### 8

- i



## CHAPTER 8. LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSES

TABLE OF CONTENTS

8.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 8-1

8.1.1 General Approach for Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses ............... 8-1

8.1.2 Overview of LCC and PBP Inputs ....................................................................... 8-3

8.2 LIFE -CYCLE COST INPUTS ........................................................................................ 8-7

8.2.1 Definition ............................................................................................................. 8-7

8.2.2 Total Installed Cost Inputs ................................................................................... 8-8

8.2.2.1 Product Pri ce ............................................................................................ 8-9

8.2.2.2 Sales Tax .................................................................................................. 8-9

8.2.2.3 Installation Costs .................................................................................... 8-11

8.2.3 Operating Cost Inputs ........................................................................................ 8-13

8.2.3.1 Annua l Operating Hours ........................................................................ 8-14

8.2.3.2 P ower Rating .......................................................................................... 8-14

8.2.3.3 Elec tricity Prices .................................................................................... 8-15

8.2.3.4 Elec tricity Price Trend ........................................................................... 8-16

8.2.4 Lifetime .............................................................................................................. 8-18

8.2.5 Replacement Cost .............................................................................................. 8-19

8.2.6 Disposal Cost ..................................................................................................... 8-20

8.2.7 Analysis Period .................................................................................................. 8-20

8.2.8 Residential GSFL Analysis ................................................................................ 8-21

8.2.9 Discount Rate ..................................................................................................... 8-22

8.2.9.1 R esidential Discount Rate ...................................................................... 8-22

8.2.9.2 Commercial Discount Rate .................................................................... 8-26

8.2.10 Compliance Date of Standard ............................................................................ 8-29

8.2.11 Residual Value ................................................................................................... 8-30

8.3 PAYBACK PERIOD INPUTS ...................................................................................... 8-30

8.3.1 Definition ........................................................................................................... 8-30

8.3.2 Rebuttable Presumption Payback Period ........................................................... 8-31

8.3.3 Inputs.................................................................................................................. 8-32

8.4 LAMP PURCHASING EVEN TS .................................................................................. 8-32

8.5 LIFE -CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS ...................................... 8-33

8.5.1 Results for General Service Fluorescent Lamps ................................................ 8-34

8.5.1.1 P roduct Class: 4-foot medium bipin ≤ 4,500 K ..................................... 8-34

8.5.1.2 P roduct Class: 4-foot T5 miniature bipin high output ≤ 4,500 K .......... 8-46

8.5.1.3 P roduct Class: 4-foot T5 miniature bipin standard output ≤ 4,500 K .... 8-50

8.5.1.4 P roduct Class: 8-Foot single pin slimline ≤ 4,500 K ............................. 8-53

8.5.1.5 P roduct Class: 8-foot recessed double contact HO ≤ 4,500 K ............... 8-56

8.5.2 Results for Incandescent Reflector Lamps ........................................................ 8-59

8.6 DETAILED RESULTS AND SENSITIVITY RUNS ................................................... 8-62

R EFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 8-63

### 8

- ii 

## LIST OF TABLES

Table 8.1.1 Representative Product Classes Analyzed in the LCC and PBP Analyses............... 8 -3 Table 8.1.2 Summary Information of Inputs for the Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses ....................................................................................................................................... 8-7 Table 8.2.1 Inputs for Total Installed Costs ................................................................................. 8 -8

Table 8.2.2 State and Local Sales Tax Rat es ............................................................................. 8-10

Ta ble 8.2.3 Regional Average Tax Rates .................................................................................. 8-11

Ta ble 8.2.4 Relamping Times for General Service Fluorescent Lamps and Incandescent Reflector Lamps* ....................................................................................................................... 8-12

Ta ble 8.2.5 Relamping and Lamp-and-Ballast Labor Cost for General Service Fluorescent

L amps and Incandescent Reflector Lamps ................................................................................ 8-13

Ta ble 8.2.6 Inputs for Operating Costs ...................................................................................... 8-13

Ta ble 8.2.7 Average Operating Hours by Sector and Lamp Type............................................. 8-14

Ta ble 8.2.8 Electricity Prices by Census Division, 2011 ........................................................... 8-16

Ta ble 8.2.9 Average Percentage Shares of Household Debt and Equity Types ........................ 8-23

Ta ble 8.2.10 Average Nominal and Real Interest Rates for Household Debt Classes .............. 8-24

Ta ble 8.2.11 Average Nominal and Real Interest Rates for Household Equity Types ............. 8-25

Ta ble 8.2.12 Shares and Interest or Return Rates Used for Household Debt and Equity Types ... 8

- 25 Table 8.2.13 Variables Used to Estimate Company Discount Rates ......................................... 8-27

Ta ble 8.2.14 Real Discount Rates by Lamp Ownership Category ............................................ 8-28

Ta ble 8.2.15 Estimated Share of Lamp Purchases by Ownership Category in the Commercial

Sector ......................................................................................................................................... 8-29

Ta ble 8.2.16 Lamp Ownership by Sector .................................................................................. 8-29

Ta ble 8.2.17 Average Discount Rate by Sector ......................................................................... 8-29

Ta ble 8.4.1 Framework of Event-Type Scenarios for T8 Baseline Lamp Consumers .............. 8-33

Ta ble 8.4.2 Framework of Event-Type Scenarios for T5 Baseline Lamp Consumers .............. 8-33

Ta ble 8.5.1 LCC and PBP Results for a 2-Lamp 4-foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Instant Start System Operating in the Commercial Sector ............................................................................. 8-37

Ta ble 8.5.2 LCC and PBP Results for a 2-Lamp 4-foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Instant Start System Operating in the Industrial Sector ................................................................................. 8-38

Ta ble 8.5.3 LCC and PBP Results for a 2-Lamp 4-foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Programmed Start System Operating in the Commercial Sector .................................................................... 8-39

Ta ble 8.5.4 LCC and PBP Results for a 2-Lamp 4-foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Programmed Start System Operating in the Industrial Sector ......................................................................... 8-40

Ta ble 8.5.5 LCC and PBP Results for a 4-Lamp 4-foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Instant Start System Operating in the Commercial Sector ............................................................................. 8-41

Ta ble 8.5.6 LCC and PBP Results for a 4-Lamp 4-foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Instant Start System Operating in the Industrial Sector ................................................................................. 8-42

Ta ble 8.5.7 LCC and PBP Results for a 4-Lamp 4-foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Programmed Start System Operating in the Commercial Sector .................................................................... 8-43

Ta ble 8.5.8 LCC and PBP Results for a 4-Lamp 4-foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Programmed Start System Operating in the Industrial Sector ......................................................................... 8-44

Ta ble 8.5.9 LCC and PBP Results for a 2-Lamp 4-foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Instant Start System Operating in the Residential Sector ............................................................................... 8-45

### 8

- iii



## Table 8.5.10 Summary of the LCC Results for a 4-Foot Medium Bipin System ...................... 8-46

Ta ble 8.5.11 LCC and PBP Results for a Two-Lamp 4-Foot 54 W T5 Miniature Bipin High Output System Operating in the Commercial Sector ................................................................. 8-48

Ta ble 8.5.12 LCC and PBP Results for a Two-Lamp 4-Foot 54 W T5 Miniature Bipin High Output System Operating in the Industrial Sector ..................................................................... 8-49

Ta ble 8.5.13 Summary of the LCC Results for a 4-Foot T5 MiniBP HO System .................... 8-50

Ta ble 8.5.14 LCC and PBP Results for a Two-Lamp 4-Foot 28 W T5 Miniature Bipin Standard Output System Operating in the Commercial Sector ................................................................. 8-51

Ta ble 8.5.15 LCC and PBP Results for a Two-Lamp 4-Foot 28 W T5 Miniature Bipin Standard Output System Operating in the Industrial Sector ..................................................................... 8-52

Ta ble 8.5.16 Summary of the LCC Results for a 4-Foot T5 MiniBP SO System ..................... 8-53

Ta ble 8.5.17 LCC and PBP Results for a Two-Lamp 8-Foot 59 W T8 Single Pin Slimline System Operating in the Commercial Sector.......................................................................................... 8-54

Ta ble 8.5.18 LCC and PBP Results for a Two-Lamp 8-Foot 59 W T8 Single Pin Slimline System Operating in the Industrial Sector .............................................................................................. 8-55

Ta ble 8.5.19 Summary of the LCC Results for an 8-Foot SP Slimline System ........................ 8-56

Ta ble 8.5.20 LCC and PBP Results for a Two-Lamp 8-Foot 86 W T8 Recessed Double Contact HO System Operating in the Commercial Sector ...................................................................... 8-57

Ta ble 8.5.21 LCC and PBP Results for a Two-Lamp 8-Foot 86 W T8 Recessed Double Contact HO System Operating in the Industrial Sector .......................................................................... 8-58

Ta ble 8.5.22 Summary of the LCC Results for an 8-Foot RDC HO System ............................ 8-59

Ta ble 8.5.23 LCC and PBP Results for a 60 W PAR38 1,500 Hour Improved Halogen Baseline Lamp Operating in the Commercial Sector ............................................................................... 8-60

Ta ble 8.5.24 LCC and PBP Results for a 60 W PAR38 1,500 Hour Improved Halogen Baseline Lamp Operating in the Residential Sector ................................................................................. 8-60

Ta ble 8.5.25 LCC and PBP Results for a 60 W PAR38 3,000 Hour HIR Baseline Lamp Operating in the Commercial Sector.......................................................................................... 8-61

Ta ble 8.5.26 LCC and PBP Results for a 60 W PAR38 3,000 Hour HIR Baseline Lamp Operating in the Residential Sector ........................................................................................... 8-61

Ta ble 8.5.27 Summary of the LCC Results for Standard Spectrum, Diameter Greater Than 2.5 inches, and Voltage Less Than 125 V Product Class ................................................................ 8-62

L IST OF FIGURES

Figure 8.1.1 Flow Diagram of Inputs for the Determination of LCC and PBP ........................... 8 -6 Figure 8.2.1 Residential Sector Electricity Price Trend ............................................................ 8-17

F igure 8.2.2 Commercial Sector Electricity Price Trend ........................................................... 8-17

F igure 8.2.3 Industrial Sector Electricity Price Trend ............................................................... 8-18

### 8

- 1



## CHAPTER 8. LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSES

8.1 INTRODUCTION

This chapter describes the analysis the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) conducts to

e valuate the economic impacts on individual consumers of potential energy conservation

standa rds for general service fluorescent lamps (GSFLs) and incandescent reflector lamps (IRLs). New standards usually decrease operating costs and increase purchase costs for consumers. This chapter describes the three metrics used in this analysis to determine the impact

of standards on individual consumers:

Life-cycle cost (LCC) is the total (discounted) consumer cost ov er the analysis period including purchase price, operating costs (including energy expenditures), and

installation costs.

Payback period (PBP) i s the number of years it takes a consumer to recover the generally higher purchase price of a more energy-efficient product through the operating cost savings of using the more energy-efficient product. The PBP is calculated as the change in first cost divided by the change in operating costs in the first year.

Rebuttable presumption PBP is a special case in which the PBP is calculated based on

labor atory conditions, specifically DOE test procedure inputs. DOE calculates the aforementioned LCC and PBP using a range of inputs, which are designed to reflect

actual conditions.

Sections 8.2 and 8.3 discuss inputs to the LCC and PBP, respectively. Section 8.4 discusses the different purchasing events DOE analyzes, which affect consumer economics.

Section 8.5 presents the results for the LCC and PBP. Key variables and calculations are presented for each metric. DOE performs the calculations discussed here using a Microsoft

Excel ® 

## spreadsheet developed for this rulemaking. Stakeholders are invited to download and examine the spreadsheet, which is available on regulations.gov, docket number EERE– 2011

– BT

– STD–0006 , at www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2011- BT

- ST D -0006

. Appendix 8A presents details and instructions for using the spreadsheet. Appendix 8B presents sensitivity results as well as results of the Monte Carlo model. Appendix 8C presents detailed

sourc es for the residential sector discount rate computation. Appendix 8D presents the impact of

“ hot shock” on the LCC savings of IRLs.

8.1.1 General Approach for Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

R ecognizing that several inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis are either variable or uncertain, DOE incorporates Monte Carlo simulation and probability distributions into its LCC

and PBP model. Section 8.5 includes the percentage of consumers who would experience a net benefit or net loss by purchasing a standards case design instead of a base case design using Monte Carlo simulation. Appendix 8B contains a detailed set of results using Monte Carlo

sim ulation. DOE incorporates both Monte Carlo simulation and probability distributions by

### 8

- 2



## using Microsoft Excel spreadsheets combined with Crystal Ball ® 

## , a commercially available addin program.

The relationship between increasing total installed cost and increasing efficacy is the

most significant factor that influences the LCC and PBP results. However, other factors related

to t he characteristics of the consumer using the products also affect the results. Based on the geographic region, sector, and building type in which a consumer uses the lamps, factors such as energy prices, sales tax, and energy usage can vary. By using the Monte Carlo simulation and separate sensitivity runs, DOE accounts for this variability.

For the LCC and PBP analyses, DOE considers variability in the discount rate. DOE also models variability in operating hours by sector, lamp type, and building types. By including a distribution of building types, DOE can perform the LCC and PBP calculations and account for

the va riability in operating hours, electricity price, and sales tax among a variety of buildings. DOE used the Energy Information Administration’s (EIA ’s) 2009 Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), 1 

## 2003 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), 2 

## and 2006 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS) 3 

## to develop building

type probabilities, as well as the 2010 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization (LMC) 4 

## to develop the operating hour characteristics in those buildings. The LCC and PBP spreadsheets present the results of the analysis as average values, relative to the baseline conditions. Appendix 8B presents more information on the distribution of results from the LCC and PBP analysis, including the average and median PBP values.

In the LCC and PBP analyses, DOE considers multiple pathways to energy savings. Generally, when moving up in lamp efficacy, consumers choose whether to stay at the same rated lamp wattage and have more light output, or move to a lower wattage and have the same or roughly equivalent light output as the baseline lamp or lamp -and -ballast system. While consumers clearly would have other choices in addition to those presented in the LCC, DOE did not consider lamp s or lamp-and-ballast systems that increase energy consumption in the LCC. Higher-energy systems, along with other consumer behavior, such as choosing another lamp

tec hnology ( e.g. , LEDs), are addressed in the shipments analysis presented in chapter 9 of this preliminary technical support document (TSD).

For GSFLs, DOE considers various scenarios that prompt consumers to buy a lamp or lamp -and-ballast system because the “event” that prompts the purchase of a new lamp ( e .g

. , a lamp failure or a ballast failure) can influence the cost-effectiveness of the consumer purchase decision. For example, a consumer may or may not need to purchase a new ballast when purchasing a new lamp. Therefore, DOE based the LCC and PBP analyses around “lamp

purc hasing events.” For GSFLs, DOE analyzed lamp failure, ballast failure, and new construction/renovation scenarios. For IRLs, where no ballast is involved, DOE simply analyzed lamp failure or new construction/renovation scenarios. Section 8.4 discusses the lamp purchasing events in more detail. The LCC and PBP analyses spreadsheet reports results by purchasing

event.

The time period used for the LCC and PBP analyses in this rulemaking is the service life of the longest-life baseline lamp for each analysis, or a multiple thereof. By using this analysis

pe riod, LCC results are more easily compared and contrasted for different candidate standard

### 8

- 3



## levels (CSLs). However, to account for any remaining lamp life at the end of the analysis period

in a ma nner consistent with the Federal Energy Management Program’s Life-Cycle Costing Manual, 5 

## DOE designates a discounted “residual value” for lamps or ballasts that have remaining

va lue. For example, if a more-efficacious lamp expires before the end of the analysis period,

DO E assumed that the lamp is replaced during the analysis period and credits the unused lamp life of this replacement lamp back as a residual value at the end of the analysis period.

DOE is conducting the LCC and PBP analyses on the baseline lamps from the

re presentative product classes identified in chapter 5 of this TSD

. Table 8.1. 1 shows the set of

five representative GSFL product classes and the one representative IRL product class that DOE is evaluating in this analysis.

Table 8.1. 1 Representative Product Classes Analyzed in the LCC and PBP Analyses

General Service Fluorescent Lamps

4

- Foot Medium Bipin, ≤ 4,500 K

8

- Foot Single Pin Slimline, ≤ 4,500 K

8

- Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output (HO), ≤ 4,500 K

4

- Foot T5 Miniature Bipin Standard Output (SO), ≤ 4,500 K

4

- Foot T5 Miniature Bipin H O , ≤ 4,500 K

Incandescent Reflector Lamps

Standard Spectrum

, Voltage < 125 V, Diameter > 2.5 Inches



## 8.1.2 Overview of LCC and PBP Inputs

As mentioned earlier, the LCC represents the total consumer expense over the analysis period, including purchase expenses, operating costs (including energy expenditures), and installation costs, if applicable. DOE discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them over the analysis period. Due to the large variance of lamp lifetimes, for this rulemaking, DOE based the analysis period on the longest-life baseline lamp used in each analysis. The LCC calculation credits back the residual value of a lamp, or lamp-and-ballast

s ystem, if it has any operating life remaining at the end of the analysis period. The residual value

is t he discounted total installed cost of a lamp, or lamp-and-ballast system, multiplied by the percentage of the remaining life past the analysis period. The PBP represents the number of years it takes consumers to recover the purchase price of more-efficacious products through lower

ope rating costs. The PBP is calculated as the change in first cost divided by the change in

ope rating costs in the first year.

