(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 1

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

 + + + + + 

 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

 + + + + + 

 PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION 

 STANDARDS FOR GENERAL SERVICE FLUORESCENT 

 LAMPS AND INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS 

 + + + + + 

 TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2009 

 + + + + + 

 The meeting was held in Room 1E245, 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W., 

Washington, D.C., at 9:00 a.m., Doug Brookman, 

Facilitator, presiding. 

PRESENT: 

DOUGLAS BROOKMAN, PUBLIC SOLUTIONS, INC. 

RONALD LEWIS, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

LINDA GRAVES, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

FRANCINE PINTO, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

ERIC STAS, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

MICHAEL McCABE, DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

DIANA BURK, NAVIGANT CONSULTING 

DOUGLAS ROSSIN, NAVIGANT CONSULTING 

ROBERT CARMICHAEL, NAVIGANT CONSULTING 

JEFFREY KINGMAN, NAVIGANT CONSULTING 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 2

ALISON LEHR, NAVIGANT CONSULTING 

MIKE RIVEST, NAVIGANT CONSULTING 

DOUGLAS J. ROSSIN, NAVIGANT CONSULTING 

CHRISTOPHER SEQUEIRA, NAVIGANT CONSULTING 

LESSLY GOUDARZI, ONLOCATION, INC. 

MIMI GUPTA, NAVIGANT CONSULTING 

CONAN O'ROURKE, LIGHTING RESEARCH CENTER 

TEREN ABEAR, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 

TIMOTHY BALLO, ESQ., EARTHJUSTICE 

NORMAN L. BOLING, Ph.D., DSI, INC. 

LANE WESLEY BURT, NRDC 

ANDREW deLASKI, ASAP 

MARIANNE DiMASCIO, ASAP 

DAVID C. GHATAN, LC, CM KLING & ASSOCIATES 

S. PEKKA HAKKARAINEN, MA, Ph.D., LUTRON 

 ELECTRONICS CO., INC. 

DAIN M. HANSEN, NEMA 

JEFFREY HARRIS, ALLIANCE TO SAVE ENERGY 

PAMELA K. HORNER, OSRAM SYLVANIA 

JOSEPH G. HOWLEY, GE CONSUMER & INDUSTRIAL 

ROBERT M. HUMPHREY, ESQ., COWDEN HUMPHREY 

AMANDA KORANE, ACEEE 

DAVID J. LIS, NORTHEAST ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

 PARTNERSHIPS, INC. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 3

DOUG LOCKARD, UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES 

JON McHUGH, PE, McHUGH ENERGY CONSULTANTS 

JACK M. MELNYK, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 

MICHAEL MYER, PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL 

 LABORATORY 

STEVEN NADEL, ACEEE 

GREG NELSON, PHILIPS 

DAVID NESTING, Ph.D., PHILIPS 

EDWARD OSANN, POTOMAC RESOURCES 

GRAHAM B. PARKER, PACIFIC NORTHWEST NATIONAL 

 LABORATORY 

PHILIPPE S. POIRIER, NATURAL RESOURCES CANADA 

KRISTEN RAYMOND, U.S. Department of Justice 

MARK S. REA, Ph.D., LIGHTING RESEARCH CENTER 

STEVEN J. ROSENSTOCK, PE, EDISON ELECTRONIC 

 INSTITUTE 

LEW SPIEWAK, WESTINGHOUSE LIGHTING CORPORATION 

AMANDA SLOCUM STEVENS, ENERGY SOLUTIONS 

LAUREN STARCK, UNDERWRITERS LABORATORIES 

STEVE STOCKDALE, ADVANCED LIGHTING 

 TECHNOLOGIES 

JOHN O'NEILL STOREY, ESQ., COWDEN HUMPHREY 

JENNIFER THORNE AMANN, ACEEE 

EDWARD M. YANDEK, GE CONSUMER & INDUSTRIAL 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 4

 TABLE OF CONTENTS 

 PAGE 

Introductions..............................5 

Opening Remarks: 

 Ronald Lewis .......................10 

 Linda Graves .......................11 

Agenda Review, Douglas Brookman ..........15 

Rulemaking Overview 

 Linda Graves .......................17 

 Mimi Gupta .........................20 

Comments from Participants ...............23 

Scope of Coverage, Product Classes and 

Engineering Analysis: 

 Mimi Gupta .........................40 

 Conan O'Rourke .....................70 

Life Cycle Cost Analysis, Diana Burk ....143 

National Impact Analysis, Mimi Gupta ....191 

Trial Standard Levels, Consumer Subgroup 

Analysis and Manufacturer Impact Analysis: 

 Mimi Gupta ........................243 

 Doug Rossin .......................270 

Utility Impact Analysis, Employment Impact 

Analysis, Environmental Assessment, 

Regulatory Impact Analysis: 

 Lessly Goudarzi ...................298 

 Mimi Gupta ........................313 

Discussion of Other Issues ..............322 

Next Steps and Closing Remarks, 

 Linda Graves ......................325 

Adjourn 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 5

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

2 (9:02 a.m.) 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Good morning, 

4 everybody. Welcome. I'm glad to see you 

5 here. This is the U.S. Department of Energy's 

6 public meeting on energy conservation 

7 standards for general service fluorescent 

8 lamps and incandescent reflector lamps. 

9 Today is Tuesday, February 3rd. 

10 Nice to see you all here. 

11 Doug Brookman from Public 

12 Solutions in Baltimore. We're going to start 

13 off by going around and doing introductions, 

14 and then we will have welcoming remarks. Name 

15 and organizational affiliation, please. 

16 MR. NESTING: My name is David 

17 Nesting. I'm a researcher and chemist with 

18 Philips Lighting. I'm also in my role as in 

19 phosphors and coatings. I also sit on our 

20 Global Commodity Team for Phosphors buying 

21 globally for all of the factories worldwide. 

22 I'm also a member of the NEMA Technical 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 6

1 Committee on Lamps. 

2 MR. NELSON: Greg Nelson, Philips 

3 Lighting. 

4 MS. HORNER: Pam Horner, Osram 

5 Sylvania, and also Chair of the NEMA Lamps 

6 Section. 

7 MR. HOWLEY: Joe Howley, GE 

8 Lighting and also Chairman of the NEMA 

9 Lighting Division. 

10 MR. YANDEK: Ed Yandek, GE 

11 Lighting. I chair the Lamp Section Technical 

12 Committee of NEMA. 

13 Thank you. 

14 MR. HAKKARAINEN: Pekka 

15 Hakkarainen, Lutron Electronics, and I'm Vice 

16 Chair of the NEMA Lighting Division. 

17 MR. HANSEN: Dain Hansen, NEMA, 

18 National Electrical Manufacturers Association, 

19 and I work in government relations. 

20 MS. RAYMOND: Kristen Raymond, 

21 Department of Justice. 

22 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 7

1 Edison Electric Institute. 

2 MR. BURT: Lane Burt, Natural 

3 Resources Defense Counsel. 

4 MR. deLASKI: Andrew deLaski, 

5 Appliance Standards Awareness Project. 

6 MR. STOCKDALE: Steve Stockdale, 

7 Advanced Lighting Technologies. 

8 MR. HUMPHREY: Bob Humphrey, 

9 Advanced Lighting Technologies. 

10 MR. LEWIS: Ron Lewis, the 

11 Department of Energy. 

12 MS. GRAVES: Linda Graves, 

13 Department of Energy. 

14 MR. RIVEST: I'm Mike Rivest, 

15 Navigant Consulting. 

16 MS. GUPTA: Mimi Gupta, Navigant 

17 Consulting. 

18 MR. O'ROURKE: Conan O'Rourke, 

19 Lighting Research Center. 

20 MR. REA: Mark Rea, Lighting 

21 Research Center. 

22 MR. SEQUEIRA: Chris Sequeira, 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 8

1 Navigant Consulting. 

2 MR. KINGMAN: Jeff Kingman, 

3 Navigant Consulting. 

4 MR. ROSSIN: Doug Rossin, Navigant 

5 Consulting. 

6 MS. LEHR: Alison Lehr, Navigant 

7 Consulting. 

8 MS. BURK: Diana Burk, Navigant 

9 Consulting. 

10 MR. CARMICHAEL: Rob Carmichael, 

11 Navigant Consulting. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Why don't we go 

13 back over here? Yes. 

14 MR. PARKER: Graham Parker, 

15 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 

16 MR. STOREY: John Storey, Advanced 

17 Lighting Technology. 

18 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann, Potomac 

19 Resources, consultant to ADLT. 

20 MR. BOLING: Norm Boling with 

21 ADLT. 

22 MR. ABEAR: Teren Abear, Southern 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 9

1 California Edison. 

2 MR. MELNYK: Jack Melnyk, Southern 

3 California Edison. 

4 MR. McHUGH: Jon McHugh, McHugh 

5 Energy. I represent Southern California 

6 Edison. 

7 MS. STEVENS: Amanda Stevens, 

8 Energy Solutions on behalf of PG&E. 

9 MR. LIS: David Lis, Northeast 

10 Energy Efficiency Partnerships. 

11 MS. KORANE: Amanda Korane, 

12 American Council for Energy Efficient Economy. 

13 MR. GHATAN: David Ghatan, 

14 International Association of Lighting 

15 Designers. 

16 MS. STARCK: Lauren Starck, 

17 Underwriters Laboratories. 

18 MR. SPIEWAK: Lew Spiewak, 

19 Westinghouse Lighting Corporation. 

20 MR. LOCKARD: Doug Lockard, 

21 Underwriters Laboratories. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks to all of 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 10

1 you. 

2 We're going to have some opening 

3 remarks. 

4 MR. LEWIS: I made the mistake 

5 once of welcoming people by saying I see a 

6 bunch of old faces, and somebody said, "That's 

7 not really appropriate." I see a lot of 

8 familiar faces here and welcome you heartily. 

9 Glad to have everybody here. 

10 We are looking forward to a lively 

11 discussion today. We've put some things 

12 together that I'm sure are of great interest, 

13 and we are looking forward to your honest and 

14 robust input. Our desire is to get everything 

15 on the table and handle everything that needs 

16 to be handled and have a closing today where 

17 everybody feels satisfied that they had an 

18 opportunity to speak their peace and comment 

19 on what we've done. 

20 So don't be shy, for those faces 

21 that I don't recognize that are new to these 

22 meetings. We are presenting, but our basic 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 11

1 role today is a receipt mode, to present what 

2 we've put together and looking for your input 

3 on that. 

4 This is of high interest to me 

5 after working in the lighting field for many 

6 years. I've got some other pressing matters I 

7 have to handle right now, but I'm going to be 

8 back just as soon as I can. So I just wanted 

9 to make sure to be here to thank you all for 

10 being here and make sure that you're 

11 encouraged to speak up with anything that you 

12 have concerns or issues with, and I'll be back 

13 shortly to listen in and take part in the 

14 discussions. 

15 So thank you again for being here. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: I may have missed 

17 it, but I don't think you introduced yourself. 

18 This is Ron Lewis. He does have a lot of 

19 familiar faces in the room. 

20 Yes, thank you. 

21 MS. GRAVES: Good morning and 

22 thank you, Ron, for those welcoming remarks. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 12

1 Just to put it on the record, 

2 welcome to the U.S. Department of Energy. 

3 This is the public meeting on the Notice of 

4 Proposed Rulemaking for standards on general 

5 service fluorescent lamps and incandescent 

6 reflector lamps. 

7 I'm Linda Graves. I am the team 

8 leader for lighting standards, and I am here 

9 with my team that has made an extraordinary 

10 effort to encompass the substance of this 

11 massive rulemaking, as you all know. 

12 The purpose of our meeting is to 

13 invite your comments on the proposed energy 

14 conservation standard levels. Those standard 

15 levels that we have proposed are TSL3 for 

16 general service fluorescent lamps and TSL4 for 

17 incandescent reflector lamps, but we are also 

18 here to receive your recommendations for 

19 alternatives. 

20 We will also present the 

21 methodologies and characterize the results of 

22 the analyses, which are summarized in the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 13

1 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and covered in 

2 greater detail in the technical support 

3 document. 

4 We would like to discuss some 

5 specific issues related to each analysis, and 

6 we would like to seek input from interested 

7 parties on our methodologies, assumptions, 

8 data sources, and results from the analyses, 

9 and we will also describe the next steps to 

10 complete this rulemaking. 

11 Participants are invited to 

12 provide summary comments or statements, to 

13 raise any additional issues of concern to you, 

14 and I'd also let you know that the public 

15 comment period will be 60 days long, and it 

16 will begin when the Notice of Proposed 

17 Rulemaking is published in the Federal 

18 Register. 

19 And with that I'm going to turn 

20 the meeting back to our able facilitator, Doug 

21 Brookman. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 14

1 I think all of you received a 

2 packet when you registered, and we're going to 

3 do a very brief agenda review, and then we'll 

4 launch right square into a brief overview. 

5 I think many of you are familiar 

6 with the format that we typically use for 

7 these appliance energy efficiency standards 

8 meetings. There is in your packet all of the 

9 slides that will be presented today, 

10 frequently some backup slides as well with 

11 additional data and information. 

12 Following this agenda review we'll 

13 go straight into the rulemaking overview and 

14 following that there's an opportunity for any 

15 of you that wish to do so to make brief 

16 summary remarks about key issues and key 

17 concerns you might have. 

18 I'd ask you not to read six pages 

19 into the record. Brief summary comments. I 

20 know that will shock all of you. 

21 Following those summary comments 

22 we will go directly into scope of coverage, 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 15

1 product classes, engineering analysis. We'll 

2 take a break mid-morning around about 11 

3 o'clock or so. 

4 Following that, a detailed 

5 description of life cycle cost analysis. 

6 We'll break for lunch around about noon. 

7 Following lunch, national impact 

8 analysis; trial standard levels, consumer 

9 subgroup analysis, and manufacturer impact 

10 analysis; and then following that, utility 

11 impact analysis, employment impact analysis, 

12 environmental assessment, regulatory impact 

13 analysis. 

14 We'll take a break mid-afternoon. 

15 There's an opportunity following the mid16 afternoon break for when we get there for 

17 other issues that you might wish to raise 

18 before we adjourn today, and we'll do next 

19 steps and closing remarks around about 4:30 or 

20 so, or if we get there sooner, then we do. 

21 We'll adjourn today at, you know, four, 4:30 

22 or so. That's the plan. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 16

1 Questions and comments here at the 

2 outset? Linda Graves. 

3 MS. GRAVES: Yes, Doug. I'd just 

4 like to add that if your remarks that you 

5 brought are more extensive than the summary, 

6 we can enter your entire set of prepared 

7 remarks into the docket. We're just asking 

8 that when you give your oral presentation that 

9 you be brief. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

11 So then questions, comments here 

12 at the outset before we get into an overview, 

13 statutory authority or a few things like that? 

14 I'd ask for your consideration. 

15 As you can see, what we think is common 

16 courtesy: for the purpose of this meeting, 

17 please speak one at a time. Please say your 

18 name for the record. I'm going to be trying 

19 to acknowledge each of you by name as best I 

20 can and queue you to speak. 

21 Please keep the focus here. Turn 

22 your cell phones on vibrate or silent mode, 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 17

1 and if you need to have a sidebar conversation 

2 with someone for more than about 20 seconds, 

3 it's okay to take it out of the room. We 

4 understand. 

5 These new microphones that we've 

6 got, they work really well. We can hear a lot 

7 of the conversation that's going on. So 

8 please be considerate. 

9 And if you could be as concise as 

10 possible and share the air time with your 

11 colleagues, I know many of you have lots to 

12 say. The purpose of this is to hear from all 

13 of you today, and I'm going to be queuing 

14 people as best I can, as I said. 

15 I also wish to encourage dialogue, 

16 back-and-forth, follow-on comments. I will 

17 make sure the record reflects that somehow. 

18 We'll figure that out. Okay? 

19 So that's the plan. That's how we 

20 intend to proceed. Are we ready? Okay. 

21 Linda Graves. 

22 MS. GRAVES: So the statutory 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 18

1 authority for this rulemaking is based on the 

2 Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended 

3 and as codified in 42 U.S. Code 6295(i)(3) and 

4 (5). 

5 So there are two main thrusts of 

6 this rulemaking. One is to review and 

7 possibly amend standards for general service 

8 fluorescent lamps and incandescent reflector 

9 lamps, and the other major thrust was to 

10 determine whether standards should apply to 

11 additional general service fluorescent lamps. 

12 Now, this rule is also being done 

13 in the context of having been impacted by EISA 

14 2007, which addressed and amended standards 

15 for general service incandescent lamps. So 

16 this rule is no longer covering that subject 

17 as well. 

18 And I would also refer you to the 

19 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for more 

20 information about the statutory and 

21 legislative background on this under the 

22 authority and background sections of the NOPR. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 19

1 Just a quick overview of where we 

2 have been on this subject matter. Regarding 

3 test procedures, which are obviously related 

4 to the standard, we published a Notice of 

5 Proposed Rulemaking proposing test methods for 

6 general service fluorescent lamps and 

7 incandescent reflector lamps on March 13th, 

8 2008. 

9 The final rule for test procedures 

10 will be published by the end of June this 

11 year. 

12 Regarding the energy conservation 

13 standards, we published the framework document 

14 in May of 2006. We did an advanced Notice of 

15 Proposed Rulemaking in March 2008, and we are 

16 now at this stage of the rulemaking and the 

17 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on the technical 

18 support documents that support this rule are 

19 posted on our Web page. 

20 And, by the way, the Web page is 

21 on the front cover page of your handouts. 

22 The publication of the Notice of 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 20

1 Proposed Rulemaking has not yet been published 

2 in the Federal Register. We are scheduled to 

3 publish the final rule by the end of June this 

4 year. 

5 Okay. Now, this is something I'm 

6 sure you're all familiar with because we've 

7 dealt with it at every stage of this 

8 rulemaking, but these are the seven factors 

9 that the Energy Policy and Conservation Act 

10 requires that we address in establishing 

11 standards, and I don't need to read them. You 

12 can see them right there, but there's the 

13 factors on the left side, and then there's the 

14 analyses that go with how we respond to each 

15 of those factors. 

16 And with that, I'm going to turn 

17 it over to Mimi Gupta. 

18 MS. GUPTA: Good morning. I'm 

19 going to start off by giving you a brief 

20 overview of the proposed standards. 

21 So in proposing standards for 

22 general service fluorescent lamps and 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 21

1 incandescent reflector lamps, the Department 

2 of Energy considered the impacts of standards 

3 at each trial standard level beginning with 

4 the most efficient level to determine whether 

5 the given level was economically justified. 

6 Then DOE considered less efficient 

7 levels until it reached the highest level that 

8 was technologically feasible, economically 

9 justified, and resulted in significant energy 

10 savings. 

11 In the NOPR for GSFL, DOE analyzed 

12 five trial standard levels and tentatively 

13 concluded that TSL5 and TSL4 were not 

14 economically justified. This was primarily 

15 based on the economic burden on some consumers 

16 who are forced to retrofit their existing T12 

17 ballasts and the potentially large reduction 

18 in industry INPV for manufacturers. 

19 DOE believed that these burdens 

20 outweighed the benefits of energy savings, 

21 emissions reductions, and the positive net 

22 economic savings to the nation. Therefore, in 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 22

1 this NOPR DOE proposes to set standards for 

2 TSL3 as presented in this slide. 

3 Over the course of this meeting, 

4 DOE will be seeking comment on the proposed 

5 standard level for GSFL, as well as any other 

6 potential approaches to maximize energy 

7 savings while mitigating impacts to certain 

8 GSFL consumer subgroups. 

9 For IRL, or incandescent reflector 

10 lamps, DOE analyzed five trial standard levels 

11 and determined or tentatively found that trial 

12 standard level five was not economically 

13 justified and, therefore, proposed to set 

14 standards at trail standard level four. This 

15 proposal reflects DOE's tentative conclusion 

16 that there's too much uncertainty regarding 

17 the economic burdens to manufacturers or 

18 consumers associated with meeting TSL5 using 

19 non-proprietary technologies. 

20 And, again, DOE will seek comment 

21 throughout this meeting on the proposed 

22 standard levels for incandescent reflector 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 23

1 lamps, as well as more information on other 

2 technology pathways that can be taken to meet 

3 trial standard level five and the associated 

4 consumer manufacturer costs with that, those 

5 pathways. 

6 So now I think we're going to have 

7 some opening remarks. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: As your packet 

9 suggests, this is an opportunity for any of 

10 you at which to make brief summary remarks, 

11 issues that you want to raise to the fore, 

12 knowing that as we go on today there's going 

13 to be lots of opportunity for much more 

14 detailed discussion. 

15 Dain, I'll start with you. Please 

16 say your name for the record. 

17 MR. HANSEN: My name is Dain 

18 Hansen with the National Electrical 

19 Manufacturers Association. 

20 And on behalf of NEMA and our 400-

21 plus electrical manufacturers, we look forward 

22 to working with the Department of Energy and 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 24

1 all stakeholders on this rulemaking. 

2 As lamp manufacturers of the 

3 products being regulated in this current 

4 rulemaking, we publicly want to voice our 

5 support for energy conservation standard. We 

6 understand the need for America to conserve 

7 energy. However, it is critical that no undue 

8 burden is placed upon manufacturers, 

9 especially during these economically tough 

10 times. Placing unrealistic standards on 

11 manufacturers or consumers may have 

12 undesirable consequences. It is imperative 

13 that the department recognizes the impacts on 

14 both commercial and residential users in this 

15 rulemaking process. 

16 During the meeting today, we 

17 implore you to listen to our comments 

18 carefully and the concerns we raise, in 

19 addition to our subsequent written comments. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thanks 

21 very much. 

22 Other opening remarks? Andrew and 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 25

1 then I'll go to this gentleman here. Please. 

2 MR. deLASKI: Hi. Andrew deLaski, 

3 Appliance Standards Awareness Project. 

4 So is the mic on? 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: I think it's on. 

6 MR. deLASKI: You don't have to 

7 turn these on? 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: You'll see a little 

9 green LED. 

10 MR. deLASKI: Thanks for improving 

11 the microphones. That's a nice improvement. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, that's a big 

13 step forward. 

14 MR. deLASKI: I want to make a 

15 couple of remarks here at the outset, and 

16 mostly I want to comment on, provide a little 

17 bit of context from our perspective, a little 

18 bit about what's at stake in this particular 

19 rulemaking, and also talk about some of the 

20 recommendations we have to improve upon the 

21 proposal the department has put forward. 

22 The context we have with the new 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 26

1 administration in office, having just taken 

2 office a couple of weeks ago, I think, is one 

3 where we see increased emphasis on energy 

4 efficiency. President Obama ran on his 

5 campaign. Clean energy was a huge part of his 

6 campaign during the election season. It was 

7 mentioned in his inaugural speech. He 

8 committed during the election campaign to make 

9 America the most energy efficiency country in 

10 the world, a recognition that energy 

11 efficiency is a critical aspect of how we 

12 address climate change, how we diversify 

13 America's energy resources, how we bolster the 

14 economy, build new jobs for the next decade 

15 and the next decades. 

16 A very specific goal in the 

17 campaign that was laid out is the goal to 

18 reduce American electricity consumption by 15 

19 percent by 2020 relative to projections. That 

20 goal works out to a goal of reducing American 

21 electricity consumption by 660 billion 

22 kilowatt hours in 2020. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 27

1 The rulemaking that we're talking 

2 about today offers an opportunity for an 

3 excellent start toward meeting that goal. 

4 Using DOE's numbers in the NOPR today, 

5 supplemented by analysis by ACEEE to addressed 

6 the exempted lamps, the potential savings from 

7 these rulemakings have the potential to meet 

8 ten percent of that goal, of that 2020 goal. 

9 It's an enormous rulemaking from an energy 

10 savings perspective. 

11 Ten percent of President Obama's 

12 2020 goal can be met by this rulemaking by 

13 June 30th. It wouldn't be bad work for the 

14 first six months for a goal that is meant to 

15 be hit in 2020. 

16 To get to the ten percent number, 

17 there are several things that need to be 

18 improved in the rule. DOE needs to strengthen 

19 the GSFL proposal from TSL3 to one of the 

20 higher levels. DOE needs to maintain or 

21 improve the IRL proposal. DOE needs to close 

22 the loopholes. About 40 percent of the IRL 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 28

1 lamps in the market are exempted from the 

2 rule. DOE needs to close the loopholes for 

3 the exempted lamps. 

4 DOE needs to make sure the 

5 treatment of modified spectrum lamps doesn't 

6 result in a new loophole, doesn't result in 

7 products migrating to parts of the market that 

8 are less efficient. 

9 A bit more context. The 30-year 

10 savings from this rule afford the DOE workout 

11 supplemented by ACEEE analysis of what you 

12 would get by closing the loophole, works out 

13 to potential savings of 7.1 to 17.1 quads over 

14 the analysis period. 

15 A little historical context by the 

16 rulemakings. The essential air conditioner 

17 rule issued in 2001 was 4.2 quads. The 

18 clothes washer rule in 2001, 5.5 quads. The 

19 water heater rule, 4.9 quads. The transformer 

20 rule a couple of years ago, 2.7 quads. 

21 This rulemaking dwarfs -- the 

22 potential savings from this rulemaking dwarf 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 29

1 all the rulemaking DOE has completed in the 

2 last decade. It is by far the largest 

3 potential saver DOE has ever worked on. 

4 Those savings work out to -- if 

5 you translate those quads to households, the 

6 30-year savings works out to enough 

7 electricity to meet the need of between 59 and 

8 142 million American households for a year. 

9 So the savings are enough, the 30-

10 year savings are enough to power every single 

11 American household for more than a year, 

12 enormous potential savings. 

13 Another impact that's often given 

14 little attention by DOE, and in this case I 

15 think I commented during the ANOPR phase that 

16 DOE had given little attention to the job 

17 impact of these rulemakings, and 

18 unfortunately, I guess my advice wasn't taken 

19 because in the NOPR it's ignored altogether. 

20 You have to go to the TSD to find a job 

21 impact. 

22 So the job impact according to the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 30

1 TSD if DOE adopts the standards at the higher 

2 levels considered, this rule would create 

3 about 7,000 jobs by 2012, and by 2020 the job 

4 impact according to DOE will be about 40,000 

5 jobs created due to as we shift spending from 

6 the energy sector to other sectors, the ImSET 

7 shows 40,000 jobs created. 

8 So at a time when we wake up every 

9 morning and we see headlines about companies 

10 shedding jobs, here's a policy that creates 

11 40,000 jobs, yet it's ignored as part of the 

12 DOE's and the actual NOPR document. 

13 We have four areas of improvement 

14 that we want to see, and we'll talk about 

15 these. I hope I have a chance to discuss each 

16 of these later today. 

17 One, DOE needs to strengthen the 

18 GSFL standard. At least got to TSL4 and 

19 possibly TSL5. TSL4 and TSL5 both increase 

20 savings significantly relative to TSL3. 

21 They're cost effective for the vast majority 

22 of purchasers. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 31

1 I hope we can learn some more 

2 today about what hurdles, if any TSL5 presents 

3 relative to TSL4. 

4 Secondly, DOE needs to maintain or 

5 possibly strengthen the IRL standard. We 

6 applaud the department for what we think is a 

7 very strong proposal for IRLs, based on HIR 

8 technology and enhanced HIR technology, and we 

9 also welcome the opportunity to examine with 

10 other stakeholders the possibility of going to 

11 the higher levels, TSL5, which we appreciate 

12 the department opening the door to TSL5 in the 

13 NOPR. 

14 Thirdly, DOE needs to close the 

15 IRL loopholes. About 40 percent of the market 

16 for IRLs left outside the scope of the 

17 rulemaking. That loophole needs to be closed. 

18 And fourthly, DOE needs to make 

19 sure that the modified spectrum does not 

20 become a new loophole, as at the ANOPR stage 

21 we support no break for modified spectrum 

22 lamps, but if there's going to be a break, it 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 32

1 needs to be at an absolute minimum to prevent 

2 these lamps from becoming the new loophole. 

3 So what's at stake? To come back 

4 to what's at stake, by our reckoning as much 

5 as half of the potential energy savings I 

6 outlined at the beginning is at stake, and 

7 strengthening the rules in the four ways that 

8 I just identified. So there's big payments at 

9 stake, but getting the rule right gets us 

10 about half of the savings. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Andrew. 

12 MR. deLASKI: I have one comment 

13 on process I want to get to, Doug, if you 

14 don't mind. 

15 Three out of the four 

16 recommendations that we have we think can be 

17 addressed within the context of the NOPR. 

18 Therefore, we recommend that the department 

19 move expeditiously to publish the NOPR in the 

20 Federal Register. We can address and we think 

21 the department can move to a final rule based 

22 on this NOPR that can address most of our 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 33

1 recommendations. 

2 However, we think the department 

3 has unfortunately in this particular NOPR 

4 created hurdles to addressing the loophole. 

