UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

+ + + + +

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

+ + + + +

PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS: FLOURESCENT LAMP BALLASTS

+ + + + +

DOCKET NO.

EE-RM-97-500

+ + + + +

TUESDAY

APRIL 18, 2000

+ + + + +

The public hearing commenced in Room 1E-245,

U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue,

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, at 9:00 a.m., Carl

Adams, presiding.

PRESENT:

CARL ADAMS, Program Manager for the Energy

Efficiency Standard Rulemaking on

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts, DOE

ROBERT PELINO, Robertson Worldwide

HOWARD WOLFMAN, Osram Sylvania

NORM GRIMSHAW, Advance Transformer Company

MICHAEL STEIN, MagneTek, Inc.

ROBERT WISBEY, Advance Transformer Company

EDWARD LEVY, General Counsel, DOE

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

+ + + + + 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

+ + + + + 

PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM 

FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS: FLOURESCENT LAMP BALLASTS 

+ + + + + 

DOCKET NO. 

EE-RM-97-500 

+ + + + + 

TUESDAY 

APRIL 18, 2000 

+ + + + + 

The public hearing commenced in Room lE-245, 

U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

S.W., Washington, D.C. 20585, at 9:00 a.m., Carl 

Adams, presiding. 

PRESENT: 

CARL ADAMS, Program Manager for the Energy 

Efficiency Standard Rulemaking on 

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts, DOE 

ROBERT PELINO, Robertson Worldwide 

HOWARD WOLFMAN, Osram Sylvania 

NORM GRIMSHAW, Advance Transformer Company 

MICHAEL STEIN, MagneTek, Inc. 

ROBERT WISBEY, Advance Transformer Company 

EDWARD LEVY, General Counsel, DOE 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
2

PRESENT: (CONT.)

EDWARD O. POLLOCK, DOE

ANTHONY BALDUCCI, National Electrical

Manufacturers Association (NEMA)

THOMAS SCHOOLER, SLI Lighting

CONAN O'ROURKE, Lighting Research Center

PATRICIA FRANCO, Philips Electronics

MARSHA PENHAKER, Facilitator

EUGENE MARGOLIS, Office of General Counsel, DOE

ERIN BOEDECKER, Observer

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

PRESENT: (CONT . ) 

EDWARD O. POLLOCK, DOE 

ANTHONY BALDUCCI, National Electrical 

Manufacturers Association (NEMA) 

THOMAS SCHOOLER, SLI Lighting 

CONAN O'ROURKE, Lighting Research Center 

PATRICIA FRANCO, Philips Electronics 

MARSHA PENHAKER, Facilitator 

2 

EUGENE MARGOLIS, Office of General Counsel, DOE 

ERIN BOEDECKER, Observer 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

(9:00 a.m.)

MR. ADAMS: Well, since the gang is all

here, at least the gang that signed up, we'll go ahead

and get started.

Good morning. I'm Carl Adams, Program

Manager for the Energy Efficiency Standard Rulemaking

on Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts. Others joining me here

today are Eugene Margolis from the Office of General

Counsel, and Ed Pollock said he would be here and was

having a meeting this morning, so I presume he'll be

down a little later.

I will be the presiding officer for

today's workshop, and our facilitator today is Marsha

Penhaker, who is a somewhat new arrival to our office.

On behalf of the Department, I'd like to

thank you all for taking the time to participate in

this public hearing. We have chosen the format of

public workshop for today's public hearing on our

proposed rulemaking, in order to facilitate the

exchange of ideas and information in a more informal

manner.

This workshop is a forum for discussing

the changes we have proposed to the Energy

Conservation Standards for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

3 

1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 

2 (9:00 a.m.) 

3 MR. ADAMS: WeIll since the gang is all 

4 here l at least the gang that signed UPI weIll go ahead 

5 and get started. 

6 Good morning. 11m Carl Adams I Program 

7 Manager for the Energy Efficiency Standard Rulemaking 

8 on Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts. Others joining me here 

9 today are Eugene Margolis from the Office of General 

10 Counsell and Ed Pollock said he would be here and was 

11 having a meeting this morning I so I presume he/ll be 

12 down a little later. 

13 I will be the presiding officer for 

14 today/s workshop I and our facilitator today is Marsha 

15 Penhaker I who is a somewhat new arrival to our office. 

16 On behalf of the Department I lId like to 

17 thank you all for taking the time to participate in 

18 this public hearing. We have chosen the format of 

19 public workshop for todayl s public hearing on our 

20 proposed rulemaking l in order to facilitate the 

21 exchange of ideas and information in a more informal 

22 manner. 

23 This workshop is a forum for discussing 

24 the changes we have proposed to the Energy 

25 Conservation Standards for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

4

published as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the

Federal Register on March 15th, 2000.

The notice included an announcement of

today's hearing. Materials related to this hearing

are posted on our Web site, and I can give you the

address, lengthy as it is, if you wish to have it

later. I'll not read it.

Today the Department is seeking comments

on the proposed energy conservation standards.

Comments received here today along with comments

submitted during the written comment period will

assist the Department in developing the final rule for

fluorescent lamp ballast energy conservation

standards.

In approximately two weeks, a complete

copy of the transcript will be available for

inspection and copying at the Department of Energy's

Freedom of Information Reading Room located in Room

1E-190. Anyone wishing to purchase a copy of the

transcript may make arrangements with the court

reporter.

To provide the Department with as much

pertinent information and as many views as can be

reasonably obtained, and to enable interested persons

to express their views, the workshop will be conducted

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

4 

1 published as a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in the 

2 Federal Register on March 15th, 2000. 

3 The notice included an announcement of 

4 today's hearing. Materials related to this hearing 

5 are posted on our Web site, and I can give you the 

6 address, lengthy as it is, if you wish to have it 

7 later. I'll not read it. 

8 Today the Department is seeking comments 

9 on the proposed energy conservation standards. 

10 Comments received here today along with comments 

11 submitted during the written comment period will 

12 assist the Department in developing the final rule for 

13 fluorescent lamp ballast energy conservation 

14 standards. 

15 In approximately two weeks, a complete 

16 copy of the transcript will be available for 

17 inspection and copying at the Department of Energy's 

18 Freedom of Information Reading Room located in Room 

19 lE-190. Anyone wishing to purchase a copy of the 

20 transcript may make arrangements with the court 

21 reporter. 

22 To provide the Department with as much 

23 pertinent information and as many views as can be 

24 reasonably obtained, and to enable interested persons 

25 to express their views, the workshop will be conducted 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

in accordance with the following procedures:

We will begin with introductions and then

proceed to the list of people who have asked to speak

and have submitted comments. Following those

comments, we will have a discussion period on any

issues raised.

As time allows, we will invite unscheduled

speakers to present other issues not covered and have

discussions on them. We should have ample time to

raise and discuss all important issues.

(Laughter.)

MR. ADAMS: We would ask, however, that

all participants refrain from making overly lengthy

remarks so that everyone gets the floor time they

need. Marsha will enforce this ground rule.

(Laughter.)

MR. ADAMS: And we'll also limit debate

when speakers' points have been made and are clear.

Questions are welcome throughout these presentations

unless you are advised otherwise. It may be

necessary, however, to cut off debate on some topics

to remain unscheduled, although there may be time at

the end of the workshop for additional discussion of

significant issues.

(202) 234-4433

I encourage everyone present to

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

5 

1 in accordance with the following procedures: 

2 We will begin with introductions and then 

3 proceed to the list of people who have asked to speak 

4 and have submitted comments. Following those 

5 comments, we will have a discussion period on any 

6 issues raised. 

7 As time allows, we will invite unscheduled 

8 speakers to present other issues not covered and have 

9 discussions on them. We should have ample time to 

10 raise and discuss all important issues. 

11 (Laughter.) 

12 MR. ADAMS: We would ask, however, that 

13 all participants refrain from making overly lengthy 

14 remarks so that everyone gets the floor time they 

15 need. Marsha will enforce this ground rule. 

16 (Laughter. ) 

17 MR. ADAMS: And we'll also limit debate 

18 when speakers' points have been made and are clear. 

19 Questions are welcome throughout these presentations 

20 unless you are advised otherwise. It may be 

21 necessary, however, to cut off debate on some topics 

22 to remain unscheduled, although there may be time at 

23 the end of the workshop for additional discussion of 

24 significant issues. 

25 I 

(202) 234-4433 

encourage everyone 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 

present to 

www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

6

participate as much as possible so that we may get a

full spectrum of opinions on issues raised.

The workshop is scheduled to adjourn today

at 4:00 p.m., hopefully much sooner than that, unless,

of course, we finish early. Topics which have not

been completely discussed by that time can be

addressed in additional written comments which are due

by May 29 of this year.

All written comments and data submissions

will be available for public inspection at the DOE

Freedom of Information Reading Room; phone number is

(202) 586-6020.

Please send your written comments to

Brenda Edwards-Jones here at the Department, referring

to Docket No. EE-RM-97-500 when you respond. We would

like to have ten copies of your comments and any

supporting data, along with an electronic copy of the

comments or data, using WordPerfect 8.1 or Microsoft

Excel. No fax comments will be accepted.

Any person submitting information which he

or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law

from public disclosure should submit one complete

signed copy, plus ten copies and a copy on a disk from

which the information claimed to be confidential has

been bleeded.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

6 

1 participate as much as possible so that we may get a 

2 full spectrum of opinions on issues raised. 