DOE categorizes inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis as follows: (1) inputs for establishing the purchase expense, otherwise known as the total installed cost; and (2) inputs for calculating the expenses incurred during the operation of the lamp, otherwise known as the operating cost. In addition, inputs to the LCC are used to calculate a residual value for any

re maining product lifetime beyond the analysis period and replacement costs for those lamps whose service life is less than the analysis period.

The primary inputs for establishing the LCC and PBP are:

### 8

- 4



## End-User Product Price : As discussed in chapter 7 of this TSD , DOE started with manufacturer suggested price lists (“blue-books”), and applied discounts to develop low, medium, and high prices for all lamp types. The end-user product prices represent the consumer price before tax and installation.

Sales Tax : DOE then applied sales tax to convert the end-user product price to a final product

pr ice including sales tax.

Installation Cost : This input represents the cost to commercial or industrial consumers of installing the lamps or lamp-and-ballast systems. (In the residential sector, there is only an installation cost for lamp systems when a new ballast is being installed.) The installation cost represents all costs required to install the lamp or lamp-and-ballast

s ystem, but does not include the end-user product price. The installation cost includes labor and overhead. Thus, the total installed cost equals the end-user product price including sales tax plus the installation cost.

Disposal Cost : After a GSFL reaches the end of its life, some consumers pay to recycle the lamp. The disposal cost represents the cost of recycling a GSFL and is only applicable to

those consumers in the commercial and industrial sectors.

The primary inputs for calculating the operating cost include the following:

Annual Operating Hours : The annual operating hours are the hours that a lamp is estimated to be in use during one year. The energy use characterization (chapter 6 of this TSD )

de tails how DOE determined the lamp operating hours as a function of end-user sector, geographic region, and building type.

Power Rating : The power rating is the site energy usage rate associated with operating the lamp or lamp -and-ballast system. The energy use characterization (chapter 6 of this TSD ) details how DOE determined the power ratings for the lamps and lamp-and-ballast

s ystems considered in the analyses.

Electricity Prices : DOE uses the average price per kilowatt-hour ($/kWh) paid by consumers. DOE determined electricity prices using national average residential, commercial, and industrial electricity prices for the sample calculation. For the Monte Carlo distribution, DOE used average residential, commercial, and industrial values for 13 regions and large states. DOE developed all electricity price inputs using 2011 EIA data.

Electricity Price Trends : DOE used the EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (AEO 20 12) to forecast electricity prices. 6 

## For the results presented in this chapter, DOE used the AEO

2012 reference case to forecast future electricity prices.

Lifetime : Lifetime is the total hours in operation after which the consumer retires the lamp or components of a lamp system from service.

Discount Rate : The discount rate is the rate at which DOE discounts future expenditures to

e stablish their present value.

Analysis Period : Analysis period is the time span over which DOE calculates the LCC.

### 8

- 5



## DOE also account ed for the effects of lighting controls in the LCC analysis as presented

in appendix 8B. See appendix 6A of this TSD for further discussion on lighting controls.

The residual value calculation also uses all of the installed cost inputs, as well as several

ope rating cost inputs.

Figure 8.1

. 1 depicts the relationships between the installed cost, operating cost, and residual value inputs for the calculation of the LCC and PBP. In this figure, the rectangular boxes indicate the inputs, the parallelograms indicate intermediate calculated values, and the diamond boxes indicate the analysis outputs (the LCC and PBP).

### 8

- 6



## Figure 8.1. 1 Flow Diagram of Inputs for the Determination of LCC and PBP

Ta ble 8.1

. 2 summarizes the input values that DOE used to calculate the LCC and PBP for GSFLs and IRLs. DOE characterizes all of the total installed cost inputs with single-point values,

### 8

- 7



## but characterizes several of the operating cost inputs with probability distributions that capture the input’s uncertainty and/or variability in the Monte Carlo analysis. Table 8.1.2 also lists th e chapters of this TSD that detail the inputs.

Table 8.1. 2 Summary Information of Inputs for the Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analyses

Factor Weighted Average Value TSD Reference

Section

Total Installe d Cost Primary Inputs

End

- User Product Price Varies with lamp and ballast Chapter 7

, 9

Sales Tax Varies by census region Chapter 8

Installation Cost Varies by product installed and sector Chapter 8

Operating Cost Primary Inputs

Annual Operating Hours Vary by lamp type, sector, and building type Chapter 6

Power Rating Varies with lamp type, and lamp or lamp

- and

ballast system Chapter 5, 6

Electricity Prices Vary by sector and census region Chapter 8

Electricity Price Trends Vary with price forecast s cenario Chapter 8

Discount Rate Varies with sector Chapter 8

Analysis Period Varies with baseline lamp and annual operating

hours Chapter 8

Replacement Cost and Residual Value Primary Inputs

Total Installed Cost Varies with lamp and ballast, census reg ion, product installed and sector Chapters 7, 8

Lifetime Varies with lamp and system Chapters 5, 8

Disposal Cost Varies by lamp type and sector Chapter 8

Discount Rate Varies with sector Chapter 8

Analysis Period Varies with baseline lamp and annual op erating

hours Chapter 8



## 8.2 LIFE-CYCLE COST INPUTS

8.2.1 Definition

LCC is the total consumer cost over the life of a product, including total installed costs, operating costs, replacement costs, and residual value. Future operating costs and replacement costs are discounted to the analysis start year (2017) and summed over the analysis period. The residual value (if any) is credited back to the LCC, if the operating life of the standards case technology exceeds that of the analysis period. The LCC is defined by the following equation:

Eq. 8.1

### 8

- 8



## Where:

LCC = life-cycle cost ($),

IC = total installed cost ($),

N = analysis period, ∑ = sum over the analysis period, from year 1 to year N,

OC = operating cost ($),

RC = replacement cost ($),

r = discount rate,

t = year for which operating cost, replacement cost, or disposal cost is determined,

DC = disposal cost of the lamp, and

RV = residual value for an analysis period N

.

DOE expresses all the costs in its LCC and PBP analyses in 2011 dollars.

8.2.2 Total Installed Cost Inputs

The total installed cost to the consumer is defined by the following equation:

Eq. 8.2

Where:

FPP = final product price ( i.e. , consumer price for the product only, including

sales tax), expressed in dollars, and

INST = installation cost or the consumer price to install products ( i.e. , the cost for labor and materials), expressed in dollars.

In the product price determination (see chapter 7 of this TSD ), DOE developed end-user

pr oduct prices. DOE added sa les ta xes to derive final product prices. DOE then applied installation costs, where necessary, to derive the total installed costs for use in the LCC. Table

8.2

. 1 shows the inputs to determine total installed costs.

Table 8.2. 1 Inputs for Total Installed Costs

End

- User Product Price ($)

Sales Tax ($)

Installation Cost ($)



## The end -user product price is the average purchase price a consumer pays before sales tax for lamps or lamp -and-ballast systems. The sales tax represents state and local sales taxes applied

to t he end-user product price. It is a multiplicative factor that increases the end-user product price. Installation cost is the cost to the consumer of installing the lamps or lamp-and-ballast

s ystems, and only applies in the commercial and industrial sectors (and in the residential sector if

a ballast replacement is required). The installation cost represents all costs required to install the lamp or lamp-and-ballast system (including labor and overhead) but does not include the final

### 8

- 9



## product price. The total installed cost equals the final product price plus the installation cost. DOE calculates the total installed cost for the lamps analyzed based on the following equation:

Eq. 8.3

Where:

IC = total installed cost,

FPP = final product price,

INST = installation cost,

PRICE = end-user product price, and

MU T AX 

## = sales tax mark up

The following sections discuss product price, sales tax, and installation cost in more detail. Chapter 7 of this TSD provides additional information on the end-user product price

8.2.2.1 Product Price

In its Notice of Data Availability (NODA) published on February 22, 2011 (76 FR 9696), DOE stated that it may consider improving the regulatory analysis by addressing product price trends. Consistent with the NODA, DOE examined historical Producer Price Indices (PPI) for “electric lamp bulb and part manufacturing” from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as well as other price forecasting indices to determine the best way to analyze price trends for GSFLs, IRLs, and ballasts. After analyzing available data, DOE concluded that the real prices of these products

ha ve a different long-term trend than prices in the economy as a whole. Chapter 9 of this TSD

discusse s how DOE forecasted product prices throughout the analysis period for GSFLs, IRLs,

and ballasts.

I n addition, DOE accounts for the variability of rare earth oxide prices in the product price. The reference assumption for rare earth oxide prices is that they remain constant at the October 2012 level. Rare earth prices rose rapidly in 2010 to a peak in 2011 and have dropped almost monotonically to less than half their peak since then. Prior to 2010, prices were relatively stable from at least 2001. The future trajectory of rare earth oxide prices is highly uncertain. Therefore, DOE developed alternative scenarios for high and low prices reflecting the 2011 peak price and the 2006 – 2009 baseline average price. See appendix 9B of this TSD for a discussion

of how DOE developed the estimates for high and low rare earth phosphor prices. Appendix 8B

of this TSD contains LCC results based on these estimates.

8.2.2.2 Sales Tax

The sales tax represents state and local sales taxes applied to the end-user product price.

I t is a multiplicative factor that increases the end-user product price. DOE obtained information

on state and local sales tax from the Sales Tax Clearinghouse. 7 

## Table 8.2

. 2 shows the rates; these data represent weighted averages that include county and city rates. DOE then calculated population-weighted average tax values for each census division and four large states. 8


## Developing this distribution allowed DOE to correlate the sales tax distribution with the

### 8

- 10



## electricity price distribution, and the operating hour distribution (see chapter 6 of this TSD ) DOE uses in the LCC spreadsheet. DOE also calculated a national, population-weighted average sales tax for use as a single-value input to the LCC, should users want single-average results. DOE also used this result in the national impact analysis (NIA), where DOE did not use a distribution of inputs.

Table 8.2. 2 State and Local Sales Tax Rates

State Combined

State and

Local Tax

Rat e ( % ) State Combined

State and

Local Tax

Rate ( % ) State Combined

State and

Local Tax

Rate ( % )

Alabama 8.45 Kentucky 6.00 North Dakota 5. 85

Alaska 1.35 Louisiana 8.7 5 Ohio 6.85

Arizona 8 .15 Maine 5.00 Oklahoma 8.30

Arkansas 8.35 Maryland 6.00 Oregon 0.0 0

California 8.20 Massachusetts 6.25 Pennsylvania 6. 40

Colorado 6.10 Michigan 6.00 Rhode Island 7.00

Connecticut 6.35 Minnesota 7.20 South Carolina 7.10

Delaware 0.00 Mississippi 7.00 South Dakota 5.35

Dist. Of Columbia 6.00 Missouri 6.55 Tennessee 9. 45

Florida 6.65 Montana 0.00 Texas 7.95
Georgia 6.95 Nebraska 6.00 Utah 6.70

Hawaii 4.40 Nevada 7. 85 Vermont 6.05

Idaho 6.05 New Hampshire 0.00 Virginia 5.00

Illinois 8. 15 New Jersey 6.95 Washington 8. 90

Indiana 7.00 New Mexico 6. 60 West Virginia 6.0 5

Iowa 6.8 5 New York 8.4 0 Wisconsin 5.4 5

Kansas 8.00 North Carolina 6.85 Wyoming 5.15



## Table 8.2

. 3 shows the distribution of sales tax rates DOE developed for the LCC and PBP analyses. The distribution ranges from a minimum of 5.30 percent to a maximum of 8.50 percent
with a weighted average value of 7.09 percent. DOE used the average value of 7.0 9 percent in

the NIA.

### 8

- 1 1



## Table 8.2. 3 Regional Average Tax Rates

Census Division or Large St ate Name Census Division Weighted Sales Tax ( % )
New England 5.64

Mid Atlantic 6.62

East North Central 6.88

West North Central 6.84

South Atlantic 6.22

East South Central 7.99

West South Central 8.50

Mountain 6.73

Pacific 5.30

New York State 8.40

California 8.20

Texas 7.95

Florida 6.65

U.S. Population

- Weighted Average 7.0 9



## 8.2.2.3 Installation Costs

DO E applied installation costs to individual lamps, as well as lamp -and-ballast systems,

inst alled in the commercial and industrial sectors. DOE assumed that in the residential sector, thehomeowner replaces individual lamps; thus, DOE applied installation costs only to lamp-andba llast systems in the residential sector.

On November 14, 2011, DOE issued a final rule establishing energy conservation standards for ballasts (hereafter referred to as “the 2011 Ballast Rule”). 76 FR 70548 (Nov. 14,

2011 ); 10 CFR 430.32(m)(8). For GSFLs, DOE obtained estimates of the prevalence of group versus spot relamping from the 2011 Ballast Rule. In spot relamping, individual lamps are

re placed when they have failed, on a one- by -one basis. In group relamping, all the lamps in a

fixtur e or area are replaced at a predetermined time. DOE obtained the time it takes to complete a spot and group relamping or “relamping time” from the 2011 Ballast Rule

. DOE then weighed the relamping time by the percent occurrence of spot versus group relamping to derive weighted average relamping times. According to the 2011 Ballast Rule, group relamping occurs, on average, 25 percent of the time for 4-foot systems versus spot relamping 75 percent of the time, 37 percent of the time for 8-foot single pin (SP) slimline systems versus spot relamping 63

pe rcent of the time, and 31 percent of the time for 8-foot recessed double contact (RDC) high

outpu t (H O) systems versus spot relamping 69 percent of the time. 9 

## These percentages were used to calculate an average time to install lamps in the commercial and industrial sectors. When entire lamp-and-ballast systems are installed, DOE used the times shown in the “Time to Install Lamps and Ballasts” column in Table 8.2

. 4 from the 2011 Ballast Rule.

To account for installation costs for IRLs, DOE used relamping time estimates from the
RS Means Electrical Cost Data, 2007 ( RS Means ). 10 

## Table 8.2

. 4 lists average labor times to install a lamp (for IRLs and GSFLs ) a nd a lamp and ballast (for GSFLs only). For new

c onstruction, renovation, and major retrofit GSFL purchase events, DOE also add ed 2.5 minutes to the labor times when installing lamps and ballasts to account for the installation of a luminaire

### 8

- 12



## disconnect. DOE added this additional installation time because the 2005 National Electric Code requires a means for disconnecting luminaires before they are serviced for lamp or ballast replacements. 11



## Table 8.2. 4 Relamping Times for General Service Fluorescent Lamps and Incandescent Reflector Lamps*

Lamp Type Spot Relamp

Time

minutes Group

Relamp

Time

m inutes Average

Relamp

Time

minutes Time to Install Lamps and

Ballasts **

minutes

General Service Fluorescent Lamps (Commercial and Industrial)

2

- Lamp Fixture

- 4

- Foot Medium Bipin , 4

- Foot Miniature Bipin 27.0 14.0 23.8 30.0

4

- Lamp Fixture

- 4

- Foot Mediu m Bipin 28.0 15.0 24 8 40.0

2

- Lamp Fixture

- 8

- Foot Single Pin

Slimline 20.5 10.5 16.8 55.0

2

- Lamp Fixture

- 8

- Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output 26.5 13.5 22.5 60.0

Incandescent Reflector Lamps (Commercial)

All 4.0 N/A



## * GSFL labor times we re obtained from the 2011 Ballast Rule. IRL labor times we re obtained from RS Means.

DOE assume d that residential sector consumers install their own lamps when replacing lamps; thus, DOE only

model ed residential sector installation costs when entire lamp

- and

- ballast systems are installed, and only the times in the “Time to Install Lamps and Ballasts” column apply.

** For new construction, renovation, and major retrofit GSFL purchase events, labor times we re increased by

2.5 minutes to allow for the installatio n of a luminaire disconnect.



## For lamp -and -ballast installations, DOE derived labor rates for electricians and helpers

from RS Means . Labor rates are the sum of the wage rate, employer-paid fringe benefits ( i.e.

, vacation pay, employer-paid health, and welfare costs), and any appropriate training and industry advancement funds costs. An electrician’s average hourly rate with overhead and profit is typically $77.00 (in 201 1$), and a helper’s average hourly rate is $53.20 (in 2011$). As in the

201 1 Ballast Rule, DOE assumed that 50 percent of the electrician labor rate and 50 percent of the helper labor rate (for a total of $65.10 in 201 1 $ ) make up the lamp-and-ballast installation

rate.

