 

### e 

# · 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 bi A 12 NEMA D t**~** 

### 2 L

a e 

# · aa or
- amp F40T12 ERS B 

## n t 

### a as 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 bi A 13 NEMA D t**~** 

### 2 L

a e 

# · a a or
- amp F40T12/ES EEM B 

## n t 

### a as 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 

### bi A 14 NEMA D t**~** 

### 2 L F40T12/ES CC B II

a 

### e 

# · 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-8Table 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 

### T bi A 15 NEMA D t**~** 

### 2 L F40T12IES ERS B 

## n

a e 

# · 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 

### bI A 

### 16 NEMA 

### D t**~** 

### 2 L F96T12 EEM B 

## n t

a 

### e 

# · 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 bi 

### A 17 NEMA D t**~** 

### 2 L F96T12 EIS B II t

a e 

# · 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 bi A 15 NEMA D t**~** 

### 2 L F40T12IES ERS B 

## n

a e 

# · 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 

### bI A 

### 16 NEMA 

### D t**~** 

### 2 L F96T12 EEM B 

## n t

a 

### e 

# · 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 bi 

### A 17 NEMA D t**~** 

### 2 L F96T12 EIS B II t

a e 

# · 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-9Table 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 

### T bi A 18 NEMA D**~** 

### 2 L 

### F96T12/ES EEM B 

## n

a e 

# · 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 bi A 19 NEMA D t**~** 

### 2 L 

### F96T12/ES EIS B II t



### a 

### e 

# · 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 bi A 20 NEMA D t**~** 

### 2 L F96T12HO EEM B II t

a 

### e 

# · 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 bi A 21 NEMA D t**~** 

### 2 L

a 

### e 

# · a a or 

# - amp F96T12HO CC B II t a as Volts Watts 

### BF BEF

120 211.6 89.8 0.424 277 219.2 91.2 0.416

A-lO 

### T bi A 18 NEMA D t**~** 

### 2 L 

### F96T12/ES EEM B 

## n t



### a e 

# · 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 bi A 19 NEMA D t**~** 

### 2 L 

### F96T12/ES EIS B II t



### a 

### e 

# · 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 bi A 20 NEMA D**~** 

### 2 L F96T12HO EEM B II

a 

### e 

# · 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 bi A 21 NEMA D t**~** 

### 2 L

a 

### e 

# · a a or 

# - amp F96T12HO CC B II t a as Volts Watts 

### BF BEF

120 211.6 89.8 0.424 277 219.2 91.2 0.416

A-lOTable 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 

### T bi A 22 NEMA D**~** 

### 2 L F96T12HO ERS B II



### a 

### e 

# · 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 bi A 23 NEMA D t**~** 

### 2 L F96T12HO/ES 

### EEM B 

## n t

a e 

# · 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 bi A 24 NEMA D**~** 

### 2 L

a 

### e 

# · ata or 

# - amp a ast F96T12HOIES CC B II Volts Watts BF BEF

120 180.8 86.4 0.48 277 186.6 87.7 0.47



### T bi A 25 NEMA D t**~** 

### 2 L F96T12HOIES ERS B II

a e 

# · 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 bi A 22 NEMA D**~** 

### 2 L F96T12HO ERS B II



### a 

### e 

# · 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 bi A 23 NEMA D t**~** 

### 2 L F96T12HO/ES 

### EEM B 

## n t

a e 

# · 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 bi A 24 NEMA D**~** 

### 2 L

a 

### e 

# · ata or 

# - amp a ast F96T12HOIES CC B II Volts Watts BF BEF

120 180.8 86.4 0.48 277 186.6 87.7 0.47



### T bi A 25 NEMA D t**~** 

### 2 L F96T12HOIES ERS B II

a e 

# · 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 

### T bI A 26 NEMA D t**~** 

### 3 L F40T12 ERS B 

## n t



### a 

### e 

# · 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 bi A 27 NEMA D**~** 

### 3 L F40T12/ES 

### ERS B 

## n

a e 

# · 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 bI A 29 NEMA D t**~** 

### 1 L

a 

### e 

# · a a or 

## - amp F32T8 EEM B II t a as 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 bI A 26 NEMA D t**~** 

### 3 L F40T12 ERS B 

## n t



### a 

### e 

# · 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 bi A 27 NEMA D**~** 

### 3 L F40T12/ES 

### ERS B 

## n

a e 

# · 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 bI A 29 NEMA D t**~** 

### 1 L

a 

### e 

# · a a or 

## - amp F32T8 EEM B II t a as 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-12Table 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 