3 The workshop is scheduled to adj ourn today 

4 at 4: 00 p. m., hopefully much sooner than that, unless, 

5 of course, we finish early. Topics which have not 

6 been completely discussed by that time can be 

7 addressed in additional written comments which are due 

8 by May 29 of this year. 

9 All written comments and data submissions 

10 will be available for public inspection at the DOE 

11 Freedom of Information Reading Roomi phone number is 

12 (202) 586-6020. 

13 Please send your written comments to 

14 Brenda Edwards-Jones here at the Department, referring 

15 to Docket No. EE-RM-97-500 when you respond. We would 

16 like to have ten copies of your comments and any 

17 supporting data, along with an electronic copy of the 

18 comments or data, using WordPerfect 8.1 or Microsoft 

19 Excel. No fax comments will be accepted. 

20 Any person sUbmitting information which he 

21 or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law 

22 from public disclosure should submit one complete 

23 signed copy, plus ten copies and a copy on a disk from 

24 which the information claimed to be confidential has 

25 been bleeded. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

7

In accordance with the procedures

established at 10 CFR Part 1004.11, the Department of

Energy will make its own determination as to whether

the information shall be exempt from public

disclosure.

Again, we appreciate the time and effort

you have taken in preparing for this hearing, and I'm

pleased to receive your comments and opinions.

Our purpose today is to listen to your

views.

I'd now like to ask Marsha to, just for

formality, have a round of introductions, and then

we'll call the speakers in the list, in the order, I

guess, as provided.

MS. PENHAKER: I would just like to say

for those of you who may not have been here before,

which may be only one or two, for anybody that may

need a rest room, they're down the hall to the left.

I'd like to first go around the table and

have everybody introduce themselves, even though you

seem to know each other pretty well, and your

affiliation, so that the court reporter can accurately

record that.

And I'd also like to remind you that

before you present your comments, to once again, I

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

7 

1 In accordance with the procedures 

2 established at 10 CFR Part 1004.11, the Department of 

3 Energy will make its own determination as to whether 

4 the information shall be exempt from public 

5 disclosure. 

6 Again, we appreciate the time and effort 

7 you have taken in preparing for this hearing, and I'm 

8 pleased to receive your comments and opinions. 

9 Our purpose today is to listen to your 

10 views. 

11 I'd now like to ask Marsha to, just for 

12 formality, have a round of introductions, and then 

13 we'll call the speakers in the list, in the order, I 

14 guess, as provided. 

15 MS. PENHAKER: I would just like to say 

16 for those of you who may not have been here before, 

17 which may be only one or two, for anybody that may 

18 need a rest room, they're down the hall to the left. 

19 I'd like to first go around the table and 

20 have everybody introduce themselves, even though you 

21 seem to know each other pretty well, and your 

22 affiliation, so that the court reporter can accurately 

23 record that. 

24 And I'd also like to remind you that 

25 before you present your comments, to once again, I 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

8

guess if I -- and your affiliation so that he can get

that down.

I will keep you to a time limit, which at

this point I'm not going to put a specific amount of

time on it because, as Carl said, we should have

plenty of time to get everybody's comments heard.

But we don't want to go until four if we

don't have to. Plus, our reporter, court reporter,

has to feed his meter. So, we need to stop at four,

okay?

(Laughter.)

MS. PENHAKER: I would like to first go

around the table and have people introduce themselves.

I'm Marsha Penhaker from the Department of Energy.

MR. WISBEY: Bob Wisbey, representing

Advance Transformer Company.

MR. STEIN: Mike Stein, with MagneTek.

MR. GRIMSHAW: I'm Norm Grimshaw, Advance

Transformer, and Chairman of the Ballast Section.

MR. WOLFMAN: Howard Wolfman, Osram

Sylvania.

Worldwide.

MR. PELINO: Robert Pelino, Robertson

MR. O'ROURKE: Conan O'Rourke from

Lighting Research Center.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

8 

1 guess if I -- and your affiliation so that he can get 

2 that down. 

3 I will keep you to a time limit, which at 

4 this point I'm not going to put a specific amount of 

5 time on it because, as Carl said, we should have 

6 plenty of time to get everybody's comments heard. 

7 But we don't want to go until four if we 

8 don't have to. Plus, our reporter, court reporter, 

9 has to feed his meter. So, we need to stop at four, 

10 okay? 

11 (Laughter.) 

12 MS. PENHAKER: I would like to first go 

13 around the table and have people introduce themselves. 

14 I'm Marsha Penhaker from the Department of Energy. 

15 MR. WISBEY: Bob Wisbey, representing 

16 Advance Transformer Company. 

17 MR. STEIN: Mike Stein, with MagneTek. 

18 MR. GRIMSHAW: I'm Norm Grimshaw, Advance 

19 Transformer, and Chairman of the Ballast Section. 

20 MR. WOLFMAN : Howard Wolfman, Osram 

21 Sylvania. 

22 MR. PELINO: Robert Pelino, Robertson 

23 Worldwide. 

24 MR. O'ROURKE: Conan O'Rourke from 

25 Lighting Research Center. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
9

1

2

3

Electronics.

Lighting.

MS. FRANCO: Patricia Franco with Philips

MR. SCHOOLER: Tom Schooler with SLI

MR. BALDUCCI: Anthony Balducci with NEMA.

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MR. POLLOCK: Ed Pollock with the U.S.

Department of Energy.

MR. ADAMS: Carl Adams, Department of

Energy.

MR. MARGOLIS: Eugene Margolis, Office of

General Counsel, Department of Energy.

I just wish to state that Section 336 of

the Act, which has certain requirements of people,

says the manufacturers here can ask certain types of

questions of the Department of Energy. And that is a

requirement by statute, and therefore, it can be done

if the manufacturers want to do so.

MS. PENHAKER: Thank you. Well, we do

have one guest in the back. We'd like you to please

introduce yourself.

MS. BOEDECKER: Certainly. My name is

Erin Boedecker. I work at the Energy Information

Administration, and my job is analyzing commercial

sector energy needs. I'm in charge of the commercial

miles event, National Energy Mileage System, and I

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

9 

1 MS. FRANCO: Patricia Franco with Philips 

2 Electronics. 

3 MR. SCHOOLER: Tom Schooler with SLI 

4 Lighting. 

5 MR. BALDUCCI: Anthony Balducci with NEMA. 

6 MR. POLLOCK: Ed Pollock with the U.S. 

7 Department of Energy. 

8 MR. ADAMS: Carl Adams, Department of 

9 Energy. 

10 MR. MARGOLIS: Eugene Margolis, Office of 

11 General Counsel, Department of Energy. 

12 I just wish to state that Section 336 of 

13 the Act, which has certain requirements of people, 

14 says the manufacturers here can ask certain types of 

15 questions of the Department of Energy. And that is a 

16 requirement by statute, and therefore, it can be done 

17 if the manufacturers want to do so. 

18 MS. PENHAKER: Thank you. Well, we do 

19 have one guest in the back. We'd like you to please 

20 introduce yourself. 

21 MS. BOEDECKER: Certainly. My name is 

22 Erin Boedecker. I work at the Energy Information 

23 Administration, and my job is analyzing commercial 

24 sector energy needs. I'm in charge of the commercial 

25 miles event, National Energy Mileage System, and I 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

10

forecast commercial lighting, who definitely affect

our forecast through many outlets.

MS. PENHAKER: Thank you.

I would like to start by asking Norm

Grimshaw to please come to the mike and share your

comments with us.

MR. GRIMSHAW: I am Norm Grimshaw, Vice

President of Technical Relations for Advance

Transformer Company and Chairman of the Ballast

Section of the Lighting Systems Division of the

National Electrical Manufacturers Association, known

as NEMA.

Today I am representing the Ballast

Section of NEMA. Our section members produce and sell

over 90 percent of both the magnetic and electronic

ballasts under consideration in the rulemaking.

We strongly support and request that the

Department of Energy adopt the proposed ballast rule

as submitted by the joint stakeholders and spelled out

in the DOE NOPR in the Federal Register notice of

March 5th, the year 2000.

The Ballast Section and its member

companies have been extremely involved in the

rulemaking process since the initial NOPR of the

fluorescent ballast was issued on March 4th, 1994.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

10 

1 forecast commercial lighting, who definitely affect 

2 our forecast through many outlets. 

3 MS. PENHAKER: Thank you. 

4 I would like to start by asking Norm 

5 Grimshaw to please come to the mike and share your 

6 comments with us. 

7 MR. GRIMSHAW: I am Norm Grimshaw, Vice 

8 President of Technical Relations for Advance 

9 Transformer Company and Chairman of the Ballast 

10 Section of the Lighting Systems Division of the 

11 National Electrical Manufacturers Association, known 

12 as NEMA. 

13 Today I am representing the Ballast 

14 Section of NEMA. Our section members produce and sell 

15 over 90 percent of both the magnetic and electronic 

16 ballasts under consideration in the rulemaking. 

17 We strongly support and request that the 

18 Department of Energy adopt the proposed ballast rule 

19 as submitted by the joint stakeholders and spelled out 

20 in the DOE NOPR in the Federal Register notice of 

21 March 5th, the year 2000. 

22 The Ballast Section and its member 

23 companies have been extremely involved in the 

24 rulemaking process since the initial NOPR of the 

25 fluorescent ballast was issued on March 4th, 1994. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

11

At many times, there has been very

contentious debate over our -- among our members, DOE,

and other interested stakeholders. It is very

gratifying that we can all come together today and

together provide full and wholehearted support to a

proposed rule.