For lamp replacements in the commercial sector, DOE assumed that the task is performed by a general maintenance worker. The labor rate of $16.84 was obtained using the median hourly

rate from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for a General Maintenance Worker. 12 

## Using these

labor rates and the labor times listed in Table 8.2

. 4 , DOE derived the average cost to install a lamp a nd the average cost to install a lamp and ballast. The calculated labor rates are listed in

Table 8.2. 5

.

### 8

- 13



## Table 8.2. 5 Relamping and Lamp-and-Ballast Labor Cost for General Service Fluorescent Lamps and Incandescent Reflector Lamps

Lamp Type Relamping Labor Cost ( 2011 $) Labor Cost to Install

Lamps and Ballast * ( 2011 $)

General Service Fluoresce nt Lamp (Commercial and Industrial)

2

- Lamp Fixture, 4

- Foot Medium Bipin and

4

- Foot Miniature Bipin $6. 67 $ 32.55

4

- Lamp Fixture, 4

- Foot Medium Bipin $6. 95 $ 43.40

2

- Lamp Fixture, 8

- Foot Single Pin Slimline $4. 72 $ 59.68

2

- Lamp Fixture, 8

- Foot Recessed Dou ble Contact High Output $6. 31 $ 65.10
Incandescent Reflector Lamps (Commercial)

All $1. 1 2 N/A
*For new construction, renovation, and major retrofit GSFL purchase events, DOE increase d the labor cost to install lamps and ballast by $2.71 (in 2011$) to all ow for the installation of a luminaire

disconnect.



## 8.2.3 Operating Cost Inputs

The operating cost represents the costs incurred in the operation of the lamp or lamp-andba llast system. Table 8.2 .6 lists the inputs for operating costs. The analysis period, discount rate,

and compliance date of the standard are required to determine the operating cost and for establishing the operating cost present value. The electricity consumption for the baseline and

other CSLs enable comparison of standards’ operating costs.

Table 8.2. 6 Inputs for Operating Costs

Annual Operating Hours

Power Rating

Lighting Controls

Electricity Prices

Electricity Price Trends

Discount Rate

Analysis Pe riod



## The annual operating hours are the estimated hours that a lamp is in use during one year.Power rating refers to the rate of site energy usage associated with operating the lamp or lampand -ballast system. Both the annual operating hours and power rating are used to calculate the total annual energy consumption. Electricity prices used in the analysis are the price per kilowatt-hour in cents or dollars paid by each consumer for electricity. DOE used electricity price trends to forecast electricity prices for future year analysis. These trends with the electricity price and annual energy consumption are used to calculate the energy cost in each year. DOE defines energy cost by the following equation:

Eq. 8.4

### 8

- 14



## Where:

OC

= operating costs in 2011$,

E

cons 

## = annual energy consumed,

EP = electricity price in 2011$,

EPT = electricity price trend factor relative to 2011,

PWR = power rating (rate of energy use, measured in watts), and

OH = annual operating hours.

The remainder of this section provides information about each of the above input

va riables that DOE used to calculate the operating costs for GSFLs and IRLs.

8.2.3.1 Annual Operating Hours

The energy use characterization (see chapter 6 of this TSD) details how DOE determines

the a nnual energy consumption for baseline and standards-compliant products. An important input for determining the energy consumption is the total hours per year that the product is in operation. The operating hours are also used to calculate the lamp service life, which is ultimately used in calculating the total replacement cost and residual value.

As described in chapter 6 of this TSD , DOE established operating hour distributions for

GSF Ls and IRLs. In conjunction with data from the LMC, DOE used data from EIA’s CBECS 2003, R ECS 2009, and MECS 2006. These EIA studies provide information on the distribution

of buildings within the United States by building type and census division. DOE associated the LMC’s operating hour data by building type with the EIA’s data by building type and census division to derive operating hours by census division and large states. This allowed DOE to correlate its electricity price distribution and sales tax distribution (see chapter 7 of this TSD ) with its operating hour distribution by census division and large state in the LCC spreadsheet.

Table 8.2. 7 presents the mean operating hours for GSFLs and IRLs for each sector.

Table 8.2. 7 Average Operating Hours by Sector and Lamp Type

Sector Lamp Category Average Annual Operating Hours

hours/year

Residential GSFL 648

IRL 761

Commercial GSFL 4,058

IRL 4,496

Industrial GSFL 4,585



## 8.2.3.2 Power Rating

As described in the energy use and end load characterization (chapter 6 of this TSD ), DOE used the power rating (in watts) and the annual operating hours (in hours) to calculate the

### 8

- 15



## annual energy usage (in kilowatt-hours) of the lamp and lamp-and-ballast system designs DOE

c onsiders.

General Service Fluorescent Lamps

Because a fluorescent lamp requires a ballast to operate, DOE analyzed these lamps as systems consisting of both lamps and ballasts. Therefore, in the “lamp replacement” and “lampand -ballast replacement” scenarios, the system input power represents the energy consumption rate of the lamps and their associated ballast, and therefore is different than simply the rated lamp power alone. When a lamp is paired with ballasts with different ballast factors (BFs), the lamp -and-ballast systems have different power ratings. See chapter 6 of this TSD for detailed

re sults showing power ratings and annual energy consumption estimates in each market sector for a given a BF and lamp power.

Incandescent Reflector Lamps

Because an IRL system consists solely of a lamp, the system’s annual energy use is

sim ply the product of the rated power and operating hours of the lamp. Detailed tables depicting the power rating and annual energy consumption for all of the IRL designs are available in chapter 6 of this TSD

.

8.2.3.3 Electricity Prices

DOE estimated electricity prices for residential, commercial, and industrial consumers in each of the 13 regions and large states by using EIA Form 861 data. 13 

## Table 8.2.8 lists the 13 geographic regions. The EIA Form 861 data are published annually and include annual electricity sales in kilowatt-hours; revenues from electricity sales; and number of consumers for the residential, commercial, and industrial sectors for every utility serving final consumers. The calculation of an average electricity price requires two steps:

1) For each utility, estimate an average residential, commercial, or industrial price by dividing the residential, commercial, or industrial revenues by residential, commercial, or

industrial sales.

2) Calculate a regional average price, weighting each utility with consumers in a region by the number of residential, commercial, or industrial consumers served in that region.

The calculation uses the most recent available EIA data at the time the analysis was conducted, from 2011

. Table 8.2. 8 shows the results for each geographic region.

### 8

- 16



## Table 8.2. 8 Electricity Prices by Census Division, 2011

Censu s Division Electricity Prices, 2011

Residential Commercial Industrial

2011 $/kWh 2011 $/kWh 2011 $/kWh

New England $0. 1 58 $0. 146 $0. 127

Middle Atlantic $0. 145 $0. 125 $0. 088

East North Central $0. 120 $0. 100 $0.0 70

West North Central $0. 102 $0. 086 $0. 09 1

South Atlantic $0. 111 $0. 0 93 $0. 073

East South Central $0. 101 $0. 101 $0. 073

West South Central $0. 09 2 $0 083 $0. 066

Mountain $0. 107 $0. 091 $0. 069

Pacific $0. 116 $0. 109 $0. 064

New York State $0. 193 $0. 1 65 $0. 089

California $0. 148 $0. 136 $0. 102

Texa s $0. 111 $0. 102 $0. 081

Florida $0. 115 $0. 100 $0. 085

U.S. Weighted Average $0. 1 2 4 $0. 10 7 $0. 08 2



## 8.2.3.4 Electricity Price Trend

The electricity price trend projects the future cost of electricity throughout the analysis period. DOE normally calculates the LCC and PBP using three separate projections from AEO : reference, low economic growth, and high economic growth. The high and low growth cases show the projected effects of alternative economic growth assumptions on energy markets. Together, these three cases reflect the uncertainty of electricity price trends in the forecast period.

Figure 8.2

. 1 through Figure 8.2

. 3 show the residential, commercial, and industrial electricity price trends, respectively, based on the three AEO 2012 projections. The LCC results presented in this chapter are based on the AEO 2012 reference case. Appendix 8B contains LCC results based on the high and low economic growth cases.

### 8

- 17



## Figure 8.2. 1 Residential Sector Electricity Price Trend

Figure 8.2. 2 Commercial Sector Electricity Price Trend

### 8

- 18



## Figure 8.2. 3 In dustrial Sector Electricity Price Trend

In the LCC spreadsheet, these electricity price trends are used to project electricity prices into the future, which are then multiplied by the annual energy usage. The resulting operating costs are presented in both the LCC spreadsheets and the LCC results tables in this chapter.

8.2.4 Lifetime

DOE defined lifetime as the age in hours of operation when a lamp or ballast is retired

fr om service. DOE used published manufactur er literature, when available, to derive lamp

lifetimes.

Similar to the calculation of relamping costs, DOE averaged the impact on lifetime of group versus spot relamping by their percent occurrence for GSFLs in the commercial and

indus trial sectors. See section 8.2.2.3 for fu rther discussion of relamping costs and the percent occurrences of group versus spot relamping. DOE assumed that residential sector consumers replace their lamps either when they fail or when the associated fixture is removed; thus, there are no spot or group relamping lifetime impacts on residential sector GSFLs. See section 8.2.8 for further details on residential sector GSFL consumer behavior. In spot relamping, individual lamps a re replaced when they have failed, on a one- by -one basis, at 100 percent of their rated life. In group relamping, all the lamps in a fixture or area are replaced at a predetermined time. This latter method is viewed as being the most economical approach as it significantly reduces associated labor costs. During group relamping, a collection of lamps that are near the end of their lives are removed and replaced at once as a way of avoiding the failure of any individual lamp in the collection. Thus, some lamps in the collection will still have life remaining even though they are being replaced. DOE applied a life impact factor to the rated lifetimes from the

manufactur er literature for the GSFLs it analyz ed

. DOE then weighted this rated lifetime at

### 8

- 19



## which group and spot relamping occurs by the percent occurrence of these events to determine the percent of rated lifetime to use in the analysis. For 4 -foot medium bipin ( MBP) lamps and 4

- foot miniature bipin (MiniBP) lamps, the average lifetime DOE used in the analysis was 94

pe rcent of the rated lifetime. For 8 -foot SP slimline lamps, the average lifetime was 91 percent of

the rated lifetime. For 8-foot RDC HO lamps, the average lifetime was 92 percent of the rated lifetime. DOE did not assume an impact on lifetime due to group relamping for IRLs.

As discusse d in the technology assessment (see chapter 3 of this TSD ), many technology options to improve GSFL and IRL efficacies affect the lifetime of the lamp. For this reason, the baseline and standard level designs for the LCC and PBP analyses have a wide range o f

lifetimes.

For ballasts in the commercial and industrial sectors, DOE used the average ballast lifetime used in the 2011 Ballast Rule (49,054 hours). Using DOE’s estimate of 49,054 hours and average operating hours for GSFLs in the commercial sector, the lifetime of an average ballast is

a pproximately 12.1 years. This lifetime is consistent with a study on the “measure life” of

ba llasts ( i.e. , the true service life of a ballast in the field), which found that the average ballast

li fetime after a retrofit in the commercial sector is 13 years, and the average ballast lifetime after

ne w construction is 15 years. 14 

## DOE found in a separate measure life report that the average fixture and ballast in the residential sector lasts for 15 years, as discussed in section 8.2.3.1

. Therefore, in its residential sector analysis for GSFLs, DOE established 15 years as the average

ba llast lifetime in the residential sector, regardless of operating hours. 15 

## This is equivalent to 9,723 hours at average operating hours of 648 hours per year.

8.2.5 Replacement Cost

As stated earlier, the lifetime is the age (total hours in operation) at which the lamp or components of a lamp system are retired from service. The lifetime divided by the operating

hours yields the service life of the lamp in years. Replacement costs include the labor and

mate rials costs associated with replacing a lamp or ballast if either component must be replaced during the analysis period. By using the service life and replacement cost, DOE calculates the

tot al replacement cost each year.

Replacement costs are the labor and materials costs associated with replacing a lamp or

ballast at the end of its lifetime. Because the lifetimes of GSFL and IRL designs can vary, at

ti mes it is necessary to replace a lamp within the analysis period. Generally, if the service life of

a more efficacious lamp is less than the analysis period, those lamps will require replacement to reach the end of the analytical period. Each year in which a lamp reaches the end of its life, a new lamp is purchased and installed, and the first cost and installation cost of the new lamp are discounted back to the base year of the analysis period. Certain residential sector GSFL

c onsumers must also replace a ballast during the analysis period. See section 8.2.8 for further details on these consumers. For IRLs in all sectors, the replacement cost is the total installed cost

of the lamp because there is no ballast in the analysis.

Dur ing years in which replacement of a lamp or ballast is necessary, DOE based the

re placement costs on the total installed cost inputs, as seen in the following equation:

### 8

- 20 

## Eq. 8.5

Where:

RC = replacement cost in 2011 dollars,

FPP = final product price ( i.e. , consumer price for the product only,

including sales tax) in 2011 dollars,

INST = installation cost in 2011 dollars,

PRI CE = end-user product price in 2011 dollars, and

MU T AX 

## = sales tax.

For the years when no replacement is necessary, the replacement costs are zero.

8.2.6 Disposal Cost

When a GSFL fails, some consumers choose to recycle the lamp. The cost of recycling

the G SFL is its disposal cost. DOE performed research on recycling costs for GSFLs and found that, on average, disposing of a GSFL costs about 10 cents per linear foot. 16 

## A report released by the Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers in 2004 noted that approximately 30 percent

of lamps used by businesses and 2 percent of lamps in the residential sector are recycled. 17


## Because a relatively large percentage of consumers recycle lamps in the commercial and industrial sectors, DOE applied a cost of 10 cents per linear foot in 2011$ every time a lamp is recycled and replaced during the LCC analysis period. For 4 -foot lamps, the disposal cost is thus $0.40 pe r lamp in 2011$ , while for 8 -foot lamps, the disposal cost is thus $0.80 per lamp in

2011 $. The disposal cost also impacts the residual value of lamps that operate beyond the end of the analysis period (described in 8.2.11 ). DOE assumed that commercial and industrial consumers pay recycling costs for approximately 30 percent of lamp failures. Because few residential sector consumers recycle lamps, DOE did not apply the disposal costs to this sector. Disposal c osts are also not applied to the LCC analysis for IRLs in any sector because consumers do not pay for their disposal.

8.2.7 Analysis Period

The analysis period is the time span over which the LCC is calculated. To account for variability in lifetime of lamp designs, DOE developed a consistent analytical time period

comparing more-efficacious lamps to a baseline lamp over the lifetime of the longestlived baseline lamp in the analysis. When this analysis period wa s shorter than the lifetime of the replacement lamp, DOE accounted for the remaining life of the replacement lamp as a residual value. When the analysis period wa s longer than the lifetime of the replacement lamp, a second replacement lamp is installed, and if any operating life of that second replacement lamp

re main ed at the end of the analysis period, then its residual value was added back into the LCC. By using the average lamp lifetimes divided by the annual operating hours, DOE calculates the lamp service lifetime in years.

For the IRL and the commercial and industrial sector GSFL analyses, DOE based the

a nalysis period on the longest baseline lamp life in an analysis divided by the annual operating

### 8

- 21



## hours of that lamp. If the user chooses to run the LCC using weighted average values ( i.e. , in

“ sample calculation” mode), then the analysis period is based on the longest baseline lamp life for that analysis divided by the average annual operating hours for that lamp in a chosen sector,

or a multiple thereof. For example, the baseline lif etime for one of the IRL scenarios is 1,5 00 hours. If the user chooses to analyze this lamp in the commercial sector, then the analysis period is the lamp lifetime of 1,500 hours divided by the average annual operating hours of IRLs in the

c ommercial secto r (4,496 hours per year), or 0.3 years. To allow users to compare the cost of

IRLs over multiple lamp lifetimes, one can select a multiple of this analysis period ( i.e.

, 0.6

, 0.9

,

or 1.2 years). If the user chooses to run the LCC using the Monte Carlo simulation ( i.e. , in “Crystal Ball” mode), the analysis period is based on the longest baseline lamp life for the analysis divided by the annual operating hours chosen by Crystal Ball ® 

## . For example, if Crystal

Ball ® 

## selects a building that is used for religious worship, the analysis period for the 1,500 hour baseline IRLs for that selection will be based on a lamp lifetime of 1,500 hours divided by the

a nnual operating hours of IRLs in a building used for religious worship (4,417 hours per year), or

0. 3 years. Users cannot select a multiple of this analysis period when using the Monte Carlo

simulation.

8.2.8 Residential GSFL Analysis

As described in section 8.2.4 , the average useful lifetime of ballasts in the residential sector is approximately 15 years, regardless of operating hours. 18 

## DOE had to make additional assumptions regarding consumer behavior for the residential GSFL failure scenario because the lamp life exceeds the ballast life in this sector for the lamp failure scenario. In the 2009 rulemaking, DOE considered two types of consumer behavior for the lamp failure scenario in the

GSF L residential sector. In the first kind of consumer behavior, consumers dispose of their lamps when replacing a ballast, regardless of how much lifetime the lamps have remaining. DOE only conducted an analysis for high operating hours using this assumption because the lamp would fail before the ballast only in that scenario. In the second kind of consumer behavior, residential

GSF L consumers preserve their lamps when replacing a fixture, then install the lamps on the new fixture. Because the lamps live for their entire rated lifetimes in situations of average operating hours, a lamp f

ailure event for average operating hours could be analyzed.