### Tabi A3 e 

### .0 NEMA D**~** 1 L 

### ata or 

## - 2 

### ampF3 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 bi 

### A 3 NEMA D**~** 

### 1 L

a e 

### . 1 

### ata or - amp F32TS EIS B I 

### al 

### 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 bi 

### A 32 NEMA D**~** 

### 2 L

a 

### e 

# . ata or - amp F32TS EEM B II t a as 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 

### Tabi A3 e 

### .0 NEMA D**~** 1 L 

### ata or 

## - 2 

### ampF3 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 bi 

### A 3 NEMA D**~** 

### 1 L

a e 

### . 1 

### ata or - amp F32TS EIS B I 

### al 

### 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 bi 

### A 32 NEMA D**~** 

### 2 L

a 

### e 

# . ata or - amp F32TS EEM B II t a as 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-13Table A.33 NEMA Data for 2-Lam p 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 f or 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 f or 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 

### T I 33

ab eA. NEMA D**~** 

### 2 L ata or - ampF T 

### 32 8 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


### T bI A 34 EMA D**~** 

### 2 L

a 

### e 

# . N 

### ata or - amp F32 8 ERS B II T 

### a 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 bI A 35 NEMA D t**~** 

### 2 L

a 

### e 

# . a a or - amp F32T8 EIS B II t 

### a as 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 33

ab eA. NEMA D**~** 

### 2 L ata or - ampF T 

### 32 8 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


### T bI A 34 EMA D**~** 

### 2 L

a 

### e 

# . N 

### ata or - amp F32 8 ERS B II T 

### a 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 bI A 35 NEMA D t**~** 

### 2 L

a 

### e 

# . a a or - amp F32T8 EIS B II t 

### a as 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-14Table 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 

### T bi A 36 NEMA D t t 

### 3 L

a e 

# · a a or - amp F32T8 ERS B 

## n t a as 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 bI A 3 NEMA D t 

### 3 L

a 

### e 

### · 7 ata or - amp F32 8 S B 

### T EI 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 bi A 38 NEMA D t 

### 4 L

a 

### e 

# · ata or - amp F32 8 T 

### ERS Ballast Volts Watts 

### BF BEF

120 122.8 89.1 0.726 277 124.8 89.5 0.717



### A-I5 

### T bi A 36 NEMA D t t 

### 3 L

a e 

# · a a or - amp F32T8 ERS B 

## n t a as 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 bI A 3 NEMA D t 

### 3 L

a 

### e 

### · 7 ata or - amp F32 8 S B 

### T EI 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 bi A 38 NEMA D t 

### 4 L

a 

### e 

# · ata or - amp F32 8 T 

### ERS Ballast Volts Watts 

### BF BEF

120 122.8 89.1 0.726 277 124.8 89.5 0.717



### A-I5Table 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 ofballasts, 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 T bi A 39 

### NEMA D t**~** 

### 4 L

a e 

# . a a or
- amp F32T8 

### EIS B 

## n t a as 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 byXenergy 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 oflamps per fixture, and, in the case offluorescent 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 audityears and across all zip codes to estimate national average lighting hours byXenergy 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 ofthe original Xenergy database records were weighted bythe ballast count associated with each record. Because the Xenergy data reported the number offixtures rather than number ofballasts, 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 buildingtype corresponded to more than
A-16 T bi A 39 