We would like to provide some commentary

on the process, both the good parts and the bad parts,

over these six years. The changes made in the DOE

process during this time have been beneficial to

everyone interested.

Six years ago, DOE issued a NOPR as part

of a so-called eight-product rulemaking that was

technically totally unsound. These proposed standards

were published without any input from, or review by,

any competent professional or stakeholder, including

those from the ballast industry.

The philosophical difference over how this

proposal should be received was moot because the

proposal was technically wrong. No products existed

or could be designed in compliance with the proposed

standards.

This original unsound proposal was

withdrawn, and with a principal element -- and was a

principal element in leading to the DOE Process

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

11 

1 At many times, there has been very 

2 contentious debate over our - - among our members, DOE, 

3 and other interested stakeholders. It is very 

4 gratifying that we can all come together today and 

5 together provide full and wholehearted support to a 

6 proposed rule. 

7 We would like to provide some commentary 

8 on the process, both the good parts and the bad parts, 

9 over these six years. The changes made in the DOE 

10 process during this time have been beneficial to 

11 everyone interested. 

12 Six years ago, DOE issued a NOPR as part 

13 of a so-called eight-product rulemaking that was 

14 technically totally unsound. These proposed standards 

15 were published without any input from, or review by, 

16 any competent professional or stakeholder, including 

17 those from the ballast industry. 

18 The philosophical difference over how this 

19 proposal should be received was moot because the 

20 proposal was technically wrong. No products existed 

21 or could be designed in compliance with the proposed 

22 standards. 

23 This original unsound proposal was 

24 withdrawn, and with a principal element -- and was a 

25 principal element in leading to the DOE Process 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

12

Improvement Rule in 1996 which established more open

process, allowing interested stakeholders to have

input at early and continuing stages of the process.

These changes provided for a more open

process by allowing competent professionals and

stakeholders to review and provide input to the

technical analysis and allow focus on the essential

elements.

The NEMA Ballast Section members have

cooperatively provided a great deal of data, input and

discussion into the subsequent analysis. It is very

satisfying that input has been provided and accepted

in the proper spirit of openness and professionalism,

even when there were differences of opinion on how to

interpret the results and on what conclusions to reach

regarding the ultimate rule.

By 1999, the process had reached the point

where the differences in opinion on the technical and

economic data and calculations were small enough to

allow the discussions to begin to focus on the outcome

and the proposed rule itself.

A new rule, based primarily on the use of

electronic ballast, would have provided significant

national energy savings; resulted in significant

economic harm to manufacturers of magnetic ballast,

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

12 

1 Improvement Rule in 1996 which established more open 

2 process, allowing interested stakeholders to have 

3 input at early and continuing stages of the process. 

4 These changes provided for a more open 

5 process by allowing competent professionals and 

6 stakeholders to review and provide input to the 

7 technical analysis and allow focus on the essential 

8 elements. 

9 The NEMA Ballast Section members have 

10 cooperatively provided a great deal of data, input and 

11 discussion into the subsequent analysis. It is very 

12 satisfying that input has been provided and accepted 

13 in the proper spirit of openness and professionalism, 

14 even when there were differences of opinion on how to 

15 interpret the results and on what conclusions to reach 

16 regarding the ultimate rule. 

17 By 1999, the process had reached the point 

18 where the differences in opinion on the technical and 

19 economic data and calculations were small enough to 

20 allow the discussions to begin to focus on the outcome 

21 and the proposed rule itself. 

22 A new rule, based primarily on the use of 

23 electronic ballast, would have provided significant 

24 national energy savings; resulted In significant 

25 economic harm to manufacturers of magnetic ballast, 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

13

their suppliers and other trade allies; resulted in

life cycle cost savings to a majority of users,

although the extent of the majority depends on a few

still disputed elements of the life cycle cost

analyses; resulted in some system performance and

maintenance problems for owners of existing

magnetically-ballasted systems and some installations

especially sensitive to electronic equipment

compatibility issues.

This state of affairs led Dan Reicher to

suggest at the June 1999 workshop that DOE would like

to see the interested stakeholders negotiate a common

proposal.

In response to this suggestion, NEMA

invited all interested stakeholders to participate in

the negotiations under the observation of DOE. This

very intense two-day negotiation session took place in

October. All parties had the opportunity to fully air

every one of their problems, concerns and issues, and

to understand well the other person's problems,

concerns and issues.

We believe that all of the important

interests affected by the ballast rule were

represented at the negotiations. In the end, the

joint stakeholders reached a consensus on a rule

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

13 

1 their suppliers and other trade allies; resulted in 

2 life cycle cost savings to a maj ority of users, 

3 although the extent of the majority depends on a few 

4 still disputed elements of the life cycle cost 

5 analyses; resulted in some system performance and 

6 maintenance problems for owners of existing 

7 magnetically-ballasted systems and some installations 

8 especially sensitive to electronic equipment 

9 compatibility issues. 

10 This state of affairs led Dan Reicher to 

11 suggest at the June 1999 workshop that DOE would like 

12 to see the interested stakeholders negotiate a common 

13 proposal. 

14 In response to this suggestion, NEMA 

15 invited all interested stakeholders to participate in 

16 the negotiations under the observation of DOE. This 

17 very intense two-day negotiation session took place in 

18 October. All parties had the opportunity to fully air 

19 everyone of their problems, concerns and issues, and 

20 to understand well the other person's problems, 

21 concerns and issues. 

22 We believe that all of the important 

23 interests affected by the ballast rule were 

24 represented at the negotiations. In the end, the 

25 j oint stakeholders reached a consensus on a rule 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

14

proposal that is an equitable balance of the various

advantages and disadvantages.

The spirit of the negotiations was very

good, with everyone present truly focusing on the

resolving of all areas of contention in a positive

manner.

A rule proposal was developed that allowed

solutions to all of the unique applications, limited

the negative financial impacts on ballast and the

allied manufacturers to a tolerable level, and still

resulted in virtually the maximum possible energy

savings.

We would like to thank and applaud all of

the participants in this negotiation for their

attitudes.

The proposed rule agreed upon by the joint

stakeholders in this negotiations is exactly as

presented in the March 15th, 2000 Federal Register

NOPR.

The joint stakeholders have already

provided detailed comments and support for this

proposal in our joint comments submitted in December

1999.

The agreed-to proposed standards comply

25 11 fully with the standards criteria of NAECA, the intent

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

14 

1 proposal that is an equitable balance of the various 

2 advantages and disadvantages. 

3 The spirit of the negotiations was very 

4 good, with everyone present truly focusing on th~ 

5 resolving of all areas of contention in a positive 

6 manner. 

7 A rule proposal was developed that allowed 

8 solutions to all of the unique applications, limited 

9 the negative financial impacts on ballast and the 

10 allied manufacturers to a tolerable level, and still 

11 resulted in virtually the maximum possible energy 

12 savings. 

13 We would like to thank and applaud all of 

14 the participants in this negotiation for their 

15 attitudes. 

16 The proposed rule agreed upon by the joint 

17 stakeholders in this negotiations is exactly as 

18 presented in the March 15th, 2000 Federal Register 

19 NOPR. 

20 The joint stakeholders have already 

21 provided detailed comments and support for this 

22 proposal in our joint comments submitted in December 

23 1999. 

24 The agreed-to proposed standards comply 

25 fully with the standards criteria of NAECA, the intent 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

of the Process Improvement Rule, and have been set to

achieve the maximum energy savings that are

technologically feasible and economically justified.

We at the NEMA Ballast Section believe

this proposed rule, when promulgated, will result in

the maximum possible energy savings consistent with

minimizing potential user disadvantages and will

mitigate some of the negative financial impacts on

manufacturers.

Specifically, the proposed rule will

result in energy savings of between 1.2 and 2.3 quads

of energy over the next 30 years as indicated in the

NOPR; allow an orderly transition to mitigate the

financial burdens imposed on the ballast and allied

manufacturers; reduce the negative impacts on existing

users of magnetically-ballasted systems; continue the

availability of magnetic ballasts for T8 lamps in

installations with electronic equipment compatibility

problems; restrict to a very narrow classification of

ballast the exemptions for ballast for 96-inch high

output lamps for use in outdoor signs; provide lower

life cycle costs with electronic ballasts for the

majority of users.

These issues were raised in comments

previously submitted to DOE regarding this matter.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

15 

1 of the Process Improvement Rule, and have been set to 

2 achieve the maximum energy savings that are 

3 technologically feasible and economically justified. 

4 We at the NEMA Ballast Section believe 

5 this proposed rule, when promulgated, will result in 

6 the maximum possible energy savings consistent with 

7 minimizing potential user disadvantages and will 

8 mitigate some of the negative financial impacts on 

9 manufacturers. 

10 Specifically, the proposed rule will 

11 result in energy savings of between 1.2 and 2.3 quads 

12 of energy over the next 30 years as indicated in the 

13 NOPR; allow an orderly transition to mitigate the 

14 financial burdens imposed on the ballast and allied 

15 manufacturers; reduce the negative impacts on existing 

16 users of magnetically-ballasted systems; continue the 

17 availability of magnetic ballasts for T8 lamps in 

18 installations with electronic equipment compatibility 

19 problems; restrict to a very narrow classification of 

20 ballast the exemptions for ballast for 96-inch high 

21 output lamps for use in outdoor signs; provide lower 

22 life cycle costs with electronic ballasts for the 

23 majority of users. 