For this rulemaking, DOE is not analyzing the first consumer behavior scenario in which

c onsumers replace their lamps. DOE selected a baseline for the residential GSFL analysis that will never have a lifetime that is less than the ballast lifetime ( i.e.

, its lifetime will always be longer than the 15-year ballast lifetime, even at high operating hours). Thus, in the lamp failure scenario, DOE no longer analyzes consumers who do not preserve their lamps. Therefore, residential GSFL consumers are able to realize the full rated lifetime of their lamps. At average

ope rating hours (648 hours per year), DOE utilized the full service lifetime of the baseline lamp (37 years) as the analysis period. DOE assumed that when a ballast is removed in the middle of the analysis period, these consumers preserve their lamps, purchase a new ballast of the same

t ype as the initial ballast, and then have the new ballast installed with the preserved lamps (incurring a lamp-and-ballast system installation cost).

F or the ballast failure and new construction and renovation events in the residential

se ctor, DOE used average operating hours and assumed that a consumer would purchase a new lamp when purchasing a ballast. DOE modeled only non-lamp-preserving consumers for the

### 8

- 22



## ballast failure and new construction and renovation events in order to obtain a lower bound of LCC savings. Because the lamp lifetime exceeds the ballast lifetime under average operating hours conditions, DOE assumed that the ballast lifetime of 15 years limits the lamp lifetime. Therefore for GSFLs in the residential sector, the useful life of the baseline lamp and therefore

the a nalysis period is 15 years for the ballast failure and new construction and renovation events.

8.2.9 Discount Rate

The discount rate is the rate at which DOE discounts future expenditures to establish their present values. DOE derived the discount rates for this rulemaking separately for residential and commercial/industrial consumers. For residential consumers, DOE estimated the discount rate by looking across all possible debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase lamps. For the

c ommercial and industrial consumers, DOE estimated the cost of capital for commercial and industrial companies by examining both debt and equity capital, and developed an appropriately

we ighted average of the cost to the company of equity and debt financing.

8.2.9.1 Residential Discount Rate

GSFLs and IRLs are comparatively low-cost products for households to replace. With retail prices typically ranging from five dollars to twenty-five dollars, households typically

purc hase lamps as needed. DOE’s approach involves identifying all possible debt or asset classes that might be used to purchase replacement products, including household assets that might be affected indirectly. a 

## DOE d id n ot include debt from primary mortgages and equity of assets considered non-liquid (such as retirement accounts), since these would likely not be used to finance replacement lamp purchases. DOE estimated the average shares of the various debt and equity classes in the average U.S. household equity and debt portfolios using data from the

Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finances ( SCF ) for 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001,

200 4 , 2007, and 2010. 19 

## Table 8.2. 9 shows the average shares of each considered class. DOE

used the mean share of each class across the eight survey years (21 years) as the basis for estimating household financing of lamps and lighting equipment.

a 

### An indirect effect would arise if a household sold assets to pay off a loan or credit card debt that might have been used to finance the actual lamp purchase.

### 8

- 23



## Table 8.2. 9 Averag e Percentage Shares of Household Debt and Equity Types

Type 1989

SCF 1992

SCF 1995

SCF 1998

SCF 2001

SCF 2004

SCF 2007

SCF 2010

SCF Mean (%)

Home equity loans 2.2 1.9 0.9 1.0 1.2 2.9 2.5 3.0 2.0%

Credit cards 0.0 2. 2 2.6 2.2 1.7 2.0 2.5 2.2 1.9%

Other i nstallment loans 3.1 1. 8 1.4 1.7 1.1 1. 4 1.2 1.3 1.6%

Other residential loans 0.0 7.0 5. 3 4. 4 3.1 5. 9 7.3 7.4 5.1%

Other line of credit 1. 2 0.6 0.4 0. 0 0.3 0.5 0.3 0.8 0.5%

Checking accounts 6.3 4. 8 4.9 4.0 3. 7 4. 3 3.5 4.4 4.5%

Savings & money market 2 0.9 1 9.3 14. 3 1 3.1 14. 5 15. 4 13.3 16.4 15.9%

Certificate of deposit (CD) 15.8 1 2.0 9. 5 7.1 5. 5 6.0 6.6 6.8 8.7%

Savings bond 2. 4 1.7 2.2 1. 1 1.2 0.9 0.7 0.6 1.3%

Bonds 15.0 12. 6 10. 7 7.1 8.0 8. 6 6.8 7.4 9.5%

Stocks 2 4.4 24. 7 2 6.4 3 7.7 38.1 28. 4 29.3 23.7 29.1%

Mutual funds 8. 7 11. 4 2 1.3 2 0.5 21. 6 23. 7 26.0 26.0 19.9%

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100



## DOE estimated interest or return rates associated with each type of equity and debt using

da ta on interest rates for loans, credit cards, and lines of credit from the same Federal Reserve

B oard SCF in 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, and 2010. The top half of Ta ble 8.2

. 10 shows the average nominal interest rates in each year and the inflation rates used to calculate real rates (Using the Fisher formula). b 

## For home equity loans, DOE calculated effective interest rates in a similar manner as for mortgage rates, since interest on such loans is tax deductible. The bottom half of the table shows the average effective real interest rates in each year and the mean rate across all the years. Because the interest rates for each debt carried by households in these

y ears were established over a range of time, DOE believes they are representative of rates that may apply when amended standards require compliance.

b 

### Fisher formula is given by: Real Interest Rate = [(1 + Nominal Interest Rate) / (1 + Inflation Rate)] – 1.

### 8

- 24



## Table 8.2. 10 Average Nominal and Real Interest Rates for Household Debt Classes

Type 1989

SCF 1992

SCF 1995

SCF 1998

SCF 2001

SCF 2004

SCF 2007

SCF 2010

SCF Mean (%)

Nominal Interest Rates %

Home Equity Loans 8.4 6.2 7.0 6.8 6.0 3.6 5.8 3.7 5.9 %

Credit Cards*

- - 14. 1 14. 0 1 3.9 1 1.1 12.4 14.0 13. 2 %

Other Installment Loans 8.4 7. 5 8.5 7. 6 8. 3 8.1 8.8 13.2 8. 8 %

Other Residential Loans 9.8 8.9 8.3 8.0 7. 7 6.0 6.4 5.8 7. 6 %

Other Line of Credit 14. 4 12. 5 1 1.6 11. 6 9.4 7.6 9.6 8.5 10.6 %

Inflation Rate 4.8 3.0 2.8 1. 6 2.8 2. 7 2.8 1.6

Real Interest Rates %

Home Equity Loans 4.5 3.8 4.8 5.4 3.7 1.5 3.5 1.5 3. 6 %

Credit Cards*

- - 11.0 12.1 10.9 8.4 9.6 10.3 7.8 %

Other Installment Loans 4.6 5.7 6.5 6.4 6.3 6.1 6.8 7.3 6.2 %

Other Residential Loans 4.6 5.6 5.3 6.1 4.7 3.2 3.4 2.9 4.5 %

Other Line of Credit 9.3 9.3 8.4 9.7 6.2 4.9 6.7 5.7 7.5 %

* No interest rate data available for credit cards in 198 9 or 1992.



## To account for variation among new households, DOE sampled a rate for each household from a distribution of rates for each of the above debt classes. DOE develop ed a probability

distribution of interest rates for each debt class based on the SCF data. Appendix 8C of this TSD presents the probability distribution of interest rates for each debt class that DOE used in the LCC and PBP analyses.

Similar rate data are not available from the SCF for the asset classes, so DOE derived

da ta for these classes from national historical data. The interest rates associated with certificates

of deposit (CDs), 20 

## savings bonds, 21 

## and bonds (AAA corporate bonds) 22 

## are from Federal

Reserve Board time-series data 1982-2011. DOE assumed rates on checking accounts to be zero. Rates on savings and money market accounts are from Cost of Savings Index data covering

1984 -2011. 23 

## The rates for stocks are the annual returns on the Standard and Poor’s (S&P) 500

1982 -2011. 24 

## The mutual fund rates are a weighted average of the stock rates (two-thirds weight)

a nd the bond rates (one-third weight) in each year from 1982 to 2011. DOE adjust ed the nominal rates to real rates using the annual inflation rate in each year. Average nominal and real interest

rates for the classes of assets are shown in Table 8.2.11

. Because the interest and return rates for each asset type cover a range of time, DOE believes they are representative of rates that may apply when amended standards take effect.

### 8

- 25



## Table 8.2. 11 Average Nominal and Real Interest Rates for Household Equity Types

Type Average Nominal Rate

% Average Real Rate

%

Checking Accounts 0.0 0.0

Savings and Money Market 5. 5 2.2

CDs 5.3 2. 1

Savings Bonds 7. 8 4.6

Bo nds 7.8 4. 6

Stocks 1 0.9 7. 6

Mutual Funds 10. 2 6.9



## To account for variation among new households, DOE sampled a rate for each household from a distribution of rates for each of the above asset types. DOE develop ed a normal probability distribution of interest rates for each asset type by using the mean value and standard

de viation from the distribution. Appendix 8C of this TSD presents the probability distribution of interest rates for each asset type that DOE used in the LCC and PBP analysis.

Table 8.2

. 12 summarizes the mean real effective rates of each type of equity or debt. DOE determines the average share of each debt and asset using SCF data for 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001, 2004, 2007, and 2010. Each year of SCF data provides the debt and asset shares for U.S. households. DOE averaged the debt and asset shares over the eight years of survey data to arrive at the shares shown in the following table. The average rate across all types of household debt and equity, weighted by the shares of each class, is 5.2 percent.

Table 8.2. 12 Shares and Interest or Return Rates Used for Household Debt and Equity Types

Type Average Share of Household Debt Plus Equity

% * Mean Effective Real Rate

% **

Home Equity Loans 2.0 3.6

Credit Cards 1.9 7.8

Other Installment Loans 1.6 6.2

Other Residential Loans 5.1 4.5

Other Line of Credit 0.5 7.5

Checking Accounts 4.5 0.0

Savings and Money Market Accounts 15.9 2.2

CDs 8.7 2.1

Savings Bonds 1.3 4.6

Bonds 9.5 4.6

Stocks 29.1 7.6

Mutual Funds 19.9 6.9

Total/Weighted Average Discount Rate 100 5.2

* Not including primary mortgage or retirement accounts. ** Adjusted for inflation and, for home equity loans, loan interest tax deduction.

### 8

- 26



## 8.2.9.2 Commercial Discount Rate

Most companies use both debt and equity capital to fund investments; for most companies, therefore, the cost of capital is the weighted average of the cost of equity and debt financing to the firm. 25 

## DOE estimated the cost of equity financing using the Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM). The CAPM, among the most widely used models to estimate the cost of equity financing, assumes that the cost of equity is proportional to the amount of systematic risk associated with a firm. For example, the cost of equity financing tends to be high when a firm

fa ces a large degree of systematic risk, and the cost tends to be low when the firm faces a small degree of systematic risk.

The degree of systematic risk facing a firm and the subsequent cost of equity financing are determined by several variables, including the risk coefficient of a firm (beta, or B ), the expected return on risk-free assets (R f 

## ), and the additional return expected on assets facing average market risk (known as the equity risk premium, or ERP). The beta indicates the degree of risk associated with a given firm, relative to the level of risk (or price variability) in the overall stock market. Betas usually vary between 0.5 and 2.0. A firm with a beta of 0.5 faces half the risk of other stocks in the market; a firm with a beta of 2.0 faces twice the overall stock

market risk.

Following this approach, the cost of equity financing for a particular company is by the equation:

Eq. 8.6

Where:

k

e 

## = the cost of equity for a company, expressed in dollars,

R

f 

## = the expected return of the risk-free asset, expressed in dollars, 

# β = the risk coefficient, and

ERP = the expected equity risk premium, expressed in dollars.

The cost of debt financing (k d 

## ) is the yield or interest rate paid on money borrowed by a company (raised, for example, by selling bonds). As defined here, the cost of debt includes compensation for default risk and excludes deductions for taxes.

DOE estimated the cost of debt for companies by adding a risk adjustment factor to the current yield on long term corporate bonds (the risk-free rate). This procedure is used to estimate

c urrent and future company costs to obtain debt financing. The adjustment factor is based on indicators of company risk, such as credit rating or variability of stock returns.

The discount rate of companies is the weighted average cost of debt and equity financing, less expected inflation. DOE estimated the discount rate using the equation:

### 8

- 27 

## Eq. 8.7

Where:

k = the (nominal) cost of capital,

k

e 

## and k d 

## = the expected rates of return on equity and debt, respectively, and

w e 

## and w d 

## = the proportion of equity and debt financing, respectively.

The real discount rate deducts expected inflation from the nominal rate.

The expected return on risk-free assets, or the risk-free rate, is from the Damodaran

Online sit e (a private website associated with New York University’s Stern School of Business, which aggregates information on corporate finance, investment, and valuation). 26 

## The ERP represents the difference between the expected (average) stock market return of the S&P 500 over a 40-year time period and the risk-free rate. As Table 8.2

. 13 shows, DOE used an ERP

e stimate of 4.7 percent, which it calculated from the risk-free rate described above and S&P 500

returns from the Damodaran Online site.

DOE calculated an expected inflation of 1.7 percent from the average of the projected

c hange in gross domestic product (GDP) prices in the Economic Report of the President. 27 

## DOE obtained the cost of debt, percent debt financing, and systematic firm risk from the Damodaran

Online website. Table 8.2.13 shows average values across all public companies considered in the analysis. However, the cost of debt, percent debt financing, and systematic firm risk vary by

se ctor.

Table 8.2. 13 Variables Used to Estimate Company Discount Rates

Variable Symbol Average

Value

% Source

Risk

- Free Asset Return R f 

### 3.3 Damodaran Online Equity Risk Premium ERP 4.7 Damodaran Online Expected Inflation R 1.7 201 2 Economic Report of the President Cost of Debt (After Tax) k d 

### 4.3 Damodaran Online

Percent Debt Financing w d 

### 25.1 Damodaran Online Systematic Firm Risk B 1.0 1 Damodaran Online



## In the commercial sector, lamps are purchased and owned by commercial building property owners, commercial companies, industrial companies, and the Government. DOE used a sample of 4,584 companies to represent lamp purchasers. DOE obtained the cost of debt, the firm beta, the percent of debt and equity financing for each company, the risk-free return, and the

e quity risk premium from Damodaran Online.

DOE estimated the cost of debt financing for these companies from the long term

Gove rnment bond rate (risk-free rate) and the standard deviation of the stock price. For Government-office-type owners, the discount rate represents an average of the Federal rate and the state and local bond rate. DOE drew the Federal rate directly from the U.S. Office of

Mana gement and Budget discount rate for investments in Government building energy efficiency. 28 

## DOE estimated the state and local discount rate from the interest rate on state and

### 8

- 28



## local bonds between 1982 and 2011

. 29 

## DOE used this information to estimate the weighted average cost of capital for the sample of companies included in the commercial property owner, commercial, and industrial company database.

The cost of capital may be viewed as the discount rate that should be used to reduce the future value of typical company project cash flows. It is a nominal discount rate, since anticipated future inflation is included in both stock and bond expected returns. Deducting expected inflation from the cost of capital provides estimates of the real discount rate by ownership category (see Table 8.2. 14 ). The mean real discount rate for these companies varies

between 2.8 percent (Government offices) and 6.2 percent (commercial property owners ).

Table 8.2. 14 Real Discount Rates by Lamp Ownership Category

Ownership Category SIC

Codes* Mean Real

Discount Rate

% Standard

Deviation

% Number of

Observations

Industrial Companies 1

- 4 5.6 1.5 2714 Commercial Companies 5

- 8 5.0 1.5 1866 Commercial Property Owners 6720 6.2 2.0 4

Government Offices N/A 2.8 2. 4 N/A * SIC Codes refer to the U.S. Standard Industrial Classification system. Source: Navigant Con sulting, Inc., calculations based on firms sampled from the Damodaran Online

website.



## DOE’s approach for estimating the cost of capital provides a measure of the discount rate spread as well as the average discount rate. DOE inferred the discount rate spread by ownership category from the standard deviation, which ranges between 1.5 percent and 2.4 percent ( Table

8.2

. 14 ).

Different combinations of commercial property owners and commercial, industrial, and Government buyers purchase the lamp types considered in the LCC analysis. Accordingly, DOE constructed the discount rates associated with each building sector from different combinations of commercial property owner, commercial, industrial, and Government rates.

To estimate the share of each ownership category in total commercial sector purchases of lamps, DOE used the share of each category in total commercial building square footage with lighting provided by EIA’s 2003 CBECS. Table 8.2.15 pr esents the estimated shares of commercial lamp purchases by ownership category of commercial building space.