### NEMA D t**~** 

### 4 L

a e 

# . a a or
- amp F32T8 

### EIS B 

## n t a as 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 byXenergy 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 oflamps per fixture, and, in the case offluorescent 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 audityears and across all zip codes to estimate national average lighting hours byXenergy 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 ofthe original Xenergy database records were weighted bythe ballast count associated with each record. Because the Xenergy data reported the number offixtures rather than number ofballasts, 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 buildingtype corresponded to more than
A-16one 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 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 bythe square footage ofeach 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.
Forthis analysis, industrial lighting is represented by one buildingtype. We simplyusedthe 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 forthe fact thatthe 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 ofthe 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 sectorhours are usedforthe F40T12, F32T8, andF96T12Iamp-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 similarresults for otherballasttypes where enough datawere available to make acomparison (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 likelyto 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 andpointvalue that should be used for the analysis are those that would be representative ofmagnetic ballastusers in the year that a ballast efficiency standardwould go into effect. Simply using the distribution and average values for magnetic ballasts from the Xenergy data set is not likelyto be representative ofthe lighting hours for magnetic users in the year standards would be implementedbecausethe 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 expectedthatthe earliestadopters willbe atthe highest hours, and later adopters will have somewhat lower average hours.
DOE assumed that 50% ofthe 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 bythe square footage ofeach 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.
Forthis analysis, industrial lighting is represented by one buildingtype. We simplyusedthe 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 forthe fact thatthe 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 ofthe 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 sectorhours are usedforthe F40T12, F32T8, andF96T12Iamp-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 similarresults for otherballasttypes where enough datawere available to make acomparison (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 likelyto 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 andpointvalue that should be used for the analysis are those that would be representative ofmagnetic ballastusers in the year that a ballast efficiency standardwould go into effect. Simply using the distribution and average values for magnetic ballasts from the Xenergy data set is not likelyto be representative ofthe lighting hours for magnetic users in the year standards would be implementedbecausethe 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 expectedthatthe earliestadopters willbe atthe highest hours, and later adopters will have somewhat lower average hours.
DOE assumed that 50% ofthe 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-17of 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 oflighting hours for magnetic ballasts at a point when their percentage penetration in buildings is 50%. Itwas assumed that the overall lighting hours distribution for all ballasts would not change as the penetration shifts from magnetic to electronic ballasts. Therefore, ifelectronic 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 datawith 100%penetration ofelectronics, the assumption was made that at 50%penetration ofelectronics, eachpointinthe distribution wouldbe halfwaybetween 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 halfthe amount that the 5% average is shifted upward. Forexample, 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 shiftedupward (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 LaborRates The hourly labor rate for ajourneyman 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 multiplierwhich 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 ratejsbased 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%. Itwas assumed that the overall lighting hours distribution for all ballasts would not change as the penetration shifts from magnetic to electronic ballasts. Therefore, ifelectronic 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 datawith 100%penetration ofelectronics, the assumption was made that at 50%penetration ofelectronics, eachpointinthe distribution wouldbe halfwaybetween 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 halfthe amount that the 5% average is shifted upward. Forexample, 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 shiftedupward (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 LaborRates The hourly labor rate for ajourneyman 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 multiplierwhich 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 ratejsbased 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-18Lamps 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. 

### 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% ofthe 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. Whenballasts are changed, the analysis assumesthatthe 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% ofthe 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. Whenballasts are changed, the analysis assumesthatthe 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-19Table 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. 

### 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, 1per fixture 3-lamp, Magnetic, 2 per fixture weighted for tandem fixtures 4-lamp, Electronic, 1per 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 oflamp 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 oflamps 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, 1per fixture 3-lamp, Magnetic, 2 per fixture weighted for tandem fixtures 4-lamp, Electronic, 1per 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 oflamp 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 oflamps 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-20Table 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 uildin g 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 

### Table A,41 FI 

# . uorescent L amp 

### R I L't ' e amp 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 estimatedthe fraction of8-foot and 8-foot H

### 0 lamp ballasts found in each buildingtype byassuming that the density (countper 100 ft2) found for each buildingtype in the Xenergy data set is representative ofall buildings ofthat 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 bi A42 8 F tL

a e 

# . . - 00 amp B II tL f a as oca Ions b B 'ld' T y Ul Ill!! .'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 bi A41 FI

a e , 

# . uorescentLamp 

### R I L't ' e amp 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 estimatedthe fraction of8-foot and 8-foot H

### 0 lamp ballasts found in each buildingtype byassuming that the density (countper 100 ft2) found for each buildingtype in the Xenergy data set is representative ofall buildings ofthat 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 bi A42 8 F L

a e 

# . . - oot**am~** B II L a ast ocabons b B 'ld' T y Ul 1112'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-21Table 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 SPREAD SHEE T 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 