24 These issues were raised in comments 

25 previously submitted to DOE regarding this matter. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

16

We now turn to the assumptions in the DOE

preamble, that the joint comments superseded our

previous comments. We are concerned that in the NOPR,

DOE did not address any of the previous comments on

the technical analysis raised by NEMA.

In the joint comments, we stated that

while the joint stakeholders of subgroups thereof may

not agree with all data, analyses or conclusions

contained in these analyses, the joint stakeholders do

agree that the economic analysis supports the proposal

and the conclusion that the proposal, if promulgated

as a standard, results in benefits that exceed the

burdens to the greatest extent practical.

Thus, neither NEMA nor the other

stakeholders withdrew their prior critiques of the

economic analysis. The submission of the joint

comments does not and should not supersede previous

comments made on the TSD.

The prior comments disagreeing with

certain aspects of the life cycle cost analysis in the

TSD should be acknowledged and addressed by the

Department.

Addressing these comments are primarily

relevant to preserve the robustness of the open

process established by the Process Improvement Rule.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

16 

1 We now turn to the assumptions in the DOE 

2 preamble, that the j oint comments superseded our 

3 previous comments. We are concerned that in the NOPR, 

4 DOE did not address any of the previous comments on 

5 the technical analysis raised by NEMA. 

6 In the j oint comments, we stated that 

7 while the joint stakeholders of subgroups thereof may 

8 not agree with all data, analyses or conclusions 

9 contained in these analyses, the j oint stakeholders do 

10 agree that the economic analysis supports the proposal 

11 and the conclusion that the proposal, if promulgated 

12 as a standard, results in benefits that exceed the 

13 burdens to the greatest extent practical. 

14 Thus, neither NEMA nor the other 

15 stakeholders withdrew their prior critiques of the 

16 economic analysis. The submission of the joint 

17 comments does not and should not supersede previous 

18 comments made on the TSD. 

19 The prior comments disagreeing with 

20 certain aspects of the life cycle cost analysis in the 

21 TSD should be acknowledged and addressed by the 

22 Department. 

23 Addressing these comments are primarily 

24 relevant to preserve the robustness of the open 

25 process established by the Process Improvement Rule. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

17

While NEMA has agreed with our fellow

stakeholders that the TSD is sufficient to support the

proposed rule, as proposed , we respectfully maintain

that the Department should acknowledge our prior

critique.

In particular, the following is a list of

items that will be discussed in our written comments.

End user ballast prices are not observable as market

prices because end users rarely purchase stand-alone

ballast.

Commercial and industrial purchasers more

typically purchase ballast as a component of an

integrated lighting system or as a component of a

service contract.

The derivation of unobservable end user

ballast price is still not acceptable. The

unobservable end user price distorts the LCC

calculations and the derivation of the total benefit.

DOE has used the same electricity prices

for all users of ballasts in the LCC. We believe that

the magnetic ballast users, on average, pay lower

electricity prices than electronic ballast users.

Electricity price is just one of many

economic factors that influence the choice of what

type ballast and lighting systems are used in a given

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

17 

1 While NEMA has agreed with our fellow 

2 stakeholders that the TSD is sufficient to support the 

3 proposed rule, as proposed, we respectfully maintain 

4 that the Department should acknowledge our prior 

5 critique. 

6 In particular, the following is a list of 

7 items that will be discussed in our written comments. 

8 End user ballast prices are not observable as market 

9 prices because end users rarely purchase stand-alone 

10 ballast. 

11 Commercial and industrial purchasers more 

12 typically purchase ballast as a component of an 

13 integrated lighting system or as a component of a 

14 service contract. 

15 The derivation of unobservable end user 

16 ballast price is still not acceptable. The 

17 unobservable end user price distorts the LCC 

18 calculations and the derivation of the total benefit. 

19 DOE has used the same electricity prices 

20 for all users of ballasts in the LCC. We believe that 

21 the magnetic ballast users, on average, pay lower 

22 electricity prices than electronic ballast users. 

23 Electricity price is just one of many 

24 economic factors that influence the choice of what 

25 type ballast and lighting systems are used in a given 

NEAL R. GROSS 

(202) 234-4433 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
18

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

installation.

DOE has still compared T12 systems to T8

systems. This should not be performed when

calculating LCC for our component ballast rulemaking.

Prior to late 1998, this had not been the DOE

procedure.

DOE has, comparative, a fixture that uses

one ballast to a fixture that uses more than one

ballast per fixture. This should not be done in the

LCC analysis. These fixtures do not provide the same

functionality to the user.

These subjects need to be reviewed further

in any future ballast lighting rulemakings. NEMA is

not requesting that DOE revise the TSD. We are,

however, requesting that DOE acknowledge that there

are differences of opinion regarding the derivation of

certain inputs to the TSD.

This should be accomplished in the

preamble section of the final rule.

DOE has requested specific comments on two

issues in the NOPR. The first is on the validity of

the analytical method used to determine the national

demand for labor. And second is on the proposed rule

that could be written to make it easier to understand.

(202) 234-4433

The analytical methods used and the

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

18 

1 installation. 

2 DOE has still compared T12 systems to T8 

3 systems. This should not be performed when 

4 calculating Lee for our component ballast rulemaking. 

5 Prior to late 1998, this had not been the DOE 

6 procedure. 

7 DOE has, comparative, a fixture that uses 

8 one ballast to a fixture that uses more than one 

9 ballast per fixture. This should not be done in the 

10 Lee analysis. These fixtures do not provide the same 

11 functionality to the user. 

12 These subj ects need to be reviewed further 

13 in any future ballast lighting rulemakings. NEMA is 

14 not requesting that DOE revise the TSD. We are, 

15 however, requesting that DOE acknowledge that there 

16 are differences of opinion regarding the derivation of 

17 certain inputs to the TSD. 

18 This should be accomplished in the 

19 preamble section of the final rule. 

20 DOE has requested specific comments on two 

21 issues in the NOPR. The first is on the validity of 

22 the analytical method used to determine the national 

23 demand for labor. And second is on the proposed rule 

24 that could be written to make it easier to understand. 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

The analytical methods used and the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

19

interpretation of our end use of the results of the

analysis to determine the impacts on the net national

labor demand are inaccurate at best.

In the discussions of this methodology,

even DOE doubts it and the results generated from the

analysis. NEMA believes that it is extremely

difficult to make predictions regarding how sectoral

expenditures will result in labor demand ten to 30

years in the future.

The NOPR is well-written and easy to

understand if the party reading it has technical

knowledge on the subject. NEMA believes that the

style is an improvement over past Federal Register

notices.

In conclusion, we believe that the current

proposed rule satisfies all the legal requirements and

adequately addresses all of the stakeholder concerns.

We urge DOE to adopt the proposed rule as

a final rule and adequately respond to all comments.

MS. PENHAKER: Thank you.

Does anybody have any comments?

Next, Bob Wisbey.

MR. WISBEY: I'm Bob Wisbey. I'm

commenting on behalf of the Advance Transformer

Company. Advance is an operating division of Philips

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

19 

1 interpretation of our end use of the results of the 

2 analysis to determine the impacts on the net national 

3 labor demand are inaccurate at best. 

4 In the discussions of this methodology, 

5 even DOE doubts it and the results generated from the 

6 analysis. NEMA believes that it is extremely 

7 difficult to make predictions regarding how sectoral 

8 expenditures will result in labor demand ten to 30 

9 years in the future. 

10 The NOPR is well-written and easy to 

11 understand if the party reading it has technical 

12 knowledge on the subj ect. NEMA believes that the 

13 style is an improvement over past Federal Register 

14 notices. 

15 In conclusion, we believe that the current 

16 proposed rule satisfies all the legal requirements and 

17 adequately addresses all of the stakeholder concerns. 

18 We urge DOE to adopt the proposed rule as 

19 a final rule and adequately respond to all comments. 

20 MS. PENHAKER: Thank you. 

21 Does anybody have any comments? 

22 Next, Bob Wisbey. 

23 MR. WISBEY: I'm Bob Wisbey. I'm 

24 commenting on behalf of the Advance Transformer 

25 Company. Advance is an operating division of Philips 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NoW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
20

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

Electronics North America.

Advance and Philips have participated in

all aspects of fluorescent ballast lamp efficiency

regulations dating back to the State of California

regulations of the early '80s.

Advance representatives were very involved

in advocating and developing the initial U.S.

regulations in 1987 and '88. I personally, and

Advance/Philips as a company, have been extremely

involved in the current rulemaking process since the

publication of the poorly-conceived and ill-fated

eight-product rulemaking NOPR in March 1994. In fact,

we met here in this room and had a rather wild

hearing.

The fluorescent lamp ballasts are

components used in lighting fixtures, primarily used

in commercial and industrial buildings. In '87 and

'88, ballasts were incorporated in NAECA legislation

which otherwise covers home appliances used in

primarily residential applications.

At that time, a national ballast

efficiency regulation was considered desirable by all

concerned parties. Attaching it to NAECA was an

expediency agreed to by all stakeholders and, in

retrospect, was an overall good choice.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

20 

1 Electronics North America. 

2 Advance and Philips have participated in 

3 all aspects of fluorescent ballast lamp efficiency 

4 regulations dating back to the State of California 

5 regulations of the early '80s. 