5 Therefore, we ask the department to 

6 immediately draft and publish a supplementary 

7 NOPR to reopen the question of addressing the 

8 exempting lamps. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

10 MR. deLASKI: In the change of 

11 administrations we think DOE made an erroneous 

12 legal determination, and that it's time in 

13 order to address these exempted lamps. There 

14 needs to be a supplementary NOPR or additional 

15 NOPR to reopen the question of the BR65, 65 

16 watt BR and other exempted lamps. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

18 MR. deLASKI: Thanks, Doug. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: So as all of you 

20 know that are familiar with these proceedings, 

21 your detailed written comments to support your 

22 views are requested and welcomed by the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 34

1 department. So all of that would be helpful. 

2 This gentleman here is next. Your 

3 name for the record and to you. 

4 MR. McHUGH: Thank you, Doug. 

5 Jon McHugh on behalf of Southern 

6 California Edison. Thank you for bringing us 

7 all here together today. 

8 I'm here with two utilities from 

9 California. Both Pacific Gas and Electric and 

10 Southern California Edison, and both of these 

11 utilities are committed towards supporting the 

12 governor's objectives of trying to reduce 

13 greenhouse gas emissions by 2020 to the 1990 

14 levels. 

15 And California has a situation 

16 where to get to those 1990 levels we're going 

17 to have 40 percent more population in 2020 

18 than we will in 1990, and this is about the 

19 same growth in population as the world as a 

20 whole. 

21 These regulations, I know, to some 

22 extent there's a feeling of conflict between 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 35

1 trying to maintain the status quo versus 

2 requirements for new technology. However, 

3 we've seen in the past that these regulations 

4 have spurred innovation and industry, and I 

5 liken it to pruning, that if you look at 

6 pruning of trees, the old wood is actually 

7 inhibiting the growth of the plant to produce 

8 more fruit. 

9 And similarly, if you look at some 

10 of the historical regulations such as the 

11 refrigerator regulation where we had a 

12 situation where we had sort of a triple win 

13 where due to the reduction of the older models 

14 in the industry, there was innovation for more 

15 efficient refrigerators. The capacity 

16 increased for the consumer. The energy 

17 consumption decreased, and the cost in real 

18 dollars decreased. 

19 I'm just trying to give a little 

20 bit of background, but I look at 20 years ago 

21 I was involved in the GM Sunrace, which was 

22 the development of electric vehicles, and at 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 36

1 that time California had a regulation for zero 

2 emission vehicles, and that regulation spurred 

3 a substantial investment by General Motors in 

4 electric vehicles, and if any of you have seen 

5 "Who Killed the Electric Car," you perhaps 

6 maybe have seen the EV1, which was a car that 

7 was actually rather similar to the Tesla that 

8 exists now, used advanced battery technology, 

9 permanent magnet motors. 

10 And the thing that's interesting 

11 about that is they made this great progress, 

12 and they got a little nervous. You know, they 

13 already had this huge market share, the 

14 largest company producing internal combustion 

15 vehicles, and they waivered. They essentially 

16 were able to get the state to basically renege 

17 on the requirements for zero emission 

18 vehicles. 

19 So here we are in 2009. General 

20 Motors is suffering from its lack of vision. 

21 The Toyota went ahead with the hybrid vehicle. 

22 It is now the world's largest manufacturer. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 37

1 So what I'm suggesting is that 

2 embracing these new, efficient technologies 

3 has the opportunity to spur innovation in the 

4 industry, reduce energy consumption, create 

5 jobs, create American products that will 

6 expand our economy into this new era of 

7 limited resources. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thank 

9 you very much. 

10 Pam. 

11 MR. deLASKI: And I just have one 

12 more comment, which is one of the main 

13 concerns I see about this proceedings is the 

14 issue of the ER and BR lamps and that, you 

15 know, we're looking at an increased energy or 

16 we're leaving on the table over 200 terawatt 

17 hours per year. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: There's going to be 

19 a lot of opportunity to address that in 

20 considerably more detail -- 

21 MR. deLASKI: Okay, okay. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: -- as the day goes 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 38

1 on. 

2 MR. deLASKI: And also the 

3 discussion about that finding. 

4 Thank you. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

6 Pam. 

7 MS. HORNER: Thank you, Doug. 

8 Pam Horner, Osram Sylvania. 

9 Two quick points about lighting. 

10 The lamp manufacturers would like to at this 

11 point state our support for the DOE GSFL 

12 standards. We believe that you have done a 

13 very fair and well reasoned level. You've 

14 considered many impacts and considered them 

15 fairly, including the additional engineering 

16 analysis that was requested for residential 

17 use. 

18 It looks as if by scanning through 

19 the agenda and slides that there will be a lot 

20 more opportunities to address the specifics of 

21 that, but we wanted to go on record saying 

22 that. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 39

1 We would also like to say that 

2 simply stated, the IRL standards, in our view, 

3 if the goal, indeed, was to go to an IR type 

4 or infrared coating type world, that this 

5 standard is set too high to accomplish that 

6 goal. It would do it, but one does not need 

7 to go to that level, and again, we will have 

8 further comments. 

9 I'd like to know where the 40,000 

10 jobs are. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: We can get into 

12 that later when we get to that segment in the 

13 agenda. 

14 Other brief summary remarks here 

15 at the outset before we proceed? 

16 And, Pam, in your last comment 

17 were you speaking on behalf of NEMA? 

18 (Laughter.) 

19 MS. HORNER: Yes. 

20 (Laughter.) 

21 MS. HORNER: I'm nothing if not 

22 funny. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 40

1 MS. GRAVES: Let the record 

2 reflect that there was a visual affirmation 

3 with her colleagues. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you 

5 for that little bit of additional information. 

6 So then I think that we're in a 

7 position then to proceed, and, Mimi, back to 

8 you. 

9 MS. GUPTA: So as alluded to 

10 before, in this NOPR DOE invites comments on 

11 several issues enumerated on these two slides. 

12 During this presentation we will be 

13 addressing each of the 18 issues and opening 

14 up the floor for discussion. 

15 However, DOE also welcomes comment 

16 on any issues not presented in the slides. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Just to be clear, 

18 this is a summary of the issues for which the 

19 department would seek specific comment, not to 

20 inhibit you from commenting on anything you 

21 want to comment on, but it's a summary and 

22 we'll be going step by step, slide by slide, 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 41

1 chunk by chunk. So this is an opportunity for 

2 you to respond as we're going along. 

3 MS. GUPTA: So as Linda mentioned 

4 earlier, this rulemaking addresses two 

5 statutory criteria: one, to amend the 

6 existing standard for general service 

7 fluorescent lamps and incandescent reflector 

8 lamps; and, two, to determine if standards 

9 should be extended to additional general 

10 service fluorescent lamps. 

11 This slide lists lamps to which 

12 DOE proposed to extend coverage to in the 

13 NOPR. 

14 So the current definition of 

15 general service fluorescent lamp covers four 

16 types of lamps: four foot medium bipin, two 

17 foot U-shaped; eight foot single pin slimline; 

18 and eight foot recessed double contact lamps. 

19 With regard to two foot U-shaped 

20 and four foot medium bipin lamps, DOE proposes 

21 to lower the minimum wattage limit for 

22 coverage from 28 watts to 25 watts. In the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 42

1 NOPR, DOE also proposes to add two new types 

2 of lamps, T5 lamps, namely, two types: the 

3 four foot miniature bipin standard output lamp 

4 most oftenly sold as a 28 watt lamp, and the 

5 four foot miniature high output lamp most 

6 oftenly sold as the 54 watt lamp. 

7 Based on a survey of commercially 

8 available product, DOE found that reduced 

9 wattage forms of this lamp exist. So, 

10 therefore, DOE proposes to extend coverage to 

11 four foot T5 standard output lamps with 

12 wattages greater than or equal to 26 watts and 

13 high output lamps with wattages greater than 

14 or equal to 51 watts. 

15 With regards to eight foot 

16 recessed double contact high output lamps and 

17 eight foot single pin slimline lamps, the 

18 current coverage limits coverage to T12 lamps 

19 through restrictions on defining fluorescent 

20 lamp as only those listed in ANSI Standard 

21 78.1 and 78.3, as well as the current 

22 restriction for high output lamps. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 43

1 DOE proposes to extend coverage to 

2 T8 lamps by eliminating these restrictions of 

3 both current and the listing in the ANSI 

4 standards. 

5 DOE seeks comment on the scope of 

6 covered products considered in this 

7 rulemaking, specifically DOE's decision to 

8 cover the four foot T5 miniature bipin 

9 standard output and the high output lamps. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Joe. 

11 MR. HOWLEY: Yes. Industry -- 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Say your name, Joe. 

13 MR. HOWLEY: Joe Howley, GE. 

14 Industry agrees with these 

15 proposed changes to the coverage of GSFL 

16 products, and in addition, we agree to setting 

17 T5 standards with the objective to prevent the 

18 introduction of T5 halophosphate lamps. 

19 We will make further comments on 

20 this standard levels a little later on. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

22 There's the list and the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 44

1 additions. So specific comments on those. 

2 Yes, Steve Rosenstock. 

3 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, 

4 EEI. 

5 In Item 2 on that Slide 14, should 

6 that be less than or equal to 28 watts? 

7 MS. GUPTA: Well, I think the 

8 current coverage is for lamps greater than or 

9 equal to 28 watts. 

10 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Just making sure. 

11 Thanks. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

13 Yes, Steve Nadel. 

14 MR. NADEL: Yes. Steve Nadel, 

15 ACEEE. 

16 A couple of comments. First, we 

17 do support the extension to the T5 lamps. 

18 Thank you for including that. I know that was 

19 a recommendation that we and industry have 

20 both made. 

21 Second, in terms of the wattage 

22 range of the lamps, I haven't had a chance. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 45

1 The TSD just came out, but based on the NOPR, 

2 it looks like for the wattage range you're 

3 saying you looked at the rated wattage of 

4 lamps currently, and that is your limit. 

5 Rated wattages are subject to -- 

6 there are some differences between rated 

7 wattage and actual wattage. We'd recommend at 

8 least coming down one more watt so that people 

9 can't play games with the rating in order to 

10 include those lamps. You know, all of a 

11 sudden now as a 25 watt lamp gets rerated as a 

12 24, or something like that. 

13 There is imprecision in how 

14 ratings are done, and we should allow for 

15 that. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

17 MS. GUPTA: Okay. Thanks for your 

18 comments. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Any additional 

20 comments on this slide? 

21 (No response.) 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 46

1 MS. GUPTA: In addition to 

2 amending the definition for fluorescent lamp, 

3 DOE proposes to alter its GSFL scope of 

4 coverage by amending the definition of colored 

5 fluorescent lamp. The definition of general 

6 service fluorescent lamp excludes colored 

7 fluorescent lamps from energy conservation 

8 standards. 

9 The existing definition of colored 

10 fluorescent lamp defines the colored 

11 fluorescent lamp as a lamp marketed as a 

12 colored lamp and with a CCT either less than 

13 2,500 K or greater than or equal to 6,600 K or 

14 I think it's greater than 6,600 K. 

15 DOE proposes to revise that 

16 definition, namely, the upper CCT limit to 

17 include all lamps with CCT greater than 7,000 

18 K as covered lamps, and therefore, exclude 

19 them from coverage, but this would also add in 

20 lamps between 6,600 K and 7,000 K CCTs into 

21 its scope of coverage. 

22 DOE seeks comment on the decision 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 47

1 to amend the definition of colored fluorescent 

2 lamp to include lamps with a CCT greater than 

3 7,000 K. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed. 

5 MR. YANDEK: Ed Yandek, GE, and 

6 also Chair of Lamp Section Technical 

7 Committee. 

8 And I guess I don't have to keep 

9 repeating that, do I? 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: No. 

11 MR. YANDEK: Okay. NEMA strongly 

12 supports this amended definition and 

13 appreciates further DOE has correctly 

14 understood the underlying technical and market 

15 driven basis for this amendment, and we did 

16 supply a large amount of comments on this, and 

17 we'll of course amplify further on our written 

18 comments. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, and 

20 that's a nice acknowledgement as well. Thank 

21 you. 

22 Other comments on this slide, 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 48

1 definition of colored fluorescent lamps? 

2 Steve Nadel. 

3 MR. NADEL: Okay. A couple of 

4 comments on this. One, the limit has been 

5 placed at 7,000 K, but in the NOPR on page 74 

6 it notes that there's an 8,000 K lamp that is 

7 capturing an increasing market share of 

8 general service applications. So either that 

9 statement in the NOPR is incorrect, or if it 

10 is correct, then DOE should probably extend it 

11 to 8,000. 

12 The idea is general application 

13 lamps should be covered. Very specialty 

14 colored lamps we're fine to exclude, but we 

15 don't want to create a loophole where all of a 

16 sudden these become general application lamps. 

17 Therefore, the other thing that 

18 was in the preliminary I guess it was the 

19 ANOPR at the time that was dropped was a 

20 statement in there that is not -- I think it 

21 was intended for use in general service 

22 applications. DOE has dropped that. We think 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 49

1 that should be added back in just to help 

2 protect that. If someone starts marketing 

3 these for general service applications, they 

4 are not allowed. This is really a specialized 

5 exemption. 

6 As people who have been here 

7 before know, we are very sensitive to 

8 exemptions because the supposedly specialized 

9 products sometimes become widespread, the 

10 classic case being the BR lamp that we'll be 

11 discussing later. It was originally a 

12 specialized niche product, and it is now 40 

13 percent of the market. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

15 Joe. 

16 MR. HOWLEY: I would just like to 

17 make a follow-on comment to Steve's comment. 

18 Industry is not aware of any 8,000 degree 

19 Kelvin lamp that is gaining any type of market 

20 share in the general service lighting market. 

21 Such a lamp would be extremely blue and not 

22 appropriate for general service lighting 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 50

1 applications. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: thanks for the 

3 clarification. Thank you. 

4 Okay. Additional comments on this 

5 slide before we move on? 

6 (No response.) 

7 MS. GUPTA: So this slide 

8 concludes our discussion on scope of coverage. 

9 So if there are any other comments regarding 

10 scope of coverage, this is probably the time. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks for that 

12 cue. 

13 Any other scope of coverage 

14 issues? 

15 MR. deLASKI: Excuse me. This is 

16 just for GSFL, right? 

17 MS. GUPTA: No, this is scope of 

18 coverage in general. These are the slides 

19 that we have on scope of coverage. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Do you want to 

21 raise the other? 

22 MS. GUPTA: But if you'd like to 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 51

1 bring up other issues, you're welcome to. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: The incandescent 

3 reflector lamps at this point? 

4 MR. deLASKI: This is Andrew 

5 deLaski. 

6 I made my point in my opening 

7 remarks. I won't repeat it here. DOE made a 

8 serious error in leaving out the lamp that DOE 

9 terms exempted in the IRL. DOE analysis 

10 showed that 40 percent of the market 

11 reflectors have an increasing share in the 

12 residential sector. 

13 Unfortunately the DOE analysis, in 

14 your analysis by merging together the -- there 

15 are two scenarios. One scenario you run is 

16 the scenario in which you merge together, 

17 shift to CFL products and shift to BR65, which 

18 basically cancel each other out. So you 

19 haven't modeled, you haven't shown us, the 

20 public, what happens if consumers migrate to 

21 the exempted lamps because you've also put it 

22 together in a scenario where you show more 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 52

1 efficient lamps as well at the other end. 

2 So we think that there will be 

3 serious loss of energy efficiency savings as 

4 consumers migrate to lamps that are left out 

5 by the regulation. 

6 We submitted with the ANOPR legal 

7 memos outlining our perspective on DOE's legal 

8 authority to cover these products and, indeed, 

9 legal obligation to cover these products. DOE 

10 says they're covered. DOE put them in Never11 Never Land. they are covered, meaning that 

12 their states are preempted from regulating 

13 these products, but yet there is no -- but yet 

14 DOE concludes in the NOPR that you lack 

15 authority to actually set standards for the 

16 products. 

17 So they are -- one of these 

18 products is in Never-Never Land. States can't 

19 regulate them. The feds. can't regulate them. 

20 I don't think that's what Congress meant, to 

21 put products into this land where they can 

22 never be touched by any sort of efficiency 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 53

1 regulation. 

2 We have a change of 

3 administrations. I think it's time for DOE to 

4 take a fresh look at this issue, and to open 

5 up a supplementary NOPR, again, to propose 

6 standards for the exempted lamps that would be 

7 at the same level as those lamps that aren't 

8 exempted. 

9 There is precedence for DOE to do 

10 supplementary NOPRs on both the transformer 

11 rule and the furnace rule in 2007. DOE issued 

12 supplementary NOPRs to address the issues that 

13 had not been raised or properly raised in the 

14 NOPR document. 

15 You need to move fast to get the 

16 supplementary NOPR out because of the June 

17 30th consent decree deadline, and I think it 

18 should be the top priority for the department 

19 right now to begin working on preparing that 

20 document. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional points 

22 on scope of coverage? 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 54

1 (No response.) 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

3 MS. GUPTA: All right. Now I'm 

4 going to move on to the second part of this 

5 rulemaking, which is addressing the statutory 

6 criteria to amend the existing standards for 

7 general service fluorescent lamps and 

8 incandescent reflector lamps, and I'm going to 

9 skip forward a bit to Slide 18 just to discuss 

10 a little bit about the process that DOE takes 

11 in conducting the NOPR. 

12 As you can see in this slide, 

13 we're in the NOPR stage. We've completed the 

14 framework document and the ANOPR stage. The 

15 first step in the NOPR stage of the rulemaking 

16 is to revise the existing ANOPR analyses, of 

17 which the three main ones are the engineering 

18 analysis, the life cycle cost and payback 

19 period analysis, and the national impacts 

20 analysis. 

21 DOE then establishes and selects 

22 trial standard levels and conducts several new 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 55

1 NOPR analyses, such as the consumer subgroup, 

2 manufacturer impact, utility impact, 

3 employment impact, environmental assessment 

4 and the regulatory impact analysis. 

5 All right. I'm going to go back 

6 to Slide 16. 

7 So the first thing I'm going to 

8 talk about is DOE's revisions to the product 

9 classes in the NOPR. DOE generally 

10 establishes product classes by the type of 

11 energy used, the capacity or other performance 

12 related features that affect efficiency and 

13 factors such as the utility of the product to 

14 users. 

15 For GSFL using these criteria, DOE 

16 established product classes based on lamp type 

17 and correlated color temperature, or CCT, as 

18 seen in this table. 

19 DOE separates its coverage into 

20 six lamp types, four foot medium bipin, tow 

21 foot U-shaped, eight foot single pin slimline, 

22 eight foot recessed double contacts high 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 56

1 output, four foot miniature bipin standard 

2 output, T5 standard output lamp, and four foot 

3 miniature bipin high output lamps. 

4 As soon in this table, in DOE's 

5 proposed product class structure DOE grouped 

6 T12 and T8 lamps into one product class, which 

7 would result in one minimum efficacy standard 

8 for both types of lamps. 

9 In addition, DOE established 

10 separate product classes for T5 lamps. This 

11 was based on DOE's belief that the physical 

12 constraints and lumen package of T5 lamps 

13 prevent them from being direct replacements 

14 for T8 and T12 lamps in some applications. 

15 In addition, DOE established 

16 separate product classes for lamps with CCT 

17 greater than 4,500 K and less than or equal to 

18 4,500 K. This results in a total of 12 

19 separate product classes of which DOE only 

20 analyzes five, shown in yellow. DOE did not 

21 directly analyze the two foot U-shaped product 

22 classes nor the high CCT product classes. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 57

1 My colleague, Conan O'Rourke will 

2 discuss further how DOE treated these 

3 unanalyzed product classes in the engineering 

4 analysis, but I'd like to pause here to invite 

5 comments on the proposed product class 

6 structure for general service fluorescent 

7 lamps, in particular, the assigning of 

8 separate product classes for four foot T5 

9 lamps. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Joe Howley. 

11 MR. HOWLEY: Yes, Joe Howley. 

12 Industry agrees with the proposed 

13 product classes and also agrees that separate 

14 product classes must be established for T5 

15 standard output lamps versus T5 high output 

16 lamps. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: So that tracks what 

18 the department has done. 

19 MR. HOWLEY: Yes. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

21 MR. HOWLEY: Through their 

22 proposal. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 58

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Okay. 

2 Additional comments on the product classes? 

3 (No response.) 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: No additional 

5 comments. Okay. 

6 MS. GUPTA: For incandescent 

7 reflector lamps, DOE based its product class 

8 structure on lamp diameter, voltage, and 

9 spectrum. Firstly, regarding spectrum, DOE 

10 established two sets of product classes based 

11 on the standard spectrum and modified spectrum 

12 lamps. 

13 To define modified spectrum, DOE 

14 proposed to adopt the definition of modified 

15 spectrum in the Energy Independence and 

16 Security Act and apply it to incandescent 

17 reflector lamps. 

18 DOE also proposes to set separate 

19 product classes for smaller diameter lamps. 

20 These lamps provide a distinct utility which 

21 generally results in lower efficacy. DOE sets 

22 a separate product class for lamps with less 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 59

1 than or equal to 2.5 inches, which correlates 

2 to the 20 incandescent reflector lamp 

3 diameters, such as Part 20s and R20s. 

4 Finally, DOE established IRL 

5 product classes based on rated voltage. 

6 Current test procedures allow for lamps rated 

7 at 130 volts to be tested at 130 volts and 

8 lamps rated at 120 volts to be tested at 120 

9 volts. 

10 However, DOE is aware that a large 

11 number of 130 volt lamps are actually operated 

12 at 120 volts, resulting in longer life, but 

13 also reduced efficacy. 

14 Due to the resulting lower 

15 efficacy requirements of these 130 volt lamps, 

16 setting higher standards for incandescent 

17 reflector lamps could result in increased 

18 migration to the 130 volt lamps and possible 

19 lost energy savings. 

20 Therefore, in this NOPR DOE 

21 proposes to set separate standards for 130 

22 volt lamps. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 60

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Pam Horner. 

2 MS. HORNER: Pam Horner speaking 

3 for NEMA. 

4 We have two technical points that 

5 we would like to make, one on the modified 

6 spectrum and one on 130 volt, and I am flanked 

7 by the experts who can address each one. 

8 If I could refer to Joe for a 

9 brief comment on modified and to Greg for a 

10 brief comment on 130 volt, please. 

11 MR. HOWLEY: Joe Howley. 

12 Separate product classes must be 

13 established for PAR 20 and enhanced spectrum 

14 lamps, as you have suggested here. However, 

15 we do not agree especially with the PAR 20 

16 that it was set appropriately. We could talk 

17 about that further on in the discussion, and 

18 also there are issues with the 130 volt class. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Do you want to just 

20 set appropriately? How would they be set 

21 appropriately? 

22 MR. HOWLEY: It has to do with how 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 61

1 they were scaled down from the proposed level. 

2 We suggested a scaling in our NOPR comments, 

3 but this scaling was inappropriately applied 

4 to the technologies now being proposed. We 

5 could talk further about how this level was 

6 incorrectly arrived at in PAR 20. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes. 

8 MR. NELSON: Greg Nelson from 

9 Philips. 

10 Yes, we had some additional 

11 comments on the 120 or the separate 

12 classification for 130 volt. I think the DOE 

13 correctly recognized the additional special 

14 utility for the modified spectrum and for the 

15 PAR 20, but we recognize a distinct class of 

16 users who do have high line voltages in their 

17 real applications. One, thirty volt is not 

18 uncommon in some areas of the country. 

19 The rulemaking as it stands today 

20 would result in no usable offer for these 

21 people because if they're forced to buy 120 

22 volt lamps, they will be faced with continuous 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 62

1 short life situations and looking at where the 

2 130 volt standards have been set, we don't 

3 believe that it is technically possible to 

4 achieve. They have been really set one bar 

5 higher than even the 120 volt. 

6 So we would support an area of 

7 regulation where actually we don't have 

8 separate classes, but we rate the lamps and 

9 measure them at their rated voltages. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Of course, the 

11 department is very interested in having the 

12 details on impacts like this. So in your 

13 written comments if you can be very specific. 

14 MR. NELSON: We will come back to 

15 that in the writing, and if I can add, I think 

16 there is a legitimate concern that was 

17 addressed by the DOE in terms of, let's say, a 

18 misuse of 130 volt in 120 volt areas. We 

19 believe there may be other ways to address 

20 that so that it does not become a loophole. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, okay. Yes, 

22 Steve Rosenstock. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 63

1 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, 

2 EEI. 

3 Just a quick question again. I 

4 probably should have reviewed the NOPR a 

5 little bit more closely, but I'm kind of 

6 curious about for those lamps under 40 watts 

7 why they were excluded. That was EPCA or EISA 

8 or just, you know, because there are a lot of 

9 under 40 watt IR lamps out there? 

10 The second issue I want to 

11 discuss, I'm sure, in the context of 130 volt 

12 lamps is that basically for utilities they are 

13 sending out, especially for the residential 

14 sector, the transformers that transform the 

15 voltage down to nominal 120 volts, and if you 

16 look in utility rates terms and conditions, 

17 for primarily most -- and there are some 

18 utilities here -- in the rates and conditions 

19 it's plus or minus five percent. Therefore, 

20 the rate of voltage is 120 volts. That 

21 utility voltage for almost all utilities will 

22 be in the range between 114 and 126 volts 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 64

1 delivered to the end use customer. 

2 So just as an FYI, but I have 

3 heard of cases where typically the voltages 

4 are higher for some, whether operational 

5 reasons or distribution issues, but that's the 

6 typical range for those utilities or entities, 

7 you know, where the voltage is set at 120 

8 volts. 

9 Thank you. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

11 Under 40 watts? 

12 MS. GUPTA: So I can say about the 

13 under 40 watts is that our approach was to 

14 take the existing scope of coverage for 

15 incandescent reflector lamps. However, if you 

16 feel that there are more lamps under 40 watts 

17 that DOE should extend coverage to, we'd 

18 appreciate those comments. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Joe Howley. 

20 MR. HOWLEY: Just a comment. On 

21 IR products specifically, the industry does 

22 not generally offer products that are under 40 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 65

1 watts in this area for technical reasons. I'm 

2 not sure where that comment came from, but I 

3 don't think it's accurate, the previous 

4 comment. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: There are not under 

6 40 watt products in general manufacture or 

7 distribution? 

8 MR. HOWLEY: That are IR 

9 technology, I don't believe there are. I'm 

10 not aware of any. Let's put it that way. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: I'm scanning down 

12 the panel of manufacturer industry folks here. 

13 You're shaking your heads no. Okay. 

14 Steve Nadel. 

15 MR. NADEL: A couple of things. 

16 One, and I don't have my catalogue with me. I 

17 do recall there were some 35 watt or higher 

18 products. I'd have to look at my catalogue 

19 for exactly who had them. 

20 My vague recollection, it might 

21 have been in GE, but the comment I wanted to 

22 make was on the 130 volt class, we're looking 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 66

1 for more data to help determine what we feel. 

2 Our understanding is that the vast majority 

3 of 130 volt lamps are used on 120, 115 volt 

4 areas as effectively a longer life lamp, and 

5 we wanted to be sure that if there's a special 

6 class for this, it doesn't become a loophole 

7 for people regarding sales. 

8 I don't know. Does the TSD 

9 specifically address this issue and explain 

10 the rationale in more detail? 

11 MS. GUPTA: Yes, it does. It 

12 explains the rationale behind the scaling 

13 factor and why we sought separate product 

14 class. 

15 I can tell you that when Conan 

16 speaks about the scaling, we set a higher -- 

17 we proposed to set a higher standard for 130 

18 volt lamps to mitigate lost energy savings due 

19 to the fact that they're often used on 120 

20 volt lamps. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed. 

22 MR. YANDEK: Yes, just one quick 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 67

1 comment, and we'll provide more in our written 

2 comments obviously, but, yes, we do understand 

3 ANSI C-84.1 is applied by utilities for line 

4 voltage regulation. 

5 On the other hand, we do know of 

6 cases and we do know of regions of the country 

7 where the line voltage is typically higher 

8 than provided in ANSI C-84.1. So these are 

9 products with real utility for those regions 

10 of the country. 

11 Secondly, even if one does operate 

12 a 130 volt product at 120 volt, the power is 

13 reduced proportionately. So you're not 

14 increasing power. You're actually decreasing 

15 power, just as you do every time you take an 

16 incandescent phase controlled dimmer and you 

17 dim an incandescent lamp. 

18 But we will provide more 

19 substantive comments in our written response. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

21 Greg, did you want to? 

22 MR. NELSON: No, I think that has 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 68

1 got it. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional 

3 comments on these product classes, IRL product 

4 classes on Slide 17? Andrew. 

5 MR. deLASKI: At the ANOPR phase 

6 we commented, I think, that this should not be 

7 a separate part of a modified spectrum, and we 

8 still feel that way. It should not be a 

9 separate part class for -- 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed, I don't think 

11 you're on. Why don't you just leave it on? 