### 8

- 29



## Table 8.2. 15 Estimated Share of Lamp Purchases by Ownership Category in the

Co mmercial Sector

Ownership Category Percent

Property Owners and Managers 22.3

Industrial Firms 10.1

Commercial Firms 54.8

Government 12.8

Source: 2003 CBECS. * The share of total square footage occupied by property owners is actually 44.6%. However , in some of these buildings, the tenants purchase lamps.

DOE assume d that this is the case for half of the square footage occupied by property owners. DOE

allocate d this quantity among the other categories in proportion to their shares of total square foo tage.



## Table 8.2

. 16 presents the distribution of lamp ownership for the commercial and industrial lighting sectors.

Table 8.2. 16 Lamp Ownership by Sector

DOE estimated discount rate distributions for the different sectors as a weighted averag e of the distributions for the different ownership types. The resulting weighted average discount

rates are 5.6 percent for the industrial sector and 5.0 percent for the commercial sector. Ta ble

8.2

. 17 summarizes the weighted average discount rates in all three sectors.

T able 8.2. 17 Average Discount Rate by Sector

Sector Discount Rate

%

Industrial 5.6

Commercial 5 .0

Residential 5.2



## 8.2.10 Compliance Date of Standard

The compliance date is the date by which lamp manufacturers must manufacture products that comply with the standard. DOE’s publication of a final rule in this standards rulemaking is scheduled for completion in 2014. The compliance date of any amended energy conservation standards for these lamps must be 3 years after the final rule is published, (42 U.S.C. 6295(i)(3) and (i)(5)), which is expected to be 2017 . DOE calculated the LCCs for all consumers as if each would purchase a new product in the year the standard takes effect. However, DOE based the

c ost of the products on the most recent available data; all dollar values are expressed in 2011$. Sector Property Owners

% I ndustrial

Companies

% Commercial

Companies

% Government

%

Industrial 0 100 0 0

Commercial 22.3 10.1 54.8 12.8 Sources: Commercial, C BECS; Industrial, DOE estimate

.

### 8

- 30



## 8.2.11 Residual Value

The residual value represents the remaining value of a lamp or a ballast from the end of the period of analysis to the end of the service life of the lamp or ballast. Since the analysis period is based on the lifetime of the longest-lived baseline lamp for each analysis, DOE

a ssumed lamps with lifetimes shorter than the analysis period are replaced. To account for the remaining value of lamps with remaining life to the consumer, the LCC model applies this residual value as a “credit” at the end of the analysis period, and discounts it back to the start of the analysis period. This methodology is shown in Equation 8.8 , where DOE presents how it incorporates residual value into its LCC calculation. The equation for residual value is as

follows:

Eq. 8.8

Where:

IC

= total installed cost of the product,

n = the number of replacements within the analysis period,

SL = the service life of the product,

DC = disposal cost (commercial and industrial sectors only), and

P Analysis 

## = the analysis period.

DOE determined the residual value of the product by linearly prorating the replacement cost ( i.e. , total installed cost) and the disposal cost by the remaining service life. For example, consider a $10 4-foot GSFL that has a service life of five years and a disposal cost of $0.40 and

is us ed to replace a baseline lamp that has a service life of three years in the commercial sector.

B ecause the baseline lamp defines the analysis period, DOE would calculate the residual value of the lamp design as (2 5) x $10 + (3 5) x $0.40 , or $4.24. Thus, the residual value in equation

8.8 would be $4.24, and that value would be discounted back to the start of the time period of

a nalysis. This equation is used for both lamps and ballasts installed by consumers.

8.3 PAYBACK PERIOD INPUTS

8.3.1 Definition

The PBP is the amount of time it takes the consumer to recover the assumed higher purchase cost of a more-efficacious product through lower operating costs. Numerically, the PBP

is t he ratio of the increase in purchase cost ( i.e.

, the cost difference between a less efficacious design and a more-efficacious design) to the decrease in annual operating expenditures. This type

of calculation is known as a “simple” PBP, because it does not take into account changes in operating cost over time or the time value of money. That is, the calculation is done at an effective discount rate of zero percent.

### 8

- 31



## The equation for PBP is:

Eq. 8.9

Where:

PBP = payback period in years,

∆ IC = difference in the total installed cost between the more-efficacious standard level ( efficacy levels 1, 2, etc.) and the baseline (efficacy level 0), and



# ∆ OC = difference in annual operating costs.

PBPs are expressed in years. PBPs greater than the life of the product mean that the increased total installed cost of the more-efficacious product is not recovered through reduced

ope rating costs over the lifetime of that product. Because some lamp designs and lamp-andba llast designs in the LCC and PBP analyses do not save energy and thus yield a zero 

# ∆ OC

, PBPs that are “N/A” indicate that the PBP cannot be calculated.

8.3.2 Rebuttable Presumption Payback Period

Section 325(o)(2)(B)(iii) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA;

Pub. L. 94-163 ) e stablishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard for GSFLs or IRLs is economically justified if the Secretary finds that “the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy. . . savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure . . . .” (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) This rebuttable presumption test is an alternative path to establishing economic justification, as compared to consideration of the seven factors set forth in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII).

DOE’s lamp test procedures measure the rate of light output per unit power consumption of a lamp ( i.e. , lumens per watt; lm/W) rather than a measurement of energy consumption ( i.e. , a measurement over a duration or operating time period). Therefore, to calculate energy savings for the rebuttable presumption PBP, one would need to multiply the rate of power consumption of a lamp times the usage profile of that lamp. For IRLs, energy savings calculations in the LCC and PBP analyses use both the relevant test procedures as well as the relevant usage profile. Because DOE calculated PBPs in a methodology consistent with the rebuttable presumption test

fo r IRLs in the LCC and PBP analyses, DOE is not performing a stand-alone rebuttable

pr esumption analysis for IRLs, as it is already embodied in the LCC and PBP analyses. For GSFLs, DOE believes that the rate of energy consumption of the lamp-and-ballast system is a more accurate measure of real world power consumption than the rate of power consumption of the lamp as measured on a reference ballast as prescribed by the test procedure. c 

## Because

c 

### For example, T8 lamps which are often operated on high-frequency electronic ballasts, may be tested and measured on a low-frequency (60 Hz) reference ballast using DOE’s test procedure, resulting in different performance characteristics than this lamp would exhibit in the field, operated on an electronic ballast.

### 8

- 32



## calculations of energy savings in the LCC are based under real wo rld conditions, DOE is also relying on standard PBPs for GSFLs.

8.3.3 Inputs

The data inputs to the PBP are the total installed cost of the product to the consumer and the first-year operating costs. The inputs to the total installed cost are the end-user product price and the installation cost incurred by a consumer at the very beginning of the analysis period. Thus, pur chases and associated installation costs incurred by consumers in the middle of the analysis period are not reflected in the PBP computation. Th e inputs to the operating costs are the lamp or lamp-and-ballast system power rating, annual operating hours, and electricity cost.

The PBP uses the same inputs as the LCC calculation described in section 8.2 , except that electricity price trends are not required. Because the PBP is a “simple” (undiscounted) PBP, the required electricity cost is only for the year in which a new energy conservation standard is to take effect—in this case, 2017. The electricity price DOE used in the PBP calculation for

e lectricity cost is the price projected for 2017, expressed in 2011$.

8.4 LAMP PURCHASING EVENTS

DOE designed the LCC and PBP analyses for this rulemaking around scenarios where consumers need to replace a lamp; DOE collectively refers to these as “lamp purchasing events.” Each of these events may present the consumer with a different set of lamp or lamp-and-ballast

de signs and therefore a different set of LCC savings for a certain CSL. For GSFLs, DOE identified three possible scenarios under which consumers would purchase a lamp and potentiall y be affected by an energy conservation standard. These scenarios are: 1) lamp failure,

2 ) ballast failure, and 3 ) new construction/renovation. Only the lamp failure and new construction and renovation events apply for IRLs because IRLs do not operate on ballasts.

T he lamp purchasing events are described in more detail below. In addition to these descriptions, Table 8.4

. 1 and Table 8.4

. 2 summarize the lamp purchasing events considered in this analysis for GSFLs.

 

## Eve nt I: Lamp failure - This event reflects a scenario in which a lamp fails and must be replaced. For GSFLs, this includes spot relamping (when a lamp fails) or group relampin g (when a lamp is about to fail, for the commercial and industrial sectors only). DOE assumed that in the base case (the absence of an energy conservation standard), a baseline lamp wouldbe installed as a replacement. However, under an energy conservation standard, a standardsc ompliant lamp that operates on the existing ballast is required. Thus, the consumer response to a lamp failure is expected to be a lamp replacement with the same type of lamp.

 

## Eve nt II: Ballast failure - This is a scenario for GSFLs only in which the failure of the

inst alled ballast triggers a lamp and ballast purchase. Users who experience a T8 or T5 ballast failure would be expected to replace it with a new ballast and corresponding baseline lamp. How ever, in the standards case, end-users would select a standards-compliant lampballast combination such that the system light output never drops below 10 percent of the baseline system.

### 8

- 33

 

## Event III : New construction and renovation - This lamp purchasing event encompasses

a ll the new fixture installations where the lighting design will be completely new or can be completely changed.

Table 8.4

. 1 through Table 8.4

. 2 outline the events and actions taken by base case and

standa rds case consumers in response to the three events described above for all GSFL product

c lasses by lamp diameter.

T able 8.4. 1 Framework of Event-Type Scenarios for T8 Baseline Lamp Consumers

Event Base Case Action Standards Case Action

Type 1: Lamp Failure Installs a baseline lamp. Installs a lower wattage, higher efficacy lamp such that the system light output stays
within 10 percent of the baseline system

, when possible

.

Type 2 : Ballast

Failure Installs a T8 electronic ballast and baseline

lamps in the existing fixture. Installs new T8 ballast and higher efficacy lamps such that the system light output stays within 10 percent of the baseline

system , when possible

. Type 3 : Ne w Construction and

Renovation Installs a new T8 baseline system including

fixture, ballast, and lamp. Installs a new higher efficacy T8 system

such that the system light output stays
within 10 percent of the baseline system

, when possible

.



## Table 8.4. 2 Framework of Event-Type Scenarios for T5 Baseline Lamp Consumers

Event Base Case Action Standards Case Action

Type 1: Lamp Failure Installs a baseline lamp. Installs a lower wattage, higher efficacy lamp such that the system light output stays
within 10 percent of the baseline system

, when possible

.

Type 2 : Ballast

Failure Installs a T5 electronic ballast and baseline

lamps in the existing fixture. Installs a new T5 ballast and higher efficacy lamps such t hat the system light output stays within 10 percent of the baseline

system , when possible

. Type 3 : New

Construction and

Renovation Installs a new T5 baseline system including

fixture, ballast, and lamp. Installs a new higher efficacy T5 system

such that the system light output stays
within 10 percent of the baseline system

, when possible

.



## 8.5 LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD RESULTS

This section presents LCC results for each lamp and lamp-and-ballast design that DOE

c onsiders. This section uses the terms “positive LCC savings” and “negative LCC savings.” When a standard results in “positive LCC savings,” the LCC of the standards-compliant lamp is

less than the LCC of the baseline lamp and the consumer benefits. A consumer is adversely

a ffected when a standard results in “negative LCC savings” ( i.e. , when the LCC of the standardsc ompliant lamp is higher than the LCC of the baseline lamp).

### 8

- 34



## As stated earlier, DOE conduct ed a series of LCC calculations for each baseline lamp. For GSFLs, DOE considered lamp-only substitutions as well as lamp-and-ballast substitutions.

F or IRLs, DOE considered lamp-only substitutions. In all cases, DOE considered designs that

sa ve energy when possible and maintain light output within 10 percent of the baseline lamp or

system, when possible.

All replacement options are designed around lamp purchasing events, described in

section 8.4 . The LCC spreadsheet calculates the LCC impacts for each of these scenarios separately. Examining the impacts on each scenario separately allows one to view the results of many sub-populations in the LCC analysis.

8.5.1 Results for General Service Fluorescent Lamps

DOE is analyzing five representative product classes for GSFLs: 4 -foot MBP ≤ 4,500 K,

8 -foot SP slimline ≤ 4,500 K, 8-foot RDC HO ≤ 4,500 K, 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO ≤ 4,500 K, and

4 -foot T5 MiniBP HO ≤ 4,500 K. This section presents all of the results for each of these

re presentative product classes and for each baseline lamp. The results are presented by lamp purchasing event and by market sector, which influence the LCC and PBP results. For each product class and baseline lamp, a summary of the most pertinent results in the LCC analysis is also presented.

8.5.1.1 Product Class: 4-foot medium bipin ≤ 4,500 K

For the 4-foot MBP ≤ 4,500 K product class in the commercial, industrial, and residential sectors, DOE analyzes one baseline lamp, a 32 W T8. For the baseline lamp, DOE analyzes multiple lamp substitutions with each lamp substitution corresponding to the CSLs’

req uirements.

Table 8.5

. 1 presents the findings of an LCC and PBP analyses for the 4-foot 32 W T8

MB P 2-lamp instant start baseline lamp operating in the commercial sector. Key inputs consist of using AEO 2012 reference case electricity prices, an analysis period of 5.5 years, and mediumrange lamp prices.

Table 8.5

. 2 presents the findings of an LCC and PBP analyses for the 4-foot 32 W T8

MB P 2-lamp instant start baseline lamp operating in the industrial se ctor. Key inputs consist of using AEO 2012 reference case electricity prices, an analysis period of 4.9 years, and mediumrange lamp prices.

Table 8.5

. 3 presents the findings of an LCC and PBP analyses for the 4-foot 32 W T8

MB P 2-lamp programmed start baseline lamp operating in the commercial sector. Key inputs

c onsist of using AEO 2012 reference case electricity prices, an analysis period of 9.2 years, and medium-range lamp prices.

Table 8.5

. 4 presents the findings of an LCC and PBP analyses for the 4-foot 32 W T8

MB P 2-lamp programmed start baseline lamp operating in the industrial sector. Key inputs

c onsist of using AEO 2012 reference case electricity prices, an analysis period of 8.2 years, and medium-range lamp prices.

### 8

- 35



## Table 8.5

. 5 presents the findings of an LCC and PBP analyses for the 4-foot 32 W T8

MB P 4-lamp instant start baseline lamp operating in the commercial sector. Key inputs consist of using AEO 2012 reference case electricity prices, an analysis period of 5.5 years, and mediumrange lamp prices.

Table 8.5

. 6 presents the findings of an LCC and PBP analyses for the 4-foot 32 W T8

MB P 4-lamp instant start baseline lamp operating in the industrial sector. Key inputs consist of using AEO 2012 reference case electricity prices, an analysis period of 4.9 years, and mediumrange lamp prices.

Table 8.5

. 7 presents the findings of an LCC and PBP analyses for the 4-foot 32 W T8

MB P 4-lamp programmed start baseline lamp operating in the commercial sector. Key inputs

c onsist of using AEO 2012 reference case electricity prices, an analysis period of 9.2 years, and medium-range lamp prices.

Table 8.5

. 8 presents the findings of an LCC and PBP analyses for the 4-foot 32 W T8

MB P 4-lamp programmed start baseline lamp operating in the industrial sector. Key inputs

c onsist of using AEO 2012 reference case electricity prices, an analysis period of 8.2 years, and medium-range lamp prices.

Table 8.5

. 9 presents the findings of the LCC and PBP analyses on the 4-foot 32 W T8

MBP baseline GSFL in the residential sector. For Event I (lamp failure), consumers who experience a lamp failure under average operating hours preserve their lamps during ballast

re placement and install those lamps on a new ballast, allowing the lamps to live for their full

ra ted lifetimes. The analysis period is 37 years for the lamp failure event under average operating

hours. For Events II (ballast failure) and III (new construction and renovation), consumers do not preserve their lamps during fixture replacement and the analysis period is 15 years, which represents the 15-year life of the fixture. Key inputs consist of using AEO 2012 reference case electricity prices and medium-range lamp and ballast prices. See section 8.2.8 for a further description of residential sector GSFL consumer behavior.

The results for Event I (lamp failure) show that consumers would achieve positive LCC

sa vings for all of the lamps at CSL 2 in the commercial, industrial, and residential sectors for all

of the scenarios (2-lamp and 4-lamp, instant start and programmed start).

Event II represents consumers who must replace both a lamp and a ballast. Event III

re presents consumers who are renovating an existing building or constructing a new building. The results for Events II and III show that consumers would achieve positive LCC savings for all of the lamps at CSL 1 and CSL 2 in both the commercial and industrial sectors for the 2-lamp

a nd 4 -lamp instant start scenarios. Consumers would achieve negative LCC savings at CSL 1

and CSL 2 for the full wattage replacements, but they would achieve positive LCC savings at

C SL 1 and CSL 2 for the reduced wattage replacements in both the commercial and industrial

se ctors for the 2-lamp and 4-lamp programmed start scenarios. Consumers would achieve positive LCC savings for the full wattage replacement at CSL 1 , but negative LCC savings for the full wattage replacement at CSL 2 and negative LCC savings for the reduced wattage

### 8

- 36



## replacement at CSL 1, but positive LCC savings for the reduced wattage replacement at CSL 2 for the 2-lamp instant start residential scenario.