6 Advance representatives were very involved 

7 in advocating and developing the initial u.S. 

8 regulations in 1987 and '88. I personally, and 

9 Advance/Philips as a company, have been extremely 

10 involved in the current rulemaking process since the 

11 publication of the poorly-conceived and ill-fated 

12 eight-product rulemaking NOPR in March 1994. In fact, 

13 we met here in this room and had a rather wild 

14 hearing. 

15 The fluorescent lamp ballasts are 

16 components used in lighting fixtures, primarily used 

17 in commercial and industrial buildings. In '87 and 

18 '88, ballasts were incorporated in NAECA legislation 

19 which otherwise covers home appliances used in 

20 primarily residential applications. 

21 At that time, a national ballast 

22 efficiency regulation was considered desirable by all 

23 concerned parties. At taching it to NAECA was an 

24 expediency agreed to by all stakeholders and, in 

25 retrospect, was an overall good choice. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

21

However, the periodic review process for

NAECA is basically designed for residential

appliances. In fact, the title of the program is

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products.

Fluorescent ballasts are not generally

consumer products. Ballasts are different because

they are only components of lighting fixtures and

because they are mostly used in commercial and

industrial applications.

Advance has been a very active member of

the NEMA Ballast Section Energy Task Force that has

been the primary industry group dealing with this

rulemaking.

This group of six companies, now five,

with the consolidation of Osram Sylvania and Motorola,

comprises the vast majority of both magnetic and

electronic ballast sales and manufacturing in this

country.

Even though the product lines and business

interests of the six companies are not all the same,

our interests in, and our commitment to, a regulation

process that is open and transparent and based on

thorough and factual analyses are all the same.

The majority of our company's input has

been expressed through the NEMA Ballast Section.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

21 

1 However, the periodic review process for 

2 NAECA is basically designed for residential 

3 appliances. In fact, the title of the program is 

4 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products. 

5 Fluorescent ballasts are not generally 

6 consumer products. Ballasts are different because 

7 they are only components of lighting fixtures and 

8 because they are mostly used in commercial and 

9 industrial applications. 

10 Advance has been a very active member of 

11 the NEMA Ballast Section Energy Task Force that has 

12 been the primary industry group dealing with this 

13 rulemaking. 

14 This group of six companies, now five, 

15 with the consolidation of Osram Sylvania and Motorola, 

16 comprises the vast majority of both magnetic and 

17 electronic ballast sales and manufacturing in this 

18 country. 

19 Even though the product lines and business 

20 interests of the six companies are not all the same, 

21 our interests in, and our commitment to, a regulation 

22 process that is open and transparent and based on 

23 thorough and factual analyses are all the same. 

24 The majority of our company's input has 

25 been expressed through the NEMA Ballast Section. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
22

1 Advance supports and endorses all of the comments

2 provide d by the NEMA Ba ll ast Sect i on.

3 Advance is also one of the signatories

4 through the consensus recommendations to the

5 Department of Energy for fluorescent lamp ballasts.

6 Advance also participated in the

7 development of the joint comments submitted by the

8 joint stakeholders. We affirm our support of the

9 agreement and the joint comments.

10 The NOPR issued in March by DOE accurately

11 reflects the proposal agreed to by the joint

12 stakeholders. Advance and Philips support the

13 proposal's adoption.

14 I would like to make some comments on the

15 three primary ingredients in the DOE economic

16 analysis: the manufacturer's impact analysis, which

17 evaluates the impact of potential rules on

18 manufacturers; the life cycle cost analysis, which

19 evaluates the impacts on users; and the national

20 energy savings analysis, which evaluates impacts on

21 the nation as a whole .

22 The quality of these analyses has improved

23 immensely since the original NOPR in 1994. We have

24 some specific comments on the latest round of these

25 analyses which were released in September of '99.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

22 

1 Advance supports and endorses all of the comments 

2 provided by the NEMA Ballast Section. 

3 Advance is also one of the signatories 

4 through the consensus recommendations to the 

5 Department of Energy for fluorescent lamp ballasts. 

6 Advance also participated in the 

7 development of the joint comments submitted by the 

8 joint stakeholders. We affirm our support of the 

9 agreement and the joint comments. 

10 The NOPR issued in March by DOE accurately 

11 reflects the proposal agreed to by the joint 

12 stakeholders. Advance and Philips support the 

13 proposal's adoption. 

14 I would like to make some comments on the 

15 three primary ingredients in the DOE economic 

16 analysis: the manufacturer's impact analysis, which 

17 evaluates the impact of potential rules on 

18 manufacturers i the life cycle cost analysis, which 

19 evaluates the impacts on users i and the national 

20 energy savings analysis, which evaluates impacts on 

21 the nation as a whole. 

22 The quality of these analyses has improved 

23 immensely since the original NOPR in 1994. We have 

24 some specific comments on the latest round of these 

25 analyses which were released in September of '99. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

23

The MIA shows that a rule requiring

essentially only electronic ballasts and taking effect

in 2003 would have a major negative economic impact on

companies that manufacture magnetic ballasts and their

suppliers.

We believe this analysis is thorough and

accurate. The LCC shows an economic advantage to a

very large majority of users. There are four factors

in this analysis with which we continue to disagree.

They are the derivation of user ballast

prices; the use of the same electricity prices for all

ballast users; the comparison of T8 lighting systems

versus T12 lighting systems; and the comparison of

three- and four-lamp fixtures using one ballast versus

fixtures using multiple ballasts.

These points are covered in more detail in

the NEMA comments. We do not suggest that the

analyses be redone at this time. We are also not

submitting our own version of the LCC analyses as we

have frequently done in the past.

It is virtually impossible to determine

the user ballast prices with any degree of certainty.

And the ballast price information that's been used is

now four years old and is not accurate for today's

time, even if it was accurate for process.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

23 

1 The MIA shows that a rule requiring 

2 essentially only electronic ballasts and taking effect 

3 in 2003 would have a major negative economic impact on 

4 companies that manufacture magnetic ballasts and their 

5 suppliers. 

6 We believe this analysis is thorough and 

7 accurate. The Lee shows an economic advantage to a 

8 very large majority of users. There are four factors 

9 in this analysis with which we continue to disagree. 

10 They are the derivation of user ballast 

11 prices; the use of the same electricity prices for all 

12 ballast users; the comparison of T8 lighting systems 

13 versus T12 lighting systems; and the comparison of 

14 three- and four-lamp fixtures using one ballast versus 

15 fixtures using mUltiple ballasts. 

16 These points are covered in more detail in 

17 the NEMA comments. We do not suggest that the 

18 analyses be redone at this time. We are also not 

19 submitting our own version of the Lee analyses as we 

20 have frequently done in the past. 

21 It is virtually impossible to determine 

22 the user ballast prices with any degree of certainty. 

23 And the ballast price information that's been used is 

24 now four years old and is not accurate for today's 

25 time, even if it was accurate for process. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

24

We are satisfied that properly done LCC

analyses today would show advantages for most users,

just not the overwhelming majority shown in the TSD.

The NES shows a substantial national energy savings.

We believe the basic energy savings

portion of this analysis is thorough and accurate,

given the acknowledged uncertainty range of continued

electronic ballast market penetration without further

regulation.

The economic national benefit is

overstated because of the problems with user ballast

prices and electricity prices mentioned in the LCC

discussion.

By last summer, the analyses had improved

to the point that the items listed above were the only

disagreements. At the ballast workshop in June of

'99, Dan Reicher suggested that interested

stakeholders try to reach a consensus recommendation.

Our NEMA group, led by Randy Moorhead of

Philips, organized a negotiating session. All of the

interested stakeholders were invited and participated.

The NEMA group included the affected ballast

companies, several suppliers to the ballast industry,

luminaire manufacturers and lamp manufacturers.

(202) 234-4433

At the negotiation, a consensus was

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

24 

1 We are satisfied that properly done Lee 

2 analyses today would show advantages for most users, 

3 just not the overwhelming majority shown in the TSD. 

4 The NES shows a substantial national energy savings. 

5 We believe the basic energy savings 

6 portion of this analysis is thorough and accurate, 

7 given the acknowledged uncertainty range of continued 

8 electronic ballast market penetration without further 

9 regulation. 

10 The economic national benefit is 

11 overstated because of the problems with user ballast 

12 prices and electricity prices mentioned in the Lee 

13 discussion. 

14 By last summer, the analyses had improved 

15 to the point that the items listed above were the only 

16 disagreements. At the ballast workshop in June of 

17 , 99, Dan Reicher suggested that interested 

18 stakeholders try to reach a consensus recommendation. 

19 Our NEMA group, led by Randy Moorhead of 

20 Philips, organized a negotiating session. All of the 

21 interested stakeholders were invited and participated. 

22 The NEMA group included the affected ballast 

23 companies, several suppliers to the ballast industry, 

24 luminaire manufacturers and lamp manufacturers. 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

At the negotiation, a consensus was 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

25

reached on a common proposal that could be presented

to DOE by the joint stakeholders. This proposal will

achieve greater overall energy savings than could have

been accomplished, had DOE elected to go ahead with an

all-electronic ballast in the shortest possible time

frame, in view of the rebuttable presumptions that

would have been triggered by the negative impacts on

manufacturers.

Under the proposal, the estimated direct

lighting energy savings will be 1.2 quads compared to

a base case where magnetic ballast shipments declined

at a rate of five percent per year; 2.3 quads compared

to a base case with a magnetic decline rate of three

percent; and 4.9 quads compared to an unlikely base

case where there is no further market share from

magnetic to electronic.