12 MR. deLASKI: Okay. At the ANOPR 

13 phase we commented that there should not be a 

14 separate product class for modified spectrum 

15 products. We argued then that there are 

16 options for consumers, technical options to 

17 achieve modified spectrum utility using both 

18 LED technology and phosphor based technologies 

19 that would achieve the same utility for 

20 consumers. 

21 Reading the NOPR, I was struck 

22 that the department concluded that, well, 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 69

1 you've got to have that utility through an 

2 incandescent technology. 

3 So it strikes me that this is an 

4 argument that by boxing it in with the 

5 incandescent technology as opposed to what the 

6 consumer observes and what the consumer gets 

7 that we are creating a situation in which 

8 we're not focused on the question of does it 

9 provide unique customer utility, but rather, 

10 does it use a specific technology, and I think 

11 that's a mistake and one that risks 

12 undermining energy savings in this rulemaking 

13 and creates risk for other rulemaking as well. 

14 So we continue think that there 

15 should not be a break for modified spectrum, 

16 but you talk about the specific levels later 

17 on, right? 

18 MS. GUPTA: Yes. The scaling will 

19 be spoken about later on. 

20 MR. deLASKI: Okay. Thanks. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional 

22 comments? 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 70

1 (No response.) 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

3 MS. GUPTA: Okay. That concludes 

4 the discussion on product classes, and my 

5 colleague Conan O'Rourke will continue 

6 discussing the changes and revisions to the 

7 engineering analysis. 

8 MR. O'ROURKE: Good morning. 

9 Thank you, Mimi. 

10 So briefly I'm going to go over 

11 the engineering analysis and also describe 

12 some of the new products that were addressed 

13 since the ANOPR and also talk about scaling 

14 throughout this as well. 

15 So in general, the engineering 

16 analysis is set to identify baseline lamps 

17 within existing product classes and look at 

18 higher efficiency or efficacious alternatives. 

19 In general the process goes through choosing 

20 representative product classes of the product 

21 classes that have been identified; selecting 

22 baseline lamps within those product classes; 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 71

1 and then developing higher efficacy levels 

2 within that product class; and then scaling to 

3 product classes that were not analyzed 

4 directly. 

5 So one of the comments that were 

6 received during the ANOPR and was also 

7 mentioned as a comment period here at this 

8 meeting is there may be an opportunity where 

9 halophsophor T5 lamps may be able to be 

10 introduced to the market and gain market 

11 share. So as part of this rulemaking we 

12 looked at this T5 lamp and since there was no 

13 commercially available halophosphors on the 

14 market, we had to develop a model, and this 

15 model was based on using shorter halophosphor 

16 T5 lamps that were commercially available and 

17 understanding the relationship to lamp length 

18 and efficacy established in the product 

19 industry journals and product literature and 

20 extend it up to a four foot length lamp. 

21 In here we're also showing you the 

22 tables for what that baseline values would be 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 72

1 for the T5 standard output and the T5 high 

2 output lamps, as well as efficacy levels 

3 established for them. 

4 So the department invites comment 

5 on the properties of the T5 halophosphor GSFL 

6 baseline lamps. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Joe Howley. 

8 MR. HOWLEY: The industry 

9 generally agrees that the lumen per watt 

10 standards for such a T5 lamp made with 

11 halophosphor would be relatively low as 

12 suggested here. We haven't done a thorough 

13 analysis, but it would certainly be down in 

14 the ranges proposed. 

15 However, we feel just in general 

16 that the LPWs for T5 lamps have been set 

17 incorrectly in this manner. Like T12 and T8 

18 lamps, T5 LPW standards should be set when 

19 tested at 25 degrees C., which is standard 

20 test lab temperature, not 35 degrees C. We 

21 note that some manufacturers rate at 35, some 

22 at 25, some at both, but in terms of a testing 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 73

1 number for DOE purposes, this should be tested 

2 at 25 like the other lamps are tested. 

3 Therefore, the numbers are set 

4 significantly too high for testing at 25 

5 degrees C. NEMA will provide appropriate LPW 

6 numbers for T5 lamps in our written comments 

7 that are above the performance of the T5 halo 

8 lamps, but appropriate for existing T5 lamps. 

9 We note in some of the cases even 

10 the 35 degrees C. numbers were set right at 

11 averages and were set also, we believe, too 

12 high and unnecessarily too high because 

13 they're way above where any halo lamp would 

14 be, and it's not necessary to go that high 

15 with these levels. 

16 Also, maybe I'll take this 

17 opportunity to talk in general about the LPW 

18 numbers. We mentioned earlier that the level 

19 set at TSL3, we're generally in agreement, but 

20 NEMA in the NOPR comments, we did mention what 

21 we thought appropriate TSL3 numbers should be. 

22 Specifically, we note that for the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 74

1 four foot fluorescent lamp numbers, our 

2 proposal was 83 lumens per watt and DOE is 

3 proposing 84. So we still recommend going 

4 down by one lumen per watt. 

5 Also the two foot U-shaped lamp 

6 number we believe should be lowered by two 

7 lumens per watt from 78 to 76. We note that 

8 you scaled the U lamps. You didn't do a 

9 direct analysis, but we think the scaling 

10 should be a little lower also by two lumens 

11 per watt than proposed. 

12 We think part of this reason is 

13 that proposed numbers are high because in 

14 reading the NOPR it appears to us that DOE did 

15 not understand NEMA's comments NIST and NVLAP 

16 testing and did not appropriately incorporate 

17 these into the analysis. The comments we made 

18 seemed to be dismissed after talking to NIST, 

19 but we don't believe this was fairly 

20 understood, nor NIST really understood what we 

21 were commenting on. 

22 Ed is going to comment further on 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 75

1 this particular issue. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

3 Ed. 

4 MR. YANDEK: Okay, and we'll 

5 elaborate more in our written comments. 

6 But our statement in our original 

7 comments was not to imply that NIST had 

8 reestablished the baseline post 1997. Of 

9 course, they have not done that. But our 

10 comments are really to indicate that ongoing 

11 NVLAP assessments and adjustments to company 

12 photometry facilities which do happen all the 

13 time since 1997 have resulted in a reduction 

14 of lumens for some products, particularly 

15 those that have had tighter limits on them or, 

16 let's say, less margin compared to catalogue 

17 ratings. And this has occurred. We have made 

18 these assessments ourselves. 

19 While not significant in terms of 

20 a nominal catalogue value, such changes must 

21 be accounted for when sending mandatory 

22 federal minimum standards based on small 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 76

1 sample lot testing because these are right 

2 line standards in production. We must make 

3 every lamp to conform to its requirements, not 

4 averages. 

5 So NEMA has accounted for this in 

6 the data that we have, which is based on high 

7 volume production data. You do not have 

8 access to that and admittedly so. 

9 So these slight changes are not 

10 designed to create loopholes, but are created 

11 to just allow for statistical normal variation 

12 in production so if anybody were to sample our 

13 products, our compliance would be assured in 

14 the field. 

15 We'll talk more about that in our 

16 written comments. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

18 And, Joe, did you say why you were 

19 asking for 25 degrees C.? Because I didn't 

20 hear that. 

21 MR. YANDEK: I'll comment on that. 

22 It's just, you know, a well known industry 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 77

1 practice according to all industry standards 

2 as well that even though the lamps are used at 

3 a variety of temperatures, so for example in 

4 the ceiling the temperature here is now 25 C. 

5 typically, but the reference standard 

6 temperature is always set at 25 C. so that we 

7 have consistency and we have the best possible 

8 accuracy and reproducibility. 

9 In terms of marketing the T5 

10 products, we know that a lot of them are used 

11 at higher temperatures. So there is a rating 

12 that occurs or a relative rating that occurs 

13 at 35 C., but that is a secondary adjustment 

14 by the manufacturer. 

15 So the primary data is always 

16 taken at 25 C. Then there's a relative 

17 measurement that's made for 35 C., but we do 

18 not place that equipment in 35 degrees C. 

19 spheres. It would be too expensive, too 

20 unproductive, and so the conmpliance testing 

21 needs to be at 25 degrees C. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Is that what's 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 78

1 specified by ANSI or whomever? 

2 MR. YANDEK: That's what we had 

3 specified in our industry standards. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Industry standards. 

5 MR. YANDEK: Now, this brings up 

6 an interesting point because there already is 

7 in parallel a test procedures rulemaking, and 

8 obviously we want to make sure that when that 

9 rulemaking gets issued there are no errors in 

10 that that would impact the minimum efficiency 

11 standards rulemaking. 

12 So we are alerting you that we do 

13 need to see -- we're not disagreeing in 

14 general with the need to set these numbers for 

15 T5s, but we need to make sure the numbers are 

16 adjusted for 25 degrees Centigrade testing, 

17 and Conan knows exactly what I'm talking 

18 about. 

19 (Laughter.) 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So then if 

21 you know it, you don't need to comment, right? 

22 MR. O'ROURKE: That's correct. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 79

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Nadel. 

2 MR. NADEL: A couple of comments 

3 on these issues. First, we do support testing 

4 of T5s at 25 C. That, as we understand it, is 

5 the more typical condition, and we generally 

6 believe the product should be tested at 

7 typical conditions. 

8 In terms of the question about 

9 where to draw the line, we believe the line 

10 should be drawn on typical performance for the 

11 different classes, not try to set it so low 

12 that it will just rule out halophosphor but 

13 maybe would encourage some less efficient 

14 halophosphor product. You should look at the 

15 products on the market and not deliberately, 

16 you know, lower it to allow some less 

17 efficacious products that might be developed 

18 in the future. 

19 Likewise, in terms of the T8 

20 category or T12 category, we support DOE 

21 issues of looking at the compliance data and 

22 basing the standards on those. We were very 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 80

1 concerned about NEMA's earlier proposal, which 

2 we thought was too slack and allowed too many 

3 products. 

4 There are a lot of products. You 

5 know, we're dealing with these 800 series 

6 lamps, different performances being reported 

7 and change of one lumen per watt would allow 

8 quite a few products, I believe, from the last 

9 time I looked at that. 

10 So we support what DOE has done 

11 and what NEMA proposed last time. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

13 Okay. Before you move on, 

14 additional comments? 

15 (No response.) 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

17 MR. O'ROURKE: All right. Going 

18 on to the next slide, as addressed also at the 

19 ANOPR and in the comments today, looking at 

20 coverage for the residential sector for the 

21 four foot medium bipin lamps, the department 

22 has analyzed the medium bipin for this 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 81

1 residential sector as part of this NOPR 

2 analysis and chose to use the 40 watt T12 lamp 

3 as the baseline lamp for the residential 

4 sector. 

5 And looking for a lamp ballast 

6 system, the lamp efficacy was about 76.8 

7 lumens per watt and had a shorter lifetime, 

8 about 15,000 hours, compared to its commercial 

9 counterpart. 

10 The department compared this with 

11 a low ballast factor, a ballast of .68 ballast 

12 factor for an input power of 70 watts. 

13 The higher efficacy lamps that are 

14 sold, that are available both in the 

15 commercial and residential sectors will be 

16 shown in the following slide, looking at the 

17 different efficacy levels, and residential 

18 lamps are subject to the same efficacy levels 

19 as the commercial lamps are. 

20 So the department invites comments 

21 of the added four foot medium bipin 

22 residential sector, particularly the choice of 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 82

1 the baseline system lamp and ballast for this 

2 residential sector. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Joe Howley. 

4 MR. HOWLEY: Industry has not had 

5 time to review the technical analysis for 

6 residential, and we do plan to do that and 

7 provide comments in our written comments once 

8 the review is completed. 

9 Just in general, looking at this, 

10 it appears that baseline for T12 lamps, 40 

11 watt T12 lamps and the ballast used are fairly 

12 typical of residential applications. We have 

13 in general just general concern about the 

14 economics of eliminating the four foot T12 

15 lamps in the residential market, but further 

16 analysis is needed. So we will provide 

17 further comments in our written statement. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 

19 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock 

20 at Edison Electric Institute. 

21 For this analysis I was just 

22 curious and again I should have reread the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 83

1 fluorescent lamp ballast rule that was passed 

2 in 2000 where, you know, fixtures starting in 

3 2005 they had to be higher efficiency 

4 ballasts, and then any replacement ballast for 

5 sale after April 2010. 

6 So I couldn't remember if the 

7 residential ballasts were exempt from that 

8 rulemaking or not, but just something to 

9 consider. 

10 Thank you. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: I could see some. 

12 Yes, Joe. 

13 MR. HOWLEY: Yes, just to comment 

14 on that, the residential shop light ballast, 

15 as it's known, is exempted from that 

16 regulation. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Steve, go 

18 ahead. 

19 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Thank you. 

20 Steve Rosenstock. 

21 Okay. About the shop light, I'm 

22 just wondering about I'll say a general 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 84

1 service fixture like in the kitchen or other 

2 areas of the house, not -- 

3 MR. HOWLEY: It's called a shop 

4 light ballast, but it is used in all those 

5 types of fixtures. It's a low end residential 

6 fixture ballast, very typical. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Nadel. 

8 MR. NADEL: Yes. I mean, products 

9 below a certain power factor are not included 

10 in the current federal standard. As I recall, 

11 and there's a separate rulemaking on this, one 

12 of the issues that has been raised for 

13 comments is whether coverage in the next 

14 ballast standard should be changed. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So 

16 additional comments? Four foot medium bipin 

17 residential? 

18 (No response.) 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

20 MR. O'ROURKE: Okay So I've gone 

21 over some of the new analyses that have been 

22 included since the ANOPR and talking about 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 85

1 selecting baseline product, and the next step 

2 would be looking at higher efficacy levels 

3 within product classes. 

4 So this next slide I'm showing 

5 kind of how we set that up for the four foot 

6 medium bipin lamps, and establishing the 

7 higher efficacy levels is using technology 

8 options that have been identified and in this 

9 case we're talking about different phosphorus 

10 that could be used within the lamps, say, 

11 going from halophosphor to triphosphor or 

12 shifting from T12 to smaller diameter lamps as 

13 well. 

14 So what I'm showing here in this 

15 table is, as Mimi mentioned in her 

16 presentation, the T12 and T8 are included 

17 together in one product class. There are four 

18 separate baselines within this analysis. 

19 There is a 40 watt T12 residential and a 40 

20 watt T12 commercial industrial. There's also 

21 a 34 watt T12 and a higher level baseline for 

22 the 32 watt T8. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 86

1 And as we go up to higher and 

2 higher efficacy levels, you'll see that at 

3 about efficacy level three, the 40 watt T12 

4 will not be able to meet that requirement at 

5 efficacy level four. Not T12 34 or 40 watt 

6 would be able to meet their requirement, 

7 leaving the 32 watt T8s with higher design 

8 options. 

9 So to -- 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Wait just one 

11 second. 

12 Ed. 

13 MR. YANDEK: A question. Where 

14 does DOE want to discuss phosphor issues? We 

15 talked earlier about -- 

16 MR. O'ROURKE: There will be, you 

17 know, on my scaling part I had a little bit of 

18 a discussion about going to the 4,500. 

19 MR. YANDEK: The scaling, okay. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

21 Okay. Mimi? 

22 MS. GUPTA: No. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 87

1 MR. BROOKMAN: No? Okay. Good. 

2 Thanks for raising it. 

3 Steve, yes, a follow-on. 

4 MR. NADEL: I was going to ask 

5 another question. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Please do, yes. 

7 MR. NADEL: Could either you or 

8 maybe industry could comment. I don't 

9 remember what the 25 watt products are, the T8 

10 products that are allowed by standard level 

11 four but not five. What products are those? 

12 MR. O'ROURKE: They're within this 

13 class for the 32 watt T8, with the T8 class. 

14 MR. NADEL: So they are a special 

15 energy saving lamp? 

16 MR. O'ROURKE: Correct. 

17 MR. NADEL: Okay, fine. 

18 MR. O'ROURKE: They're used 

19 together with a lamp-ballast combination to 

20 try to maintain light level and get the 

21 benefit. 

22 MR. NADEL: Right. Okay. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 88

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay? 

2 MR. O'ROURKE: Okay. Going on to 

3 a point that Steve Nadel had brought up just a 

4 little while ago looking at the efficacy 

5 levels, when we presented in the ANOPR, we 

6 based our efficacy levels on the rated data, 

7 and looking at the compliance data that we 

8 have for products that are currently covered, 

9 we noticed that the rated data does not always 

10 match -- the measured data does not always 

11 match exactly to the rated data, and the ANSI 

12 standards actually take this into account. 

13 So we show here an example of one 

14 of the tables for one of the product classes 

15 showing how the efficacy levels were. In some 

16 cases some of the new NOPR values have been 

17 raised or lowered, depending on the efficacy 

18 level. 

19 Also, since the compliance reports 

20 round to the nearest lumen per watt, that also 

21 played a role in what the new levels are as 

22 well. So the department invites comment on 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 89

1 the efficacy levels for each general service 

2 fluorescent lamp product class, particularly 

3 the department's decision to use compliance 

4 report data to establish general service 

5 fluorescent lamp efficacy levels. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed. 

7 MR. YANDEK: In general NEMA does 

8 agree with the efficacy values. However, 

9 there are certain slight changes we would like 

10 to see made. We'll go into that more 

11 explicitly in our written comments. 

12 But again, we appreciate that DOE 

13 went to the EPAC reports. That's a much more 

14 reasonable way to go about doing it than to 

15 just take nominal values out of catalogues. 

16 However, your data is much less 

17 than our data. We have a lot more data and we 

18 have more recent test data, test data that 

19 also involves the actual variability that 

20 occurs in high production manufacturing which 

21 we have to take into account, again, when we 

22 have to meet the minimum efficacy. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 90

1 So we, in general, agree with what 

2 was done. We will provide some slight 

3 corrections that we feel are justified and 

4 will provide that in our written comments. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: thank you. 

6 Yes, please. Your name. 

7 MR. REA: Mark Rea. 

8 Implied in your statement, I 

9 think, Ed, is that you have the data to decide 

10 what quartile would now be included in a lower 

11 number. So is this intended to get all of the 

12 data; that someone is to test this lamp and 

13 that, therefore, anyone would sample, say, 

14 three standard deviations or what? 

15 Because there's no uncertainty I'm 

16 aware of on how you would set that number, one 

17 lumen per watt or three or whatever it is. So 

18 do you provide that information about the 

19 distribution? 

20 MR. YANDEK: We will in our 

21 written comments talk about the confidence 

22 level and how we look at that, which you know, 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 91

1 on any given day you can always find one or 

2 two lamps that wouldn't meet a conformance 

3 level. 

4 But in general, we would like to 

5 be a in a situation where if somebody were to 

6 buy a significant number of lamps from 

7 multiple outlets, they will find that when 

8 they do the math according to the DOE test 

9 formula that the results will be in 

10 conformance. So that is the basis on which we 

11 are setting our numbers. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional 

13 comments on these efficacy levels? 

14 (No response.) 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

16 MR. O'ROURKE: All right. 

17 Continuing on for incandescent reflector lamp 

18 efficacy levels, like general service 

19 fluorescent lamps, when you establish the 

20 baseline and you look at higher efficacy 

21 levels, you're looking at different technology 

22 options that may allow you to get there. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 92

1 These could include more efficient gas fills, 

2 higher pressure housing capsules, more 

3 efficient reflectors, as well as higher 

4 temperature operation and different types of 

5 coatings like infrared coatings. 

6 The graph that we're showing here 

7 is similar to the one we showed into the 

8 ANOPR. There have been some slight 

9 adjustments to the efficacy levels, and I will 

10 talk about some of them in the following 

11 slide, but just to review, the baseline is a 

12 step function for the current EPCA standard, 

13 and we have efficacy level one which is 

14 looking at improved halogens, maybe using 

15 xenon gas fill. 

16 Efficacy level two is looking at 

17 the longer life HIR technology with maybe an 

18 improved halogen with reflector coating. 

19 Efficacy level three would be 

20 halogen infrared as well as EL4. It would be 

21 an improvement on that halogen infrared. 

22 And efficacy level five, the new 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 93

1 level, is an even more improved level. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Quick question? 

3 I'm sorry. 

4 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock. 

5 Again, back on that slide, just as 

6 a quick reference, does the current proposed 

7 NOPR, is that TSL4 aligned with EL4 in this 

8 chart? 

9 MR. O'ROURKE: Yes. 

10 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Thank you. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew deLaski. 

12 MR. deLASKI: Maybe you're going 

13 to get to this, but if you could, if you are 

14 just go ahead and tell me that, but are you 

15 going to describe what you mean by improved 

16 HIR at EL4 and EL5? 

17 So what are the technological 

18 improvements that you're -- 

19 MR. O'ROURKE: You can have 

20 improvements in the infrared coating itself. 

21 You can have also coatings within the 

22 reflector that helps reflect a light out. It 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 94

1 could be a silver coating or some other type 

2 of coating to help improve that. 

3 MR. deLASKI: And what are some of 

4 the other types besides the silver? 

5 MR. O'ROURKE: Although the 

6 aluminum is the typical one, but right now -- 

7 well, I will talk about that briefly in the 

8 next slide a little bit. 

9 MR. deLASKI: Okay. Thanks. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. Say 

11 your name. 

12 MS. STEVENS: Amanda Stevens on 

13 behalf of PG&E. 

14 I had a quick question on the 

15 framing of -- 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Amanda, get close. 

17 MS. STEVENS: Sorry. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

19 MS. STEVENS: Just a comment on 

20 the way that these standards are framed. So 

21 in the graph shown, they're framed in terms of 

22 efficacy in terms of watts, not lumens. If we 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 95

1 want consumers and manufacturers to focus on 

2 lumens, which are a more appropriate measure 

3 of the functional performance of a lamp, why 

4 not consider framing the efficacy levels in 

5 terms of lumens using a mathematically 

6 equivalent approach, but based on lumens 

7 instead of watts? 

8 MR. O'ROURKE: In some degree the 

9 lumens were taken into account. These colored 

10 lines of the green, the red and the blue are 

11 showing as you go to lower technologies trying 

12 to maintain to some degree an equal light 

13 output in the analysis. In some cases it 

14 wasn't matched exactly, but it was the intent 

15 to try and maintain light level. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

17 MR. deLASKI: I have one follow-up 

18 question. This is Andrew Delaski again. 

19 So you mentioned a number of 

20 technologies that could be applied to get you 

21 to EL4 or EL5. Did you look at the -- in 

22 terms of looking at MaxTech and getting to the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 96

1 level that is the maximum technically 

2 feasible, matching these technologies -- I 

3 guess the root of my question is is there an 

4 EL6 that should have been analyzed or could 

5 have been analyzed in this rulemaking? 

6 MR. O'ROURKE: I'm not aware of 

7 any, but I'll let Mimi comment on that. 

8 MS. GUPTA: Yes, I think if -- 

9 Mimi Gupta -- I think if you look at the NOPR 

10 we discussed the potential max type level for 

11 incandescent reflector lamps as an 

12 incandescent reflector lamp that uses the best 

13 reflector, namely what DOE knows right now as 

14 the silver reflector coupled with halogen 

15 infrared capsule using the best technology. 

16 However, because that level would 

17 only have one pathway to reach it and that 

18 would be using a proprietary technology, DOE 

19 did not analyze that level and sets the 

20 highest level that it analyzes as EL5, which 

21 may use that proprietary silver technology, 

22 but can also be achieved by using other 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 97

1 technologies. 

2 Is that clear? 

3 MR. deLASKI: Yes, and I think 

4 this came up during the ANOPR phase so that to 

5 get to an EL6, you ruled it out because there 

6 was the assumption that you have to use a 

7 proprietary technology. 

8 MS. GUPTA: Exactly. So that -- 

9 MR. deLASKI: And I recall that a 

10 question that was raised at that phase of the 

11 rulemaking was, well -- I can't recall whether 

12 this was in our written comments or not, but 

13 that there very well could be the opportunity 

14 for cross-licensing. Just because something 

15 is proprietary doesn't mean that the other 

16 manufacturers don't have access to it. 

17 And I wanted to see if you've 

18 probably been able to investigate, you know, 

19 is there cross-licensing of this technology 

20 that would enable other manufacturers -- 

21 they're here today -- do other manufacturers 

22 have access to this proprietary technology? 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 98

1 MS. GUPTA: We did look into 

2 cross-licensing, and as of now for the NOPR, 

3 DOE's position was to eliminate any level that 

4 was solely based on proprietary technology, 

5 but if you have further comments on our 

6 consideration of cross-licensing and how we 

7 should take that into account, then we'd 

8 appreciate them. 

9 MR. deLASKI: Did you find out? I 

10 mean, are there cross-licenses? Do other 

11 manufacturers have access to the technology? 

12 MS. GUPTA: I don't think that's 

13 something we can say. I'm sorry. It's under 

14 confidentiality. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Amanda, please. 

16 Use the microphone. 

17 MS. STEVENS: Yes. So I just had 

18 a quick question, clarification. I just 

19 wanted to see what the higher than TSL5 -- is 

20 that based on an advanced IR coating or was 

21 that based on a proprietary reflector? 

22 MS. GUPTA: It would be based on 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 99

1 both. It would be based on the proprietary 

2 reflector plus the advanced IR coating. 

3 The current EL5 that we're looking 

4 at here is the level that we believe we could 

5 achieve without the proprietary reflector, but 

6 with the advanced IR coating. 

7 MS. STEVENS: Because I thought -- 

8 so in the TSD, one of the TSD documents, I 

9 think you guys looked specifically at the 

10 efficacy levels available with the advanced IR 

11 coating, and I thought it was higher than the 

12 level of TSL5 that's been proposed. 

13 Is that -- but I don't think that 

14 was based on a proprietary reflector. 

15 MS. GUPTA: This is Mimi Gupta. 

16 Are you talking about like an 

17 appendix of the TSD? 

18 MS. STEVENS: Yes, one of the 

19 appendices, yes. 

20 MS. GUPTA: Okay. Yes, we did 

21 conduct some testing of advanced IR coatings, 

22 and that was mostly done just to validate the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 100

1 fact that EL5 could be achieved without the 

2 proprietary technology. However, there isn't 

3 an incandescent reflector lamp out there that 

4 uses that advanced IR coating. So we use that 

5 more as a validation than a way to actually 

6 set an efficacy level. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Steve 

8 Rosenstock. 

9 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, 

10 EEI. 

11 Again, I don't want to dig too 

12 closely or get into any trouble with any sort 

13 of trade issues, but when you mean 

14 proprietary, do you mean there's a patent. 

15 Unless they pay for a license, they would not 

16 have access to technology for all, say, next 

17 15 years? Is that -- 

18 MS. GUPTA: Yes. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Mimi. 

20 Okay. Let's proceed then. 

21 MR. O'ROURKE: All right. Thank 

22 you. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 101

1 So talking specifically about the 

2 efficacy levels, the efficacy level one was 

3 newly introduced to look at improving on the 

4 halogen using a more efficient fill gas, 

5 namely xenon. This was also not a 

6 commercially lamp. So this is based on a 

7 model, and it is estimated to be about a four 

8 percent improvement on the efficacy. 

9 Efficacy level two was slightly 

10 lowered. Where it was originally established, 

11 it was only that a proprietary so far as 

12 reflector technology in this lamp could be 

13 used. So it was lowered slightly so that it 

14 could also include a long life HIR lamp as 

15 well. 

16 And EL5 was a newly introduced 

17 level which we've been talking about we'll be 

18 using. The only commercially available part 

19 that we haven't been able to identify is using 

20 the silverized reflector. That is 

21 proprietary, but based on the testing that 

22 Mimi is mentioning, looking at some of the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 102

1 high efficiency IR coatings looks like it's 

2 possible to get there with that method as 

3 well. 

4 So the department invites comment 

5 on the efficacy levels considered for the IRL, 

6 in particular EL1 and EL5, and the department 

7 also invites comments on the performance of 

8 the characteristics of light up lifetime and 

9 wattage established for these IR model lamps 

10 used in the engineering analysis specifically 

11 the properties of the improved halogen IRL and 

12 the use of xenon as a fill gas established for 

13 efficacy level one. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Greg. 

15 MR. NELSON: Greg Nelson, Philips 

16 Lighting. 

17 We'll summarize it in more detail 

18 in our written statements, but I want to 

19 outline a few points and then I think Joe will 

20 also address specifically some issues around 

21 the EL5 level was analyzed. 

22 The first general comment going 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 103

1 toward Slide 24 where you show all of the 

2 energy levels is that we did not see 

3 recognized in these the necessary 

4 manufacturing tolerances. So very often we're 

5 looking and recognizing catalogue values in 

6 these, but as we're setting a minimum efficacy 

7 standard, it's important also to include the 

8 manufacturing tolerances, especially as we get 

9 to the higher and higher levels where there is 

10 a much more complicated process with more 

11 variables in. So that's an important point to 

12 consider, and we'll come back to that in 

13 writing. 