### a e 0 

# . - oot T bi A43 8 F HOLamp Bll L a ast ocatlOns )y Ul III 

### 2ypes b BOld' 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 spreadsheetoperates in Excel 97 orExcel 7 (Windows 95). TheExcel add-on CrystalBall (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 containsthe summarytable ofthe LCC and paybackperiods for pointvalues ofthe input variables. (Note: Frequency results of LCC and payback periods using distributions ofinput variables have to be generated from Crystal Ball runs.) contains the calculations ofthe LCC and payback periods for T 12 conversions. contains the calculations ofthe LCC and payback periods for T8 conversions. contains the various projections ofcommercial sector electricity prices (Constant, AE098 Reference, GRI98, AE098 High Growth and AE098 Low Growth). contains the various projections ofindustrial sector electricity prices. defines the distributions ofincremental ballast prices. defines the distributions ofannual lighting operating hours. defines the distributions ofballast lifetimes. defines the distributions ofcommercial and industrial electricity prices in 

### 1996. contains the default engineering and price data. is used as an interface between user inputs and the rest ofthe worksheets.

A-22 

### a e 0 

# . - oot T bi A43 8 F HOLamp Bll L a ast ocatlOns )y Ul III 

### 2ypes b BOld' 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 spreadsheetoperates in Excel 97 orExcel 7 (Windows 95). TheExcel add-on CrystalBall (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 containsthe summarytable ofthe LCC and paybackperiods for pointvalues ofthe input variables. (Note: Frequency results of LCC and payback periods using distributions ofinput variables have to be generated from Crystal Ball runs.) contains the calculations ofthe LCC and payback periods for T 12 conversions. contains the calculations ofthe LCC and payback periods for T8 conversions. contains the various projections ofcommercial sector electricity prices (Constant, AE098 Reference, GRI98, AE098 High Growth and AE098 Low Growth). contains the various projections ofindustrial sector electricity prices. defines the distributions ofincremental ballast prices. defines the distributions ofannual lighting operating hours. defines the distributions ofballast lifetimes. defines the distributions ofcommercial and industrial electricity prices in 

### 1996. contains the default engineering and price data. is used as an interface between user inputs and the rest ofthe worksheets.

A-22How 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 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 INPUTSmenu canbe invokedbyclickingthe [LISTINPUTS] buttononthe 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) 

### BallastAssumptions 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 ofany screen. Onthe SETUP worksheet the confirmed choices represents the user-selected values for the input variables. The temporaty choices store the user's choices during the inputprocess. Ifthe 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. Theuser mayviewthe impacts on the other worksheets, but editing those sheets could cause calculation elTors, especially ifformulae are overwritten.
The exception is the Default Engr worksheet; here the user may change the default engineeringvalues. 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 ofthe 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 

### CrystalBall 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 INPUTSmenu canbe invokedbyclickingthe [LISTINPUTS] buttononthe 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) 

### BallastAssumptions 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 ofany screen. Onthe SETUP worksheet the confirmed choices represents the user-selected values for the input variables. The temporaty choices store the user's choices during the inputprocess. Ifthe 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. Theuser mayviewthe impacts on the other worksheets, but editing those sheets could cause calculation elTors, especially ifformulae are overwritten.
The exception is the Default Engr worksheet; here the user may change the default engineeringvalues. 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 ofthe 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 

### CrystalBall must be installed. Without 

### Crystal Ball, the spreadsheet provides calculations of LCC and payback periods based on point
A-23values 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 values of the assumptions. With Crystal Ball, the user can assign distributions to various assumptions to generate resulting probability distributions ofLCC savings and payback periods.
The spreadsheetprovides sampledistributions for (I)electricityprices, (2) annual operating hours, (3) lifetimes, and (4) ballast prices.
The worksheet Elec Price Dist contains the distribution of commercial and industrial electricityprices in 1996. The original data are from EIA'sElectric Utility Sales andRevenue, 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 ElectricityPriceProjection screen is used as a trend. For example, to use the AE099 Reference electricityprice as a trend, the ratios oftheprices in 1998, 1999,