This is all shown in the TSD, Appendix E,

Table E.1.

The market shift in recent years has

approximated the five percent reduction scenario. It

is our opinion the rate of natural shift to electronic

ballasts in the future will increase to an even higher

degree.

The most important point is in any event,

additional energy savings of five quads will be

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

25 

1 reached on a common proposal that could be presented 

2 to DOE by the joint stakeholders. This proposal will 

3 achieve greater overall energy savings than could have 

4 been accomplished, had DOE elected to go ahead with an 

5 all-electronic ballast in the shortest possible time 

6 frame, in view of the rebuttable presumptions that 

7 would have been triggered by the negative impacts on 

8 manufacturers. 

9 Under the proposal, the estimated direct 

10 lighting energy savings will be 1.2 quads compared to 

11 a base case where magnetic ballast shipments declined 

12 at a rate of five percent per year; 2.3 quads compared 

13 to a base case with a magnetic decline rate of three 

14 percent; and 4.9 quads compared to an unlikely base 

15 case where there is no further market share from 

16 magnetic to electronic. 

17 This is all shown in the TSD, Appendix E, 

18 Table E.l. 

19 The market shift in recent years has 

20 approximated the five percent reduction scenario. It 

21 is our opinion the rate of natural shift to electronic 

22 ballasts in the future will increase to an even higher 

23 degree. 

24 The most important point is in any event, 

25 additional energy savings of five quads will be 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

achieved by the combined effect of the regulation and

market forces, and no one will ever know how much of

that would have happened due to market forces, but the

five quads will be there.

The proposal has a reasonable level of

safeguards against economic damage and inconvenience

to users based on the delayed implementation for

replacement ballasts and the continued allowance of T8

magnetic ballasts.

The negative impacts on manufacturers will

be reduced compared to those shown in the MIA because

the implementation dates allow a more orderly

transition from magnetic to electronic ballasts.

Advance is one of the companies that

manufacture both magnetic and electronic ballasts that

would suffer economic hardships. According to the

MIA, the value of the affected portions of the

business would be reduced between 25 and 50 percent,

and cash flows would be reduced dramatically beginning

in 2002.

We are satisfied that these economic

losses will be reduced under the proposal. We are

prepared to tolerate the level of negative economic

impacts that will result under the joint proposal.

(202) 234-4433

While we fully support the proposed rule,

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON , D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

26 

1 achieved by the combined effect of the regulation and 

2 market forces, and no one will ever know how much of 

3 that would have happened due to market forces, but the 

4 five quads will be there. 

5 The proposal has a reasonable level of 

6 safeguards against economic damage and inconvenience 

7 to users based on the delayed implementation for 

8 replacement ballasts and the continued allowance of T8 

9 magnetic ballasts. 

10 The negative impacts on manufacturers will 

11 be reduced compared to those shown in the MIA because 

12 the implementation dates allow a more orderly 

13 transition from magnetic to electronic ballasts. 

14 Advance is one of the companies that 

15 manufacture both magnetic and electronic ballasts that 

16 would suffer economic hardships. According to the 

17 MIA, the value of the affected portions of the 

18 business would be reduced between 25 and 50 percent, 

19 and cash flows would be reduced dramatically beginning 

20 in 2002. 

21 We are satisfied that these economic 

22 losses will be reduced under the proposal. We are 

23 prepared to tolerate the level of negative economic 

24 impacts that will result under the joint proposal. 

25 While we fully support the proposed rule, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

(202) 234-4433 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

27

we do have two issues with the preamble portion of the

NOPR that we would like to see addressed adequately in

the preamble to the final rule.

First, DOE presumes that all of our

previous comments are superseded by the joint

comments. This is an incorrect presumption. The

final rule should include acknowledgement of the

disputed and unresolved issues in the life cycle cost

analysis described earlier.

We do not request that DOE redo these

analyses or delay the implementation of the proposed

rule to respond to these comments; only that these

issues be acknowledged as unresolved, which we believe

has relevance to potential future rulemaking

proceedings.

Secondly, there's undue emphasis in the

NOPR on a scenario in which a major U.S. ballast

factory is closed in the base case. Advance operates

the major U.S. magnetic ballast factory.

There's no evidence to indicate the

potential closure of that plant without standards.

DOE should rephrase its comments regarding the

sensitivity analysis because it is extremely unlikely

and it's only a hypothetical scenario.

We believe DOE can adequately address

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

27 

1 we do have two issues with the preamble portion of the 

2 NOPR that we would like to see addressed adequately in 

3 the preamble to the final rule. 

4 First, DOE presumes that all of our 

5 previous comments are superseded by the joint 

6 comments. This is an incorrect presumption. The 

7 final rule should include acknowledgement of the 

8 disputed and unresolved issues in the life cycle cost 

9 analysis described earlier. 

10 We do not request that DOE redo these 

11 analyses or delay the implementation of the proposed 

12 rule to respond to these comments; only that these 

13 issues be acknowledged as unresolved, which we believe 

14 has relevance to potential future rulemaking 

15 proceedings. 

16 Secondly, there's undue emphasis in the 

17 NOPR on a scenario in which a maj or U. S. ballast 

18 factory is closed in the base case. Advance operates 

19 the major U.S. magnetic ballast factory. 

20 There's no evidence to indicate the 

21 potential closure of that plant without standards. 

22 DOE should rephrase its comments regarding the 

23 sensitivity analysis because it is extremely unlikely 

24 and it's only a hypothetical scenario. 

25 

(202) 234-4433 

We believe DOE can adequately address 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

28

these two issues in the preamble section of the final

rule, and their resolution should result in no change

to the proposal and no delay in adoption of the final

rule.

We appreciate the opportunity to

participate in this rulemaking process and pledge

ourselves to participate openly and thoroughly in any

rulemaking process.

In conclusion, Advance Transformer and

Philips Electronics fully support the adoption of the

rule provided by the joint stakeholders and published

in the NOPR as a final rule.

MS. PENHAKER: Thanks, Bob.

Any comments?

Michael Stein.

MR. STEIN: Good morning. I'm Michael

Stein. I'm Director of Global Standards with

MagneTek. I'm Vice Chairman of the Lighting Systems

Division of the National Electrical Manufacturers

Association (NEMA) and a past Chairman of NEMA's

Ballast Section.

Today, I'm here representing MagneTek.

MagneTek believes that the current proposed rule

satisfies all the requirements and adequately

addresses all the stakeholder concerns.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

28 

1 these two issues in the preamble section of the final 

2 rule, and their resolution should result in no change 

3 to the proposal and no delay in adoption of the final 

4 rule. 

5 We appreciate the opportunity to 

6 participate in this rulemaking process and pledge 

7 ourselves to participate openly and thoroughly in any 

8 rulemaking process. 

9 In conclusion, Advance Transformer and 

10 Philips Electronics fully support the adoption of the 

11 rule provided by the joint stakeholders and published 

12 in the NOPR as a final rule. 

13 MS. PENHAKER: Thanks, Bob. 

14 Any comments? 

15 Michael Stein. 

16 MR. STEIN: Good morning. I'm Michael 

17 Stein. I'm Director of Global Standards with 

18 MagneTek. I'm Vice Chairman of the Lighting Systems 

19 Division of the National Electrical Manufacturers 

20 Association (NEMA) and a past Chairman of NEMA's 

21 Ballast Section. 

22 Today, I'm here representing MagneTek. 

23 MagneTek believes that the current proposed rule 

24 satisfies all the requirements and adequately 

25 addresses all the stakeholder concerns. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
29

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

MagneTek strongly supports and requests

that the Department adopt the proposed rule as

submitted by the joint stakeholders and as spelled out

in the DOE NOPR in the Federal Register notice of

March 15th, 2000. I think it probably would have been

more appropriate if it was March 4th and we had a nice

anniversary party.

MagneTek also supports the statement of

the Ballast Section of NEMA that Norm Grimshaw just

presented.

My comments today will focus more on the

process than on the details of the analyses or the

final rule. I am in the unique position of having

participated in the development of the proposed law

for ballast efficiency in 1997 and 1998, which was

approved by Congress and signed by President Reagan in

June of 1998.

I have also been involved in the ballast

rulemaking process since the aborted NOPR of March

4th, 1994, food to the negotiations of last October by

the joint stakeholders.

In 1986 and 1987, the ballast industry was

working with many states that were developing their

own ballast efficiency standards similar to the

original one published in California in 1982.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

29 

1 MagneTek strongly supports and requests 

2 that the Department adopt the proposed rule as 

3 submitted by the joint stakeholders and as spelled out 

4 in the DOE NOPR in the Federal Register notice of 

5 March 15th, 2000. I think it probably would have been 

6 more appropriate if it was March 4th and we had a nice 

7 anniversary party. 

8 MagneTek also supports the statement of 

9 the Ballast Section of NEMA that Norm Grimshaw just 

10 presented. 

11 My comments today will focus more on the 

12 process than on the details of the analyses or the 

13 final rule. I am in the unique position of having 

14 participated in the development of the proposed law 

15 for ballast efficiency in 1997 and 1998, which was 

16 approved by Congress and signed by President Reagan in 

17 June of 1998. 

18 I have also been involved in the ballast 

19 rulemaking process since the aborted NOPR of March 

20 4th, 1994, food to the negotiations of last October by 

21 the joint stakeholders. 