14 Also in the analysis of the levels 

15 and even in the breakout box to the left 

16 there's quite a variation in the lifetimes, 

17 and it raises a real issue with halogen 

18 product. The lifetime and energy efficiency 

19 is highly correlated in a negative way. 

20 Typically you see about a 15 percent, let's 

21 say, increase in efficacy might bring you 

22 down to a half lifetime situation. So it's 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 104

1 extremely important within that to set a fair 

2 basis and not be playing games back and forth. 

3 We're also seeing long life as a 

4 key factor to achieving an economically viable 

5 product for the end user. So if we load all 

6 of these advanced technologies in and we can 

7 only meet that with a shortened lifetime, this 

8 will not be an economically viable situation. 

9 We do also have some concerns on 

10 the cost build-up of these extra technologies. 

11 You mentioned xenon in particular. I think 

12 the four percent gain is a bit generous 

13 compared to what we actually see, but the cost 

14 of adding that improvement has become 

15 increasingly significant over the last year to 

16 two years, in particular. We've seen a 

17 tenfold increase in the cost of xenon based on 

18 a global scarcity, not a scarcity of the 

19 material itself in the air, but a scarcity of 

20 the liquefaction facilities to produce that as 

21 a byproduct of other products. 

22 And finally, you recognize it in 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 105

1 EL2 that there's an option for a 6,000 hour 

2 HIR lamp. However, by going and eliminating 

3 all levels below EL4, basically the 

4 opportunity to have a longer life halogen lamp 

5 of 6,000 hour either by the 130 volt, as it 

6 exists today, or even with an IR technology is 

7 specifically eliminated. We don't see options 

8 to achieve a 6,000 hour rating where the 

9 levels are set. 

10 And we think that that eliminates 

11 specific utility in many retail settings, for 

12 instance. This is based on maintenance at re13 lamp cycles where that has an important role 

14 to play and forcing them to a shorter lifetime 

15 effectively would ban the technology for them. 

16 So I'll turn it over to Joe on 

17 EL5. 

18 MR. HOWLEY: Just I know the 

19 department is not proposing EL5, but in just 

20 considering a world where EL5 was chosen, it 

21 appears to be based on one very expensive and 

22 unique product. The lamp is only available as 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 106

1 a PAR38 lamp. Therefore, use of EL5 would 

2 essentially eliminate a lot of competition as 

3 well as eliminate your basic PAR30 families, 

4 PAR20 families, 130 volt designs and all other 

5 PAR38 lamp designs. 

6 This would essentially nearly 

7 destroy this entire category of lamps if such 

8 a level were chosen, and it is very 

9 questionable whether it would be economically 

10 viable because it would be potentially 

11 expensive; it would be economically viable 

12 probably for some customers, but for the vast 

13 range of customers, I think the economics may 

14 not work in all cases, especially residential 

15 cases that tend to have much higher price 

16 markups. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

18 Additional comments on IRL 

19 efficacy levels? Conan described the two 

20 issues for which the department seeks comment. 

21 Yes, please, and your name. 

22 MR. BOLING: Yes, I'd like to 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 107

1 address these TSL levels, the max possible. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Please say your 

3 name. 

4 MR. BOLING: Pardon me? 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Please say your 

6 name. 

7 MR. BOLING: Oh, Boling, Norman 

8 Boling, ADLT. 

9 It's true that there are none of 

10 these products with reflectors with these 

11 levels above TSL5 that you can buy in the 

12 marketplace, but if you go out into the 

13 marketplace and you buy a particular IRL lamp 

14 and you take the burner out of that lamp and 

15 replace it with a double-ended burner and if 

16 you replace it with the best coatings that 

17 could be made, which are already being made in 

18 manufacture on single-ended lamps, you can not 

19 only get well above that TSL5, which if I take 

20 a 60 watt lamp, the coefficient is about 6.2 

21 in front of that; you could take that so that 

22 coefficient is a nine. I mean you are so far 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 108

1 above it simply by taking the reflectors that 

2 are in the marketplace today, pulling the 

3 burner out of them, putting another burner in, 

4 the double-ended burner with the most advanced 

5 coatings. You can far surpass your point and 

6 what was in the analysis, the TSL5 level. 

7 The TSL5 level is almost down in 

8 the dirt for this, and it involves nothing 

9 more than using reflectors you have and taking 

10 one burner out and putting another one in. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Pam Horner. 

12 MS. HORNER: Pam Horner. 

13 I have a question. What is the 

14 lamp life? 

15 MR. BOLING: Well, we could go 

16 through in detail with that. That's obviously 

17 you can get 50 LPW if you have a sort enough 

18 life. Let me take a moment to do that, if I 

19 might. 

20 MS. HORNER: And how have you 

21 tested it? 

22 MR. BOLING: I'm sorry? 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 109

1 MS. HORNER: What is the lamp life 

2 and how have you tested it? 

3 MR. BOLING: We tested it by 

4 actual life. We tested the handbooks. If you 

5 take a double-ended burner, you can go find 

6 them in products in the United States now, and 

7 you take a two material coating out of that, 

8 and you put it in your photometer. You'll get 

9 about 24, 25 LPW. Okay? 

10 If you take -- 

11 MS. HORNER: And the life is? 

12 MR. BOLING: About 3,000 hours. 

13 Good point, and a certain resistance. The 

14 life is on the box, and you can measure the 

15 resistance to find out what the temperature of 

16 the filament is. So you can stick with that 

17 in doing the analysis when you put the 

18 advanced coating on. 

19 If you put one of the more 

20 advanced coatings on and run it at 120 volts, 

21 that will drive the temperature up above the 

22 design temperature, and it will drive the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 110

1 efficacy up. But what you'll measure of that 

2 is about 37 or 38 LPW versus the 24 or 25 that 

3 you get in the product that you buy out of the 

4 store. 

5 Now, that's 120 volts. The 

6 lifetime of that is going to be down to 1,000 

7 hours, whereas you started with a lifetime of 

8 about 3,000 hours, which is what you want. So 

9 you have to bring the temperature of the 

10 filament down to the same resistance you 

11 started with by measurement in the product 

12 that you got off the shelf, same resistance, 

13 same temperature, same lifetime. That brings 

14 your LPW to about 32, ballparking. 

15 Now, you could put that 32 LPW in 

16 a silver reflector. You could put it in an 

17 aluminum reflector with different coefficients 

18 of reflection out of the thing, but you end up 

19 with coefficients much higher than the 6.2. 

20 So the lifetime is very important. 

21 None of these things you can't get off the 

22 shelf where the coating isn't being 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 111

1 manufactured today. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

3 Pam Horner or Greg. Greg. 

4 MR. NELSON: Well, I think we're 

5 aware of, let's say, the experimental lamps 

6 that you're speaking of. Indeed, there's a 

7 big difference between what can be done in the 

8 laboratory, and we also have seen, let's say, 

9 possibilities and are aware of the 3M coating 

10 technologies. 

11 However, applying that in an 

12 industrial, robust way, in a way that will be 

13 integrated into a PAR lamp environment. We 

14 see also in order to achieve, let's say, an 

15 economically viable lifetime to pay for those 

16 advance coatings for the end user that you 

17 really need to maintain lifetimes, let's say, 

18 in excess of 4,000 hours. 

19 So there are possibly some 

20 interesting opportunities, but it's far from 

21 let's say a given that there's a product 

22 existing on which we can base a standard level 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 112

1 for this analysis. 

2 There's also concerns about that. 

3 Indeed, most of these coating technologies are 

4 tied to a single proprietary company, and 

5 there's issues then for the industry partners. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Your name again. 

7 Go ahead. Yes, you, please. 

8 MR. BOLING: Yes, I don't think it 

9 is proprietary. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Please say your 

11 name again. 

12 MR. BOLING: Norm Boling. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

14 MR. BOLING: I don't think it's 

15 proprietary. You can analyze one of these 

16 things, find the materials, find the designs. 

17 Those are not. 

18 And I agree with you completely, 

19 have dealt long enough with the lighting 

20 companies, know how difficult it is to take 

21 these things from the laboratory and put them 

22 in production. And the higher you get on 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 113

1 these IR coatings, the more difficult that 

2 becomes. It becomes a nonlinear affair where 

3 you have to watch it much more carefully. 

4 But to go back to the DOE analysis 

5 and looking at the higher levels that one can 

6 achieve today in the laboratory, and it's not 

7 so far out of the laboratory, like I say, you 

8 take something and it's on the shelf today. 

9 Simply replace it with a lamp that's being 

10 built today with coatings that are being built 

11 today and you'll get the kind of efficiencies 

12 I'm talking about. 

13 But certainly the max technical 

14 efficiency, it's much higher than that 6.2 

15 level, for example, for the 60 watt lamp. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

17 So additional comments on these 

18 efficacy levels before we move on? Steve 

19 Nadel. 

20 MR. NADEL: A question, I think, 

21 for Greg, just trying to understand. The 

22 baseline has a 3,000 hour life. The proposal 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 114

1 here, they analyze the 4,000 HIR for trial 

2 standard four. Are your comments as well, 

3 depending what you do, you may sacrifice 

4 lifetime? Are you saying in any case that it 

5 would go below 3,000 hours, or are you saying, 

6 gee, it potentially restricts our ability to 

7 go higher? that's one question. 

8 The second question, you mentioned 

9 specifically 6,000 hours. Are there any 

10 existing 6,000 hour lamps? Are you proposing 

11 a separate category for those or are you 

12 proposing to weaken the standard for 

13 everything just to allow a success in our lab? 

14 MR. NELSON: I'll deal with the 

15 second question first. The 6,000 hour lamp 

16 does, indeed, exist either as a standard lamp 

17 which is the 130 volt operated at 120. I 

18 think you'll recognize that, and we discussed 

19 that previously. 

20 It also exists based on IR 

21 technology. With a 6,000 with still a 

22 relatively high efficiency, I think existing 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 115

1 lamps in the market would meet, if I'm not 

2 mistaken, an EL3. 

3 In going to an EL4 and not 

4 creating any area for a 6,000 hour to operate, 

5 that would eliminate the utility from the 

6 market. 

7 To your first point which just 

8 remind me again so that I get the right point. 

9 MR. NADEL: Any of these options, 

10 would that drive like below 3,000 hours or are 

11 you more concerned about this ability to -- 

12 MR. NELSON: Well, okay. Thank 

13 you. 

14 The DOE, it's interesting, did not 

15 specifically address the lamp life in setting 

16 the lumen standards or the lumen per watt 

17 efficacy standards, which does open the 

18 possibility to go with, let's say, a lower 

19 cost, lower performing lamp at a very short 

20 lifetime and still meet the technical standard 

21 definitions. 

22 We don't support that approach, 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 116

1 but we could not rule out that imported lamps 

2 would go in that direction and still maintain 

3 normal halogen technology. 

4 What we see driving the higher 

5 technology lamps is that if we are going to 

6 manufacture an infrared coated lamp with, 

7 let's say, specialized reflectors or super 

8 coatings as was discussed a minute ago; if 

9 we're going to do that and sell it to an end 

10 user and expect that end users to have an 

11 economically viable situation to purchase that 

12 very expensive lamp, that lamp has to have a 

13 long lifetime. 

14 And today you'll see that in the 

15 IR products that are currently sold, which are 

16 typically in excess of 4,000 hours, and it's 

17 simply to achieve a reasonable cost of 

18 ownership for the end user. 

19 Now, we could bring the lifetime 

20 back down and get even higher efficacy. So, 

21 yes, we could take our 4,200 hour products 

22 that we have today and make them 3,000 or 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 117

1 2,000 hours. That's very simple technically, 

2 and we can get the lumen per watt up. 

3 But economically to the end user, 

4 that is not a good model because it will 

5 result in significantly higher operating 

6 expenses. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

8 Steve Rosenstock. 

9 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock. 

10 This conversation just reminded me 

11 of the provision in EPACT 2005 for compact 

12 fluorescent lamps under that law that all 

13 CFLs, whether manufactured or imported, have 

14 to have a minimum life of 6,000 hours, I 

15 believe. I would say it's a performance 

16 standard that was done for compact fluorescent 

17 lamps, and I believe it -- I don't know 

18 whether it's 5,000 or 6,000, but it's in the 

19 EPACT legislation, and that was because of the 

20 import -- worries about imports and the like. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: So any additional 

22 comments on these efficacy levels before 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 118

1 moving on? We need to keep moving here or we 

2 won't get through this. 

3 Okay. 

4 MR. O'ROURKE: Okay. And after 

5 discussing efficacy levels, I'm now going to 

6 talk about scaling to product classes that 

7 weren't analyzed directly. So we have a few 

8 for general service fluorescent lamps and also 

9 for incandescent reflector lamps. 

10 So looking at general service 

11 fluorescent lamps with correlated color 

12 temperatures greater than 4,500, this is part 

13 of the discussion at the last ANOPR meeting, 

14 and the department looked at scaling to the 

15 represented product class that we did not 

16 analysis, in particular the greater than 

17 4,500, and established a separate scaling 

18 factor for each efficacy level within each 

19 product class. It was not just one broad 

20 brush scaling factor for the whole group. It 

21 was done efficacy level by efficacy level 

22 within the product class. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 119

1 So after looking at the catalogue 

2 data from the lamp manufacturers and looking 

3 at CCTs and comparing them to the ones less 

4 than 4,500 that were analyzed in this 

5 analysis, the department found that the NEMA's 

6 recommendations were consistent with what we 

7 found through the evaluation of the product 

8 literature and adopted these efficacy 

9 recommendations. They range from 2.6 percent 

10 to 7.2 percent. 

11 So the department invites comments 

12 on the methodology using the scaling efficacy 

13 levels from the represented product classes to 

14 higher correlated color temperature lamps for 

15 general service fluorescent. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed. 

17 MR. YANDEK: Yes, we generally 

18 think this was done properly. We realize you 

19 do not have access to actual, you know, two 

20 foot U-shaped data, but we are fine with the 

21 approach, and we'll just make some small, 

22 minor suggestions in our written comments, as 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 120

1 we always do. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Have they tapped 

3 all of the data they are likely to get at this 

4 point? 

5 MR. YANDEK: Yes. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Steve Nadel. 

7 MR. NADEL: Yes, I want to push 

8 back on that a little. As has been discussed 

9 a lot in this rule making the rated data, the 

10 nominal data sometimes has a lot of 

11 squishiness to it, and does DOE have access or 

12 can DOE get access to the actual data to come 

13 up with actual scaling factors? 

14 MR. O'ROURKE: We have some access 

15 to some limited sets of data. So that was 

16 taken into account for some of this, but most 

17 of it was off of what was reported for 

18 manufacturer's catalogue. 

19 MR. NADEL: Okay. Is it possible 

20 to get additional data and so we have to rely 

21 less on this manufacturer data? That's what 

22 you did for establishing the TSL levels, and I 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 121

1 think looking at actual data would be much 

2 better. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: It seems as though 

4 NEMA is suggesting that maybe you could at 

5 least provide some validation, assurance, some 

6 sort of -- go ahead. 

7 MR. YANDEK: Let me be clear in 

8 what we're suggesting. First of all, when 

9 Navigant made their manufacturer visits, we 

10 shared a great deal, and we showed the basis 

11 for our numbers. So that data in a sense has 

12 been already taken into account, although we 

13 realize it's an awful lot to absorb and 

14 understand. 

15 Our data is based on day-to-day 

16 manufacturing, high volume products. It is 

17 not based on just picking a few lamps and go 

18 throwing them into some test laboratory. 

19 So, Steve, I mean, I understand 

20 your concern. It comes up repeatedly, but in 

21 this case, I really think what we're going to 

22 propose is going to achieve the objectives 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 122

1 that we're all seeking, and I think we ought 

2 to just move forward with it. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional 

4 comments? 

5 MR. O'ROURKE: I would like to 

6 make an additional comment, I guess, Steve. 

7 These are taken from less than 4,500, which in 

8 an analysis we are using compliance report 

9 data. So since that's based on compliance 

10 report data, this is going to be scaled from 

11 that. So in some sense it is based on 

12 compliance report data and not just the rated 

13 value. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you, 

15 Conan. Okay? 

16 MR. O'ROURKE: Okay. Looking for 

17 U-shaped lamps, in particular going for this 

18 category is less than 4,500. The department 

19 used the manufacturer's catalogue to develop 

20 the efficacy levels for the U-shaped with the 

21 similar technologies as the four foot medium 

22 bipin. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 123

1 We then used also compliance 

2 report data to establish what the efficacy 

3 difference would be, but in many cases there 

4 weren't compliance report data at every 

5 efficacy level. So we had to try and fill in 

6 the gaps and try to use the same scaling from 

7 the four foot medium bipin lamps to fill in 

8 the gap. So that was how we established the 

9 existing efficacy levels for U-shaped. 

10 The range ranged from 5.6 percent 

11 to 7.7 percent. So the department invites 

12 comments on the methodology used for scaling 

13 efficacy levels to the represented product 

14 classes for two foot U-shaped lamps. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Joe. 

16 MR. HOWLEY: As stated before, we 

17 believe that the four foot lamp level should 

18 be 83 lumens per watt and the U-shaped should 

19 be 76. I note this is about an eight percent 

20 efficiency reduction. In the catalogues 

21 apparently when you did this analysis it was 

22 5.6 to 7.7. So it's close to that same range. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 124

1 I think when you're looking at actual data 

2 there is a little more complexity in building 

3 a U-shaped lamp as you bend it, and there's 

4 foster issues in the bend and different 

5 things. You may get a little more variability 

6 and need a little more tolerance variation in 

7 the U-shaped lamps versus the four foot 

8 straight lamps, which might account for a 

9 proposal of about eight percent versus the 7.7 

10 percent. It's very close though. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

12 Additional comments? Andrew. 

13 MR. deLASKI: More of a general 

14 comment about scaling. How did you choose -- 

15 if you could remind me, how did you choose to 

16 scale for these particular product classes 

17 other than to analyze them directly? Why are 

18 we scaling for these particular product 

19 classes? 

20 MR. O'ROURKE: Because they were 

21 not analyzed directly within the analysis. So 

22 the attempt was made by using data that you 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 125

1 had for the covered products and the knowledge 

2 that you have for these other products that 

3 were not covered in trying to bridge that gap 

4 through scaling of what the performance should 

5 be for that other product class. 

6 MR. deLASKI: Right, but take me 

7 back a couple of steps because at some point 

8 there was a decision by the department to not 

9 analyze these particular products directly, 

10 but to do scaling, and if you could remind me, 

11 you know, how was that decision made that 

12 certain products would be -- you know, rather 

13 than analyzing them directly that there was a 

14 need to do them indirectly in this method? 

15 MS. GUPTA: Mimi Gupta. 

16 The product classes that we chose 

17 to analyze directly were based on high market 

18 shares, and the ones that have generally low 

19 market shares we chose to scale to. As it 

20 states in the NOPR, we made this decision 

21 primarily due to time and resource 

22 constraints. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 126

1 MR. deLASKI: Okay. Thanks. 

2 Just one follow-up question if you 

3 don't mind, Doug. 

4 Do you remember, Mimi, what the 

5 market shares were for these products roughly 

6 compared to the overall GSFL market? Or maybe 

7 the manufacturers could answer. 

8 MS. GUPTA: Yes, they probably -- 

9 MR. deLASKI: Was it one percent, 

10 two percent, five percent? 

11 MS. GUPTA: I think for U-shaped 

12 I'll have to check on this, but it's in the 

13 single percentages. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Maybe you could 

15 take a peek at the break and see if you could 

16 find it. 

17 MS. GUPTA: Yes, I'll take a peek 

18 at the break. 

19 For CCT, DOE doesn't have set 

20 numbers in terms of what percentage of lamps 

21 have high CCT lamps or have high CCT, but if 

22 manufacturers have those percentages, that 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 127

1 would be extremely helpful. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So let's 

3 keep pressing on here. 

4 MR. O'ROURKE: Okay. Those are 

5 the two discussions for general service 

6 fluorescent lamps; three for incandescent 

7 reflector lamps are covering the modified 

8 spectrum. We'll start off with looking -- the 

9 department has identified several incandescent 

10 reflector lamps with modified spectrums and 

11 compared their performance to standard 

12 spectrum lamps. The department assessed the 

13 efficacy differences between the standard and 

14 modified levels by measuring their efficacies 

15 of commercially available lamps. 

16 By analyzing this data, the 

17 department established that a reduction of 

18 about 19 percent from the standard spectrum 

19 would be appropriate for modified spectrum 

20 incandescent reflector lamps. 

21 The department invites comments on 

22 the methodology used to scale the efficacy 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 128

1 levels from the represented product classes to 

2 modified spectrum lamps. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Joe. 

4 MR. HOWLEY: In general, the 

5 industry uses a 20 to 25 percent reduction in 

6 lumens for these types of lamps. There is a 

7 lot of variability depending on the 

8 technology. We note that the department is 

9 proposing 19 percent, which is close to these 

10 typical levels. Obviously, the 19 percent 

11 coupled with the TSL4 proposal is a little bit 

12 concerning because the proposal is for such a 

13 high level, and then this is proposing sort of 

14 the minimum, kind of a minimum allowance. 

15 So taken together, it represents 

16 an extremely tough standard, but the approach 

17 that you use to generate the 19 percent 

18 standard we think does get you close to what 

19 is necessary. 

20 MR. O'ROURKE: I'd just like to 

21 follow up on Joe's comment. We did notice 

22 that for general service incandescent lamps 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 129

1 that 25 percent was more typical, but once you 

2 went to halogen and HIR, those numbers are not 

3 as high, as much of a reduction for those lamp 

4 types. 

5 MR. HOWLEY: Yes, I would 

6 typically agree they tend to be more at the 

7 lower end of that range. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks, Joe. 

9 Okay. Additional? Steve Nadel. 

10 MR. NADEL: A question. Was there 

11 any difference in the data for normal halogen 

12 and HIR? If you were to just look at HIR 

13 would the scaling factor change? 

14 MR. O'ROURKE: Yes, this range was 

15 used between HIR and the halogens that we 

16 looked at that did meet the definition. So, 

17 yes, there was some slight differences between 

18 what you got with the HIR. There was limited 

19 product that we could actually obtain on the 

20 market to do a large number of them. The 

21 majority of the testing was with the HIR 

22 technology. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 130

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew. 

2 MR. deLASKI: You say in your 

3 third bullet that DOE establish a reduction of 

4 19 percent. We determined that that would be 

5 appropriate by analyzing the test data, but 

6 what I don't see here is, you know, what you 

7 did to analyze your test data. How did you 

8 determine that 19 percent is the right number? 

9 MR. O'ROURKE: We actually tested 

10 the two lamps. We have a side-by-side lamp. 

11 You have a standard spectrum and you have a 

12 modified spectrum, and you look at the 

13 efficacy difference coming out of the lamp 

14 from the standard to the modified, and on 

15 average it was about 19 percent reduction. 

16 MR. deLASKI: So it's an average. 

17 MR. O'ROURKE: Yes. 

18 MR. deLASKI: It's an average of a 

19 different modified -- 

20 MR. O'ROURKE: What we tested, 

21 yes. 

22 MR. deLASKI: Average of what you 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 131

1 tested. 

2 MR. O'ROURKE: Yes. 

3 MR. deLASKI: And how many 

4 different approaches for achieving the 

5 modified spectrum results did you test? 

6 MR. O'ROURKE: We tested eight for 

7 the HIR, for the halogen and one for the HIR 

8 that we could get. I will comment that many 

9 of the ones that were marketed also did not 

10 meet the definition of modified spectrum. 

11 Some of them were not below the black body 

12 locus, as specified, and some of them were not 

13 more than four step -- we count them -- steps 

14 away from the clear lamp. Therefore, even 

15 though they may be marketed as some type of 

16 modified spectrum, they didn't actually meet 

17 the definition. 

18 MR. deLASKI: But the eight that 

19 you took an average of -- 

20 MR. O'ROURKE: Were ones that met 

21 the definition, correct. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Amanda. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 132

1 MS. STEVENS: Amanda. 

2 Just a follow-up question to that 

3 because I noticed in the appendix chapter that 

4 actually only two lamps met the definition; 

5 was that correct? 

6 MR. O'ROURKE: That's correct. 

7 MS. STEVENS: Okay. So then in 

8 the 19 percent it was for both lamps. 

9 MR. O'ROURKE: That's correct. 

10 MS. STEVENS: Are you guys 

11 confident that those two are representative of 

12 all the lamps? I mean, I'm just trying to get 

13 a sense based on -- 

14 MR. O'ROURKE: I mean, we could 

15 look at our test data and see that many of the 

16 ones that did not meet it, I mean, there was a 

17 small margin that they potentially could be 

18 close to the limit, but the data that we had 

19 did not meet the definition. 

20 MS. STEVENS: Okay, and just one 

21 follow-up question to that. I guess kind of 

22 following up on this issue that a lot of lamps 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 133

1 are labeled as modified spectrum but don't 

2 actually meet the criteria, I'm just wondering 

3 whether, you know, implications for the 

4 standard and whether that would be a loophole 

5 if there's ones out there that are -- 

6 MR. O'ROURKE: I'm not sure what 

7 the compliance data will be required for this 

8 to show whether they do meet or not meet the 

9 modified spectrum definition. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Greg. 

11 MR. NELSON: I can maybe give a 

12 view on that as I understand it. From the 

13 EISA, which is the definition of modified 

14 spectrum, that comes in 2012, and at that time 

15 if you're selling a lamp that is defined under 

16 the energy standards through a modified 

17 spectrum, I would expect that there has to be 

18 certain labeling. 

19 At the moment these are marketed 

20 under various trade names, Natural Light for 

21 Philips, I think Reveal for GE, and they are 

22 not claimed as modified spectrum lamps 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 134

1 according to that definition. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

3 MR. O'ROURKE: The next scaling is 

4 looking at lamps with smaller diameters. 

5 Smaller diameters incandescent reflector lamps 

6 have inherently lower optical efficiencies 

7 than the larger diameters. So to determine 

8 the appropriate scaling for less than or equal 

9 to 2.5 inches, the department examined 

10 inherent efficacy differences between the 

11 PAR20, PAR30 and PAR38 in looking at the 

12 catalogue data for each of those lamp types 

13 for several lamp manufacturers. 

14 In the analysis, the department 

15 found that the reduction of efficacy caused by 

16 the reduction of the lamp diameter was 

17 approximately 12 percent for incandescent 

18 reflector lamps. 

19 The department invites comments on 

20 the methodologies used to scale these efficacy 

21 levels from the represented product class to 

22 the smaller diameter lamps. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 135

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Greg. 

2 MR. NELSON: Greg Nelson. 

3 First of all, we want to thank 

4 Navigant and the DOE for recognizing this 

5 issue, which was brought up in the ANOPR 

6 stage, and we believe that they did apply the 

7 correct optical discount to the PAR 20 versus 

8 the PAR 30 and 38 because the PAR 20 is 

9 inherently a less efficient optical system due 

10 to its size. 

11 However, at the time that those 

12 comments were made to the ANOPR, we did not 

13 envision that such a high baseline level as 

14 TSL4, which is the equivalent of the CSL3, 

15 would be chosen. In fact, the choice of TSL4 

16 inherently the only way to reach that will be 

17 through a double-ended IR coated halogen 

18 product. 

19 Currently today there is no 

20 infrared coated version of a PAR 20 lamp, and 

21 there's a good reason for that, because the 

22 double-ended IR geometry that's needed for the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 136

1 efficiency levels that have been targeted does 

2 not fit into a PAR 20. It's significantly 

3 longer than the burners, the capsules that are 

4 used in the less efficient products. 

5 So by choosing a baseline TSL4 and 

6 then only creating a 12 percent optical 

7 discount, the rulemaking will effectively 

8 eliminate PAR 20 from the market. We're 

9 really wondering how we could manufacture a 

10 PAR 20 lamp under the conditions that are set 

11 forth. 

12 We are still investigating that. 

13 We were surprised by the NOPR, how it came 

14 out, and we will evaluate other technical 

15 options, but at the moment we don't have a 

16 solution. We'll come back more in our written 

17 comments surrounding options for the Part 20. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

19 Additional comments? Yes, Pam. 

20 MS. HORNER: Pam Horner. 

21 I'd just like to add one factoid 

22 to this, and that is that in the PAR 20 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 137

1 category roughly 50 percent of the market is 

2 with consumers, not commercial. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

4 Steve Nadel. 

5 MR. NADEL: A question for Greg. 

6 You mentioned that the double-ended won't fit 

7 into PAR20. As I recall there's several 

8 different lengths of PAR20s depending on 

9 wattage. Does that apply to all of them or 

10 just to the lower wattage PAR20s? 

11 MR. NELSON: Sorry. There's only 

12 one standard for PAR20 which is regulated by 

13 ANSI and which we currently stay within the 

14 outline. I think you might be referring to 

15 PAR30 where there are two different versions. 

16 There's a PAR30 version, which is 

17 predominantly used in the professional market, 

18 and there's a PAR30 version which also in 

19 professional is more typically used in 

20 consumer, but for PAR20 there's only one. 