Table 8.5

. 10 summarizes the range of LCC results for the 4-foot MBP product class in

the c ommercial sector.

### 8

- 37



## Table 8.5. 1 LCC and PBP Results for a 2-Lamp 4-foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Instant Start System Operating in the

Co mmercial Sector

Event Response Candidate

Standard

Level Rated

Lamp Efficacy Design Option d Life

- Cycle Cost Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Mean Payback

Period Installed

Cost Discounted

Operating

Cost LCC LCC Savings Percentage of

Consumers that Experience

lm/W 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ Net Cost Net Benefit years

Event I: Lamp

Failure Baseline Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst 16.18 112.48 128.85 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp Replacement CSL 2 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst 24.85 94.29 119.32 9.53 0.0 100.0 2.2

CSL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst 20.28 101.15 121.61 7.24 0.0 100.0 1.7

Event II:

Ballast

Failure Baseline Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst 58.28 111.05 152.51 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp &

Ballast Replacement CSL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF Inst 73.03 99.32 144.48 8.03 0.0 100.0 0.3

CSL 2 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst 66.94 93.03 143.16 9.35 0.0 100.0 2.3

CSL 2 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.77 BF Inst 64.31 97.19 144.68 7.83 0.0 100.0 2.1

CSL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 62.37 98.10 143.65 8.86 0.0 100.0 1.5

Event III:

New

Construction

and

Renovation Baseline Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst 60.99 111.05 154.13 N/A N/A N/A N/A

New Lamp

& Ballast

Purchase CSL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.78 B F Inst 75.74 99.32 146.09 8.03 0.0 100.0 0.3

CSL 2 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst 69.66 93.03 144.78 9.35 0.0 100.0 2.3

CSL 2 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.77 BF Inst 67.02 97.19 146.30 7.83 0.0 100.0 2.1

CSL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 65.08 98.10 145.27 8.86 0.0 100.0 1.5

d 

### Throughout the GSFL results tables, descriptions such as “32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst” are used. The first term ( e.g. , 32.5 W) is the ANSI rated wattage, the second is the lamp diameter ( e.g. , T8), the third is the ballast factor of the ballast ( e.g. , 0.88 BF), and the fourth is the ballast starting method ( e.g. , “Inst” for Instant Start and “Prog” for Programmed Start”).

### 8

- 38



## Table 8.5. 2 LCC and PBP Results for a 2-Lamp 4-foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Instant Start System Operating in the

Industrial Sector

Event Response Candidate

Standard

Level Rated

Lamp

Efficac y Design Option Life

- Cycle Cost Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Mean Payback

Period Installed

Cost Discounted

Operating

Cost LCC LCC Savings Percentage of

Consumers that Experience

lm/W 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ Net Cost Net Benefit years

Event I:

L amp Failure Baseline Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst 16.18 88.37 104.74 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp Replacement CSL 2 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst 24.85 74.08 99.11 5.63 0.0 100.0 2.5

CSL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst 20.28 79.47 99.93 4.81 0.0 100 .0 1.9

Event II:

Ballast

Failure Baseline Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst 58.28 87.25 128.39 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp &

Ballast Replacement CSL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF Inst 72.69 78.03 122.34 6.06 0.0 100.0 0.3

CSL 2 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF In st 66.94 73.09 122.90 5.49 0.0 100.0 2.6

CSL 2 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.77 BF Inst 64.31 76.36 123.54 4.86 0.0 100.0 2.3

CSL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 62.37 77.07 122.31 6.08 0.0 100.0 1.7

Event III:

New

Construction

and

Renovation Baseline Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst 60.99 87.25 129.99 N/A N/A N/A N/A

New Lamp

& Ballast

Purchase CSL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF Inst 75.41 78.03 123.93 6.06 0.0 100.0 0.3

CSL 2 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF Inst 69.66 73.09 124.50 5.49 0.0 100.0 2.6

CSL 2 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.77 BF Inst 67.02 76.36 125.13 4.86 0.0 100.0 2.3

CSL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 65.08 77.07 123.91 6.08 0.0 100.0 1.7

### 8

- 39



## Table 8.5. 3 LCC and PBP Results for a 2-Lamp 4-foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Programmed Start System Operating in the

Commercial Sector

Event Response Candidate

Standard

Level Rated

Lamp Efficacy Design Option Life

- Cycle Cost Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Mean Payback

Period Installed

Cost Discounted

Operating

Cost LCC L CC Savings Percentage of

Consumers that Experience

lm/W 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ Net Cost Net Benefit years

Event I: Lamp

Failure Baseline Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 16.18 173.04 189.38 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp Replacement CSL 2 93.0 26 .6 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 24.85 145.38 170.38 19.00 0.0 100.0 2.3

CSL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 20.28 155.84 176.27 13.11 0.0 100.0 1.7

Event II:

Ballast

Failure Baseline Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 59.50 173.04 226.11 N/A N/A N/A N/A

L amp &

Ballast Replacement CSL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 72.91 173.04 232.11

- 6.00 100.0 0.0 NER e

CSL 2 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 68.16 145.38 207.12 19.00 0.0 100.0 2.3

CSL 2 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 65.53 173.04 232.15

- 6.04 100.0 0.0 NER

CSL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 63.59 155.84 213.00 13.11 0.0 100.0 1.7

Event III:

New

Construction

and

Renovation Baseline Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 62.21 173.04 228.41 N/A N/A N/A N/A

New Lamp

& Ballast

Purchase CSL 1 90.0 32. 5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 75.62 173.04 234.41

- 6.00 100.0 0.0 NER

CSL 2 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 70.88 145.38 209.42 19.00 0.0 100.0 2.3

CSL 2 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 68.24 173.04 234.45

- 6.04 100.0 0.0 NER

CSL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF Pr og 66.30 155.84 215.31 13.11 0.0 100.0 1.7

e 

### Entries of “NER” (no energy-saving replacement) indicate standards that do not reduce operating costs.

### 8

- 40



## Table 8.5. 4 LCC and PBP Results for a 2-Lamp 4-foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Programmed Start System Operating in the

Industrial Sector

Event Response Candidate

Standar d

Level Rated

Lamp Efficacy Design Option Life

- Cycle Cost Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Mean Payback

Period Installed

Cost Discounted

Operating

Cost LCC LCC Savings Percentage of

Consumers that Experience

lm/W 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ Net Cost Net Benefit years

Event I: Lamp

Failure Baseline Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 16.18 136.65 152.98 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp Replacement CSL 2 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 24.85 114.80 139.81 13.18 0.0 100.0 2.6

CSL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 20.28 123.06 143.49 9.49 0.0 100.0 1.9

Event II:

Ballast

Failure Baseline Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 59.50 136.65 189.72 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp &

Ballast Replacement CSL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 72.46 136.65 195.28

- 5.55 100.0 0.0 NER

CSL 2 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 68.16 114.80 176.55 13.18 0.0 100.0 2.6

CSL 2 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 65.53 136.65 195.76

- 6.04 100.0 0.0 NER

CSL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 63.59 123.06 180.23 9.49 0.0 100.0 1.9

Event III:

New

Const ruction

and

Renovation Baseline Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 62.21 136.65 192.02 N/A N/A N/A N/A

New Lamp

& Ballast

Purchase CSL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 75.17 136.65 197.58

- 5.55 100.0 0.0 NER

CSL 2 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 70.8 8 114.80 178.85 13.18 0.0 100.0 2.6

CSL 2 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 68.24 136.65 198.06

- 6.04 100.0 0.0 NER

CSL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 66.30 123.06 182.53 9.49 0.0 100.0 1.9

### 8

- 41



## Table 8.5. 5 LC C and PBP Results for a 4-Lamp 4-foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Instant Start System Operating in the

Commercial Sector

Event Response Candidate

Standard

Level Rated

Lamp Efficacy Design Option Life

- Cycle Cost Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Mean Payback

Period I nstalled

Cost Discounted

Operating

Cost LCC LCC Savings Percentage of

Consumers that Experience

lm/W 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ Net Cost Net Benefit years

Event I: Lamp

Failure Baseline Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 25.98 217.14 243.48 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp Replacement CSL 2 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 43.32 181.81 225.49 18.00 0.0 100.0 2.3

CSL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 34.17 195.12 229.65 13.84 0.0 100.0 1.8

Event II:

Ballast

Failure Baseline Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 83.36 215.36 275.92 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp &

Ballast Replacement CSL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF Inst 107.61 194.70 261.48 14.44 0.0 100.0 0.3

CSL 2 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 100.70 180.25 258.14 17.78 0.0 100.0 2.3

CSL 2 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0. 77 BF Inst 95.43 193.07 265.69 10.22 0.0 100.0 2.6

CSL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 91.55 193.47 262.21 13.71 0.0 100.0 1.8

Event III:

New

Construction

and

Renovation Baseline Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 86.07 215.36 277.53 N/A N/A N/A N/ A

New Lamp

& Ballast

Purchase CSL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF Inst 110.32 194.70 263.09 14.44 0.0 100.0 0.3

CSL 2 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 103.41 180.25 259.76 17.78 0.0 100.0 2.3

CSL 2 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.77 BF Inst 98.15 193.07 267.31 10.22 0. 0 100.0 2.6

CSL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 94.26 193.47 263.82 13.71 0.0 100.0 1.8

### 8

- 42



## Table 8.5. 6 LCC and PBP Results for a 4-Lamp 4-foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Instant Start System Operating in the

Industrial Sector

Event Response Candidate

Standard

Level Rated

Lamp Efficacy Design Option Life

- Cycle Cost Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Mean Payback

Period Installed

Cost Discounted

Operating

Cost LCC LCC Savings Percentage of

Consumers that Experience

lm/W 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ Net Cost Net Benefit years

Event I: Lamp

Failure Baseline Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 25.98 170.60 196.95 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp Replacement CSL 2 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 43.32 142.84 186.52 10.42 0.0 100. 0 2.6

CSL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 34.17 153.30 187.83 9.12 0.0 100.0 2.0

Event II:

Ballast

Failure Baseline Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 83.36 169.20 229.33 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp &

Ballast Replacement CSL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF I nst 107.07 152.97 218.44 10.89 0.0 100.0 0.4

CSL 2 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 100.70 141.61 219.07 10.25 0.0 100.0 2.6

CSL 2 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.77 BF Inst 95.43 151.68 223.88 5.45 0.0 100.0 2.9

CSL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 91.55 152.00 2 20.31 9.02 0.0 100.0 2.0

Event III:

New

Construction

and

Renovation Baseline Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 86.07 169.20 230.92 N/A N/A N/A N/A

New Lamp

& Ballast

Purchase CSL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.78 BF Inst 109.79 152.97 220.04 10.89 0.0 100.0 0.4

CSL 2 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 103.41 141.61 220.67 10.25 0.0 100.0 2.6

CSL 2 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.77 BF Inst 98.15 151.68 225.48 5.45 0.0 100.0 2.9

CSL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 94.26 152.00 221.91 9.02 0.0 100.0 2.0

### 8

- 4 3



## Table 8.5. 7 LCC and PBP Results for a 4-Lamp 4-foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Programmed Start System Operating in the

Commercial Sector

Event Response Candidate

Standard

Level Rated

Lamp Efficacy Design Option Life

- Cycle Cost L ife

- Cycle Cost Savings Mean Payback

Period Installed

Cost Discounted

Operating

Cost LCC LCC Savings Percentage of

Consumers that Experience

lm/W 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ Net Cost Net Benefit years

Event I: Lamp

Failure Baseline Baseline 89. 2 32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog 25.98 343.31 369.60 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp Replacement CSL 2 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog 43.32 288.03 331.66 37.94 0.0 100.0 2.3

CSL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog 34.17 308.90 343.38 26.22 0.0 100.0 1.7

Event II:

Ballast

Failure Baseline Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog 85.23 343.31 419.85 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp &

Ballast Replacement CSL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 107.30 342.11 428.63

- 8.78 100.0 0.0 8.8

CSL 2 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog 102.57 288.03 381.9 1 37.94 0.0 100.0 2.3

CSL 2 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 97.31 342.11 430.72

- 10.87 100.0 0.0 72.7

CSL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 93.42 304.50 389.23 30.62 0.0 100.0 1.5

Event III:

New

Construction

and

Renovation Baseline Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog 87.95 343.31 422.15 N/A N/A N/A N/A

New Lamp

& Ballast

Purchase CSL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 110.01 342.11 430.93

- 8.78 100.0 0.0 8.8

CSL 2 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog 105.28 288.03 384.21 37.94 0.0 100.0 2.3

CSL 2 95.4 3 2.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 100.02 342.11 433.02

- 10.87 100.0 0.0 72.7

CSL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 96.13 304.50 391.53 30.62 0.0 100.0 1.5

### 8

- 44



## Table 8.5. 8 LCC and PBP Results for a 4-Lamp 4-foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Programmed Start System Operating in the

Industrial Sector

Event Response Candidate

Standard

Level Rated

Lamp Efficacy Design Option Life

- Cycle Cost Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Mean Payback

Period Installed

Cost Discounted

Operating

Cost LCC LCC Savings Percentage of

Consumers that Experience

lm/W 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ Net Cost Net Benefit years

Event I: Lamp

Failure Baseline Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog 25.98 271.10 297.39 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp Replacement CSL 2 93.0 2 6.6 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog 43.32 227.45 271.08 26.32 0.0 100.0 2.6

CSL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog 34.17 243.93 278.41 18.98 0.0 100.0 1.9

Event II:

Ballast

Failure Baseline Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog 85.23 271.10 347.65 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp &

Ballast Replacement CSL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 106.57 270.15 355.96

- 8.31 100.0 0.0 10.0

CSL 2 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog 102.57 227.45 321.34 26.32 0.0 100.0 2.6

CSL 2 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 97.31 270.15 358.77

- 11.12 100.0 0.0 82.2

CSL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 93.42 240.46 325.20 22.46 0.0 100.0 1.7

Event III:

New

Construction

and

Renovation Baseline Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog 87.95 271.10 349.95 N/A N/A N/A N/A

New Lamp

& Ballast

Purchase CSL 1 90. 0 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 109.28 270.15 358.26

- 8.31 100.0 0.0 10.0

CSL 2 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.89 BF Prog 105.28 227.45 323.64 26.32 0.0 100.0 2.6

CSL 2 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 100.02 270.15 361.08

- 11.12 100.0 0.0 82.2

CSL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.88 BF Prog 96.13 240.46 327.50 22.46 0.0 100.0 1.7

### 8

- 45



## Table 8.5. 9 LCC and PBP Results for a 2-Lamp 4-foot 32 W T8 Medium Bipin Instant Start System Operating in the

Residential Sector

Event Response Candidat e Standard

Level Rated

Lamp Efficacy Design Option Life

- Cycle Cost Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Mean Payback

Period Installed

Cost Discounted

Operating

Cost LCC LCC Savings Percentage of

Consumers that Experience

lm/W 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ Net Cost Net Benefit years

Event I: Lamp

Failure Baseline Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 41.25 82.29 123.53 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp Replacement CSL 2 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 49.91 69.05 118.96 4.57 27.3 72.7 11.7

CSL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.87 B F Inst 45.34 74.05 119.39 4.15 15.6 84.4 8.9

Event II:

Ballast

Failure Baseline Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 50.89 47.68 98.57 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp &

Ballast Replacement CSL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.83 BF Inst 51.62 45.27 96.88 1.69 0.1 99.9 3.1

CSL 2 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 59.55 40.01 99.56

- 0.99 68.6 31.4 11.7

CSL 2 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.83 BF Inst 56.92 45.27 102.19

- 3.62 100.0 0.0 25.9

CSL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 54.98 42.91 97.89 0.68 34.0 66.0 8.9

Event III:

New

Construc tion

and

Renovation Baseline Baseline 89.2 32.5 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 53.60 47.68 101.28 N/A N/A N/A N/A

New Lamp

& Ballast

Purchase CSL 1 90.0 32.5 W T8 & 0.83 BF Inst 54.33 45.27 99.60 1.69 0.1 99.9 3.1

CSL 2 93.0 26.6 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 62.27 40.01 102.28

- 0.99 68.6 31.4 11.7

CSL 2 95.4 32.5 W T8 & 0.83 BF Inst 59.63 45.27 104.90

- 3.62 100.0 0.0 25.9

CSL 2 96.0 28.4 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 57.69 42.91 100.60 0.68 34.0 66.0 8.9

### 8

- 46



## Table 8.5. 10 Summary of the LCC Results for a 4-Foot Medium Bipin System

Baseline Candidate

Standard

Level LCC Savings

Event I: Lamp

Failure Event II:

Ballast

Failure Event III:

New

Construction

and

Renovation

2

- Lamp,

Instant Start CSL 1 NR f 1.69 to 8.03 1.69 to 8.03

CSL 2 4.15 to 9.53

- 3.62 to 9.35

- 3.62 to 9.35

2

- Lamp, Programmed

Start CSL 1 NR

- 6.00 to

- 5.55

- 6.00 to

- 5.55

CSL 2 9.49 to 19.00

- 6.04 to 19.00

- 6.04 to 19.00

4

- Lamp,

Instant Start CSL 1 NR 10.89 to 14.44 10.89 to 14.44

CSL 2 9.12 to 18.00 5.45 to 17.7 8 5.45 to 17.78

4

- Lamp, Programmed

Start CSL 1 NR

- 8.78 to

- 8.31

- 8.78 to

- 8.31

CSL 2 18.98 to 37.94

- 11.12 to 37.94

- 11.12 to 37.94



## 8.5.1.2 Product Class: 4-foot T5 miniature bipin high output ≤ 4,500 K

For the 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO ≤ 4,500 K product class in the commercial and industrial sectors, DOE analyzes one baseline lamp, a 54 W T5. For the baseline lamp, DOE analyzes multiple lamp substitutions with each lamp substitution corresponding to the CSL requirements.