22 In 1986 and 1987, the ballast industry was 

23 working with many states that were developing their 

24 own ballast efficiency standards similar to the 

25 original one published in California in 1982. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

30

The problem was that each state had their

own variation of the original, and that would have

required special products for marketing in many states

for the ballast types that were being regulated.

The industry welcomed the suggestion of

Howard Geller of the American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy to have a U.S. requirement for

ballast efficiency modeled after the California

requirements.

The 1988 amendment to the appliance law of

1987 was passed, and it included the ballast

efficiency requirements discussed above, and these

superseded state requirements.

We did not fully understand, however, the

consequences of being part of the energy efficiency

program for consumer products until the NOPR was

published in 1994.

The notorious eight-appliance NOPR that

we've discussed several times failed because DOE and

its contractors developed the requirements and the

supporting analyses without input from the

stakeholders, particularly the manufacturers of the

products being regulated.

NEMA and the ballast industry began the

process to change the way the analyses were done by

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

30 

1 The problem was that each state had their 

2 own variation of the original, and that would have 

3 required special products for marketing in many states 

4 for the ballast types that were being regulated. 

5 The industry welcomed the suggestion of 

6 Howard Geller of the American Council for an Energy7 Efficient Economy to have aU. S. requirement for 

8 ballast efficiency modeled after the California 

9 requirements. 

10 The 1988 amendment to the appliance law of 

11 1987 was passed, and it included the ballast 

12 efficiency requirements discussed above, and these 

13 superseded state requirements. 

14 We did not fully understand, however, the 

15 consequences of being part of the energy efficiency 

16 program for consumer products until the NOPR was 

17 published in 1994. 

18 The notorious eight-appliance NOPR that 

19 we've discussed several times failed because DOE and 

20 its contractors developed the requirements and the 

21 supporting analyses without input from the 

22 stakeholders, particularly the manufacturers of the 

23 products being regulated. 

24 NEMA and the ballast industry began the 

25 process to change the way the analyses were done by 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

31

working with DOE's contractor, LBL, by the end of

1994. We also set the stage for the 1996 Process

Improvement Rule by working through Congress in 1995

to get a moratorium on the consumer product

rulemaking.

Most of the revised analyses and processes

outlined in the Process Improvement Rule were tried on

the ballast industry first. When published in 1999,

the technical support document and the life cycle cost

analysis had differences of opinion between industry

and DOE on some issues.

Some of these were a result of the

ballast, a component of the lighting system being

analyzed like a finished consumer product like a

refrigerator.

We understand, as to consumer products,

the end user price is important because the purchasing

decision is price-sensitive.

Ballasts are a component of the lighting

system which is purchased by a commercial or

industrial consumer. They make purchasing decisions

based on functionality, energy consumption and return

on investment, which could be based upon simple

payback or a life cycle cost.

Consumer ballast prices are not accessible

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

31 

1 working with DOE's contractor, LBL, by the end of 

2 1994. We also set the stage for the 1996 Process 

3 Improvement Rule by working through Congress in 1995 

4 to get a moratorium on the consumer product 

5 rulemaking. 

6 Most of the revised analyses and processes 

7 outlined in the Process Improvement Rule were tried on 

8 the ballast industry first. When published in 1999, 

9 the technical support document and the life cycle cost 

10 analysis had differences of opinion between industry 

11 and DOE on some issues. 

12 Some of these were a result of the 

13 ballast, a component of the lighting system being 

14 analyzed like a finished consumer product like a 

15 refrigerator. 

16 We understand, as to consumer products, 

17 the end user price is important because the purchasing 

18 decision is price-sensitive. 

19 Ballasts are a component of the lighting 

20 system which is purchased by a commercial or 

21 industrial consumer. They make purchasing decisions 

22 based on functionality, energy consumption and return 

23 on investment, which could be based upon simple 

24 payback or a life cycle cost. 

25 Consumer ballast prices are not accessible 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

32

and are embedded in the cost of the luminaire or the

cost of the installation. This would also be true of

other component products, like motors or power

supplies, that are sold to consumers as part of other

finished products.

The life cycle cost analysis also tried to

compare different lighting systems, particularly fourfoot T12 versus T8 lighting systems. The marketplace

certainly does this, and that is the reason for the

success of the electronic T8 ballast.

In the case of the ballast rules, some of

the benefits of the T8 system are attributable to the

lamps in the luminaire. Although an attempt was made

to compensate for these factors, they were done in

error.

DOE does not compare different systems for

consumer appliances using gas or electricity, even

though consumers make this comparison.

My recommendation would be for different

efficiency laws or regulations for commercial or

industrial products than for consumer products like

appliances.

Also, the energy efficiency of components

such as ballast motors and power supplies should be

analyzed as part of the complete system of product.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

32 

1 and are embedded in the cost of the luminaire or the 

2 cost of the installation. This would also be true of 

3 other component products, like motors or power 

4 supplies, that are sold to consumers as part of other 

5 finished products. 

6 The life cycle cost analysis also tried to 

7 compare different lighting systems, particularly four8 foot T12 versus T8 lighting systems. The marketplace 

9 certainly does this, and that is the reason for the 

10 success of the electronic T8 ballast. 

11 In the case of the ballast rules, some of 

12 the benefits of the T8 system are attributable to the 

13 lamps in the luminaire. Although an attempt was made 

14 to compensate for these factors, they were done in 

15 error. 

16 DOE does not compare different systems for 

17 consumer appliances using gas or electricity, even 

18 though consumers make this comparison. 

19 My recommendation would be for different 

20 efficiency laws or regulations for commercial or 

21 industrial products than for consumer products like 

22 appliances. 

23 Also, the energy efficiency of components 

24 such as ballast motors and power supplies should be 

25 analyzed as part of the complete system of product. 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

33

For the lighting efficiency, the best measure for the

commercial and industrial user is unit power density,

watts per square foot, as specified in ASHRAE/IESNA

90.1. This allows users to have flexibility to meet

their lighting requirements within a specific power

budget.

The manufacturers' impact analysis, when

it was published in 1999, met the ballast industry's

expectations. This may be because the DOE contractor

on the MIA also worked on the Process Improvement

Rule, so they understood what was not done right in

the original TSD and earlier revisions of the TSD.

The MIA, the ballast industry had input

throughout the entire process. DOE listened and

considered the impacts on the ballast industry

suppliers and other manufacturers in the lighting

industry. The ballast rule MIA should serve as a

model for the MIAs for other product rulemakings.

The development of the range of

electricity prices was done more with 20/20 hindsight

rather than 20/20 foresight. We are rapidly becoming

deregulated in the electric utility industry.

The DOE EIA estimates for electricity

prices barely considered this deregulation. Variable

electricity prices were used for sensitivity analysis.

DEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

33 

1 For the lighting efficiency, the best measure for the 

2 commercial and industrial user is unit power density, 

3 watts per square foot, as specified in ASHRAE/IESNA 

4 90.1. This allows users to have flexibility to meet 

5 their lighting requirements within a specific power 

6 budget. 

7 The manufacturers' impact analysis, when 

8 it was published in 1999, met the ballast industry's 

9 expectations. This may be because the DOE contractor 

10 on the MIA also worked on the Process Improvement 

11 Rule, so they understood what was not done right in 

12 the original TSD and earlier revisions of the TSD. 

13 The MIA, the ballast industry had input 

14 throughout the ent ire process. DOE listened and 

15 considered the impacts on the ballast industry 

16 suppliers and other manufacturers in the lighting 

17 industry. The ballast rule MIA should serve as a 

18 model for the MIAs for other product rulemakings. 

19 The development of the range of 

20 electricity prices was done more with 20/20 hindsight 

21 rather than 20/20 foresight. We are rapidly becoming 

22 deregulated in the electric utility industry. 

23 The DOE EIA estimates for electricity 

24 prices barely considered this deregulation. Variable 

25 electricity prices were used for sensitivity analysis. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

(202) 234-4433 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

34

This was based on history rather than future

expectations.

Further, the DOE did not consider the fact

that the magnetic ballast purchaser had a lower

average electricity price than the average electronic

ballast purchaser.

As the electric utility industry

deregulates more in the future, DOE must rethink how

to forecast electricity prices for future rulemakings.

These comments have been made as an

overview of the process. And MagneTek is not

requesting that any changes be made in any of the --

the analysis.

We support the proposed rule and urge its

adoption as a final rule.

MS. PENHAKER: Thank you.

Robert Pelino.

MR. PELINO: Good morning. I'm Robert

Pelino, Chief Operating Officer of Robertson Worldwide

and a member of the National Electrical Manufacturers

Association. I'm here today representing Robertson

Worldwide.

Robertson believes that the current

proposed rule satisfies all of the legal requirements

and adequately addresses all of the stakeholders'

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

34 

1 This was based on history rather than future 

2 expectations. 

3 Further, the DOE did not consider the fact 

4 that the magnetic ballast purchaser had a lower 

5 average electricity price than the average electronic 

6 ballast purchaser. 

7 As the electric utility industry 

8 deregulates more in the future, DOE must rethink how 

9 to forecast electricity prices for future rulemakings. 

10 These comments have been made as an 

11 overview of the process. And MagneTek is not 

12 requesting that any changes be made in any of the --

13 the analysis. 

14 We support the proposed rule and urge its 

15 adoption as a final rule. 