... to 2030 relative to the price in 1997 from thatforecast are calculated. Then for each iteration ofthe simulation, a sampled price from the distribution is used as the base price, and the prices for 1998 to 2030 are obtainedby multiplying the ratios previously calculated bythe sampled price.
These distributions are defined in assumption cells. Click on Cell, Select AllAssumptions to highlightthe assumption cells onthe worksheet. Click on one ofthe assumption cells, then select Cell, Define Assumptionsto view the electricityprice 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 OperHrDist contains operatinghour distributions for the 4 ballasttypes for the commercial andindustrial sectors. Whenperforn1ingthe simulation,these distributions are scaled so that the average operating hours equal those in the user input (BallastAssumptions). Inthis way, the shape ofa distribution is retained and the mean ofthe distribution reflects the operating hours that the user specifies.
The sample custom distributions are derived from the Xenergy, Inc. database for both magnetic and electronicballasts. (LBNL is workingon anupdated distributiontorepresentmagnetic ballasthours.) To view a distribution, go to the OperatingHours Distributionhighlightedbox (upper right ofworksheet), 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 calculatedtogether. The industrial sectordistributions are belowthe 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 ofmagnetic ballasts.) During the simulation, the distributions are scaled (see operating hour distribution above) so thatthe mean lifetimes are the same as those specifiedbythe 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 ofLCC savings and payback periods.
The spreadsheetprovides sampledistributions for (I)electricityprices, (2) annual operating hours, (3) lifetimes, and (4) ballast prices.
The worksheet Elec Price Dist contains the distribution of commercial and industrial electricityprices in 1996. The original data are from EIA'sElectric Utility Sales andRevenue, 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 ElectricityPriceProjection screen is used as a trend. For example, to use the AE099 Reference electricityprice as a trend, the ratios oftheprices in 1998, 1999,

... to 2030 relative to the price in 1997 from thatforecast are calculated. Then for each iteration ofthe simulation, a sampled price from the distribution is used as the base price, and the prices for 1998 to 2030 are obtainedby multiplying the ratios previously calculated bythe sampled price.
These distributions are defined in assumption cells. Click on Cell, Select AllAssumptions to highlightthe assumption cells onthe worksheet. Click on one ofthe assumption cells, then select Cell, Define Assumptionsto view the electricityprice 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 OperHrDist contains operatinghour distributions for the 4 ballasttypes for the commercial andindustrial sectors. Whenperforn1ingthe simulation,these distributions are scaled so that the average operating hours equal those in the user input (BallastAssumptions). Inthis way, the shape ofa distribution is retained and the mean ofthe distribution reflects the operating hours that the user specifies.
The sample custom distributions are derived from the Xenergy, Inc. database for both magnetic and electronicballasts. (LBNL is workingon anupdated distributiontorepresentmagnetic ballasthours.) To view a distribution, go to the OperatingHours Distributionhighlightedbox (upper right ofworksheet), 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 calculatedtogether. The industrial sectordistributions are belowthe 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 ofmagnetic ballasts.) During the simulation, the distributions are scaled (see operating hour distribution above) so thatthe mean lifetimes are the same as those specifiedbythe 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 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. Toview a distribution, go to the highlightedbox BallastLife Distribution, and clickon 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 (bytyping in values orby movingthe arrows withthe cursor), the scale, orthe 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 ofincremental ballastprices are assumed to be normal distributions. The standard deviation ofeach distribution is assumed to be a certain fraction ofthe mean. The means ofthe distributions are the incremental ballast prices calculated from the BallastAssumptions 

### 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

### LISTINPUTS.
How does the user run the CrystalBall 

### simulation?
To start the Crystal Ball simulation, selectRun 

### 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. Feweriterations 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 willperform the simulations usingthe distributions ofall 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. Toview a distribution, go to the highlightedbox BallastLife Distribution, and clickon 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 (bytyping in values orby movingthe arrows withthe cursor), the scale, orthe 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 ofincremental ballastprices are assumed to be normal distributions. The standard deviation ofeach distribution is assumed to be a certain fraction ofthe mean. The means ofthe distributions are the incremental ballast prices calculated from the BallastAssumptions 