21 MR. deLASKI: So even like the 75s 

22 and the 50 watt PAR20s are the same length? 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 138

1 MR. NELSON: Yes, and those are 

2 based all on a single ended, traditional 

3 halogen burner technology. So to put the high 

4 performing double-ended in creates some 

5 issues. 

6 MR. O'ROURKE: Okay. The last 

7 scaling I have to discuss for incandescent 

8 reflector lamps is the higher voltage. As 

9 discussed, lamps rated at the 130 volts follow 

10 different test procedures because there's 

11 different input voltages than the 120. The 

12 department has derived the efficacy scaling 

13 factor which will result in the equivalent 

14 performance of both classes of incandescent 

15 reflector lamps when operated under the same 

16 voltage condition. 

17 The department determined that the 

18 lamp operating at 130 volts would be 15 

19 percent more efficacious than the lamp 

20 operating the similar wattage at 120 volts. 

21 So the department invites comments on the 

22 methodology used to scale the efficacy levels 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 139

1 from the represented product classes to the 

2 higher voltage lamps. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Comments? Greg. 

4 MR. NELSON: Following up on my 

5 earlier comments, I think this comes to the 

6 heart of the issue, and while the third bullet 

7 point that you put up there is true, it is 

8 also necessarily incomplete in that I would 

9 additionally add that the resulting lamp will 

10 have half of the lifetime by operating under 

11 those conditions, and that is not an 

12 economically viable situation that would 

13 satisfy users who legitimately need 130 volt 

14 lamps. 

15 If I compare a lamp that's 

16 designed for same lifetime at 120 and 130 volt 

17 and same wattage, a 130 volt lamp is 

18 necessarily less efficient by virtue of the 

19 coil design. So we all know that low voltage 

20 halogen has an inherent efficiency advantage, 

21 so 12 volts, but that scaling continues. It's 

22 not a big difference between 120 and 130, but 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 140

1 actually to achieve the same efficacy target 

2 and same lifetime for a 120 and a 130 volt 

3 version, 130 would be at a disadvantage. 

4 So by setting the 130 volt 

5 requirement even 15 percent higher than the 

6 already difficult 120 volt standard TSL4, this 

7 will completely eliminate 130 volt lamps from 

8 the market. We don't see an opportunity to 

9 meet that standard at a reasonable lifetime. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

11 Steve Rosenstock. 

12 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Again, Steve 

13 Rosenstock at EEI. 

14 Again, just to reiterate, I know 

15 you might be testing at 130 volts, but 

16 typically throughout especially commercial 

17 applications their typical operating voltage 

18 will be nowhere near 130. It will be 120 plus 

19 or minus five percent. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks, 

21 Steve. 

22 Additional comments on this side? 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 141

1 I suggest we're due for a break. 

2 MR. O'ROURKE: The last one is 

3 just are there any general comments in 

4 engineering analysis section. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: We covered this 

6 pretty completely as we've been going along. 

7 It's now by the clock up there on 

8 the wall and by my watch 11:15. I'm going to 

9 suggest we take a break now for 15 minutes. 

10 It's very likely we're not going 

11 to stop for lunch right at noon. We will 

12 probably work until, say, 12:30 or so, in that 

13 general range. If you need to get a piece of 

14 fruit or something to tide you over, please do 

15 so. 

16 You need to have your badge on if 

17 you're walking around inside the Forrestal 

18 building, and there's a coffee shop for those 

19 of you who don't know one floor below us. 

20 There are restrooms on both ends. 

21 We're not breaking for lunch yet. 

22 We're just taking a coffee break. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 142

1 Restrooms at both ends of the 

2 hall. The elevator bank which you already 

3 found, you can go down one floor and there's a 

4 coffee shop just beneath us on the other side 

5 of the hall. 

6 We've made really good progress. 

7 The quality of the comments have been really 

8 good, and we're getting a lot done here. So 

9 we're going to press on with that, but we'll 

10 resume at 11:30. 

11 Thank you. 

12 (Whereupon, the foregoing matter went off the 

13 record at 11:14 a.m. and resumed 

14 at 11:31 a.m.) 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. One 

16 housekeeping announcement. If you have not 

17 given Brenda a business card, please do so. 

18 She wants to have a complete listing of all 

19 who have attended here, and they make a Xerox 

20 copy that they can hand out at the end of the 

21 day. So if you haven't handed in a business 

22 card, she's missing a few of them for some 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 143

1 reason. Please give the registration desk or 

2 Brenda your business card. 

3 Okay. Now, so let's proceed. 

4 We're moving on, and Diana Burk. 

5 MS. BURK: Hello. My name is 

6 Diana Burk, and I'm going to be talking about 

7 the life cycle cost and payback period 

8 analyses. 

9 The purpose of the life cycle cost 

10 and payback period analysis is to analyze the 

11 economic impacts of an energy conservation 

12 standard from the perspective of a consumer. 

13 The life cycle cost, or LCC, is 

14 basically the cost of owning and operating a 

15 piece of equipment over its lifetime. It 

16 includes both the installed first cost and the 

17 operating expenses. 

18 For the lamps analysis, DOE 

19 calculated the life cycle cost for all 

20 baseline lamps and their higher efficiency 

21 alternatives in order to analyze the impacts 

22 of the energy conservation standards of 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 144

1 consumers using those baseline lamps. 

2 DOE also analyzed the life cycle 

3 costs for various events that could trigger 

4 the purchase of the lamp. For example, if the 

5 lamp fails. Somebody would have to purchase a 

6 lamp or if a ballast fails. Somebody might 

7 purchase a lamp. 

8 DOE analyzed each product class in 

9 its relevant sector. For example, in the four 

10 foot medium bipin product class, DOE analyzed 

11 it in both the commercial and residential 

12 sectors. In the NOPR you might see a range of 

13 life cycle cost results at any given 

14 efficiency level. This is primarily because 

15 there could be multiple pathways to save 

16 energy at any given efficiency level. 

17 For example, a consumer with a 32 

18 watt T8 lamp in the baseline at efficiency 

19 level five could either purchase a reduced 

20 wattage, 28 watt lamp, or they could purchase 

21 a higher efficiency 32 watt lamp and use it on 

22 a lower ballast factor ballast and save energy 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 145

1 while maintaining light output. 

2 So there are various reasons that 

3 a consumer could purchase a lamp, and these 

4 are analyzed in the life cycle cost analysis. 

5 For incandescent reflector lamps, the reasons 

6 are quite simple. A lamp could fail and it is 

7 replaced or there could be new construction or 

8 renovation. The lamp has to be purchased for 

9 a new building. 

10 For fluorescent lamps, there are 

11 additional events that could cause the 

12 purchase of a fluorescent lamp. The lamp 

13 failure event is, of course, one. 

14 Standards induced retrofit event 

15 is an important event. Basically in this 

16 event an increase in the efficiency standard 

17 to, for example, efficiency level four or 

18 five, could prompt an end user to retrofit 

19 their lamp and ballast system where in the 

20 base case they would only purchase a lamp. 

21 This event is particularly salient 

22 for T12 baseline lamps and for efficiency 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 146

1 levels four and five when those lamps are no 

2 longer available. 

3 Ballast failure event is another 

4 important event. This event occurs when an 

5 existing ballast fails. In the standards 

6 case, they purchase a new ballast and a higher 

7 efficiency lamp. Ballast retrofit is another 

8 important event. In this case consumers who 

9 are going to voluntarily retrofit their 

10 existing lamp and ballast do so, and in the 

11 standards case they do so with a higher 

12 efficiency lamp and may purchase a lower 

13 ballast factor ballast. 

14 New construction and renovation 

15 event is also an important event. In this 

16 case DOE assumes that all new fixture 

17 installations -- that the fixtures spacing 

18 within the building can be changed. So if a 

19 higher efficiency system has ten percent less 

20 light output, the consumer would merely 

21 install slightly more systems in their 

22 building to maintain light output from the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 147

1 baseline system. 

2 This slide discusses some of the 

3 key inputs to the life cycle cost analysis. 

4 Consumer product price is a key input. It's 

5 achieved DOE applies the consumer product 

6 price by applying a discount to manufacturer 

7 catalogue pricing. 

8 Sales tax is another important 

9 input. It's derived from the Sales Tax 

10 Clearinghouse, and it varies by region of the 

11 country. 

12 Installation costs are derived 

13 from two factors: labor rates and labor 

14 times. Labor rates are derived from RS Means 

15 and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

16 Labor times are from the 2000 Ballast Rule and 

17 the RS Means. 

18 We should note that certain 

19 ballast installation times, in particular for 

20 the new construction and retrofit event, are 

21 adjusted upward to account for the 

22 installation of a luminaire disconnect as 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 148

1 required by the 2005 national electric code. 

2 Disposal costs are also included, 

3 but only for fluorescent lamps in the 

4 commercial and industrial sector. This is 

5 basically the cost of recycling a fluorescent 

6 lamp. 

7 Annual operating hours is another 

8 important input. These are determined by 

9 associating building specific operating hours 

10 data, for example, a retail mall or something 

11 like that, and that's derived from the U.S. 

12 lighting market characterization with regional 

13 distributions of those building types, which 

14 is gotten from the Energy Information 

15 Administration. 

16 Product energy consumption rate is 

17 another important input to the life cycle cost 

18 analysis. The energy consumption rate is 

19 derived from manufacturer literature. It 

20 should be important to note that for the 

21 fluorescent lamp analysis, DOE uses system 

22 powers, and these system powers can change 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 149

1 depending on the lamp wattage and the ballast 

2 factor of the system. 

3 Discount rates are another 

4 important input. These are based on the 

5 finance costs of raising funds to purchase 

6 products and discount rates used are shown 

7 below. 

8 Electricity prices are based on 

9 the 2006 EIA Form 861 data, and electricity 

10 price trends are based on EIA's annual energy 

11 outlook. 

12 One of the issues that DOE 

13 encountered in the life cycle cost analysis is 

14 the fluorescent ballast lifetime. To 

15 determine this lifetime, DOE evaluated several 

16 different data sources. These include 

17 manufacturer literature on ballast lifetime, 

18 historical sales data on ballasts and measure 

19 life reports. 

20 DOE chose to use measure life 

21 reports because DOE felt that these reports 

22 represented the true service life of a ballast 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 150

1 in the field. 

2 Manufacturer literature on ballast 

3 lifetime could give the number of hours a 

4 ballast can operate before it fails. However, 

5 many ballasts could be replaced in the field 

6 before it fails. Deriving ballast lifetime 

7 from historical sales data basically required 

8 too many complicated assumptions. So DOE 

9 chose to use measure life reports. 

10 In the commercial sector, DOE 

11 found several measure life reports. One 

12 stated that the ballast life was 13 years. 

13 Another stated it was 15 years. Therefore, 

14 DOE used the ballast lifetime of 14.2 years, 

15 or 49,054 hours, which was the average used in 

16 the 2000 ballast rule. 

17 In the residential sector 

18 analysis, DOE chose to use a ballast lifetime 

19 of 15 years, and this was also based on 

20 measure life reports. 

21 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Question. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please, Steve. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 151

1 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, 

2 EEI. 

3 As I recall for the 2000 rule the 

4 ballast lifetime was based on I'll say 

5 standard magnetic ballasts, and now with the 

6 current technology being primarily electronic 

7 in the commercial sector, wouldn't those 

8 lifetimes be longer? 

9 MS. BURK: The ballast rule 

10 analyzed both magnetic and electronic 

11 ballasts, and did use that lifetime for both. 

12 As for whether the ballast lifetime would be 

13 longer, manufacturer literature states that 

14 ballasts can live 50,000 or 60,000 hours. 

15 However, DOE chose to use measure 

16 life reports because it felt like to use 

17 50,000 or 60,000 hours it would not represent 

18 the true ballast life, the true life of a 

19 ballast in the field. For example, in the 

20 residential sector, 50,000 hour ballast with 

21 the average operating hours of 789 hours per 

22 year would live for 63 years, and we did not 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 152

1 feel that was appropriate. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Pekka. 

3 MR. HAKKARAINEN: Yes. The NEMA 

4 ballast -- Pekka Hakkarainen with Lutron 

5 Electronics. 

6 NEMA ballast manufacturers have 

7 not had a chance to analyze these data at this 

8 point. We will provide more information in 

9 written comments, but just a couple of quick 

10 comments here is ballast manufacturers don't 

11 typically rate ballasts in number of years. 

12 So looking at how the 14.2 years was arrived 

13 at, for instance, commercial sector gives 

14 approximately a little less than 3,500 hours 

15 per year operating time. That may be 

16 appropriate for some applications, commercial 

17 applications, but we have some concern that it 

18 may not be the right value for some other 

19 commercial applications. 

20 So we'll try to provide some 

21 detail on that. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Do the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 153

1 manufacturers rate the ballast by hours? 

2 MR. HAKKARAINEN: Typically. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: And can you say 

4 generally what that range is now? 

5 MR. HAKKARAINEN: Well, the 50,000 

6 hours that's quoted here is probably common. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

8 MR. HAKKARAINEN: But I cannot 

9 speak for all of the manufacturers at this 

10 time. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Then I know 

12 the department will appreciate your detailed 

13 comments in writing. 

14 MR. HAKKARAINEN: Yes. We'll 

15 provide that later. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Nadel. 

17 MR. NADEL: Two things. One, you 

18 mentioned that you used two specific measure 

19 life reports. Do you have citations for 

20 those? 

21 MS. BURK: Yes, they're in the 

22 NOPR and in the TSD. I can't remember off the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 154

1 top of my head. 

2 MR. NADEL: I don't recall seeing 

3 them in the NOPR. Maybe they are in the TSD. 

4 That just came out. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Maybe we can dig 

6 for those and we'll get you that citation. 

7 Can someone over there look for 

8 that? 

9 MR. NADEL: And what year were 

10 they from? Did they capture electronic 

11 ballast or were they basically a magnetic 

12 ballast? 

13 MS. BURK: From what I recall, I 

14 think one of them was from 2005. So I believe 

15 it does capture electronic ballast, but again, 

16 I'll have to look at that citation. 

17 MR. NADEL: Yes. I would comment 

18 for the record even in 2005 the vast majority 

19 of ballasts out there are still going to be 

20 magnetic. 

21 Another thing going back to your 

22 earlier slide where you talked about 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 155

1 electricity prices being for 2006 and 

2 electricity price trends being from AEO 2008. 

3 I'm assuming both of these will be updated 

4 for the final rule like I know DOE just 

5 released the 2007 electricity price data, DOE 

6 meaning EIA has. 

7 MS. BURK: Yes. We will update 

8 with any current sources for that final rule. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. We're going 

10 to keep moving ahead here. 

11 MS. BURK: Another issue DOE 

12 encountered was the residential fluorescent 

13 lamp lifetime. In the residential sector 

14 fluorescent lamp analysis DOE analyzed the 

15 life cycle cost analysis with both average and 

16 high operating hours. 

17 Under average operating hours, 

18 there are 789 hours per year. DOE found that 

19 the lamp lifetime would be limited to 15 years 

20 due to a ballast or fixture replacement. You 

21 take a lamp lifetime. The baseline lamp life 

22 is 15,000 hours. Fifteen thousand hours 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 156

1 divided by the average operating hours is 

2 around 19 years, and so for this event DOE 

3 assumed that there would be no lamp failure in 

4 the residential sector. 

5 In order to model a lamp failure 

6 in the residential sector, DOE used high 

7 operating hours, 1,210 hours per year, and 

8 this would result in a lamp lifetime of 12.5 

9 years for that 15,000 hour lamp. 

10 In this case, the replacement lamp 

11 would have on average 2.5 years of life left 

12 before the ballast or fixture would be 

13 replaced, and we invite comments on both 

14 ballast lifetimes and lamp lifetimes used. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments 

16 on those? Steve Rosenstock. 

17 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, 

18 EEI. 

19 I'm just kind of curious how you 

20 accounted for lighting diversity in the 

21 residential sector when looking at these 

22 numbers. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 157

1 MS. BURK: What do you mean by 

2 "lighting diversity"? 

3 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Well, there might 

4 be like 20 lighting fixtures in a home, but 

5 only a few of them are going to be operating 

6 at the same time. So the diversity of usage, 

7 and two or three hours per day, even the 

8 residential sector, both are -- well, two 

9 hours might be not as bad, but you know, three 

10 hours is definitely kind of a higher usage 

11 pattern in the residential sector. 

12 MS. BURK: Right. In the life 

13 cycle cost analysis, DOE used information from 

14 the lighting market characterization, which 

15 gave information on the average number of 

16 operating hours by room type and by building 

17 type, and in its life cycle cost analysis, DOE 

18 performed a Monte Carlo simulation, which uses 

19 those operating hours. 

20 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Thank you. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional? Yes, 

22 Steve Nadel. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 158

1 MR. NADEL: Yes. A couple of 

2 questions. What proportions do you assume of 

3 customers where the high operating hour life 

4 versus the standard operating life? 

5 MS. BURK: We assume that of four 

6 foot medium bipin lamp shipments, 

7 approximately two percent would undergo a lamp 

8 failure, would be in the high operating hours. 

9 MR. NADEL: So two percent of 

10 residential or two percent of total? 

11 MS. BURK: Two percent of four 

12 foot medium bipin shipments total. 

13 MR. NADEL: Okay, and of those, 

14 what percentage are residential? 

15 I'm just trying to get the 

16 relative proportion of residential 

17 assumptions. 

18 MS. BURK: Right. Off the top of 

19 my head I'm guessing around 12 percent of 

20 residential are high operating hours, but I'd 

21 have to check that. 

22 MR. NADEL: Okay. If you could 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 159

1 and get back to us. It wasn't obvious as we 

2 were looking through the data. 

3 MS. BURK: Right. We will do 

4 that. 

5 MR. NADEL: The other thing, just 

6 trying to understand, so for the high 

7 operating errors, you assume that after 12 and 

8 a half years they'll have to replace their 

9 lamps, and that that lamp only has a two and a 

10 half -- they have to pay the full cost of 

11 that, and it only has -- you're only using it 

12 for two and a half years. The other ten years 

13 is a throw-away. 

14 MS. BURK: Yes. 

15 MR. NADEL: Okay. That seems 

16 fairly extreme. 

17 MS. BURK: DOE uses a residual 

18 value in its analysis. So even though the 

19 consumer is throwing away that lamp, DOE 

20 accounts for any residual value that that lamp 

21 might have. 

22 MR. NADEL: Oh, so DOE -- so I'm 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 160

1 making up a number. If the lamp cost $10 and 

2 you only used it for 20 percent of its life 

3 roughly speaking, the other 80 percent of the 

4 cost of the lamp is credited? 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Mimi, do you want 

6 to follow on here? 

7 MS. GUPTA: I missed half of the 

8 question. So no. We're talking about the 

9 residual value in the residential sector? 

10 We don't attribute a residual 

11 value to the -- when looking at the lamp 

12 replacement. We don't attribute a residual 

13 value to that replacement lamp. So that 

14 replacement lamp has a value of two and a half 

15 years. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: The other thing 

17 Steve was asking for is the percentage 

18 attributable to residential generally, if you 

19 knew that. 

20 MS. GUPTA: Yes, I think Diana's 

21 estimate is correct. I will check. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: She says 12. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 161

1 MS. GUPTA: Twelve percent. I 

2 think it's approximately correct. I can't 

3 tell you the exact number. It's two percent 

4 of all four foot medium bipin shipments and 25 

5 percent of four foot medium bipin shipments 

6 are residential. So using those calculations, 

7 you -- 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: And since you've 

9 got the microphone there, you are digging for 

10 some other -- 

11 MS. GUPTA: Yes. So -- 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: -- than the TSD. 

13 MS. GUPTA: Sorry. Yes, I was 

14 looking through the TSD, but it's so big that 

15 I couldn't find it. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Oh, you haven't 

17 found it yet. 

18 MS. GUPTA: No, no, no. We found 

19 it. We found it in the notice. So regarding 

20 the measure life report citations on page 146 

21 of the NOPR, Footnote 64 and 65 have measure 

22 life report citations. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 162

1 MR. NADEL: Okay. Thank you. 

2 But getting back to the question I 

3 was asking -- thank you -- getting back to the 

4 most recent question, you're basically saying 

5 that you pay for the lamp after 12 and a half 

6 years, and even though you only get 20 percent 

7 of its life, you're paying for the full cost. 

8 That assumption seems to drive that result 

9 basically. 

10 MS. GUPTA: We'd appreciate your 

11 comments on that assumption. In general, we 

12 make the assumption in the analysis that when 

13 a ballast or a fixture is replaced, the lamp 

14 is disposed with that ballast or fixture. 

15 MR. NADEL: In this case you're 

16 saying the fixture gets replaced two and a 

17 half years later. 

18 MS. GUPTA: That's correct. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. 

20 MR. McHUGH: This is similar, but 

21 on the other side -- 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Just say your name 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 163

1 again. 

2 MR. McHUGH: Yes, Jon McHugh. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

4 MR. McHUGH: Mimi, so when you're 

5 looking at the cost effectiveness of standards 

6 that basically would eliminate the T12 lamp, 

7 in your estimate of the cost, is what you're 

8 estimating that if the standards required a 

9 lamp change that the ballast would be replaced 

10 potentially two and a half years early as 

11 compared to the situation of where there was 

12 no standard requirement prohibiting T12 lamps, 

13 or are you looking at the total cost of that 

14 ballast replacement to satisfy the lamp? 

15 The question I'm asking is how are 

16 you dealing with the residual value of that 

17 T12 magnetic ballast. 

18 MS. GUPTA: So in the residential, 

19 high operating hour analysis, when looking at 

20 the lamp replacement event, we assume that the 

21 ballast has two and a half years of life left 

22 from the beginning of the analysis period, and 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 164

1 our analysis period last for two and a half 

2 years. 

3 So there is no residual value 

4 given to that ballast, the baseline ballast. 

5 Diana, you can correct if I'm incorrect here. 

6 When looking at the options that 

7 consumers would have under standards where 

8 they have to replace their lamp but there 

9 isn't a T12 lamp available, they have to 

10 purchase a whole new ballast. That T8 

11 ballast, since our analysis -- it would be a 

12 T8 ballast -- and since our analysis period is 

13 two and a half years, at the end of the 

14 analysis period that T8 ballast would have 12 

15 and a half years of life left, and we account 

16 for that residual value for the T8 ballast. 

17 Does that make sense? 

18 MR. McHUGH: Okay. So when you 

19 look at the average usage case where the 

20 expectation is that the ballast is what forces 

21 the replacement of the lamp, for the vast 

22 majority of the residential -- because we're 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 165

1 saying most homes, the ballast is going to 

2 fail first. 

3 In that situation there is no 

4 incremental ballast cost because you're going 

5 -- well, there might be the incremental 

6 ballast cost between a magnetic ballast and an 

7 electronic ballast, but it's not this 

8 additional cost associated with the measure, 

9 that you're placing it anyway, and so now 

10 you're only looking at incremental cost; is 

11 that right? 

12 MS. GUPTA: That's correct. 

13 MR. McHUGH: Okay. Thank you. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks, Jon. 

15 Final comments on this one? Yes, 

16 Steve, it's the gentleman behind you. Please 

17 use the microphone and say your name. 

18 MR. MELNYK: Is this microphone 

19 on? Okay. 

20 Jack Melnyk. I'm with Southern 

21 California Edison. 

22 It's kind of an anecdotal comment. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 166

1 I've got six four foot T8 lamps in my 

2 kitchen. You know, they're high efficiency 

3 lamps, high efficiency programmed start 

4 ballast. They've been in for ten or 12 years, 

5 but I don't think I got 4,000 hours out of any 

6 of those lamps because of the energy 

7 conservation in my mind, and so you go in the 

8 kitchen for 15 minutes or ten minutes and the 

9 switch goes on and off. 

10 So the 20,000 hour lamps last 

11 three or 4,000 hours, and I guess when I see 

12 this I don't know everything that's in the 

13 massive report, but I wonder what are the 

14 tiers or what's the percentage of shop lights 

15 versus, you know, these kitchen boxes of often 

16 many linear fluorescents, and I think what I 

17 encountered may be more typical, and in fact, 

18 it surprised me because I put them in 

19 deliberately for long life with that type of 

20 system, and the only way I could have gotten 

21 the long life as far as I can tell is maybe a 

22 couple of occupancy sensors and make sure 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 167

1 they're on 15 minutes or 20 minutes every time 

2 the lamps were cycled on. 

3 MS. BURK: Sorry. Can you repeat 

4 your question? 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: I think he wants to 

6 know what your primary assumptions are 

7 surrounding how you segmented or parsed the 

8 lifetimes. 

9 MR. MELNYK: Right. I think 

10 there's two major tiers. One is the shop 

11 lights that sit there forever and maybe 

12 typically T12s, but there's a whole lot of 

13 kitchens that are T8s with not even programmed 

14 start ballasts like I had so that the lamp 

15 replacement is much more frequent than may 

16 have been modeled. 

17 And maybe there's some data from 

18 some of the manufacturers that can parse out 

19 those tiers and show you what the frequency of 

20 lamp replacement -- it might be different than 

21 what I see assumed here. 

22 MS. BURK: So basically DOE 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 168

1 assumes a baseline system is that shop light 

2 ballast with a 40 watt T12 lamp in the life 

3 cycle cost analysis. However, in the national 

4 impact analysis, DOE also recognizes that not 

5 all consumers have that 40 watt T12 shop light 

6 ballast. In terms of where the shop lights 

7 are in the home and what their operating hours 

8 are, DOE uses in the life cycle cost analysis 

9 a variety of operating hours, uses operating 

10 hours of a system in the basement versus a 

11 system in the kitchen where the operating 

12 hours would be quite different and the lamp 

13 lifetimes would thus vary in those two 

14 situations. 

15 MR. MELNYK: I guess my question 

16 really distills down to is the four foot T12, 

17 you know, linear fluorescent shop light the 

18 dominant tier of four foot linear fluorescents 

19 in residences? Is that the way you modeled 

20 your systems? 

21 MS. BURK: We don't assign market 

22 share percentages in the life cycle cost 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 169

1 analysis, how many are the 40 watt T12. 

2 However, we do assign them in the national 

3 impact analysis. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Mimi, please. 

5 MS. GUPTA: This is Mimi Gupta. 

6 I can refer you to the TSD Chapter 

7 8, page 15 has further assumptions regarding 

8 lamp lifetime, including what hours start 

9 cycle we use, if that might help clear up. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Steve Nadel. 

11 MR. NADEL: A question probably 

12 for the ballast section here. I don't know if 

13 you have the answer. What is the typical 

14 residential ballast life in hours? Because 

15 they give it in years. 

16 MR. HAKKARAINEN: I can't answer 

17 that question. Pekka Hakkarainen, Lutron 

18 Electronics. Not able to answer that 

19 question. I just don't have the data right 

20 now. We'll get back to you. 

21 MR. NADEL: Okay. It would be 

22 interesting because effectively what DOE is 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 170

1 assuming in this is under normal operating 

2 conditions a ballast last just under 12,000 

3 hours, and under the high use case the ballast 

4 last about 18,000 hours, which strikes me as 

5 rather low. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest. 

7 MR. RIVEST: Just to clarify, 

8 these measures life studies are talking about 

9 the number of years a ballast is in place. It 

10 doesn't say that it failed. It may have been 

11 replaced for remodeling reasons, a variety of 

12 reasons. 

13 And those I've seen don't report 

14 what the cause of the ballast being replaced 

15 was. But just to make, you know, your 

16 calculation assumes or you said that it will 

17 fail. We're not making that assumption. 

18 We're just talking about years in place. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Jon. 

20 MR. McHUGH: So this is a follow21 up question. This is Jon McHugh. 

22 This is a follow-up question 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 171

1 again. So when there's two and a half years 

2 of useful life before the fixture is replaced, 

3 the residual value of the ballast is credited. 

4 Are the residual value of the lamp also 

5 credited? 

6 So essentially what we're looking 

7 at is just the incremental cost of the lamp 

8 and ballast over two and a half years versus 

9 the incremental savings over two and a half 

10 years? 

11 MS. BURK: Yes, the residual value 

12 of the lamp is also credited. 

13 MR. RIVEST: This is a little 

14 complicated because we're mixing two concepts. 

15 MS. BURK: Okay. 

16 MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest, Navigant 

17 Consulting. 

18 There is the base case and then 

19 there's the standards case. So we have a 

20 situation. This is the paradox. We have a 

21 lamp that if you base it on operating hours of 

22 a ballast it would last 50, 60 years, and we 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 172

1 have measure life studies that say that 

2 luminaires or fixtures are in place for 15. 

3 So what we try to do is create a 

4 segmentation of the lamps in terms of 

5 operating hours to try and determine what 

6 portion of those lamps will actually be 

7 replaced, you know, because if you went on its 

8 face, not a single replacement lamp would be 

9 sold in the residential market on its face 

10 using averages. 

