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 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 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com2 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 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 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com3 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 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 EnergyEfficiency StandardRulemaking 8 on Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts. Others joiningme 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 morningI 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 PenhakerI who is a somewhat new arrival to our office. 16 On behalf of the DepartmentI 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 todayls public hearing on our 20 proposed rulemakingl 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 COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 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 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 indevelopingthe 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 reasonablyobtained, and to enable interestedpersons 25 toexpress theirviews, theworkshopwillbe conducted

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com5 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 5 1 in accordance with the following procedures: 2 We will beginwith 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 timeallows, we will inviteunscheduled 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 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 present to

www.nealrgross.com1 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 6 1 participate as much as possible so that we may get a 2 full spectrum of opinions on issues raised. 3 Theworkshop is scheduledtoadjourntoday 4 at 4:00 p.m., hopefullymuch soonerthanthat, unless, 5 of course, we finish early. Topics which have not 6 been completely discussed by that time can be 7 addressedinadditionalwrittencommentswhichare due 8 by May 29 of this year. 9 All writtencomments 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 BrendaEdwards-Joneshere attheDepartment, referring 15 toDocket No. EE-RM-97-500 whenyou 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 AnypersonsUbmittinginformationwhichhe 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 copyon a disk from 24 which the information claimed to be confidential has 25 been bleeded.

(202) 234-4433 NEAL

### R.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 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 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, sothatthe courtreportercanaccurately 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 COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 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 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 aroundthe tableandhavepeople introducethemselves. 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'mNorm 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 COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com9 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 9 1 MS. FRANCO: Patricia Franco with Philips 2 Electronics. 3 MR. SCHOOLER: Tom Schooler with SLI 4 Lighting. 5 MR. BALDUCCI: AnthonyBalducciwithNEMA. 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: EugeneMargolis, 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 canbe 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 energyneeds. I'm in charge of the commercial 25 miles event, National Energy Mileage System, and I

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 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 ISLANDAVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 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 SectionofNEMA. Our sectionmembersproduce 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 submittedbythejoint stakeholders and spelledout 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 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 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 11 1 At many times, there has been very 2 contentiousdebate overour - - amongourmembers, 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 theprocess, boththe goodparts andthebadparts, 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 technicallytotallyunsound. Theseproposedstandards 15 were published without any input from, or review by, 16 any competent professional or stakeholder, including 17 those from the ballast industry. 18 Thephilosophicaldifferenceoverhowthis 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 COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 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 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 cooperativelyprovideda 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 andprofessionalism, 14 even when there were differences of opinion on how to 15 interpret the results and onwhat conclusions toreach 16 regarding the ultimate rule. 17 By 1999, theprocesshadreachedthepoint 18 where the differences in opinion on the technical and 19 economic data and calculations were small enough to 20 allowthe discussions tobeginto focus on the outcome 21 and the proposed rule itself. 22 Anew rule, basedprimarily 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 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 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 13 1 their suppliers and other trade allies; resulted in 2 life cycle cost savings to a majority 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-ballastedsystems 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 toparticipate in 16 the negotiations under the observation of DOE. This 17 very intensetwo-daynegotiationsessiontookplace in 18 October. Allpartieshad the opportunityto 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 joint stakeholders reached a consensus on a rule

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 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 

### 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 Aruleproposalwasdevelopedthatallowed 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 Theproposedruleagreeduponbythejoint 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 fullywiththe standards criteriaofNAECA, the intent