### 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

### LISTINPUTS.
How does the user run the CrystalBall 

### simulation?
To start the Crystal Ball simulation, selectRun 

### 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. Feweriterations 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 willperform the simulations usingthe distributions ofall 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-25What kind of output does Crystal Ball generate? Crystal Ball collects statistics on user-defined quantities calledforecast 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. 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 ofthe forecast cells. Currently, the life-cycle cost savings and payback periods are defined as forecast cells. The frequency charts display the results ·ofthe simulations, or trials, performed by Crystal Ball. Click on any chart to bring it into view. The charts show the low and high endpoints ofthe forecasts. To calculate the probability ofLCC savings beingpositive, eithertype 0 inthe box bythe right arrow, ormove the arrow keywith the cursorto 0 on the scale. The value inthe Certaintybox shows the likelihood that the LCC savings will be positive. To calculate the certainty ofpayback period being below a certain number ofyears, choose that value as the high endpoint.
To generate a printout report, select Create Report from the Run menu. Forfurther information on CrystalBall 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 ofthe forecast cells. Currently, the life-cycle cost savings and payback periods are defined as forecast cells. The frequency charts display the results ·ofthe simulations, or trials, performed by Crystal Ball. Click on any chart to bring it into view. The charts show the low and high endpoints ofthe forecasts. To calculate the probability ofLCC savings beingpositive, eithertype 0 inthe box bythe right arrow, ormove the arrow keywith the cursorto 0 on the scale. The value inthe Certaintybox shows the likelihood that the LCC savings will be positive. To calculate the certainty ofpayback period being below a certain number ofyears, choose that value as the high endpoint.
To generate a printout report, select Create Report from the Run menu. Forfurther information on CrystalBall outputs, please refer to Understanding the Forecast Chart in the Crystal Ball manual.

A-26REFERENCES

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 REFERENCES

1. National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) 1995. 1995 Procedure For DeterminingLuminaireEfficacyRatings ForFluorescentLuminaires, Revision 1. January 1995. NEMA Standards Publication LE5-1993. 2. U.S. Depal1ment ofEnergy. 1993. AdvancedLighting Guidelines: 1993. DOE/EE-0008, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department ofEnergy. 3. Ibid. 4. Bleeker, N. AndW. Veenstra. 1990. The Performance o/Four-FootFluorescentLamps as a Function 

## 0/ Ambient Temperature on 60 Hz andHigh Frequency Ballasts. In: 1990 IESNA Annual Conference; Technical Papers, Baltimore, MD. July 29-August 2, 1990. New York, NY: Illuminating Engineering Society ofNorth America. 5. Lighting Research Center, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. 1995. Lighting Answers. National Lighting Product Information Program, Vol. 2, No.3, March 1995. 6. Defense LogisticsAgency, February 1994,DSCR

- The Supplier Choice/orEnergyEfficient Lighting. Richmond, Virginia. 7. Department ofEnergy/Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA) 1994. Commercial Buildings Characteristics 1992: CommercialBUildingsEnergy Consumption Survey. Energy Information Administration, United States Department ofEnergy. 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, EnergyAnalysis Program, bythe Lighting Research Institute under LBNL SubcontractNo. 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 DeterminingLuminaireEfficacyRatings ForFluorescentLuminaires, Revision 1. January 1995. NEMA Standards Publication LE5-1993. 2. U.S. Depal1ment ofEnergy. 1993. AdvancedLighting Guidelines: 1993. DOE/EE-0008, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department ofEnergy. 3. Ibid. 4. Bleeker, N. AndW. Veenstra. 1990. The Performance o/Four-FootFluorescentLamps as a Function 

## 0/ Ambient Temperature on 60 Hz andHigh Frequency Ballasts. In: 1990 IESNA Annual Conference; Technical Papers, Baltimore, MD. July 29-August 2, 1990. New York, NY: Illuminating Engineering Society ofNorth America. 5. Lighting Research Center, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. 1995. Lighting Answers. National Lighting Product Information Program, Vol. 2, No.3, March 1995. 6. Defense LogisticsAgency, February 1994,DSCR

- The Supplier Choice/orEnergyEfficient Lighting. Richmond, Virginia. 7. Department ofEnergy/Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA) 1994. Commercial Buildings Characteristics 1992: CommercialBUildingsEnergy Consumption Survey. Energy Information Administration, United States Department ofEnergy. 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, EnergyAnalysis Program, bythe Lighting Research Institute under LBNL SubcontractNo. 4602810; 

### A. Gough, LRl Principal Investigator, and J. Burke, Burke and Associates subcontractor to LRl

A-27APPENDIX 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 APPENDIX 8. MARGINAL ENERGY PRICES AND NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS
8.1 COMMERCIAL SECTOR MARGINAL ENERGY PRICES 