16 MS. PENHAKER: Thank you. 

17 Robert Pelino. 

18 MR. PELINO: Good morning. I'm Robert 

19 Pelino, Chief Operating Officer of Robertson Worldwide 

20 and a member of the National Electrical Manufacturers 

21 Association. I'm here today representing Robertson 

22 Worldwide. 

23 Robertson believes that the current 

24 proposed rule satisfies all of the legal requirements 

25 and adequately addresses all of the stakeholders' 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
35

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

concerns.

Robertson supports the comments of the

Ballast Section of NEMA as presented earlier in the

hearing by Norm Grimshaw and also supports the

proposed ballast rule submitted by the joint

stakeholders and outlined by the DOE in the March

15th, 2000 Federal Register notice.

Therefore, Robertson Worldwide requests

the Department of Energy to adopt this proposed rule

as the final rule.

Thank you.

MS. PENHAKER: Thomas Schooler.

MR. SCHOOLER: I am Thomas Schooler,

representing Power Lighting Products, also known as

SLI Lighting, a member of the National Electrical

Manufacturers Association.

Power Lighting Products believes that the

current proposed ballast rule satisfies all of the

legal requirements and adequately addresses all of the

stakeholders' concerns.

PLP supports the comments of the Ballast

Section of NEMA presented by Norm Grimshaw and also

supports a proposed ballast rule submitted by the

joint stakeholders and outlined by the DOE in the

March 15th, 2000 Federal Register notice.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

35 

1 concerns. 

2 Robertson supports the comments of the 

3 Ballast Section of NEMA as presented earlier in the 

4 hearing by Norm Grimshaw and also supports the 

5 proposed ballast rule submitted by the joint 

6 stakeholders and outlined by the DOE in the March 

7 15th, 2000 Federal Register notice. 

8 Therefore, Robertson Worldwide requests 

9 the Department of Energy to adopt this proposed rule 

10 as the final rule. 

11 Thank you. 

12 MS. PENHAKER: Thomas Schooler. 

13 MR. SCHOOLER: I am Thomas Schooler, 

14 representing Power Lighting Products, also known as 

15 SLI Lighting, a member of the National Electrical 

16 Manufacturers Association. 

17 Power Lighting Products believes that the 

18 current proposed ballast rule satisfies all of the 

19 legal requirements and adequately addresses all of the 

20 stakeholders' concerns. 

21 PLP supports the comments of the Ballast 

22 Section of NEMA presented by Norm Grimshaw and also 

23 supports a proposed ballast rule submitted by the 

24 j oint stakeholders and outlined by the DOE in the 

25 March 15th, 2000 Federal Register notice. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

(202) 234-4433 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

36

Therefore, Power Lighting Products

requests that the Department of Energy adopt this

proposed rule as a final rule.

Thank you.

MS. PENHAKER: Thank you.

And finally on our list, Howard Wolfman.

MR. WOLFMAN: Good morning. I'm Howard

Wolfman of Osram Sylvania, known in the industry as

OSI, and the Vice Chair of the NEMA Ballast Section.

I'm here today representing Osram Sylvania.

I'd like to make the following comments on

the NOPR. But before making the comments, I'd just

like to make sure the record accurately reflects what

happened to the sixth component of the electronic

ballast manufacturing group that's been involved in

this analysis for the last, seems like several

centuries.

Within the last 60 days, Motorola Lighting

was acquired by Osram Sylvania and is now, of course,

no longer in existence. However, if Motorola Lighting

were still in existence, I would be speaking for them

and would also support the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking.

We were one of the folks who met at the

joint stakeholders' meeting and fully support

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

36 

1 Therefore, Power Lighting Products 

2 requests that the Department of Energy adopt this 

3 proposed rule as a final rule. 

4 Thank you. 

5 MS. PENHAKER: Thank you. 

6 And finally on our list, Howard Wolfman. 

7 MR. WOLFMAN: Good morning. I'm Howard 

8 Wolfman of Osram Sylvania, known in the industry as 

9 OSI, and the Vice Chair of the NEMA Ballast Section. 

10 I'm here today representing Osram Sylvania. 

11 I'd like to make the following comments on 

12 the NOPR. But before making the comments, I'd just 

13 like to make sure the record accurately reflects what 

14 happened to the sixth component of the electronic 

15 ballast manufacturing group that's been involved in 

16 this analysis for the last, seems like several 

17 centuries. 

18 Within the last 60 days, Motorola Lighting 

19 was acquired by Osram Sylvania and is now, of course, 

20 no longer in existence. However, if Motorola Lighting 

21 were still in existence, I would be speaking for them 

22 and would also support the Notice of Proposed 

23 Rulemaking. 

24 We were one of the folks who met at the 

25 joint stakeholders' meeting and 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 

fully support 

www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

37

everything that transpired. In a letter to DOE, dated

December 14th, 1988 -- 1998, I'm pulling what my

friend back there pulled, but in reverse -- 1998, OSI

first suggested a framework for DOE to move the

fluorescent ballast rule forward.

Our proposal to treat each market segment

in a different and appropriate manner was supported by

other ballast and luminaire manufacturers. This

segmented proposal is now the underlying basis of this

NOPR.

This is the first rule in which DOE has

initiated the treatment of lamps, ballasts and

luminaires as a total lighting system. OSI applauds

this important step forward and fully supports the

rule as published in the March 15th, 2000 Federal

Register.

More extensive comments on the rule will

be provided by NEMA which, for the record, may

highlight certain missteps which have occurred in the

rulemaking process.

These NEMA comments will provide useful

reference material in the years ahead when the rule

may require further refinement. OSI is a contributor

to the NEMA comments and concurs with them.

OSI believes that the current proposed

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

37 

1 everything that transpired. In a letter to DOE, dated 

2 December 14th, 1988 1998, I'm pulling what my 

3 friend back there pulled, but in reverse -- 1998, 081 

4 first suggested a framework for DOE to move the 

5 fluorescent ballast rule forward. 

6 Our proposal to treat each market segment 

7 in a different and appropriate manner was supported by 

8 other ballast and luminaire manufacturers. This 

9 segmented proposal is now the underlying basis of this 

10 NOPR. 

11 This is the first rule in which DOE has 

12 initiated the treatment of lamps, ballasts and 

13 luminaires as a total lighting system. 081 applauds 

14 this important step forward and fully supports the 

15 rule as published in the March 15th, 2000 Federal 

16 Register. 

17 More extensive comments on the rule will 

18 be provided by NEMA which, for the record, may 

19 highlight certain missteps which have occurred in the 

20 rulemaking process. 

21 These NEMA comments will provide useful 

22 reference material in the years ahead when the rule 

23 may require further refinement. 081 is a contributor 

24 to the NEMA comments and concurs with them. 

25 081 believes that the current proposed 

NEAL R. GROSS 

(202) 234-4433 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

38

rule satisfies all of the legal requirements and

adequately addresses all of the stakeholder concerns.

We urge DOE to adopt this proposed rule as

a final rule. Thank you for this opportunity to

comment on the NOPR.

MS. PENHAKER: Thank you, Howard.

That comes to the end of the individuals

who have requested to present comments at this

meeting.

Are there any other people in the room

that have comments that they would like to submit at

this time? Okay.

Carl, have you got anything else?

MR. ADAMS: Seeing no further commenters

or no requests for any additional discussion, I would

like to thank everybody for attending this excellent

NOPR cure.

(Laughter.)

MR. ADAMS: And for the outcome. We are

scheduled to have the final rule published hopefully

by the end of July.

And with that, I would like to adjourn

today's meeting. Thank you all for coming.

(Whereupon, at 9:55 a.m., the meeting was

25 11 concluded.)

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

38 

1 rule satisfies all of the legal requirements and 

2 adequately addresses all of the stakeholder concerns. 

3 We urge DOE to adopt this proposed rule as 

4 a final rule. Thank you for this opportunity to 

5 comment on the NOPR. 

6 MS. PENHAKER: Thank you, Howard. 

7 That comes to the end of the individuals 

8 who have requested to present comments at this 

9 meeting. 

10 Are there any other people in the room 

11 that have comments that they would like to submit at 

12 this time? Okay. 

13 Carl, have you got anything else? 

14 MR. ADAMS: Seeing no further commenters 

15 or no requests for any additional discussion, I would 

16 like to thank everybody for attending this excellent 

17 NOPR cure. 

18 (Laughter.) 

19 MR. ADAMS: And for the outcome. We are 

20 scheduled to have the final rule published hopefully 

21 by the end of July. 

22 And with that, I would like to adjourn 

23 today's meeting. Thank you all for coming. 

24 (Whereupon, at 9:55 a.m., the meeting was 

25 concluded.) 

(202) 234-4433 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.w. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
39

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the foregoing transcript in the

matter of: PUBLIC HEARING ON LAMP BALLASTS

Before: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Date: APRIL 18, 2000

Place: WASHINGTON, D.C.

represents the full and complete proceedings of the

aforementioned matter, as reported and reduced to

typewriting.

(202) 234-4433

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com

 EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99II

39 

CERTIFICATE 

This is to certify that the foregoing transcript in the 

matter of: PUBLIC HEARING ON LAMP BALLASTS 

Before: U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Date: APRIL 18, 2000 

Place: WASHINGTON, D.C. 

represents the full and complete proceedings of the 

aforementioned 

typewriting. 

(202) 234-4433 

matter, as reported 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., NW. 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 

and reduced to 

www.nealrgross.com