Ta b le 8.5

. 11 presents the results for a 4 -foot T5 MiniBP HO baseline system operating in

the c ommercial sector. Key inputs consist of using AEO 2012 reference case electricity prices, an analysis period of 5.5 years, and medium-range lamp prices.

Ta ble 8.5

. 12 presents the results for a 4 -foot T5 MiniBP HO baseline system operating in

the industrial sector. Key inputs consist of using AEO 2012 reference case electricity prices, an analysis period of 4.9 years, and medium-range lamp prices.

The results for Event I (lamp failure) show that consumers would achieve positive LCC

sa vings for all of the lamps at CSL 1 in both the commercial and industrial sectors.

f 

### NR: No lamp replacement for this event at the specified CSL

### 8

- 47



## Event II represents consumers who must replace both a lamp and a ballast. Event III

re presents consumers who are renovating an existing building or constructing a new building.

The results for Events II and III show that consumers would achieve positive LCC savings for all

of the lamps at CSL 1 in both the commercial and industrial sectors for the lamp-and-ballast

re placement events.

Table 8.5

. 13 summarizes the range of LCC results for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO product

c lass in the industrial sector.

### 8

- 48



## Table 8.5. 11 LCC and PBP Results for a Two-Lamp 4-Foot 54 W T5 Miniature Bipin High Output System Operating in the

Commercial Sector

Event Response Candidate

Standard

Level Rated

Lamp Efficacy Design Option Life

- Cycle Cost Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Mean Payback

Period Installed

Cost Discounted

Operating

Cost LCC LCC Savings Percentage of

Consumers that Experience

lm/W 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ Net Cost Net Benefit years

Event I: Lamp

Failure Baseline Baseline 92.9 53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 21.57 234.18 255.93 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp Replacement CSL 1 100.0 50 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 29.51 218.10 243.31 12.62 0.0 100.0 2.3

CSL 1 102.1 47 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 33.04 205.38 233.60 22.33 0.0 100.0 1.9

Event II:

Ballast

Failure Baseline Baseline 92.9 53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 75.16 234.18 287.88 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp &

Ballast Replacement CSL 1 97.3 53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 77.95 234.18 286.98 0.91 0.4 99.6 NER

CSL 1 100.0 50 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 83.09 218.10 275.26 12.62 0.0 1 00.0 2.3

CSL 1 102.1 47 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 86.62 205.38 265.55 22.33 0.0 100.0 1.9

Event III:

New

Construction

and

Renovation Baseline Baseline 92.9 53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 77.87 234.18 289.50 N/A N/A N/A N/A

New Lamp

& Ballast

Purchase CSL 1 97.3 53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 80.67 234.18 288.59 0.91 0.4 99.6 NER

CSL 1 100.0 50 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 85.80 218.10 276.88 12.62 0.0 100.0 2.3

CSL 1 102.1 47 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 89.33 205.38 267.17 22.33 0.0 100.0 1.9

### 8

- 49



## Table 8.5. 12 LCC and PBP Results for a Two-Lamp 4-Foot 54 W T5 Miniature Bipin High Output System Operating in the

Industrial Sector

Event Response Candidate

Standard

Level Rated

Lamp Efficacy Design Option Life

- Cycle Cost Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Mean Payback

Period Installed

Cost Discounted

Operating

Cost LCC LCC Savings Percentage of

Consumers that Experience

lm/W 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ Net Cost Net Benefit years

Event I: Lamp

Failure Baseline Baseline 92.9 53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 21.57 183.9 9 205.74 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp Replacement CSL 1 100.0 50 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 29.51 171.35 196.48 9.26 0.0 100.0 2.6

CSL 1 102.1 47 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 33.04 161.36 189.49 16.25 0.0 100.0 2.1

Event II:

Ballast

Failure Baseline Baseline 92.9 53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 75.16 183.99 237.29 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp &

Ballast Replacement CSL 1 97.3 53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 77.95 183.99 236.31 0.98 0.0 100.0 NER

CSL 1 100.0 50 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 83.09 171.35 228.03 9.26 0.0 100.0 2.6

CSL 1 102.1 47 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 86.6 2 161.36 221.03 16.25 0.0 100.0 2.1

Event III:

New

Construction

and

Renovation Baseline Baseline 97.3 53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 77.87 183.99 238.88 N/A N/A N/A N/A

New Lamp

& Ballast

Purchase CSL 1 100.0 53.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 80.67 183.99 237.91 0.98 0.0 10 0.0 NER

CSL 1 102.1 50 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 85.80 171.35 229.63 9.26 0.0 100.0 2.6

CSL 1 0.0 47 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 89.33 161.36 222.63 16.25 0.0 100.0 2.1

### 8

- 50



## Table 8.5. 13 Summary of the LCC Results for a 4-Foot T5 MiniBP HO System

Candidate

Standard

Level LCC Savings

Event I: Lamp

Failure Event II:

Ballast

Failure Event III:

New

Construction

and

Renovation

CSL 1 9.26 to 22.33 0. 91 to 22.33 0. 91 to 22.33



## 8.5.1.3 Product Class: 4-foot T5 miniature bipin standard output ≤ 4,500 K

For the 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO ≤ 4,500 K product class in the commercial and industrial sectors, DOE analyzes one baseline lamp, a 28 W T5. For the baseline lamp, DOE analyzes multiple lamp substitutions with each lamp substitution corresponding to the CSL requirements.

Ta ble 8.5

. 14 presents the results for a 4 -foot T5 MiniBP SO baseline system operating in

the c ommercial sector. Key inputs consist of using AEO 2012 reference case electricity prices, an analysis period of 6.9 years, and medium-range lamp prices.

Table 8.5

. 15 presents the results for a 4 -foot T5 MiniBP SO baseline system operating in

the industrial sector. Key inputs consist of using AEO 2012 reference case electricity prices, an analysis period of 6.1 years, and medium-range lamp prices.

The results for Event I (lamp failure) show that consumers would achieve positive LCC

sa vings for all of the lamps at CSL 1 in both the commercial and industrial sectors.

Eve nt II represents consumers who must replace both a lamp and a ballast. Event III

re presents consumers who are renovating an existing building or constructing a new building. The results for Events II and III show that consumers would achieve positive LCC savings for all of the lamps at CSL 1 in both the commercial and industrial sectors for the lamp-and-ballast

re placement events.

Table 8.5

. 16 summarizes the range of LCC results for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO product

c lass in the commercial sector.

### 8

- 51



## Ta ble 8.5. 14 LCC and PBP Results for a Two-Lamp 4-Foot 28 W T5 Miniature Bipin Standard Output System Operating in

the Commercial Sector

Event Response Candidate

Standard

Level Rated

Lamp Efficacy Design Option Life

- Cycle Cost Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Mean Payback

Period Installed

Cost Discounted

Operating

Cost LCC LCC Savings Percentage of

Consumers that Experience

lm/W 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ Net Cost Net Benefit years

Event I: Lamp

Failure Base line Baseline 27.8 27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 18.21 147.34 165.72 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp Replacement CSL 1 26.0 26 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 37.63 138.07 163.73 1.99 8.6 91.4 1.8

CSL 1 25.0 25 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 22.53 132.92 153.29 12.43 0.0 100.0 1.7

Event II:

Ballas t

Failure Baseline Baseline 27.8 27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 70.56 147.34 202.20 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp &

Ballast Replacement CSL 1 27.8 27.8 W T5 & 0.95 BF Prog 72.50 141.31 198.11 4.08 0.0 100.0 1.8

CSL 1 26.0 26 W T5 & 0.95 BF Prog 89.98 132.45 194.59 7.60 0.0 100.0 1.1

CSL 1 25.0 25 W T5 & 0.95 BF Prog 74.88 127.53 184.37 17.82 0.0 100.0 1.2

Event III:

New

Construction

and

Renovation Baseline Baseline 27.8 27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 73.27 147.34 204.09 N/A N/A N/A N/A

New Lamp

& Ballast

Purchase CSL 1 27. 8 27.8 W T5 & 0.95 BF Prog 75.21 141.31 200.00 4.08 0.0 100.0 1.8

CSL 1 26.0 26 W T5 & 0.95 BF Prog 92.69 132.45 196.48 7.60 0.0 100.0 1.1

CSL 1 25.0 25 W T5 & 0.95 BF Prog 77.59 127.53 186.26 17.82 0.0 100.0 1.2

### 8

- 52



## Table 8.5. 15 LCC and PBP Results for a Two-Lamp 4-Foot 28 W T5 Miniature Bipin Standard Output System Operating in

the Industrial Sector

Event Response Candidate

Standard

Level Rated

Lamp Efficacy Design Option Life

- Cycle Cost Life

- Cycle Cost S avings Mean Payback

Period Installed

Cost Discounted

Operating

Cost LCC LCC Savings Percentage of

Consumers that Experience

lm/W 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ Net Cost Net Benefit years

Event I: Lamp

Failure Baseline Baseline 27.8 27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 18.21 115.83 134.21 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp Replacement CSL 1 26.0 26 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 37.14 108.55 133.57 0.64 40.1 59.9 2.0

CSL 1 25.0 25 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 22.53 104.49 124.84 9.38 0.0 100.0 1.9

Event II:

Ballast

Failure Baseline Baseline 27.8 27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 70.56 115.83 170.50 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp &

Ballast Replacement CSL 1 27.8 27.8 W T5 & 0.95 BF Prog 72.50 111.09 167.70 2.80 0.0 100.0 2.1

CSL 1 26.0 26 W T5 & 0.95 BF Prog 89.49 104.13 165.44 5.06 0.0 100.0 1.3

CSL 1 25.0 25 W T5 & 0.95 BF Prog 74.88 100.26 156.88 13.62 0.0 100.0 1.4

Event III:

New

Construction

and

Renovation Baseline Baseline 27.8 27.8 W T5 & 1 BF Prog 73.27 115.83 172.38 N/A N/A N/A N/A

New Lamp

& Ballast

Purchase CSL 1 27.8 27.8 W T5 & 0.95 BF Prog 75.21 111.09 169.58 2.80 0.0 100.0 2.1

CSL 1 26.0 26 W T5 & 0.95 BF Prog 92.20 104.13 167.32 5.06 0.0 100.0 1.3

CSL 1 25.0 25 W T5 & 0.95 BF Prog 77.59 100.26 158.76 13.62 0.0 100.0 1.4

### 8

- 53



## Table 8.5. 16 Summary of the LCC Results for a 4-Foot T5 MiniBP SO System

Candidate

Standard

Level LCC Savings

Event I: Lamp

Failure Event II:

Ballast

Failure Event III:

New

Construction

and

Renovation

CSL 1 0.64 to 12.43 2.80 to 17.82 2.80 to 17.82



## 8.5.1.4 Product Class: 8-Foot single pin slimline ≤ 4,500 K

For the 8-foot SP slimline ≤ 4,500 K product class in the commercial and industrial sectors, DOE analyzes one baseline lamp, a 59 W T8. For the baseline lamp, DOE analyzes multiple lamp substitutions with each lamp substitution corresponding to the CSL requirements.

Ta ble 8.5

. 17 presents the results for an 8 -foot SP slimline baseline system operating in the commercial sector. Key inputs consist of using AEO 2012 reference case electricity prices, an analysis period of 5.4 years, and medium-range lamp prices.

Ta ble 8.5

. 18 presents the results for an 8 -foot SP slimline baseline system operating in the industrial sector. Key inputs consist of using AEO 2012 reference case electricity prices, an analysis period of 4.8 years, and medium-range lamp prices.

The results for Event I (lamp failure) show that consumers would achieve positive LCC

sa vings for all of the lamps at CSL 1 in both the commercial and industrial sectors.

Eve nt II represents consumers who must replace both a lamp and a ballast. Event III

re presents consumers who are renovating an existing building or constructing a new building. The results for Events II and III show that consumers would achieve positive LCC savings for all of the lamps at CSL 1 in both the commercial and industrial sectors for the lamp-and-ballast

re placement events.

Table 8.5

. 19 summarizes the range of LCC results for the 8-foot SP slimline product

c lass in the commercial sector.

### 8

- 54



## Table 8.5. 17 LCC and PBP Results for a Two-Lamp 8-Foot 59 W T8 Single Pin Slimline System Operating in the Commercial

Sector

Event Response Candidate

Standard

Level Rated

Lamp Efficacy Design Optio n Life

- Cycle Cost Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Mean Payback

Period Installed

Cost Discounted

Operating

Cost LCC LCC Savings Percentage of

Consumers that Experience

lm/W 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ Net Cost Net Benefit years

Event I: Lamp

Failure Ba seline Baseline 98.2 60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 30.71 208.59 239.67 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp Replacement CSL 1 105.6 54 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 37.56 197.99 235.92 3.75 0.0 100.0 3.0

CSL 1 108.0 50 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 44.93 183.59 228.89 10.78 0.0 100.0 2.6

Ev ent II:

Ballast

Failure Baseline Baseline 98.2 60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 104.94 208.59 281.59 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp &

Ballast Replacement CSL 1 99.0 60.1 W T8 & 0.85 BF Inst 108.93 203.24 280.23 1.36 2.2 97.8 3.4

CSL 1 105.6 54 W T8 & 0.85 BF Inst 111.7 9 192.90 272.75 8.84 0.0 100.0 2.0

CSL 1 108.0 50 W T8 & 0.85 BF Inst 119.16 178.85 266.07 15.51 0.0 100.0 2.2

Event III:

New

Construction

and

Renovation Baseline Baseline 98.2 60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 107.65 208.59 283.12 N/A N/A N/A N/A

New Lamp

& Ballast

Purchase CSL 1 99.0 60.1 W T8 & 0.85 BF Inst 111.64 203.24 281.76 1.36 2.2 97.8 3.4

CSL 1 105.6 54 W T8 & 0.85 BF Inst 114.50 192.90 274.28 8.84 0.0 100.0 2.0

CSL 1 108.0 50 W T8 & 0.85 BF Inst 121.87 178.85 267.61 15.51 0.0 100.0 2.2

### 8

- 55



## Table 8.5

. 18 LCC and PBP Results for a Two-Lamp 8-Foot 59 W T8 Single Pin Slimline System Operating in the Industrial

Sector

Event Response Candidate

Standard

Level Rated

Lamp Efficacy Design Option Life

- Cycle Cost Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Mean Payback

Period Installed

Cost Discounted

Operating

Cost LCC LCC Savings Percentage of

Consumers that Experience

lm/W 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ Net Cost Net Benefit years

Event I: Lamp

Failure Baseline Baseline 9 8.2 60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 30.71 163.77 194.84 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp Replacement CSL 1 105.6 54 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 37.56 155.45 193.37 1.47 12.5 87.5 3.3

CSL 1 108.0 50 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 44.93 144.14 189.43 5.41 0.2 99.8 2.9

Event II:

Ballast

Fai lure Baseline Baseline 98.2 60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 104.94 163.77 237.72 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp &

Ballast Replacement CSL 1 99.0 60.1 W T8 & 0.85 BF Inst 108.93 159.57 237.50 0.21 48.0 52.0 3.9

CSL 1 105.6 54 W T8 & 0.85 BF Inst 111.79 151.45 232.25 5. 47 0.0 100.0 2.3

CSL 1 108.0 50 W T8 & 0.85 BF Inst 119.16 140.42 228.59 9.12 0.0 100.0 2.5

Event III:

New

Construction

and

Renovation Baseline Baseline 98.2 60.1 W T8 & 0.87 BF Inst 107.65 163.77 239.28 N/A N/A N/A N/A

New Lamp

& Ballast

Purchase CS L 1 99.0 60.1 W T8 & 0.85 BF Inst 111.64 159.57 239.07 0.21 48.0 52.0 3.9

CSL 1 105.6 54 W T8 & 0.85 BF Inst 114.50 151.45 233.81 5.47 0.0 100.0 2.3

CSL 1 108.0 50 W T8 & 0.85 BF Inst 121.87 140.42 230.16 9.12 0.0 100.0 2.5

### 8

- 56



## Table 8.5. 19 Summary of the LCC Results for an 8-Foot SP Slimline System

Candidate

Standard

Level LCC Savings

Event I: Lamp

Failure Event II:

Ballast

Failure Event III:

New

Construction

and

Renovation

CSL 1 1.47 to 10.78 0.21 to 15.51 0.21 to 15.51



## 8.5.1.5 Product Class: 8-foot recessed double contact HO ≤ 4,500 K

For the 8-foot RDC HO ≤ 4,500 K product class in the commercial and industrial sectors

, DOE analyzes one baseline lamp, an 86 W T 8

.