(202) 234-4433 NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com15 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 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; reducethenegativeimpactsonexisting 16 users of magnetically-ballasted systems; continue the 17 availability of magnetic ballasts for T8 lamps in 18 installationswithelectronic equipment compatibility 19 problems; restrict to a verynarrow 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 COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 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 16 1 We now turn to the assumptions in the DOE 2 preamble, that the joint comments superseded our 3 previous comments. We are concernedthat intheNOPR, 4 DOE did not address any of the previous comments on 5 the technical analysis raised by NEMA. 6 In the joint comments, we stated that 7 while the joint stakeholders of subgroups thereof may 8 not agree with all data, analyses or conclusions 9 containedinthese analyses, thejoint stakeholdersdo 10 agree thatthe economic analysis supports theproposal 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 certainaspects of the life cycle cost analysis inthe 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 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 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 17 1 While NEMA has agreed with our fellow 2 stakeholders that theTSD is sufficient to support the 3 proposed rule, as proposed, we respectfully maintain 4 that the Department should acknowledge our prior 5 critique. 6 Inparticular, 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 industrialpurchasersmore 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 COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com18 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 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 subjectsneedtobereviewedfurther 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 aredifferences ofopinionregardingthederivationof 17 certain inputs to the TSD. 18 This should be accomplished in the 19 preamble section of the final rule. 20 DOEhasrequestedspecificcommentsontwo 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 couldbewrittentomake it easier tounderstand. 25

(202) 234-4433 The analytical methods used and the NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 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 REPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 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 subject. NEMA believes that the 13 style is an improvement over past Federal Register 14 notices. 15 Inconclusion, we believethatthecurrent 16 proposedrule satisfies allthe legalrequirements 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 NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., NoW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com20 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 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 Advancerepresentativeswereveryinvolved 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-productrulemakingNOPR inMarch 1994. Infact, 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 efficiencyregulationwas considereddesirable by all 23 concerned parties. Attaching it to NAECA was an 24 expediency agreed to by all stakeholders and, in 25 retrospect, was an overall good choice.

(202) 234-4433 NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 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 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 withtheconsolidationof OsramSylvaniaandMotorola, 16 comprises the vast majority of both magnetic and 17 electronic ballast sales and manufacturing in this 18 country. 19 Eventhoughtheproduct linesandbusiness 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 COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com22 1 Advance supports and endorses all of the comments 2 d b th

id NEMA B ll i

y prov e e a ast Sect 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 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 TheNOPR issuedinMarchbyDOE 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 manufacturersi the life cycle cost analysis, which 19 evaluates the impacts on usersi and the national 20 energy savings analysis, which evaluates impacts on 21 the nation as a whole. 22 Thequalityofthese analyseshas 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 NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 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 REPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 23 1 The MIA shows that a rule requiring 2 essentiallyonlyelectronicballastsandtakingeffect 3 in2003 wouldhave a majornegative economic impact on 4 companiesthatmanufacturemagneticballastsandtheir 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 electricityprices for all 12 ballast users; the comparison of T8 lighting systems 13 versus T12 lighting systems; and the comparison of 14 three- andfour-lamp fixturesusingoneballastversus 15 fixtures using mUltiple ballasts. 16 Thesepoints arecoveredinmoredetail 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 userballast 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 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com2 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 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 acknowledgeduncertainty range of continued 8 electronicballastmarketpenetrationwithout 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 thepoint that the items listedabove were the only 16 disagreements. At the ballast workshop in June of 17 ,99, Dan Reicher suggested that interested 18 stakeholders tryto reach a consensus recommendation. 19 Our NEMA group, led by Randy Moorhead of 20 Philips, organized a negotiating session. All of the 21 interestedstakeholderswereinvitedandparticipated. 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 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 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 25 1 reached on a common proposal that could be presented 2 to DOE by the joint stakeholders. This proposal will 3 achieve greateroverall energysavingsthancouldhave 4 been accomplished, hadDOE electedtogo aheadwithan 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 peryear; 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 opinionthe rate ofnatural shift to electronic 22 ballasts inthe future will increase to an evenhigher 23 degree. 24 The most important point is in any event, 25 additional energy savings of five quads will be

(202) 234-4433 NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 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 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 wouldhave happeneddue tomarket 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 replacementballastsandthe continuedallowanceofT8 9 magnetic ballasts. 10 Thenegativeimpactsonmanufacturerswill 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 manufacturebothmagneticandelectronicballaststhat 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 andcashflowswouldbereduceddramaticallybeginning 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, NEALR.GROSS (202) 234-4433 COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 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 27 1 we do have two issues withthe preambleportion of the 2 NOPR that we would like to see addressed adequatelyin 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 issuesbe acknowledgedas unresolved, whichwe 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 major 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 sensitivityanalysis because it is extremelyunlikely 24 and it's only a hypothetical scenario. 25