11 So we try to segment that into 

12 bins of operating hours, and then we could do 

13 that over ten bins. You know, we chose to do 

14 average and high operating hours, and we came 

15 up with for that scenario two and a half years 

16 of remaining life, actually only two and a 

17 half years of average useful life from that 

18 replacement lamp. 

19 That lamp, the assumption is that 

20 the next lamp that's purchased is a T8 with 

21 the new T8 system. So that lamp has no value. 

22 So there is no residual. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 173

1 What Diana is referring to in 

2 several circumstances is the analysis period, 

3 and what we assume about, to bring everything 

4 back to the same common number of years in our 

5 analysis periods between the base case and the 

6 standards case. Then we take into account the 

7 residual values. 

8 MR. McHUGH: So the assumption is 

9 under the current base case is that -- 

10 MR. RIVEST: The current base case 

11 for the high operating hour lamps. Remember 

12 that the dominant assumption here is that 

13 there are very few systems in the residential 

14 sector actually have a replacement T12 lamp. 

15 But for those that have high 

16 operating hours, the assumption is that there 

17 will be a replacement lamp. That replacement 

18 lamp will still have a useful life when the 

19 ballast is replaced or the system is replaced, 

20 and that residual value is zero because it has 

21 no value. From an economic perspective a used 

22 T12 lamp has no value. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 174

1 MR. McHUGH: Right, but then you 

2 look at the requirement for a T8 lamp and you 

3 compare that to what would have occurred, 

4 which potentially is that you had another shop 

5 ballast and a shop lamp. Then are you 

6 calculating that difference? 

7 MR. RIVEST: So in the standards 

8 case there would be, both the base case and 

9 the standards case, the purchase of a ballast 

10 and the purchase of a lamp. So that nets out. 

11 MR. McHUGH: So you are capturing 

12 that incremental cost over that next life span 

13 of the next fixture. 

14 MR. RIVEST: Yes. 

15 MR. McHUGH: Okay. Thank you. 

16 MR. RIVEST: To the extent I 

17 understand exactly what we're saying. 

18 MR. McHUGH: Yes. Thank you. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: So let's keep going 

20 here. 

21 MS. BURK: All right. Here are 

22 the life cycle costs and installed cost 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 175

1 results for the four foot medium bipin system 

2 operating in the commercial sector. As you 

3 can see, we analyze life cycle cost results 

4 for all of the baseline lamps, the 40 watt 

5 T12, the 34 watt T12, and the 32 watt T8. 

6 We also analyze life cycle cost 

7 results for several events. Presented here 

8 are three events, the lamp failure, lamp 

9 replacement event, the standards induced 

10 retrofit event and the ballast failure event. 

11 As you can see, consumers can achieve 

12 positive life cycle cost savings by purchasing 

13 lamps at higher efficiency levels. 

14 However, for the standards induced 

15 retrofit events, requiring the retrofit of a 

16 ballast at efficiency level four and five 

17 results in large increased installed costs. 

18 In the baseline a consumer with a T12 system 

19 would only have to purchase several lamps for 

20 $14 where efficiency levels four and five, 

21 they would have to purchase a new lamp and 

22 ballast system, a T8 system, and install that 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 176

1 system for approximately $64 to $76. 

2 These are the life cycle cost 

3 results for the residential sector. The top 

4 table is the life cycle cost results under 

5 average operating hours. We discussed earlier 

6 DOE assumes there's no lamp failure event 

7 under average operating hours. There's merely 

8 a ballast failure event. 

9 As you can see, life cycle cost 

10 savings are generally positive and at all 

11 efficiency levels and are more positive at the 

12 higher efficiency levels, and the installed 

13 prices are similar at these efficiency levels. 

14 However, for those consumers that 

15 do experience a lamp failure, those consumers 

16 that have high operating hours, we analyze 

17 those in the bottom table. You can see here 

18 two events, the event 1(a), the lamp failure, 

19 lamp replacement event, and event 1(b), lamp 

20 failure, lamp and ballast replacement event. 

21 As you can see, when the lamp 

22 fails and the consumer has to purchase a new 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 177

1 lamp and ballast because an energy 

2 conservation standard no longer allows T12 

3 lamps to exist at efficiency levels four and 

4 five, the installed costs are quite large; the 

5 installed cost differences are quite large, 

6 going from $4 to 50 to $54. 

7 These are the incandescent 

8 reflector lamps, life of cost results. As you 

9 can see there are three baseline lamps, and 

10 DOE analyzed them in both sectors, the 

11 commercial and residential sector. 

12 In general life cycle cost savings 

13 increase with increasing efficiency levels for 

14 all of the baseline lamps. There are a couple 

15 of instances where life cycle cost savings are 

16 negative. However, those occur at efficiency 

17 level one. 

18 So we invite comment on any other 

19 aspects of the life cycle cost analysis. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 

21 MR. ROSENSTOCK: A quick question. 

22 Steve Rosenstock, Edison Electric Institute. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 178

1 For the IRL analysis for 

2 residential, what was the lifetime assumed for 

3 the IRLs in residential settings? 

4 MS. BURK: The lamp lifetime 

5 varied by efficiency level, and the baseline 

6 lamp was either 2,500 or 3,000 hours, and the 

7 lamp lifetime at, for example, efficiency 

8 level five was 4,200 hours. 

9 Does that answer your question? 

10 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Yes, and in this 

11 case I'm just again looking at the footnote 

12 table. The analysis period is .9 years. So 

13 you're assuming -- oh, I'm sorry -- 3.4 years. 

14 So you're -- 

15 MS. BURK: It varies by sector. 

16 The analysis period is based on the baseline 

17 lamp life, so the longest lived baseline lamp. 

18 So in the commercial sector, operating hours 

19 are quite large. I think they're in the range 

20 of 3,450 hours or something like that. In the 

21 residential sector they're more like 880 

22 hours. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 179

1 MR. ROSENSTOCK: So just one lamp 

2 lifetime. 

3 MS. BURK: Right, right. 

4 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Thank you. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Greg. 

6 MR. NELSON: Yes, I'd like to make 

7 some comments on the LCC and installed cost 

8 results. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: For IRL? 

10 MR. NELSON: For IRL. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

12 MR. NELSON: We've only looked at 

13 this briefly. This is fairly new information, 

14 but a few quick reactions we will follow up in 

15 written comments, first of all, understanding 

16 why the residential cost is significantly 

17 lower than the commercial cost. Perhaps 

18 installation costs were included in one but 

19 not accounted for the homeowner, but we don't 

20 see that as representative of what's in the 

21 market. 

22 MS. BURK: DOE assumed that in the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 180

1 residential sector, that there are no 

2 installation costs, that the consumer 

3 installed the lamp. 

4 MR. NELSON: Okay. So perhaps 

5 that skews it. 

6 MS. BURK: Yes. I think the main 

7 reason is because the operating hours are 

8 longer in the residential sector and so you 

9 have discounting that discounts operating cost 

10 savings at the longer -- 

11 MR. NELSON: I would expect the 

12 operating hours longer in the commercial. 

13 MS. BURK: Sorry. The lifetime is 

14 longer in the residential. I misspoke. 

15 MR. NELSON: Okay. Then so we 

16 have to go back and analyze that, and we will 

17 comment in writing. There's concern also in 

18 terms of, let's say, the multipliers applied 

19 going from the base situation to the various 

20 energy levels, and if we look at that, the 

21 multipliers seem at the very low end of what 

22 was maybe considered as input by the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 181

1 manufacturers, and in particular, if I look at 

2 EL2 to EL3, which represents the jump from, 

3 let's say, an uncoated halogen situation to an 

4 IR coated situation, which is probably the 

5 most significant cost jump, that does not 

6 appear from this to be properly modeled. 

7 I won't go back and comment then 

8 on the LCC because if the starting point on 

9 the installed price is flawed, then we have an 

10 issue on the LCC, but I think we'd better 

11 address that in the written comments. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: So the department 

13 would like for you to redo this table with 

14 your numbers. 

15 MR. NELSON: I think as an 

16 industry we can comment on that. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: That's what's on 

18 your "to do" list, right? Okay. 

19 Ron Lewis. 

20 MR. LEWIS: That is sort of a 

21 standing kind of invitation. It's very 

22 helpful to know if you have a different 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 182

1 opinion. It's much more helpful to know, you 

2 know, the specifics and the supporting 

3 evidence to help us to be better informed if 

4 we didn't understand something. 

5 So we're critiquing something. 

6 Whether it hits the mark or not is good. 

7 Giving us what does hit the mark is even 

8 better. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Point of 

10 information. 

11 MR. LEWIS: Right. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Jon. 

13 MR. McHUGH: Would you go back to 

14 Slide 39 for a second? I'm just trying to 

15 understand this analysis. I hope I'm not too 

16 slow, but what I think you're saying here is 

17 on Slide 39 you're showing a situation where 

18 if you look at the top graph or the top table, 

19 you're looking at the situation where the 

20 ballast fails and you replace the lamp and 

21 ballast at the same time, and your installed 

22 cost is around $50. Your life cycle savings 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 183

1 is around 16. So your energy savings is 

2 somewhere around $66. Am I understanding this 

3 correctly? Energy cost savings is about $66? 

4 Yes? Am I missing anything here? 

5 Okay. Not obviously. Okay. 

6 Now, you then look at that same 

7 sort of situation for the lamp and ballast 

8 replacement. You're looking at this over a 

9 time period that is essentially one-fifth or 

10 one-sixth of the amount of time. 

11 So I would expect that the energy 

12 savings are around $10, right? It was $60 the 

13 first time, over 15 years. I'm looking at two 

14 and a half years. Now I'm looking at 

15 approximately one-sixth of the energy cost 

16 savings, right? 

17 MR. LEWIS: Is everything 

18 normalized? 

19 MR. McHUGH: Okay. That's still 

20 life cycle cost. There's an intermediate 

21 step. Okay? 

22 Then you look at your costs, and 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 184

1 you're saying, well, I'm going to also count 

2 the residual value, and so my residual value, 

3 if I include my residual value, I should 

4 expect that my overall costs are essentially 

5 one-sixth; that I've got five-sixth of the 

6 life of both the lamps and the ballasts still 

7 left. 

8 If I look at it that way and I 

9 look at that my installed cost is around $10 

10 and my energy cost savings is somewhere 

11 around, you know, ten to $14 for the savings, 

12 and so I'm confused a little bit about why you 

13 have a negative life cycle cost, especially if 

14 you have a discount rate included as you'd 

15 think those first two and a half years are 

16 discounted less than the remaining -- 

17 MR. RIVEST: It's hard to follow. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest. 

19 MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest. 

20 The spreadsheets, the methodology 

21 are clearly described in the documentation, 

22 you k now. It's hard to follow everything you 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 185

1 said, but are you perhaps, you know, talking 

2 about capital costs as opposed to first costs 

3 because this is first cost, and the fact that 

4 a residual is credited back in the LCC, you 

5 know, is built in, but the first cost is what 

6 the consumer sees on the day of the 

7 replacement. 

8 So maybe that explains -- 

9 MR. McHUGH: Right. So where are 

10 you crediting the residual cost? 

11 MR. RIVEST: In the life cycle 

12 cost as an of year. 

13 MR. McHUGH: On the savings side? 

14 MR. RIVEST: Yes. 

15 MS. BURK: It's at the end of the 

16 analysis period. 

17 MR. McHUGH: Okay. Oh, and so 

18 you're discounting it at the end of the two 

19 and a half years, but there's still something 

20 like five-sixth of the value. 

21 MR. RIVEST: That's absolutely 

22 right, and that's credited back. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 186

1 MR. McHUGH: Thank you. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. 

3 So a lot of data in these last few 

4 slides. Additional comments? Yes, Tim. 

5 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, 

6 Earthjustice. 

7 I haven't had a chance to look at 

8 the TSD yet. So I don't know what the payback 

9 period results look like in there. However, 

10 DOE has said it has chosen not to report them 

11 in the Federal Register notice because it 

12 believes life cycle cost savings are a better 

13 measure of cost effectiveness. 

14 This seems to be a conversation 

15 we're having with DOE across several 

16 rulemakings, but what we're trying to get at 

17 here is the economic justification for the 

18 standard. Life cycle costs are one means of 

19 DOE gauging the economic justification for a 

20 standard, but the statute requires DOE to also 

21 consider payback periods specifically if the 

22 payback period is three years. There is a 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 187

1 presumption the standard is economically 

2 justified. There needs to be some analysis of 

3 that. I hope it's in the TSD, but it needs to 

4 be in the rule as well. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest. 

6 MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest. 

7 I acknowledge your general 

8 statement about all rulemakings, but I do want 

9 to highlight in this particular rulemaking 

10 payback is very problematic because of the 

11 short life of some of these products being 

12 like .9 years. So a three-year presumption 

13 here, it's a hard abstraction to grasp. 

14 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo. 

15 I recognize that this is a unique 

16 product, that the statute is meant to apply 

17 uniformly, and if there is a three-year 

18 payback period, my position would be that the 

19 standard is economically justified. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Eric Stas. 

21 MR. STAS: Eric Stas, DOE. 

22 I just note that it's a rebuttable 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 188

1 presumption. In the full analysis we do take 

2 in all the factors. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

4 Okay. We have gotten to the end 

5 of the life cycle cost analysis segment. So 

6 we should take any additional and final 

7 comments on life cycle costs and then I think 

8 we'll break for lunch. 

9 MR. MELNYK: I have a quick 

10 question. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Please say your 

12 name again. 

13 MR. MELNYK: Jack Melnyk, Southern 

14 California Edison. 

15 You show 40 watt T12 as a 

16 baseline. In California at least for the last 

17 eight year, it has been very hard to find 40 

18 watt lamps. You know, there are 34 watters in 

19 the sockets. Maybe a quarter of them are 40 

20 watters, but that's diminishing very fast, and 

21 I wonder if these analyses have taken into 

22 account some ratio of the 34 watters versus 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 189

1 the 40 watters in situ in the United States. 

2 I understand we have a much higher percentage 

3 in California and some other states do, too, 

4 versus the rest of the United States, but has 

5 that been taken into account for this process? 

6 MS. BURK: In the commercial 

7 sector we do take into account 40 watt and 34 

8 watt lamps in the baseline. In the 

9 residential sector we assume the primary -- 

10 that primarily T12 lamps are 40 watt lamps, 

11 and these assumptions of market shares are 

12 more relevant in the national impact analysis, 

13 which Mimi will discuss later. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Joe Howley. 

15 MR. HOWLEY: Just commenting on 

16 what Diana said, the overwhelming majority 

17 of our products for fluorescent lamps in the 

18 residential market are 40 watt lamps 

19 nationally. So that is the correct lamp to 

20 use for the residential market. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

22 Okay. So let's pause for lunch. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 190

1 It's 12:20. It takes just about an hour to 

2 eat lunch around here. That's if you don't go 

3 off campus. Please do not. There's a major, 

4 full scale cafeteria. If you go down one 

5 floor to ground level or one? Ground, down to 

6 ground and then go across to the other side of 

7 the building, a whole bunch of us will be 

8 going en masse over to the cafeteria. Please 

9 wear your badge. 

10 We really covered a lot of ground 

11 here. We've got more to cover yet by four 

12 o'clock this afternoon. So thanks to all of 

13 you for speaking up. 

14 And before we go to lunch, yes, we 

15 will. This room will be locked. You can 

16 leave your stuff in here, and we will meet 

17 back here and resume at 1:30. Anything else? 

18 Okay. Thanks for a good morning. 

19 We'll see you back here at an hour. 

20 (Whereupon, at 12:19 p.m., the 

21 meeting was recessed for lunch, to reconvene 

22 at 1:19 p.m., the same day.) 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 191

1 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N 

2 (1:20 p.m.) 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, so let's 

4 proceed. The next item on the agenda is 

5 National Impact Analysis, Mimi Gupta. 

6 MS. GUPTA: All right. I'll be 

7 discussing the Shipments Analysis, and the 

8 National Impacts Analysis, and our revisions 

9 to the ANOPR versions of that. 

10 The purpose of the Shipments 

11 Analysis is to estimate lamp shipments and the 

12 product mix of the stock over the analysis 

13 period for this rulemaking 2012 to 2042, in 

14 the Base case and in the Standards case. The 

15 purpose of the National Impacts Analysis is to 

16 estimate the national energy savings, or NES, 

17 and the net present value, NPV, from GSFL and 

18 IRL efficacy standards. 

19 In order to complete the Shipments 

20 and National Impacts Analysis, DOE first 

21 estimated the Base case shipment forecast from 

22 2012 to 2042. Specifically, that included 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 192

1 accounting for shipments due to lamp 

2 replacements, ballast replacements, fixture 

3 replacements, renovation, and new 

4 construction. To do this, DOE started with 

5 historical shipments from 2001 to 2005 

6 submitted by NEMA, and used these shipments 

7 along with average product lifetimes to 

8 calculate the 2005 lamp stock. 

9 DOE then forecasted shipments 

10 accounting for the penetration of several 

11 existing and emerging technologies, such as 

12 light emitting diodes, reflector CFLs, and 

13 ceramic metal halide lamps. 

14 In addition, DOE established 

15 market share matrices that characterized the 

16 product distribution or shipment and stock 

17 over time. DOE also received confidential 

18 2006 and 2007 shipments that it used to 

19 calibrate its Base case shipment forecasts. 

20 After establishing the Base case 

21 shipment forecast, the Department used several 

22 Standards case scenarios to model possible 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 193

1 consumer responses to standards, and the 

2 resulting Standards case shipment forecasts. 

3 One major input into developing 

4 the Base case shipment forecasts were DOE's 

5 growth rate assumptions. To model new 

6 construction, DOE used commercial floor space 

7 and residential building growth projections 

8 from the Annual Energy Outlook 2008. However, 

9 because AEO does not separately forecast 

10 industrial floor space, DOE used the 

11 Manufacturer Energy Consumption Survey 

12 historical growth to calculate the industrial 

13 sector floor space growth. 

14 In addition to using new building 

15 constructions to calculate the growth in the 

16 residential sector, DOE also accounted for 

17 historical trends in the number of lamps per 

18 household. Specifically, DOE used a 

19 California study to estimate the average 

20 number of GSFL fluorescent lamps, and recessed 

21 cans in homes constructed from 2001 to 2005. 

22 Based on distributions of home age 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 194

1 and building growth, DOE estimated the average 

2 number of fluorescent lamps and IRL in homes 

3 from 2005 to 2042. The resulting average 

4 residential growth rates were for fluorescent 

5 1 percent per year, and IRL 2.6 percent per 

6 year. 

7 As you can see here, the IRL 

8 growth rates were significantly higher than 

9 the general service fluorescent growth rates, 

10 and that's primarily due to the increasing 

11 number of recessed cans per household. And I 

12 will invite comment on the growth rate 

13 assumptions using the residential sector. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 

15 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Thank you. Steve 

16 Rosenstock, Edison Electric Institute. A 

17 quick question. In the California study, was 

18 that just for the study within the State of 

19 California for the homes, or was it 

20 nationwide? 

21 MS. GUPTA: It was within the 

22 State of California. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 195

1 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Okay. A couple 

2 of reasons I mention that, is typically, from 

3 the data that I've seen from RECS, the 

4 Residential Energy Consumption Survey, that 

5 homes in California tend to be small, have 

6 tended to be smaller than the national 

7 average. I'm not sure about the new homes, 

8 but historically, the average square footage 

9 for a home in California was less than the 

10 national average. So that, again, just in 

11 terms of using that as a baseline, I don't 

12 know if that's really representative of the 

13 whole country. 

14 And, also, I think with the growth 

15 rates, also from what I've seen, especially 

16 the last few years, is that the increase in 

17 the square footage of the homes has stopped, 

18 and if not, it's actually declining, so that 

19 would tend to have a negative impact on the 

20 growth rate in terms of number of lighting 

21 fixtures within a home, since smaller homes 

22 equals less lighting fixtures. Thank you. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 196

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Greg? 

2 MR. NELSON: Yes, I think we would 

3 echo some of the same comments, that certainly 

4 the trend has changed a bit in very recent 

5 years. And with especially the very recent 

6 economic downturn, it calls into question 

7 moving forward. But all of the manufacturers 

8 see in their results, let's say contradictions 

9 to this projected IRL growth rate, on top of 

10 which we already see significant penetration 

11 of other categories, not yet maybe SSL, but 

12 certainly CFLI reflectors that are shrinking 

13 the IRL market. So I think we would take a 

14 much more pessimistic view of the growth than 

15 is presented here, and we'll address that in 

16 our written comments. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So 

18 we're looking at and commenting on the 

19 Department's approach, and the growth rates 

20 that they forecast looking ahead a long way 

21 out. So additional comments on the growth 

22 rates? Thank you. Jeff Harris. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 197

1 MR. HARRIS: Jeff Harris, Alliance 

2 To Save Energy. I may have missed this, but 

3 was home remodeling considered, which in my 

4 casual observation does involve a lot of 

5 recessed cans these days. 

6 MS. GUPTA: Yes. In calculating 

7 the second bullet of the average number of 

8 fluorescents and recessed cans in homes for 

9 2005 to 2042, we did consider home remodeling, 

10 and the full documentation of those 

11 assumptions can be found in the TSD Chapter 

12 10. And, actually, it's also in the NOPR 

13 notice, those assumptions. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

15 MS. GUPTA: All right. Speaking 

16 of Greg's point on emerging technologies, 

17 another major input into the Base case 

18 shipment forecast were the projections of 

19 penetration of other lighting technologies 

20 into the fluorescent and incandescent 

21 reflector markets. To do this, and in 

22 consideration of the high degree of 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 198

1 uncertainty, DOE modeled two Base case 

2 shipment scenarios, the existing technology 

3 scenario, and the emerging technology 

4 scenario. 

5 The existing technology scenario 

6 forecasts the penetration of technologies that 

7 are already currently available, and have 

8 reached maturation in terms of price and 

9 efficacy. The emerging technology scenario 

10 forecasts the penetration of these mature 

11 technologies, and also those that are still 

12 undergoing significant changes in price and 

13 efficacy. 

14 Using these criteria for GSFL, DOE 

15 determined that there are no other existing 

16 mature technologies that would penetrate the 

17 fluorescent market. Therefore, in the 

18 existing technology scenario, DOE modeled only 

19 general service fluorescent lamps. However, 

20 this scenario does include the penetration of 

21 high-efficiency T5 lamps into other 

22 fluorescent markets. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 199

1 To establish the emerging 

2 technology scenario, DOE analyzed the possible 

3 penetration of light-emitting diodes and 

4 ceramic metal halide lamps into the general 

5 service fluorescent markets. 

6 For IRL, DOE considers reflector 

7 CFLs to be a mature technology with a 

8 relatively stable price point and efficacy; 

9 and, therefore, considers reflector CFLs in 

10 this existing technology scenario. For the 

11 emerging technology scenario, DOE calculated 

12 and estimated the penetrations of LEDs and 

13 ceramic metal halides. 

14 To establish the market 

15 penetration forecasts, DOE first estimated the 

16 price and performance forecast of light17 emitting diodes and ceramic metal halides, as 

18 well as assessing the price and efficacy of 

19 reflector CFLs. Then DOE calculated the 

20 payback period of light-emitting diodes, 

21 ceramic metal halide, and reflector CFLs, and 

22 compared that to -- calculated the payback 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 200

1 period of these alternative technologies 

2 compared to general service fluorescent lamps 

3 and incandescent reflector lamps. DOE then 

4 used the payback period and market penetration 

5 relationships to develop forecasts. And the 

6 resulting penetrations that were calculated 

7 for the emerging technology scenario were by 

8 2042 DOE expects a 41 percent market 

9 penetration of light-emitting diodes into the 

10 general service fluorescent market. And for 

11 incandescent reflector lamps, DOE expects a 40 

12 percent residential, or 40 percent penetration 

13 of light-emitting diodes by 2042 in the 

14 residential sector, and 82 percent in the 

15 commercial sector. These are only the emerging 

16 technology, the numbers that I'm giving you. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 

18 MR. ROSENSTOCK: All right. Steve 

19 Rosenstock, Edison Electric Institute. For 

20 the reflector CFLs, when you say they're 

21 existing, are you talking about the non22 dimmable, or the dimmable CFLs, or both? 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 201

1 MS. GUPTA: Diana, you can correct 

2 me on this, but I think we based on the non3 dimmable prices and efficacies. 

4 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Okay. Because 

5 from what I've seen, there's dimmable CFL 

6 reflectors out there, but I think they're 

7 still kind of an emerging technology, and not 

8 fully dimmable like the incandescents. 

9 They're like -- they dim down to 50 percent, 

10 then they have problems, it seems like, the 

11 ones that I've seen. I mean, that could also 

12 be another game changer, if they perfect that 

13 technology, so I didn't know if that was part 

14 of the analysis process. 

15 MS. GUPTA: It's not currently 

16 part of the analysis. Are there any other 

17 comments on market penetration of emerging 

18 technologies, and the GSFL and IRL shipments 

19 analysis? Okay. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Pam Horner. 

21 MS. HORNER: You saw me waffling. 

22 Pam Horner. Sorry to be so slow here. On 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 202

1 the IRL market penetration, particularly with 

2 emerging technologies, while we haven't 

3 examined -- you mentioned a couple of these 

4 percentages here, 41 percent of LED, et 

5 cetera. But on the face of it, and we'll have 

6 to address this very specifically in our 

7 comments, but it would appear that such 

8 penetration would erode the growth of IRL to 

9 Greg's previous point, rather than to see it 

10 continue to grow, as you show in a later 

11 slide. So I'm starting to wonder how that 

12 could be? 

13 MS. GUPTA: Sure. 

14 MS. HORNER: It says because of 

15 new homes, but - 

16 MS. GUPTA: I can just fast17 forward to that slide. 

18 MS. HORNER: Honestly, it looks 

19 like this, not this. 

20 MS. GUPTA: So we're on Slide 51 

21 here. Is that what you're referring to? 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 203

1 MS. GUPTA: And, Pam, were you 

2 referring to the fact that the bottom 

3 forecast, which is the emerging technologies 

4 forecast of incandescent reflector lamps seems 

5 to grow after 2020? Okay. The way the 

6 penetration was implemented and calculated in 

7 the IRL shipments forecast was that the 

8 penetration of LEDs will -- or LEDs will 

9 penetrate the existing stock of incandescent 

10 reflector lamps to the percentages that I 

11 mentioned earlier. But then at some point, 

12 that penetration will become saturated until 

13 the -- I guess before I said it's 40 percent 

14 LED penetration in the residential sector. So 

15 at some point you're going to have 60 percent 

16 IRL, and 40 percent LEDs in the stock. And 

17 then after that point, new -- the way we 

18 implemented it was that new construction will 

19 be - 

20 MR. RIVEST: Number of sockets. 

21 MS. GUPTA: Yes. The number of 

22 sockets continues to go up, so you will have 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 204

1 some increase in IRL. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Joe Howley. 

3 MR. HOWLEY: Make a comment on 

4 that. It seems that by 2020, what we are 

5 seeing is ever-increasing building energy 

6 codes, perhaps led by California's Title 24, 

7 but a lot of these new standards are not 

8 allowing sort of the older technologies to go 

9 into new construction. Certainly, 12 years 

10 from now I would expect the Energy Standards 

11 to be stronger than they are today. I have 

12 yet to see them reverse, unless the advocates 

13 all of a sudden start pushing reversals of 

14 these standards. I don't think they're going 

15 to do that any time soon. And it's probably 

16 more likely that by 2020, most of the 

17 standards require the use of one of these more 

18 advanced technologies, maybe not even allowing 

19 some of these older technologies to be used in 

20 new construction. Regardless of the fact the 

21 market may want to behave this way, I think in 

22 reality it won't be allowed to behave this way 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 205

1 because of building energy codes, which appear 

2 not to be factored into this. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: So do you wish to 

4 go further and speculate what that means for 

5 these growth curves? 

6 MR. HOWLEY: Well, I think they'll 

7 just continue to dwindle down flat to the 

8 lower. We have to do our analysis, but I 

9 highly suspect that there won't be growth in 

10 this area. We haven't analyzed it. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 

12 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, 

13 Edison Electric Institute. The 2009 

14 International Energy Conservation Code for 

15 residential construction now calls for 50 

16 percent of the lighting has to be high17 efficiency, and high-efficiency is defined at 

18 least starting at 40 lumens per watt, as I 

19 recall. And so DOE has yet to certify it, but 

20 once DOE certifies it, then states have I 

21 believe one year to update their codes to meet 

22 or exceed the ICC 2009. So that is kind of a 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 206

1 game changer that obviously could not be put 

2 in the analysis until basically now, because 

3 it was just published. So as a FYI. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

5 MS. GUPTA: Thank you. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. 

7 David? 

8 MR. NESTING: Yes. David Nesting 

9 with Philips. Just kind of a follow-on to it, 

10 because maybe I'm reading this wrong, but when 

11 I look at your curve on Slide 51 for the 

12 emerging technologies, when I look at this, 

13 this graph says that we sold the most emerging 

14 technologies ever three years ago, and it's 

15 going to drop for the next 20 years. Because 

16 we're talking about shipments in billions, 

17 that it's going to be going down every year. 