### B.1.1 Background
Previous analyses ofthe life-cycle costs ofandconsumerbill savingspossible from appliance energy efficiency standards were based on average energy prices. a Using marginalenergy prices in these analyses is more theoretically sound.b Accordingly, in April 1998 the Advisory Committee on Appliance EnergyEfficiency Standards delivered a letterto the Secretary ofEnergy recommending, among other things, that DOE should replace the use ofnational average energyprices with the full range ofconsumer 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 requiredto derive consumermarginal energyprice. The full report onthis research effort, "Marginal Energy Prices Report," can be obtained from DOEl.
In the near tenn, several sources ofinformation were available for research and analysis on marginalprices. Commercial customers' utilitybills couldbe approximatedknowingmonthlyusage and likely utility tariff. Monthly usage for a large sample ofcommercial buildings was available from a commercialproduct, the MAISY'lt commercial database. 2 Utilitytariffsheets, generallythose 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 bythose utilities. Formunicipal utilities and co-ops, equivalenttariff-Ievel data were obtained from eitherthe utility itselforwas available fi.-om the Rural Utility Service. Inthe future, given that restructuring ofparts ofthe energy supply sector will complicate billing, energypricinginfonnation would best come directly from the customers. Because ofthe 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 ofbuildings (with energyusage information) using a set ofmodeled 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 ofinfonnation for the building energy and demand levels among buildings ofdifferent 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 ofenergy 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 ofenergy 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 ofthe life-cycle costs ofandconsumerbill savingspossible from appliance energy efficiency standards were based on average energy prices. a Using marginalenergy prices in these analyses is more theoretically sound.b Accordingly, in April 1998 the Advisory Committee on Appliance EnergyEfficiency Standards delivered a letterto the Secretary ofEnergy recommending, among other things, that DOE should replace the use ofnational average energyprices with the full range ofconsumer 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 requiredto derive consumermarginal energyprice. The full report onthis research effort, "Marginal Energy Prices Report," can be obtained from DOEl.
In the near tenn, several sources ofinformation were available for research and analysis on marginalprices. Commercial customers' utilitybills couldbe approximatedknowingmonthlyusage and likely utility tariff. Monthly usage for a large sample ofcommercial buildings was available from a commercialproduct, the MAISY'lt commercial database. 2 Utilitytariffsheets, generallythose 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 bythose utilities. Formunicipal utilities and co-ops, equivalenttariff-Ievel data were obtained from eitherthe utility itselforwas available fi.-om the Rural Utility Service. Inthe future, given that restructuring ofparts ofthe energy supply sector will complicate billing, energypricinginfonnation would best come directly from the customers. Because ofthe 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 ofbuildings (with energyusage information) using a set ofmodeled 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 ofinfonnation for the building energy and demand levels among buildings ofdifferent 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 ofenergy 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 ofenergy the consumer used. B-1This 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. 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 ofmodeled commercial electric utility tariffs, a collection ofmodeled commercial buildings, and Visual Basic program modules. Each building was assigned to a group ofapplicable tariffs based on building demand and monthly bills were calculated for each tarifffor a calendaryear. Then, building energyusage and demands were decremented to account for savings expectedfrom anewenergy efficiencystandard, monthlybills wererecalculated, andthe 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 TariffCollection
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 generallyrepresentative ofcommercial customers throughoutthe nation. Inchoosing utilities, the key factors we considered were geographic location, type ofownership (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 ofinexpensive sources ofenergy, 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 weightresults, we also obtained FERC Foml 1 (or equivalent) data for the chosen utilities showing the number ofcustomers and the sales for each ofa 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 ofmodeled commercial electric utility tariffs, a collection ofmodeled commercial buildings, and Visual Basic program modules. Each building was assigned to a group ofapplicable tariffs based on building demand and monthly bills were calculated for each tarifffor a calendaryear. Then, building energyusage and demands were decremented to account for savings expectedfrom anewenergy efficiencystandard, monthlybills wererecalculated, andthe 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 TariffCollection
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 generallyrepresentative ofcommercial customers throughoutthe nation. Inchoosing utilities, the key factors we considered were geographic location, type ofownership (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 ofinexpensive sources ofenergy, 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 weightresults, we also obtained FERC Foml 1 (or equivalent) data for the chosen utilities showing the number ofcustomers and the sales for each ofa utility's tariffs.

B-2