Table 8.5

. 20 presents the results for an 8 -foot RDC HO ba seline system operating in the

c ommercial sector. Key inputs consist of using AEO 2012 reference case electricity prices, an analysis period of 4.1 years, and medium-range lamp prices.

Ta ble 8.5

. 21 presents the results for an 8 -foot RDC HO ba seline system operating in the

indus trial sector. Key inputs consist of using AEO 2012 reference case electricity prices, an analysis period of 3.6 years, and medium-range lamp prices.

The results for Event I (lamp failure) show that consumers would face negative LCC

sa vings in both the commercial and industrial sectors because there is an installed cost increase but no change in energy consumption.

Eve nt II represents consumers who must replace both a lamp and a ballast. Event III

re presents consumers who are renovating an existing building or constructing a new building. The results for Events II and III show that consumers would also achieve negative LCC savings in both the commercial and industrial sectors for the lamp-and-ballast replacement events since

ther e is an installed cost increase but no change in energy consumption.

Table 8.5

. 22 summarizes the range of LCC results for the 8-foot RDC HO product class

in t he industrial sector.

### 8

- 57



## Table 8.5. 20 LCC and PBP Results for a Two-Lamp 8-Foot 86 W T8 Recessed Double Contact HO System Operating in the

Commercial Sector

Event Response Candidate

Standard

Level Rated

Lamp Efficacy Desi gn Option Life

- Cycle Cost Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Mean Payback

Period Installed

Cost Discounted

Operating

Cost LCC LCC Savings Percentage of

Consumers that Experience

lm/W 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ Net Cost Net Benefit years

Event I: Lamp

Fa ilure Baseline Baseline 95.2 84 W T8 & 0.81 BF Inst 30.96 227.72 259.08 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp Replacement CSL 1 97.6 84 W T8 & 0.81 BF Inst 35.97 227.72 264.09

- 5.01 100.0 0.0 NER

Event II:

Ballast

Failure Baseline Baseline 95.2 84 W T8 & 0.81 BF Inst 10 5.12 227.72 292.91 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp &

Ballast Replacement CSL 1 97.6 84 W T8 & 0.81 BF Inst 110.14 227.72 297.92

- 5.01 100.0 0.0 NER

Event III:

New

Construction

and

Renovation Baseline Baseline 95.2 84 W T8 & 0.81 BF Inst 107.84 227.72 294.15 N/A N/ A N/A N/A

New Lamp

& Ballast

Purchase CSL 1 97.6 84 W T8 & 0.81 BF Inst 112.85 227.72 299.16

- 5.01 100.0 0.0 NER

### 8

- 58



## Table 8.5. 21 LCC and PBP Results for a Two-Lamp 8-Foot 86 W T8 Recessed Double Contact HO System Operating in the

Industrial Sector

Event Response Candidate

Standard

Level Rated

Lamp Efficacy Design Option Life

- Cycle Cost Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Mean Payback

Period Installed

Cost Discounted

Operating

Cost LCC LCC Savings Percentage of

Consu mers that Experience

lm/W 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ Net Cost Net Benefit years

Event I: Lamp

Failure Baseline Baseline 95.2 84 W T8 & 0.81 BF Inst 30.96 178.44 209.78 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp Replacement CSL 1 97.6 84 W T8 & 0.81 BF Inst 35.97 178.4 4 214.80

- 5.01 100.0 0.0 NER

Event II:

Ballast

Failure Baseline Baseline 95.2 84 W T8 & 0.81 BF Inst 105.12 178.44 244.57 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp &

Ballast Replacement CSL 1 97.6 84 W T8 & 0.81 BF Inst 110.14 178.44 249.58

- 5.01 100.0 0.0 NER

Event III:

N ew Construction

and

Renovation Baseline Baseline 95.2 84 W T8 & 0.81 BF Inst 107.84 178.44 245.84 N/A N/A N/A N/A

New Lamp

& Ballast

Purchase CSL 1 97.6 84 W T8 & 0.81 BF Inst 112.85 178.44 250.85

- 5.01 100.0 0.0 NER

### 8

- 59



## Table 8.5. 22 Summary of the LCC Results for an 8-Foot RDC HO System

Candidate

Standard

Level LCC Savings

Event I: Lamp

Failure Event II:

Ballast

Failure Event III:

New

Construction

and

Renovation

CSL 1

- 5.01

- 5.01

- 5.01



## 8.5.2 Results for Incandescent Reflector Lamps

For the standard spectrum, diameter greater than 2.5 inches, and voltage less than 125 V

pr oduct class in the commercial and residential sectors, DOE analyzes two baseline lamps, a 60

W 1

, 500-hour improved halogen lamp and a 3,000-hour halogen infrared reflector (HIR) lamp

.

Table 8.5

. 23 presents the results for a 60 W PAR38 1,500-hour baseline lamp operating in the commercial sector. Key inputs consist of using AEO 2012 reference case electricity prices,

an analysis period of 0.3 years, and medium-range lamp prices.

Ta ble 8.5

. 24 presents the results for a 60 W PAR38 1,500-hour baseline lamp operating in the residential sector. Key inputs consist of using AEO 2012 reference case electricity prices, an analysis period of 2.0 years, and medium-range lamp prices.

Ta ble 8.5

. 25 presents the results for a 60 W PAR38 3,000-hour baseline lamp operating

in t he commercial sector. Key inputs consist of using AEO 2012 reference case electricity prices, an analysis period of 0.7 years, and medium-range lamp prices.

Ta ble 8.5

. 26 presents the results for a 60 W PAR38 3,000-hour baseline lamp operating

in t he residential sector. Key inputs consist of using AEO 2012 reference case electricity prices, an analysis period of 3.9 years, and medium-range lamp prices.

The results for Event I (lamp failure) and Event III (new construction and renovation)

show that consumers would face positive LCC savings for the 1,500-hour baseline for both the commercial and residential sectors and negative LCC savings for the 3,000-hour baseline for

both t he commercial and residential sectors.

Table 8.5

. 27 summarizes the range of LCC results for the standard spectrum, diameter greater than 2.5 inches, and voltage less than 125 V product class in the commercial and

residential sectors.

### 8

- 60



## Table 8.5. 23 LCC and PBP Results for a 60 W PAR38 1,500 Hour Im proved Halogen Baseline Lamp Operating in the

Commercial Sector

Event Response Candidate

Standard

Level Rated

Lamp Efficacy Lamp Option Life

- Cycle Cost Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Mean Payback

Period Installed

Cost Discounted

Operating

Cost LCC LCC Savin gs Percentage of

Consumers that Experience

lm/W 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ Net Cost Net Benefit years

Event I: Lamp Failure; or

Event III:

New

Construction

and

Renovation Baseline Baseline 17.8 60 W, 1500hrs, Improved Halogen 11.28 9.00 20.28 N/A N /A N/A N/A

Lamp Replacement

or New Lamp

Purchase CSL 1 20.0 55 W, 4400hrs, Improved HIR 18.46 8.25 14.55 5.73 0.0 100.0 9.1



## Table 8.5. 24 LCC and PBP Results for a 60 W PAR38 1,500 Hour Improved Halogen Baseline Lamp Operating in the

Re sidential Sector

Event Response Candidate

Standard

Level Rated

Lamp Efficacy Lamp Option Life

- Cycle Cost Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Mean Payback

Period Installed

Cost Discounted

Operating

Cost LCC LCC Savings Percentage of

Consumers that Experience

lm/W 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ Net Cost Net Benefit years

Event I: Lamp Failure; or

Event III:

New

Construction

and

Renovation Baseline Baseline 17.8 60 W, 1500hrs, Improved Halogen 10.16 10.45 20.61 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lam p Replacement

or New Lamp

Purchase CSL 1 20.0 55 W, 4400hrs, Improved HIR 17.34 9.58 16.58 4.03 0.0 100.0 15.1

### 8

- 61



## Table 8.5. 25 LCC and PBP Results for a 60 W PAR38 3,000 Hour HIR Baseline Lamp Operating in the Commercial Sector

Event Response Candidate

Standard

Level Rated

Lamp Efficacy Lamp Option Life

- Cycle Cost Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Mean Payback

Period Installed

Cost Discounted

Operating

Cost LCC LCC Savings Percentage of

Consumers that Experience

lm/W 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ Net Cost Net Benefit years

Event I: Lamp Failure; or

Event III:

New

Construction

and

Renovation Baseline Baseline 18.1 60 W, 3000hrs, HIR 11.15 18.00 29.16 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp Replacement

or New Lamp

Purchase CSL 1 2 0.0 55 W, 4400hrs, Improved HIR 18.46 16.50 29.37

- 0.22 78.2 21.8 4.6



## Table 8.5. 26 LCC and PBP Results for a 60 W PAR38 3,000 Hour HIR Baseline Lamp Operating in the Residential Sector

Event Response Candida te

Standard

Level Rated

Lamp Efficacy Lamp Option Life

- Cycle Cost Life

- Cycle Cost Savings Mean Payback

Period Installed

Cost Discounted

Operating

Cost LCC LCC Savings Percentage of

Consumers that Experience

lm/W 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ 2011$ Net Cost Net Benefit years

Event I: Lamp Failure; or

Event III:

New

Construction

and

Renovation Baseline Baseline 18.1 60 W , 3000hrs, HIR 10.03 19.84 29.87 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Lamp Replacement

or New Lamp

Purchase CSL 1 20.0 55 W, 4400hrs, Improved HIR 17.34 18 .18 31.00

- 1.13 90.4 9.6 15.3

### 8

- 62



## Table 8.5. 27 Summary of the LCC Results for Standard Spectrum, Diameter Greater Than

2.5 in ches, and Voltage Less Than 125 V Product Class

Baseline Candidate

Standard

Level LCC Savings for Event I:

Lamp Failure or Event III:

New Construction and

Renovation

1,500 Hour 60 W Improved Halogen CSL 1 4.03 to 5.73

3,000 Hour 60 W HIR CSL 1

- 1.13 to

- 0.22



## 8.6 DETAILED RESULTS AND SENSITIVITY RUNS

DO E presents more detailed results and sensitivity runs from the LCC analysis in appendix 8B of this TSD. These results include Monte Carlo probability distributions, price sensitivity scenarios, electricity price trend scenarios, and lighting controls scenarios for GSFLs and IRLs. In addition, results are provided for rare earth scenarios for GSFLs and operating hour sensitivity scenarios and shortened lifetime scenarios for IRLs.

### 8

- 63 

## REFERENCES

1 

## U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. RECS Public Use Microdata

files. 2009. Washington, D.C.

< www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/ >

2 

## U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Commercial Building Energy

C onsumption Survey: Micro-level data, file 2 Building Activities, Special Measures of Size, and

Mul ti-building Facilities. 2003. Washington, D.C.

< www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/public_use.html >

3 

## U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Manufacturing Energy

C onsumption Survey, Table 9.1: Enclosed Floorspace and Number of Establishment Buildings.

2006. Washington, D.C.

< www.eia.gov/emeu/mecs/mecs2006/2006tables.html >

4 

## U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Energy

C onservation Program for Consumer Products: 2010 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization.

2012. Washington, D.C.

< http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/2010- lmc -final-jan-2012.pdf >

5 

## Fuller, Sieglinde K. and Stephen R. Peterson. National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook 135, 1996 Edition. Life-Cycle Costing Manual for the Federal Energy Management Program. Prepared for U. S. Department of Energy. Federal Energy Management Program.

Of fice of the Assistant Secretary for Conservation and Renewable Energy. February 1996. Washington, D.C. http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build96/PDF/b96121.pdf

6 

## U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy Outlook 2012.

J une, 2012. Washington, D.C. www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/

.

7 

## Sales Tax Clearinghouse. Aggregate State Tax Rates. 2012. (Last accessed October 15, 2012).

< thestc.com/STrates.stm >

8 

## U.S. Census Bureau: Annual Estimates of the Population for the United States, Regions, States,

a nd Puerto Rico. July 1, 2011. (Last accessed October 15, 2012). Washington, D.C.

< www.census.gov/popest/states/tables/NST-EST2009-01.xls >

9 

## U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Building Technologies

P rogram. Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards. Final Rule Technical Support

Doc ument Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products and Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Fluorescent Lamps Ballasts. November 2011. Washington, D.C.

< 

## www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2007- BT

- STD-0016 -0065 >

### 8

- 64

10 

## R. S. Means Company, Inc. 2007 RS Means Electrical Cost Data

. 2007. R. S. Means Company, Inc. Kingston, Massachusetts.

11 

## National Fire Protection Association. Online Access to National Electrical Code® Softbound

2005 Edit ion (NFPA 70TM). 2005. Quincy, MA. www.nfpa.org/freecodes/free_access_agreement.asp?id=7005SB

.

12 

## U.S. Department of Labor. Bureau of Labor Statistics. May 2011 Occupational Employment

a nd Wage Estimates. National Cross-Industry Estimates. 20 11. Washington, D.C. www.bls.gov/oes/oes_dl.htm

.

13 

## U.S. Department of Energy. Energy Information Administration. Form EIA-861 for 2011.

2012. Washington, D.C. www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/eia861.html

.

14 

## GDS Associates, Inc., Engineers and Consultants, Measure Life Report: Residential and Commercial/Industrial Lighting and HVAC Measures (The New England State Program Working Group)(2007).

15 

## Economic Research Associates, Inc., and Quantec, LLC. Revised/Updated EULs Based On

R etention And Persistence Studies Results. Southern California Edison, 2005.

16 

## Environment, Health and Safety Online. EHSO's Fluorescent Lights and Lighting Disposal

a nd Recycling Web Page – Recycling Costs (Last Accessed August 13, 2012). Atlanta, GA.

Available at < www.ehso.com/fluoresc.php >.

17 

## Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers. National Mercury-Lamp Recycling Rate and Availability of Lamp Recycling Services in the U.S. Calistoga, CA. November 2004. Available at

< www.lamprecycle.org/public/images/docs/ALMR_capacity_statement.2004.%20pdf.pdf >.

18 

## Economic Research Associates, Inc., and Quantec, LLC. Revised/Updated EULs Based On

R etention And Persistence Studies Results. Southern California Edison, 2005.

19 

## The Federal Reserve Board, Survey of Consumer Finances 1989, 1992, 1995, 1998, 2001,
2004, 2007, 2010 . < www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/scfindex.html >

20 

## The Federal Reserve Board, Federal Reserve Statistical Release, Selected Interest Rates, Historical Data, Instrument: CDs (secondary market), Maturity: 6-month, Frequency: Annual, Description: Average rate on 6-month negotiable certificates of deposit (secondary market), quoted on an investment basis, 2012. (Last accessed October, 2012)

< www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H15/data.htm >

21 

## The Federal Reserve Board, Federal Reserve Statistical Release, Selected Interest Rates, Historical Data, Instrument: State and local bonds, Maturity: 20-year, Frequency: Monthly,

### 8

- 65



## Description: Bond buyer go 20-bond municipal bond index, 2012. (Last accessed October, 2012)

< www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H15/data.htm >

22 

## The Federal Reserve Board, Federal Reserve Statistical Release, Selected Interest Rates, Historical Data, Instrument: Corporate bonds/Moody's Seasoned AAA, Frequency: Annual,

De scription: Moody's yield on seasoned corporate bonds - all industries, AAA, 2012. (Last accessed October 2012) < www.federalreserve.gov/releases/H15/data.htm >

23 

## Mortgage- X

- Mortgage Information Service, Cost of Savings Index (COSI) Index History,

2012. (Last accessed October, 2012.) < http://mortgage-x.com/general/indexes/default.asp >

24 

## Damodaran Online Data Page, Historical Returns on Stocks, Bonds and Bills-United States,

2012. Damodaran. (Last accessed October, 2012.) < http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/ >

25 

## Modigliani, F. and M. Miller. The Cost of Capital, Corporation Finance and the Theory of

I nvestment. American Economic Review . 1958. ( June): pp. 261-297.

26 

## Damodaran, A. Damodaran Online. Current US d ata. http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar

.

27 

## Executive Office of the President. 2012 Economic Report of the President, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., p. 74. <www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/E RP -2012/pdf/ERP-2012.pdf>

28 

## U.S. Office of Management and Budget. Circular No. A-94. Appendix C. 2011. www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars_a094/a94_appx-c

29 

## Federal Reserve Board. Statistics: Releases and Historical Data - Selected Interest Rates –

S tate and Local Bonds. 2012. www.federalreserve.gov/datadownload/Build.aspx?rel=H15