(202) 234-4433 We believe DOE can adequately address NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 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 28 1 these two issues in the preamble section of the final 2 rule, and their resolution should result inno 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 toparticipate 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 providedby the joint stakeholders andpublished 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 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com29 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 29 1 MagneTek strongly supports and requests 2 that the Department adopt the proposed rule as 3 submittedbythejoint stakeholders and as spelledout 4 in the DOE NOPR in the Federal Register notice of 5 March 15th, 2000. I think itprobablywouldhave been 6 more appropriate if it was March4th andwe 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 approvedbyCongress and signedbyPresidentReagan 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 Octoberby 21 the joint stakeholders. 22 In 1986and 1987, theballast industrywas 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 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 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 ofHoward 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 REPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 30 1 The problemwas that each state had their 2 own variation of the original, and that would have 3 requiredspecialproducts formarketinginmanystates 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 tothe appliance lawof 11 1987 was passed, and it included the ballast 12 efficiency requirements discussed above, and these 13 superseded state requirements. 14 We didnot fullyunderstand, 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 NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 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 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 Mostoftherevisedanalysesandprocesses 7 outlinedinthe Process Improvement Rule were triedon 8 the ballast industry first. When published in 1999, 9 the technical support document andthe 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 enduserprice is important becausethepurchasing 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 Consumerballastpricesarenotaccessible

(202) 234-4433 NEALR.GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., NW. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 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 tocompare 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 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 lifecyclecost analysis also triedto 7 comparedifferentlightingsystems, particularlyfour8 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 doesnotcomparedifferent 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 energyefficiencyof components 24 such as ballast motors and power supplies should be 25 analyzed as part of the complete system of product.

(202) 234-4433 NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 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 REPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 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 maybe 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 entire 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 electricityprices was done more with 20/20 hindsight 21 rather than 20/20 foresight. We are rapidlybecoming 22 deregulated in the electric utility industry. 23 The DOE EIA estimates for electricity 24 prices barely considered this deregulation. Variable 25 electricitypriceswereusedfor sensitivityanalysis. NEAL

### R. GROSS (202) 234-4433 COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 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 34 1 This was based on history rather than future 2 expectations. 3 Further, theDOE didnot considerthe fact 4 that the magnetic ballast purchaser had a lower 5 average electricityprice than the average electronic 6 ballast purchaser. 7 As the electric utility industry 8 deregulates more in the future, DOE must rethink how 9 toforecast electricitypricesforfuturerulemakings. 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, ChiefOperatingOfficerofRobertsonWorldwide 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 NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com35 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 COURTREPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 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 PowerLightingProducts believes that the 18 current proposed ballast rule satisfies all of the 19 legalrequirements andadequatelyaddresses allofthe 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 joint stakeholders and outlined by the DOE in the 25 March 15th, 2000 Federal Register notice. NEAL

### R. GROSS (202) 234-4433 COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 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 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'dliketomake the followingcomments 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 Withinthelast 60 days, MotorolaLighting 19 was acquiredby Osram Sylvania and is now, of course, 20 no longerinexistence. However, ifMotorolaLighting 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 COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 fully support

www.nealrgross.com1 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 REPORTERSAND TRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. (202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 37 1 everythingthat transpired. In a lettertoDOE, 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 Ourproposal to treat eachmarket segment 7 ina different and appropriatemannerwas supportedby 8 other ballast and luminaire manufacturers. This 9 segmentedproposal isnow theunderlyingbasis 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 certainmissteps 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 NEALR. GROSS (202) 234-4433 COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODEISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com1 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 38 1 rule satisfies all of the legal requirements and 2 adequately addresses all of the stakeholder concerns. 3 We urge DOE to adopt thisproposedrule 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 meetingwas 25 concluded.)

(202) 234-4433 NEALR. GROSS COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323 RHODE ISLANDAVE., N.w. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com39 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.com39 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 COURTREPORTERSANDTRANSCRIBERS 1323RHODEISLANDAVE.,NW. WASHINGTON,D.C. 20005-3701 

### and reduced to

www.nealrgross.com