18 MS. GUPTA: These are all 

19 incandescent reflector shipments, not emerging 

20 technologies shipments. It's the incandescent 

21 reflector shipments for the emerging 

22 technology Base case forecast that considers 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 207

1 the penetration of emerging technologies. 

2 MR. RIVEST: The different in area 

3 -- Mike Rivest. The difference in area 

4 between the below the pink and the blue lines, 

5 that's the market share that the LED is 

6 capturing. 

7 MS. GUPTA: This is LEDs right 

8 here. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Ed, go ahead. 

10 MR. YANDEK: We will have more to 

11 say in our written comments, but clearly, and 

12 I know this is a difficult area. Forecasting 

13 is always difficult, but particularly when 

14 you're doing new technology shifts; believe 

15 me, from experience, you're not going to get 

16 it right. The only question is how wrong, and 

17 which way. And I think you understand which 

18 way we think this is going right now, but we 

19 will share some more information with how we 

20 would view this during our written comments. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Jeff 

22 Harris. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 208

1 MR. HARRIS: Jeff Harris, Alliance 

2 To Save Energy. It seems to me that the 

3 difference in those lines is not emerging 

4 technology shipments, unless the average 

5 lifetime of the alternate technologies is the 

6 same. 

7 MS. GUPTA: That's correct. I'm 

8 just trying to say that the difference in the 

9 shipments is due to the emerging technologies. 

10 You're totally correct. We did not try to 

11 project emerging technology shipments in 

12 total. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: We jumped ahead 

14 several slides. Let's go back to the earlier 

15 shipments slides, and also provide an 

16 opportunity, now that we've had this overview, 

17 anybody else that wants to comment on emerging 

18 technologies. And then, Mimi, why don't you 

19 take us through the shipments graphs. 

20 MS. GUPTA: All right. So after 

21 considering growth rates, emerging 

22 technologies, and several other assumptions, 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 209

1 DOE resulted, or was able to calculate some 

2 shipment forecasts for general service 

3 fluorescent lamps, and this slides shows the 4 

4 foot medium bipin shipment forecasts. And, as 

5 you can see from the upper two curves, 4 foot 

6 -- DOE expects 4 foot T8 medium bipin 

7 shipments to continue to grow due to new 

8 construction and retrofitting of 4 foot T12 

9 and 8 foot T12 single pin Slimline systems. 

10 You can also see here the top two 

11 forecasts show the first -- the top forecast 

12 is the 4 foot T8 forecast only considering 

13 existing technologies; namely, just other 

14 fluorescent technologies. The second forecast 

15 in the light blue is the 4 foot T8 emerging 

16 technologies forecast that considers the 

17 penetration of LEDs. And as you can see, that 

18 forecast has decreased comparatively. And the 

19 very bottom forecast is the forecast of 4 foot 

20 T12 medium bipin shipments. And as we 

21 discussed earlier, the 2000 ballast rule 

22 effectively eliminates the sale of 4 foot T12 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 210

1 medium bipin magnetic ballasts in the 

2 commercial sector, causing T12 shipments to 

3 decline. The remaining shipments you see here 

4 are for lamps for installation on residential 

5 and electronic ballasts. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's do all of 

7 them, and then we'll take comments 

8 collectively. 

9 MS. GUPTA: That sounds great. 

10 For 8 foot single pin Slimline, 

11 DOE calculated similar forecasts where you 

12 have the 8 foot T8 single pin Slimline 

13 shipments showing initially very slight growth 

14 due to the retrofitting of some 8 foot T12 

15 single pin Slimline systems, and 8 foot T12 

16 single pin Slimline systems showing a sharp 

17 decline due to the elimination of T12 magnetic 

18 ballasts. Again, the remaining lamp shipments 

19 in the later parts of the analysis period are 

20 for installation on electronic ballasts. 

21 For 8 foot recessed double contact 

22 high output, historical shipments submitted by 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 211

1 NEMA show a sharp decline in 8 foot T12 

2 recessed double contact high output shipments. 

3 DOE projects that these shipments will 

4 continue to decline due to the penetration of 

5 other technologies, such as the 4 foot T5 

6 miniature bipin high output, and high 

7 intensity discharge lamps. 

8 And, finally, for 4 foot T5 

9 miniature bipin standard output and high 

10 output lamps, DOE projects that these 

11 shipments will grow due to new construction, 

12 and penetration into the 4 foot medium bipin 

13 and 8 foot single pin Slimline, 8 foot 

14 recessed double contact high output, and high 

15 intensity discharge markets. And DOE invites 

16 comments all of its shipments forecasts, in 

17 particular, the T5 forecasts. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Five separate 

19 shipment forecasts. Pam Horner. 

20 MS. HORNER: Well, I've asked our 

21 market share statistician early on to take a 

22 look at this. I would say that in general, 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 212

1 the industry believes that on T5, and that's 

2 the one I'm looking at now, yes, it's in the 

3 right direction. Yes, it will grow. I 

4 piggyback on Ed's comment. You don't want to 

5 hear his real answer, but what he said is out 

6 to 2040? You've got to be kidding me followed 

7 by comma, we only generally project out five 

8 years. You could be off a tenth of a percent 

9 in one confidence level, and the whole curve 

10 goes -- and you know this. I mean, this is 

11 what's so difficult for you. So general 

12 direction, yes. Grow? Yes. We have no 

13 confidence in projecting out to 2042, but I 

14 would like to add one more point. 

15 It's interesting, we've received 

16 some data recently with the commercial markets 

17 in the tank, the economics in the tank, 

18 luminaire business is being severely affected 

19 by this. Now, whether that will adjust in any 

20 way the curve trajectory, but there certainly 

21 will be blips along the way, because those are 

22 new luminaires, new luminaires with these 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 213

1 lamps in them that people have to afford 

2 during an economic crisis. So I know there's 

3 no time to go back and reevaluate anything. 

4 It's just a point I'd like to make, that 

5 things happen over time, like economy. Thank 

6 you. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So as I 

8 said, five different shipment forecasts. I 

9 don't want to slight any of them for those of 

10 you that wish to comment. Yes, please. And 

11 your name again? 

12 MR. MELNYK: Jack Melnyk, Southern 

13 Cal Edison. One thing that comes to mind 

14 versus what Ms. Horner said is that there have 

15 been economic dislocations, maybe not as 

16 severe as we're in right now, but in the late 

17 80's across the `90s, and if you had some 

18 additional data, you might be able to shape 

19 out to 2042 with a little more confidence, or 

20 at least base it on more history than what's 

21 there. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 214

1 So with no additional comments, we're just 

2 going to keep moving on. 

3 MS. GUPTA: All right. We've 

4 already seen Slide 51, but historical 

5 shipments submitted by NEMA in 2006 and 2007 

6 indicate a decline in IRL shipments. DOE 

7 models these decreased IRL shipments due to 

8 the penetration of our reflector CFL and 

9 emerging technologies. 

10 Now, as we discussed earlier, you 

11 see an increase in IRL shipments later in the 

12 analysis period due to the emerging 

13 technologies reaching a saturation in the 

14 reflector lamp stock, and the total number of 

15 sockets increasing due to new construction. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 

17 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, 

18 EEI. And just, again, to refresh my memory 

19 for the shipments, at some point it's 60 

20 percent IRL, and 40 percent LED, at some point 

21 in the forecast? The reason I ask, I remember 

22 you threw out that number, and I was like 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 215

1 well, where were the CFLs in that forecast? 

2 MS. GUPTA: So what basically 

3 happens is that in the beginning of the 

4 analysis period, the way DOE approaches its 

5 emerging technologies is that it calculates 

6 the penetration due to emerging technologies 

7 for all the separate technologies using the 

8 payback period. And, basically, DOE takes the 

9 maximum penetration of any given technology as 

10 the total penetration of emerging 

11 technologies. And so, in the beginning of the 

12 analysis period reflector CFLs are much more 

13 cost-effective than LEDs. So the penetration 

14 of other technologies into the IRL stock is 

15 mainly by CFL. By the end of the analysis 

16 period, based on the LED price projections, 

17 and efficacy projections, LEDs become much 

18 more cost-effective than CFLs, and so the 

19 penetration of emerging technologies is 

20 primarily due to LEDs. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew? 

22 MR. DELASKI: Andrew Delaski. I 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 216

1 have two questions. One is, why -- what's 

2 happening, why are sales going down, 

3 initially? 

4 MS. GUPTA: Sales are initially 

5 going down due to the penetration of reflector 

6 CFLs. And that's consistent with the 2006-2007 

7 historical shipments that we received from 

8 NEMA. 

9 MR. DELASKI: Okay. And then 

10 these shipments are inclusive only of the 

11 lamps that DOE has determined are not 

12 exempted. 

13 MS. GUPTA: That's correct. 

14 MR. DELASKI: All the 65 watt BR, 

15 for example, are not in these shipments. 

16 MS. GUPTA: That's correct. 

17 MR. DELASKI: Thanks. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Pekka. 

19 MR. HAKKARAINEN: Pekka 

20 Hakkarainen. I'm now a little confused. On 

21 Slide 46, the existing technologies scenario 

22 for IRLs includes reflector CFLs. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 217

1 MS. GUPTA: That's correct. 

2 MR. HAKKARAINEN: Are the 

3 reflector CFLs now not included in this graph? 

4 MS. GUPTA: No, they are not. 

5 MR. HAKKARAINEN: They are. 

6 MS. GUPTA: So if you look at the 

7 pink forecast, that is the existing 

8 technologies forecast. So that forecast is 

9 the IRL shipments - 

10 MR. HAKKARAINEN: Including the 

11 reflector CFLs. 

12 MS. GUPTA: Considering the fact 

13 that only reflector CFLs are penetrating that 

14 market. 

15 MR. HAKKARAINEN: That's what I 

16 thought. 

17 MS. GUPTA: Yes. And the bottom 

18 forecast is considering that okay, reflector 

19 CFLs are penetrating the IRL market in the 

20 beginning, but later in the analysis period, 

21 LEDs start to dominate that penetration. 

22 MR. HAKKARAINEN: So what we are 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 218

1 seeing is that because of the reflector CFL 

2 introduction, we expect the shipments in this 

3 market to decrease for still some years to 

4 come. 

5 MS. GUPTA: That's correct. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead. Andrew. 

7 MR. DELASKI: Andrew Delaski. I 

8 don't see -- an example here, I don't see 

9 numbers for -- did you model scenarios in 

10 which consumers shift to exempted lamps? 

11 MS. GUPTA: Yes, we did. And I'll 

12 discuss that in a couple of slides. 

13 MR. DELASKI: Okay. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

15 MS. GUPTA: All right. So, as 

16 discussed earlier, as part of the shipments 

17 analysis, DOE develops market share matrices 

18 to characterize the distribution of product 

19 shipped, and in the stock. This slide shows 

20 an example summary of the 4 foot medium bipin 

21 Base case market share matrices. 

22 As you can see here on the left, 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 219

1 with regard to T8 systems in the commercial 

2 sector, in 2012, DOE assumes that 90 percent 

3 of these lamps are at 32 watts, or more than 

4 90 percent of these lamps are at 32 watts and 

5 10 percent are at reduced wattages. By 2042, 

6 DOE expects that reduced wattage lamps gain 

7 more of a market share. In terms of efficacy 

8 distribution, we see that with time a shift 

9 toward higher efficacy lamps occurs. And in 

10 terms of ballast factor, DOE assumes that in 

11 2012, 90 percent of consumers use a .88 

12 ballast factor ballast. By 2042, DOE expects 

13 a shift towards lower ballast factor ballasts. 

14 For T12 magnetic systems shown on 

15 the table on the right, we describe the 

16 shipments in both the commercial and the 

17 residential sector. So as you can see here, 

18 in the residential sector, DOE assumes that 

19 100 percent of T12 lamps shipped are 40 watt, 

20 while in the commercial sector, one-third of 

21 lamps shipped in the commercial sector are 40 

22 watt, and the remaining are 34 watt. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 220

1 Another important thing to note in 

2 the residential sector is the distribution of 

3 ballast shipments for T12s. As stated 

4 earlier, the 2000 ballast rule effectively 

5 eliminates the sale of magnetic ballasts in 

6 the commercial sector. Therefore, in the 

7 commercial sector, DOE assumes that all T12 

8 ballast shipments are of the electronic type. 

9 However, as residential ballasts are exempt 

10 from this rule, DOE assumes that 50 percent 

11 are magnetic, 50 percent are electronic for 

12 T12 ballasts. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 

14 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steven 

15 Rosenstock, EEI. On the commercial side, I'm 

16 just kind of curious why DOE would project 

17 lower ballast factors since ballast factors 

18 directly kind of associated with light output 

19 out of fixtures. That just surprised me. I 

20 know the lamps are going to be more efficient, 

21 but just kind of surprises me about the 

22 ballast factors going down over time. I'm 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 221

1 just -- that shift kind of surprised me. 

2 MS. GUPTA: That was based on the 

3 fact that in the market we see more and more 

4 lower ballast factor ballasts being 

5 introduced. But we'd appreciate any comments 

6 that you have on that, and whether that's 

7 appropriate or not. 

8 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Okay. Just, the 

9 better the ballast factor, the more light 

10 you're getting out of the lamps. And the 

11 residential, there's no 34 watt lamps being 

12 sold in the residential market that are T12? 

13 MS. GUPTA: That is the assumption 

14 that we made based on manufacturer interviews. 

15 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Okay. The reason 

16 I say that, I see 34 watt lamps are hardware 

17 stores for the residential market, so it just 

18 kind of surprised me. So, thank you. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Pekka. 

20 MR. HAKKARAINEN: Pekka 

21 Hakkarainen. Particularly in the commercial 

22 side, the building energy codes are starting 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 222

1 to address control issues, such as daylight 

2 dimming and so on. When you look at the 2042 

3 numbers that you have there, it seems to me 

4 that there may be some disconnect there, 

5 because currently only really the 32 watt lamp 

6 is considered dimmable, so we would be 

7 limiting the application of that type of 

8 energy-saving technology to 25 percent of the 

9 applications. I have a concern that that may 

10 not be accurate. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. John. 

12 MR. McHUGH: John McHugh. Could 

13 you describe the relative fraction of sales of 

14 commercial versus residential lamps? 

15 MS. GUPTA: Sure. Based on the 

16 comment submitted by NEMA during the ANOPR 

17 phase, NEMA estimates that approximately 25 

18 percent of general service fluorescent lamps 

19 go to the residential sector. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Other comments on 

21 these matrices? Andrew. 

22 (Off the record comment.) 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 223

1 COURT REPORTER: Is his microphone 

2 on? 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew, we can't 

4 hear you. 

5 MR. DELASKI: Go on to the 

6 resident sector versus being sold through 

7 outlets like Home Depot, where we don't know 

8 where they're going to end up. I remember Pam 

9 saying we don't know where they're going. 

10 MS. GUPTA: That's correct. 

11 MR. DELASKI: There might be a 

12 small commercial -- so 25 percent sounds high 

13 to me. 

14 MS. GUPTA: Yes, that's correct. 

15 I just thought of that when I said that. We 

16 did account for do-it-yourself stores not 

17 always servicing only residential consumers. 

18 I will have to get back to you on the exact 

19 percentage. I'm having a little confusion in 

20 my head right now on that, but I'll get back 

21 to you later today on the exact percentage. I 

22 thought the 25 percent included -- I'll get 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 224

1 back to you on that. Sorry. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

3 MS. GUPTA: Speaking of getting 

4 back to people on things, you had asked for 

5 the market share of some of the excluded or 

6 unanalyzed product classes, and it seems like 

7 an appropriate time to bring it up. I checked 

8 back in the TSD, and U-shaped lamps are -- DOE 

9 approximates that they're approximately 4 

10 percent of the total general service 

11 fluorescent market. And in terms of the 

12 question asked earlier about what percentage 

13 of residential shipments are lamp replacement 

14 shipments, that number -- I think we talked 

15 about 12 percent earlier, and it's actually 

16 around 9 percent according to DOE's analyses. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Restate what that 

18 is. 

19 MR. NESTING: Say that again. 

20 MS. GUPTA: The percentage of 

21 residential shipments that are lamp 

22 replacement shipments for 4 foot medium bipin 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 225

1 lamps. That number of shipments to the 

2 residential sector - 

3 (Off the record comment.) 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So then 

5 let's proceed to 53. 

6 MS. GUPTA: So similar to GSFL, 

7 DOE developed market share matrices to 

8 characterize a product mix for the IRL stock 

9 in 2011 and 2012. And DOE assumes a lineal 

10 progression from the 2011 stock mixes to 2042 

11 stock mixes. 

12 To model IRL, DOE analyzed three 

13 different lumen packages corresponding to the 

14 three baseline lamps analyzing the engineering 

15 and LCC analysis. The lumen package 

16 associated with a 50 watt halogen baseline 

17 lamp is given 27 percent of the market share, 

18 for the 75 watt halogen baseline lamps lumen 

19 package, DOE allots 32 percent of the market 

20 share. And for the 90 watt halogen baseline 

21 lamps lumen package, DOE allots 41 percent of 

22 the market share. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 226

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 

2 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Quick question. 

3 Steven Rosenstock, EEI. In the residential 

4 sector, and please, I know you're showing a 

5 halogen baseline, but aren't there non-halogen 

6 old-style incandescent IRLs out there that are 

7 being sold on the market that aren't halogen? 

8 MS. GUPTA: That's correct, but as 

9 we saw earlier, DOE's shipments analysis and 

10 national impacts analysis only considers the 

11 current stock of products that are being 

12 regulated under this rule making, so that 

13 would only be the halogen, and halogen 

14 infrared lamps. The incandescent-type lamps 

15 which are exempted from standards are not 

16 considered in this rule making, except when 

17 considering how people might migrate to them 

18 due to standards. So they're subtracted from 

19 the total incandescent reflector stock. 

20 So what I'm trying to say is that 

21 we're trying to assess the impact of standards 

22 on the products that we're regulating under 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 227

1 this rule making, and we're only regulating 

2 those non-exempt products. Therefore, our 

3 analysis only addresses the non-exempt 

4 products. 

5 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Thank you. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: So you didn't fully 

7 explain this matrix yet. 

8 MS. GUPTA: Yes. So in addition 

9 to getting a lumen package breakdown of the 

10 stock, DOE developed an efficacy distribution 

11 of the stock. And as seen on the right in the 

12 residential sector, based on current 

13 purchasing trends, DOE assumed that all lamps 

14 are of the halogen technology throughout the 

15 analysis period. 

16 In the commercial sector, DOE 

17 established an efficacy distribution that 

18 assumes a market share in 2011 primarily at 

19 halogen technology, but then shows a 

20 significant migration by 2042 to halogen 

21 infrared technology. Any further comments on 

22 this slide? 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 228

1 MR. BROOKMAN: I think that all 

2 the manufacturers would love to have this 

3 certainty. 

4 MS. GUPTA: Okay. So using these 

5 Base case market share matrices in combination 

6 with the shipments projections, DOE calculated 

7 total energy consumption for the Base case for 

8 GSFL and IRL. To calculate shipments and 

9 energy consumption in the Standards case, DOE 

10 used several Standards case scenarios. The 

11 Standards case scenarios help characterize the 

12 product distribution in the Standards case, 

13 and how consumers may respond to standards. 

14 The first set of Standards case 

15 scenarios applicable to both fluorescent lamps 

16 and incandescent reflector lamps are the roll17 up and shift scenarios. The roll-up and shift 

18 scenarios characterize how the product 

19 efficacy distribution will be affected by 

20 Standards. In the roll-up scenario, only 

21 consumers purchasing below the trial standard 

22 level changed their purchase decisions in the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 229

1 Standards case. These consumers will purchase 

2 the lowest first cost lamp option available, 

3 generally rolling up to the next highest 

4 efficacy level. All other consumers 

5 purchasing above the baseline are unaffected 

6 by Standards. 

7 The shift scenario models a 

8 situation in which all consumers re-evaluate 

9 their purchase decisions. Similar to the 

10 roll-up scenario, consumers currently 

11 purchasing at the baseline will purchase the 

12 lowest first cost standards compliant lamp. 

13 However, consumers purchasing above the 

14 baseline level under Standards shift to even 

15 higher efficacy product. In general, the 

16 shift scenario aims to maintain the same 

17 percentage of consumers purchasing at higher 

18 efficacy levels in the Base case as it does in 

19 the Standards case. 

20 For GSFL, both scenarios, roll-up 

21 and shift, are modeled in all sectors. 

22 However, for IRL, because the residential 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 230

1 sector is considered to be entirely purchasing 

2 at the baseline level, the shift scenario is 

3 only applicable to the commercial sector. 

4 For GSFL, a second set of 

5 Standards case scenarios includes the lighting 

6 expertise scenarios. DOE established the 

7 lighting expertise scenarios to model varying 

8 degrees of consumer education regarding 

9 lighting options. As discussed earlier, for 

10 GSFL, there are several ways that a consumer 

11 can save energy when purchasing a higher 

12 efficacy lamp. 

13 The consumer could purchase a 

14 higher efficacy lower wattage lamp, or 

15 instead, he could purchase the same wattage 

16 lamp, and install it on a lower ballast factor 

17 ballast. Both of these options would allow 

18 the consumer to save energy, while maintaining 

19 lumen output. 

20 In the high lighting expertise 

21 scenario, DOE assumes that all consumers have 

22 enough lighting expertise so as to make this 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 231

1 energy-saving isolumen decision in response to 

2 Standards. However, DOE also recognizes that 

3 some consumers without sufficient lighting 

4 expertise might respond to Standards by simply 

5 purchasing a higher efficacy same wattage lamp 

6 and installing it on ballast with the same 

7 ballast factor. This would result in the 

8 consumer purchasing a higher efficacy more 

9 expensive lamp without gaining the benefits of 

10 energy savings. 

11 In the market segment-based 

12 lighting expertise scenario, DOE assumes that 

13 the market contains a mixture of consumers 

14 with high lighting expertise and low lighting 

15 expertise. Thus, some consumers are making 

16 energy saving decisions, and others are not. 

17 To determine the percentage of lamps purchased 

18 by consumers with high lighting expertise, DOE 

19 broke an analysis out into several market 

20 segments. For each market segment, DOE 

21 determined the probability of certain types of 

22 consumers to have high lighting expertise. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 232

1 And as you can see in this table, 

2 in the renovation and new construction 

3 segments, DOE assumes that a relatively high 

4 portion of purchases will be made by consumers 

5 with high lighting expertise. However, as you 

6 can see in the residential sector, when 

7 considering fixture or ballast replacement, 

8 DOE considers these consumers to have 

9 relatively low lighting expertise. In 

10 addition, the amount of information available 

11 on packaging in the residential sector is 

12 generally less; and, therefore, assumes that 

13 zero percent of these purchases are made with 

14 high expertise. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Pam Horner. 

16 MS. HORNER: Pam Horner. Mimi, 

17 thank you. I know you asked for the question 

18 later, but rather than asking you to go back 

19 to this slide, if I could just make a comment 

20 on it right now. 

21 MS. GUPTA: Yes. 

22 MS. HORNER: Generally, this is a 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 233

1 good approach, and you're right that there's a 

2 mix. One thing that would probably affect the 

3 first two numbers, we believe, and, therefore, 

4 several of us went back to our OEM sales data, 

5 and perhaps it's how we define renovation and 

6 new construction versus how you do. That 

7 could be it, but if you consider that in 

8 renovation and new construction, new 

9 luminaires are being used. That's how we 

10 would define it. 

11 Then the reason I said we went 

12 back to our OEM manufacturers is decisions are 

13 being made, and ballasts are being purchased 

14 as part of new luminaires at some rate. I 

15 know it isn't directly the probability of 

16 commercial expertise in this area, but it 

17 relates. And so, we can tell you that 

18 somewhere in the vicinity of 90 percent of OEM 

19 luminaires, especially in the T8, are with 

20 normal power factor, so we think -- we 

21 believe, and we can look into this further, 

22 but those first two numbers, renovation and 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 234

1 new construction, probably -- expertise or 

2 not, should probably be closer to what you 

3 call fixture replacement. 

4 MS. GUPTA: So would fixture 

5 replacement not be something that those OEM 

6 manufacturers would - 

7 MS. HORNER: In other words, if 

8 you -- I hope I'm being clear. If you look 

9 back at OEM sales, you can get a clue as to 

10 the decisions that are being made, whether 

11 they have the expertise about whether they 

12 should go to lower ballast factors or not. Is 

13 that clear? 

14 MS. GUPTA: Yes. 

15 MS. HORNER: Okay. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: So you say that the 

17 number is more similar to fixture replacement. 

18 Do you want to go further than that at this 

19 point? 

20 MS. HORNER: No. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: No. I thought I'd 

22 give you an opportunity. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 235

1 MR. DELASKI: Mimi, this is Andrew 

2 Delaski, again. So is this -- these are 

3 numbers that are part of the entire analysis 

4 period, or is this for 2012? 

5 MS. GUPTA: Applied throughout the 

6 analysis period. 

7 MR. DELASKI: So it's consistent 

8 figure over the analysis period up to 2042. 

9 MS. GUPTA: That's correct. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Over the entire 

11 analysis period. 

12 MS. GUPTA: Right. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: There's no 

14 progression. 

15 MR. DELASKI: I understand. Okay. 

16 MS. GUPTA: We don't assume people 

17 got smarter. 

18 MR. DELASKI: Yes, I understand. 

19 This is, again, one of the difficult estimates 

20 that Ed characterized earlier. One that 

21 strikes me as, perhaps, for the residential 

22 sector in the fixture replacement, it strikes 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 236

1 me that the market will -- what's on sale at 

2 the store determines what the consumer buys. 

3 So the consumer has no expertise, but the 

4 market provides an appropriate level of 

5 lighting for what people are looking for when 

6 they walk in the store, so that zero percent 

7 may not be an accurate characterization of 

8 what's happening in the market under 

9 residential fixture replacement. 

10 MS. GUPTA: Okay. Thank you for 

11 your comments. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: IRL Standards case 

13 scenarios. 

14 MS. GUPTA: And finally, for the 

15 last Standards case scenario that we'll be 

16 discussing today, for IRL, in addition to 

17 roll-up and shift, DOE models product 

18 substitution Standards case scenarios. These 

19 scenarios model the effect of consumers 

20 migrating to exempted BR lamps and reflector 

21 CFLs in response to Standards. 

22 The no product substitution 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 237

1 scenario assumes all consumers who currently 

2 purchase regulated IRL in the Base case 

3 continue to do so in -- all consumers who 

4 purchased regulated IRL in the Base case 

5 continue to do so in the Standards case. 

6 In the product substitution 

7 scenario, DOE assumes that some consumers will 

8 migrate to the exempted 65 watt BR lamp, and 

9 reflector CFL replacements in response to 

10 Standards. To calculate these increased 

11 market penetrations, DOE used the payback 

12 penetration relationships discussed earlier 

13 for emerging technologies to calculate the 

14 penetrations of RCFL and 65 watt BR lamps in 

15 the commercial sector. However, in the 

16 residential sector, when analyzing the current 

17 purchase ratios of incandescent versus 

18 halogen, DOE found that consumers in the 

19 residential sector were not using the payback 

20 penetration relationships. Therefore, DOE 

21 established the increased movement to the 65 

22 watt BR lamp in the residential sector based 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 238

1 on increased first cost of Standards compliant 

2 lamps. And I'll pause here to open up the 

3 floor for comments on the Standards case 

4 scenarios discussed and the market share 

5 matrices. 

6 MR. NELSON: Greg Nelson. Going 

7 back to Slide 56, specifically the second 

8 bullet point where you assume that all 

9 consumers who purchased regulated IRL in the 

10 Base case continued to do so in the Standards 

11 case. We believe that that fundamentally 

12 misses a point that raising the efficacy 

13 requirements for IRL also necessarily raises 

14 significantly the market cost of those 

15 products, which will tend to accelerate the 

16 penetration speed of competing technologies. 

17 So we see as, for example, the SSL at the 

18 moment primary hurdle will be economic point 

19 of penetration, so we would see that higher 

20 levels as necessarily, let's say, more rapidly 

21 eroding the market share of halogen. 

22 Regarding the 65 BR, which I know 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 239

1 is not the topic, but we have to assess how it 

2 will -- let's say any switching over will 

3 impact the model, we don't see a likely impact 

4 on the commercial segment that is so driven by 

5 cost of ownership. And most, as we said, have 

6 a very high level of lighting knowledge. We 

7 think it's unlikely they're going to switch 

8 back to a BR lamp. 

9 As far as residential, 65 watt BR 

10 switching, I think we have to model that 

11 separately. There is a segment of that which 

12 is outdoor, which is very unlikely to switch 

13 because the BR lamps are unsuitable for 

14 outdoor applications, so then we have to look 

15 at that really only until -- for the indoor 

16 residential down lighting market. 

17 MS. GUPTA: We would appreciate 

18 any comments that you have in terms of the 

19 percentage of cover, or regulated products 

20 that are outdoor versus indoor. 

21 MR. NELSON: Okay. We will put 

22 that in our written comments. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 240

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other 

2 comments on these scenarios, Base case and 

3 Standards case market share matrices and 

4 scenarios? 

5 MR. DELASKI: This is Andrew 

6 Delaski. Why did the Department choose to do 

7 -- to analyze the product substitution 

8 scenario with these two offsetting effects? 

9 Looking at both the more efficient and the 

10 less efficient as a package, than looking at 

11 the two separately? 

12 MS. GUPTA: It was just -- go 

13 ahead, Mike. 

14 MR. RIVEST: Mike Rivest. It's 

15 not that -- if you look at the two scenarios, 

16 so I understand that it may not be realistic 

17 to model a situation where there's no 

18 substitution at all, but what it does is it 

19 gives us a number from which we can then 

20 estimate to what extent substitutions might be 

21 impacting our energy savings. So to look at -

22 - so the world is they don't substitute, or 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 241

1 they substitute. And then to try and parse 

2 out, we'll do an analysis if they only 

3 substitute to CFL, and then an analysis well, 

4 if they only substitute to BR, I think would 

5 sort of miss the point that we're trying to 

6 capture consumer behavior of reactions to 

7 differences in first cost, for example, or 

8 differences in relative economics. So that's 

9 why they're lumped together, if you will. It 

10 wasn't to obscure anything. 

11 MS. GUPTA: All right. Any 

12 additional comments on the national impacts 

13 analysis? Otherwise, that's the conclusion of 

14 that analysis. Yes, Mike. 

15 MR. RIVEST: Since I have the 

16 microphone, I can ask questions. Mike Rivest. 

17 What would be very helpful for us is to get a 

18 better understanding, if we could segment the 

19 market a little more, the IRL. We talked 

20 earlier about indoor and outdoor, and how that 

21 might have different substitution effects 

22 there based on the utility of the product. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 242

1 Might there be other utility-type issues we 

2 could consider in the commercial sector, and 

3 the residential sector, some applications that 

4 are just not appropriate, so that these 

5 substitutions wouldn't happen. People 

6 wouldn't go to CFLs in these cases, for 

7 example, or wouldn't go to BR in these 

8 situations. Anything that allows us to slice 

9 the problem. 

10 MR. NELSON: I think we can 

11 comment more on that in writing, but it's a 

12 valid point, and we can give examples of 

13 retail where you would certainly never see a 

14 substitution of a BR for FR. And also, CFL is 

15 unlikely; whereas, in a home down light 

16 setting, perhaps a CFL is an equally likely 

17 substitution for energy-saving to going back 

18 to a BR, so there's a real mix. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Greg. 

20 Jeff Harris. 

21 MR. HARRIS: Yes. Let me respond, 

22 Michael, to your question, and also the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 243

1 previous point in response to Andrew's 

2 question. It seems to me that there is a 

3 pretty important difference between switching 

4 the shape of an incandescent lamp and 

5 switching to a CFL. Dimming is one question, 

6 lifetime is another. So I think an important 

7 way to parse out those differences might, in 

8 fact, be to divide those two kinds and analyze 

9 separately the two kinds of substitution, 

10 especially in the residential sector. 

11 MR. RIVEST: I'll think about 

12 that. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So then 

14 we're moving on. 

15 MS. GUPTA: Okay. We will now 

16 move on to the selection of trial Standard 

17 levels. The purpose of selecting trial 

18 Standard levels is to create a list of 

19 standard levels from which DOE can assess the 

20 national impacts, manufacturer impacts, 

21 employment impacts, utility and the 

22 environmental impacts. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 244

1 DOE established a separate set of 

2 TSLs or trial standard levels for fluorescent 

3 lamps and incandescent reflector lamps. And 

4 from those lists of trial standard levels, DOE 

5 selected a proposed standard level. 

6 As we've discussed earlier, DOE 

7 established efficacy levels for each product 

8 class, and these efficacy levels cover a range 

9 of efficacies, and can include the max tech 

10 level, the level with the lowest life cycle 

11 cost, or efficacy levels with noteworthy 

12 technologies. For example, an efficacy level 

13 that would mandate a T8 lamp, or one that 

14 would mandate a halogen infrared capsule. Each 

15 trial standard level developed consists of an 

16 efficacy level selected for each product 

17 class. 

18 This slide presents the trial 

19 standard levels considered for general service 

20 fluorescent lamps. As seen in this table, DOE 

21 establishes five trial standard levels with 

22 TSL5 representing the highest efficacy levels. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 245

1 For 4 foot medium bipin, 8 foot single pin 

2 Slimline, 8 foot recessed double contact high 

3 output product classes, DOE assigned efficacy 

4 levels 1-5 to TSLs 1-5 respectively. For 

5 these product classes, it is important to note 

6 that TSL4 and TSL5 effectively eliminate T12 

7 lamps from the market. For 4 foot mini bipin 

8 standard output lamps, DOE analyzed two 

9 efficacy levels, the first preventing an 

10 introduction of T5 halophosphor lamps is 

11 assigned to TSL 1-4, while TSL 5 consisted of 

12 efficacy level 2 for standard output T5 

13 product class. For high output T5 lamps, DOE 

14 analyzes only one efficacy level, and assigns 

15 that efficacy level to all TSLs. 

16 The lower table presents the 

17 minimum efficacy requirements associated with 

18 each trial standard level. It's important to 

19 note here that the slide only shows the 

20 representative product classes that DOE 

21 analyzed. As discussed earlier, DOE intends 

22 to scale efficacy requirements from the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 246

1 representative product classes to the 

2 unanalyzed product classes. And DOE invites 

3 comments on the appropriateness of trial 

4 standard levels considered for GSFL; in 

5 particular, the combinations of efficacy 

6 levels of each GSFL product class. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: David. 

8 MR. NESTING: Yes. I think this 

9 looks like kind of the best time to really get 

10 into the phosphor discussion, and why some 

11 levels seem more feasible or more possible 

12 than others. And certainly, out of the site 

13 visits, and I know Navigant came and visited 

14 our site, as well, and we had some discussions 

15 on this, and we really appreciate the effort 

16 that the DOE put into tracking down all these 

17 things from the USGS, and from Roadil, and 

18 from Rhodia, and all the squires that we and 

19 others use to maintain the pipeline. 

20 That being said, there's a real 

21 deficiency in the report that came out. And 

22 the biggest thing that happens here is that 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 247

1 the current fluorescent market is two-thirds 

2 halo, one-third triband. Now, the statement 

3 made, and it's on like page 216 of the NOPR, 

4 says that Actia cell 5, but only at the 

5 highest level, one element will go up by 30 

6 percent, or 31 percent. You're missing a 

7 decimal place, because really, at the CSL 1 or 

8 2, as soon as we eliminate all of the halo, 

9 the number of lamps we have to produce has not 

10 changed. We now need to make all of those 

11 halo lamps using triband, and so at CSL 1, we 

12 are talking about a 100 percent increase. The 

13 triband is much more efficient than halo, 

14 that's why it's not a 200 percent increase, 

15 but the one-third that we buy in triband now, 

16 we need to double that to take the place of 

17 all the halo that we're replacing. And then 

18 we go up from there when we start saying well, 

19 let's move to 4, or let's move to 5. 

20 So really, there's two challenges 

21 out there. I mean, one, of course, is that 90 

22 percent of the supply comes from China, and 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 248

1 their export quotas are decreasing, and that 

2 was captured in the NOPR where they are on 

3 order of 3 percent a year cutting back their 

4 production at the same time that we are going 

5 to be asking for more. And don't need an 

6 economics degree to say what that will do with 

7 price, if they are cutting production and 

8 you're asking for more. 

9 As far as other sources, we 

10 identified a lot of the places that we've 

11 looked at. The key thing out there is when 

12 the NOPR came out, it really talked about 

13 total rare earth supply, and that well, if we 

14 reopened Mountain Pass, that they would bring 

15 20,000 tons of rare earth. The fact is that 

16 it would only be less than 1 percent of that 

17 would be useful to lighting, that if you go to 

18 Mountain Pass and those ores that are there, 

19 there is a bunch of rare earths in there, but 

20 there are only -- out of the 15 rare earths 

21 that are made, lighting uses five of them, and 

22 two are in short supply. And so, when you go 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 249

1 in and you find the analysis that USGS and 

2 Rhodia and such did when they looked at 

3 Mountain Pass, they would have 20,000 tons per 

4 year, and five tons would be for the green 

5 phosphor. So you're talking fractions of a 

6 percent that are actually helpful to the 

7 industry in terms of making these lamps that 

8 we want. So in terms of the important rare 

9 earth elements, those ones that we use really 

10 are rare. 

11 The other side is volume. And we 

12 mentioned this 31 percent, and that's well 

13 off-base. We know that adopting this CSL 3, 

14 so we've taken out the halo. We will more 

15 than double our usage, and so in 2012, GE, and 

16 Philips, and OSI, all the way down the line 

17 will all line up in China and say please 

18 double our order. And that's going to be a 

19 problem. And we don't quite know what we're 

20 going to do about that. 

21 The other part of it is that when 

22 we then look at well, what would happen if 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 250

1 went to higher levels, TSL 4 or 5, once we get 

2 into T8s. And if you look at the base model 

3 T8 going to the high level, or high 

4 performance T8, there is an additional factor 

5 of three in phosphor. Those 700 series T8s 

6 use only one-third the phosphor that the so7 called super T8s do. And so, that is on top 

8 of the 100 percent that we're talking about up 

9 front. And so, to get to CSL 5, we're really 

10 talking 400 percent, not 30 percent for one 

11 element. I'm not sure how the one element 

12 came out of there, because if we're going to 

13 increase our usage, it will be the same for 

14 all of those elements, that the split between 

15 terbium and europium is just physically not 

16 possible. 

17 The real point that I see in there 

18 is because we all pride ourselves on having a 

19 sustainability position, and that there are 

20 issues around environment, there are issues 

21 around renewable resources. And when we look 

22 at those Base case T8s, the situation that you 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 251

1 have is that if you move from 700 series to 

2 the super T8s, the 3100 lumens, you move from 

3 2800 lumens up to 3100 lumens, but you use 300 

4 percent of the phosphor, and you're 10 percent 

5 brighter, and the lamps are the exact same 

6 wattage. So when I take that current lamp out, 

7 and I put that new lamp in, my energy savings 

8 is zero unless I make a ballast change. 

9 So, unfortunately, we're locked 

10 into really talking about lamps in the NOPR 

11 rather than systems, and so we're out making 

12 kind of assumptions of what would people do, 

13 but I don't -- I would be really uncomfortable 

14 to go out and say I think the real goal to the 

15 energy savings in the United States is that we 

16 really need to quadruple the strip mining of 

17 all the rare earths worldwide so that we can 

18 make our lamps 10 percent brighter with no 

19 energy savings per lamp. I think that is way 

20 off of what is any kind of a prudent way of 

21 approaching this. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 252

1 MR. MELNYK: Jack Melnyk. Just a 

2 quick question related to that. Then how do 

3 you get the energy savings in the T5 HO going 

4 from 54 watts down to 51 or 49? Is that a 

5 phosphor change? 

6 MR. NESTING: Some of it's 

7 phosphor change, some of it's phosphor weight, 

8 that if you would look at the 80 series, and 

9 the Advantage series, you're really using the 

10 same phosphors, you're just using a lot more. 

11 And so what happens is the 70s and the 80s 

12 are all about balancing the economy of how 

13 much light are you going to deliver, because 

14 as we said, the majority of lighting is 

15 replacement market. And so, in a lot of these 

16 things, performance levels were set on say 

17 replacing 4 foot T12, and so when people then 

18 came out with T8, they said well, we've set 

19 the spacing of all of our fixtures and such so 

20 that we want 2600 or 2700 lumen lamps. And so 

21 then people came out and said well, let's make 

22 it 2600 lumen T8. We can do that very 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 253

1 economically. That doesn't represent the most 

2 light that you could generate from that. 

3 However, the wattage stays the same, and so 

4 when you're just changing out lamps, you'll 

5 get more light. And, ultimately, you can say 

6 well, we take out half the fixtures, or we 

7 would change ballasts, but that's the normal 

8 behavior for a very small percentage of the 

9 consumers. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So that was 

11 a lot. 

12 MS. GUPTA: Any further comments 

13 on - 

14 MR. YANDEK: If I could just make 

15 one more comment. This is Ed YANDEK. To put 

16 it in perspective. When we independently did 

17 our own analysis, and we did have a team of 

18 phosphor experts from our Technical Committee. 

19 Dave was one of them. We had concluded 

20 independently before we even saw the NOPR, 

21 that to even go to CSL2 was going to put our 

22 industry into unchartered waters in terms of 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 254

1 triphosphor. 

2 Now, you heard us say today that 

3 we think we can make CSL work, three work with 

4 some minor changes. To talk about CSL 4, I 

5 think is outrageous based on what you just 

6 heard. So that's, I think, putting it all in 

7 perspective. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments 

9 or questions? Yes, John. 

10 MR. McHUGH: We heard about the 

11 constraints of worldwide rare earth supply. 

12 What is NEMA's position on the real cost of 

13 going to this next level, up to this level 4? 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: The real cost being 

15 the - 

16 MR. McHUGH: Cost to the consumer. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Cost to the 

18 consumer, in the aggregate? 

19 MR. McHUGH: Yes, for a 4 foot 

20 bipin lamp. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: It looks like they 

22 are not able to respond. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 255

1 MR. McHUGH: Okay. I would just 

2 like to point out that we're looking at for 

3 each of these lamps over the course of their 

4 life, they're using about 600 kilowatt hours a 

5 lamp, somewhere around $60 a lamp. So if 

6 we're saying that we're going to be able to 

7 increase the efficiency by 10 percent, we're 

8 looking at essentially a $6 per lamp savings. 

9 Something to consider. 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

11 Yes, Ed. 

12 MR. YANDEK: We can probably put 

13 some estimates together for our written 

14 comment, but I'll tell you that the cost 

15 increase is going to be very significant. 

16 Secondly, if you're particularly talking about 

17 a consumer, you're not going to see the energy 

18 savings reduction, so they're basically going 

19 to be buying a very expensive lamp, a much 

20 more expensive lamp for just a tiny more light 

21 output, and they're going to consume the same 

22 amount of energy. So that is the fallacy of 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 256

1 these assumptions. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Moving into TSL or 

3 CSL 4. Okay. Additional questions or 

4 comments before we move on? Mike Rivest. 

5 MR. RIVEST: Getting back to the 

6 quantity of phosphor required at each TSL. 

7 One of the trends we're seeing is the 

8 elimination of T12 through market forces, so I 

9 would assume that one would have to consider -

10 - we would have to read the reports, but it 

11 may be a Base case difference here. I mean, 

12 if we're looking out 10 years, potentially 

13 your total purchases of phosphors will have 

14 gone up regardless of standards. 

15 MS. GUPTA: Yes, we did consider 

16 that in the report. 

17 MR. RIVEST: And we would have 

18 considered it, I'm not sure if you're 

19 considering it. So it's a shock to the system 

20 because you're being asked to do this 

21 overnight, and that would show a spike in 

22 purchases, I agree. But when compared 10 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 257

1 years down the road, or in aggregate over a 

2 long period of time -- do you understand what 

3 I'm saying? 

4 MR. NESTING: Yes. 

5 MR. RIVEST: So going to TSL2, 

6 you're going to TSL2 on your own in 10 years. 

7 MR. NESTING: Right. 

8 MR. RIVEST: Right. So really, 

9 the phosphor increments is the difference 

10 between say two and three. 

11 MR. NESTING: Right. But, I mean, 

12 the first comment I made about the 31 percent 

13 was Base case, which doesn't -- which assumes 

14 where we're at today, or current product mix, 

15 then going to CSL5 was a 30 percent jump. 

16 MR. RIVEST: I was just being a 

17 little defensive. That's okay. 

18 MR. NESTING: That's okay. And, 

19 obviously, there is that shift, but the real 

20 drive is availability. It's not really a 

21 machine capacity, it's not an ability to do -

22 it's is it physically possible to do it? Can 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 258

1 you actually get that much material out of the 

2 ground? 

3 I mean, three years ago when we 

4 were working with Rhodia, they said there was 

5 14 years of terbium for the green phosphor in 

6 the ground, no reserves. And now we will 

7 double our use of it, and so we say well, what 

8 are we going to do in the next six to seven 

9 years when it's physically gone? The other 

10 side is, in the NOPR there was really -- it's 

11 saying well, all of these other sources, Mount 

12 Weld in Australia will come on, or Mountain 

13 Pass will reopen. I would be very surprised 

14 if many of the environmental organizations and 

15 such would allow strip mining operation to 

16 reopen in the State of California. I mean, 

17 that is just not really a likely scenario. 

18 Love to see it, it would also create jobs here 

19 in the United States, love to be self20 sufficient on a lot of these things, but when 

21 we look at it and say what could really 

22 happen, and where do we think we can get this 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 259

1 stuff from, because in a way it's a lot like 

2 the oil crisis discussion. They say well, do 

3 we start drilling in Anwar, and do we drill 

4 offshore. And it's like those are all things 

5 that could happen, but even if you started 

6 now, they're not really going to be online in 

7 time to do all of this. So, as Ed mentioned, 

8 we're still really looking at even at the CSLs 

9 that are proposed right now, we're still 

10 scratching our heads on how we're going to 

11 physically do it, not even whether we think 

12 it's a good idea, and what happens in the 

13 residential market. Those are completely 

14 separate issues. We're sitting here saying 

15 how do we physically deliver the number of 

16 lamps that we've had before? 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: For the record, 

18 that last comment was from Dave. Dave, your 

19 last name again? 

20 MR. NESTING: Dave Nesting. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. 

22 Yes, please. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 260

1 DR. REA: Mark Rea, Lighting 

2 Research Center. I guess I personally had not 

3 realized how acute the issue was for 

4 phosphors. Has the industry considered 

5 reclamation from existing fluorescent? 

6 MR. NESTING: Yes. And that's one 

7 of the things, we've always been a partner 

8 with Rhodia in terms of phosphor manufacturer, 

9 and they are working on -- they are saying 

10 right now that without a reclamation, it 

11 physically won't work beyond like 2015. And 

12 that's predominantly with the lap phosphor. 

13 So the CFL phosphors are still not going to be 

14 recyclable, so what they call cap phosphors, 

15 you can't recycle them yet. So reclamation 

16 does begin to factor in there, but then it 

17 becomes a case of well, then we need to have 

18 the infrastructure and get beyond a 20 percent 

19 recycling level, and what year does that hit? 

20 And then it's mercury contaminated, and then, 

21 and then -- so, certainly, it's in the 

22 equation, but we don't really know -- so we're 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 261

1 really starting to look at how do we bring 

2 that on and mix it in. 

3 MR. NELSON: If I could just add 

4 to that. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Greg. 

6 MR. NELSON: One of the issues, 

7 also, is that the reclaimed phosphor is never 

8 performing at quite the same level as the new 

9 phosphor. And at TSL3, as proposed, maybe 

10 there's still some room to make products with 

11 reclaimed phosphor, but if you push it to TSL4 

12 or TSL 5 and you need the ultimate, ultimate 

13 with a heavy layer of the best phosphor, you 

14 also close the door for reclaiming phosphors. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. So that was 

16 an interesting discussion. The final -- yes, 

17 go ahead. 

18 DR. REA: So given -- Mark Rea, 

19 Lighting Research Center. It sounds to me 

20 that the push to solid state is even stronger 

21 given what you just told us. 

22 MR. YANDEK: True. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 262

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Lane. 

2 MR. BURT: Lane Burt with NRDC. I 

3 just wanted to ask if the manufacturers could 

4 talk a bit about the kind of reductions in 

5 phosphor use they can see moving from T12 to 

6 say T5, and whether that factors into their 

7 motivation for their product lines? 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: David. 

9 MR. NESTING: Yes. David Nesting 

10 with Philips. I mean, most of the T12s are 

11 all halo lamps, and so in terms of the savings 

12 in the rare earths, it becomes more difficult 

13 to say well, how do we split those up? 

14 Certainly, we know what the weights are, and 

15 say okay, well, if all 600 million lamps were 

16 T5, what would be the usage? But that doesn't 

17 really fit back to what are people going to be 

18 buying, and sourcing from elsewhere if the 

19 local manufacturers would make that decision. 

20 Then you know what, still comes in from China 

21 because even now we see T8s coming from the 

22 Asia-Pacific region into the U.S., so someone 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 263

1 is going to supply those. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. That was a 

3 very interesting discussion, and I want to 

4 make sure we keep moving so we get through the 

5 rest of this material. 

6 MS. GUPTA: Sure. So once we've 

7 established trial standard levels for 

8 fluorescent lamps, we can calculate the 

9 national energy savings and net present value 

10 results. And as you can see here in this 

11 slide, we show the full range across the 

12 several scenarios that we've discussed of 

13 energy savings and NPV. The bars represent 

14 energy savings, and those energy savings 

15 generally increases with increasing TSLs. 

16 Similarly, the lines represent NPV at the 3 

17 and 7 percent discount rates. And, generally, 

18 as you move to higher trial standard levels, 

19 the NPV also increases. 

20 For IRL, the TSL structure is 

21 quite a bit simpler. As DOE analyzed only one 

22 representative product class, DOE established 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 264

1 a TSL for each efficacy level analyzed 

2 resulting in five TSLs. As discussed earlier, 

3 these TSLs are based on design options, such 

4 as the incorporation of xenon as a gas fill, 

5 or the use of halogen infrared capsules. Each 

6 TSL uses an equation dependent on the rated 

7 wattage to establish minimum efficacy 

8 requirement for incandescent reflector lamps. 

9 And I'd like to pause here to 

10 invite any comments on the appropriateness of 

11 trial standard levels for incandescent 

12 reflector lamps. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Joe. 

14 MR. HOWLEY: Just we've mentioned 

15 this before, but in looking at these levels it 

16 appears to us that TSL5 is not appropriate to 

17 consider as a level. And we don't even 

18 believe it's feasible for par 30s, par 20s, 

19 130 volts as proposed. And really, it 

20 eliminates the majority of par 38 lamps. So, 

21 again, just another issue with going to TSL5. 

22 TSL4, itself, is a very high proposal. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 265

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, sir. Do you 

2 wish to comment? No, I guess not. Okay. So 

3 additional comments on these trial standard 

4 levels considered for IRL? 

5 MS. GUPTA: Similar to GSFL, after 

6 selecting trial standard levels, we can 

7 calculate energy savings and NPV due to the 

8 IRL Standards. And as you can see here, with 

9 increasing trial standard levels, we generally 

10 have increasing energy savings and net present 

11 value. 

12 The next analysis I'm going to 

13 briefly going over is the consumer subgroup 

14 analysis. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: I think maybe we 

16 should consider taking a short break. Should 

17 we do that? 

18 MS. GUPTA: This is like one 

19 slide. Okay. We can take a break. This is my 

20 last slide. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: One slide, and then 

22 we'll take a break. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 266

1 MS. HORNER: There's no 

2 difference. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Between the two. 

4 Hang on. Go ahead then. You're going to do 

5 one slide? 

6 MS. GUPTA: Is there a question on 

7 the previous slide? 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Between 64 and 62. 

9 Is that what you're looking at? 

10 MS. HORNER: Pam Horner. Slide 

11 64. Perhaps my eyes deceive me, but there is 

12 a huge -- please clarify the light purple is 

13 the savings? 

14 MS. GUPTA: That's correct. The 

15 light purple and the dark purple are the 

16 savings. They represent the range of savings 

17 that result from the several Standards case 

18 and Base case scenarios we discussed earlier. 

19 MS. HORNER: Okay. And the light 

20 purple is? 

21 MS. GUPTA: The light purple would 

22 be the existing technologies, no product 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 267

1 substitution scenario savings, shift. 

2 MS. HORNER: Okay. So there's 

3 virtually no difference between 3 and 4. 

4 MS. GUPTA: It's a stacked bar. 

5 MS. HORNER: I understand, but in 

6 the light purple scenario, there's no 

7 difference really. 

8 MS. GUPTA: In the light purple 

9 scenario - 

10 MS. HORNER: Between 3 and 4. 

11 MS. GUPTA: There is a significant 

12 difference. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: They're very 

14 similar, you're saying. 

15 MS. HORNER: No. 

16 (Off the record comment.) 

17 MS. GUPTA: So the high range of 

18 savings predicted - 

19 MS. HORNER: No, light purple. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

21 MS. GUPTA: You have to look at 

22 the full height, so the high -- okay. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 268

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay? So do you 

2 want to do one more slide? 

3 MS. GUPTA: Yes, let's just do one 

4 more. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: One more slide, 

6 then we'll take a short break. 

7 MS. GUPTA: Okay. The purpose of 

8 the consumer subgroup analysis is to evaluate 

9 whether there are any consumer subgroups out 

10 there that would be disproportionately 

11 impacted by a standard more so than the 

12 general population. To conduct this analysis, 

13 DOE identified low-income consumers, houses of 

14 worship, historical facilities, institutions 

15 that serve low-income populations, and 

16 consumers of T electronic systems as consumer 

17 subgroups. 

18 In order to model these subgroups, 

19 DOE adjusted the electricity prices, operating 

20 hours, and discount rates in the LCC model to 

21 calculate LCC savings and simple payback 

22 period for each of the subgroups. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 269

1 In general, the LCC results for 

2 the subgroups were similar to that of the 

3 general population, with a few exceptions. 

4 One such exception was related to the 

5 consumers who currently own T12 electronic 

6 ballasts. At EL 4 and EL 5, when these 

7 consumers are required to retrofit their 

8 ballast upon lamp failure, they experience 

9 negative LCC savings. This is in contrast to 

10 their magnetic ballast counterpart owners, 

11 who, as seen earlier, when they retrofit their 

12 ballast in the commercial sector, experience 

13 net positive LCC savings. And that concludes 

14 the discussion of the LCC subgroup analysis. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So we still 

16 have quite a bit of material to cover; 

17 although, my experience is that some of this 

18 as we get towards the end goes rather faster. 

19 So let's take a short break now. Can we do 

20 this in 10 minutes? We're only going to run 

21 to the restrooms. Right? Or sprint to the 

22 Coke machine downstairs. So it's now 2:45. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 270

1 We'll start up at five minutes to three. And 

2 it looks right now as though we could easily 

3 be going until 4:30. So get a breath of fresh 

4 air, no, no stay in the building, but move 

5 around a little bit, freshen up, and then 

6 we'll start up in 10 minutes. 

7 (Whereupon, the proceedings went 

8 off the record at 2:45:58 p.m., and went back 

9 on the record at 2:53:34 p.m.) 

10 MR. BROOKMAN: So then let's 

11 proceed. I'll let you introduce yourself. 

12 MR. ROSSIN: Okay. All right. 

13 Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Doug 

14 Rossin. I'll be presenting the manufacturer 

15 impact analysis. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Hey, folks, let's 

17 bring it back together here, please. Thank 

18 you. Okay, Doug. 

19 MR. ROSSIN: Okay. So the main 

20 purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis is 

21 to assess the impacts of energy conservation 

22 standards on manufacturers of GSFL and IRL. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 271

1 For this, DOE looks at publicly available 

2 information, information provided by 

3 manufacturers and other stakeholders, and 

4 information from other analysis done for this 

5 rulemaking. 

6 The other main purpose of the MIA 

7 is to identify and estimate impacts on 

8 manufacturing subgroups. Now, this is 

9 different from the subgroups done for the LCC, 

10 where DOE looks at the consumer side. For the 

11 MIA, DOE identified small business 

12 manufacturers which are defined by the Small 

13 Business Administration, to include 

14 manufacturing companies that have 1,000 

15 employees or less. 

16 During the MIA process, DOE 

17 identified these small business manufacturers 

18 and conducts interviews, when possible, to 

19 determine if they'll more impacted than their 

20 large competitors. 

21 And, finally, the other main point 

22 of the MIA is to examine the impacts of 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 272

1 cumulative regulatory burden on the industry. 

2 For this, DOE looks at other DOE regulation 

3 and federal regulation that can potentially 

4 impact manufacturers financially. 

5 As for the methodology, DOE uses 

6 the gathered information to develop 

7 manufacturer’s financial parameters and the 

8 cost of complying with standards. These costs 

9 are then implemented in the government 

10 regulatory impact model, or the GRIM. For 

11 this analysis, DOE developed two GRIMs, one 

12 for the GSFL and one of the IRL market. 

13 The GRIM then outputs cash flows 

14 for the analysis period, and also calculates 

15 the industry net present value or the INPV by 

16 summing the discounted cash flows over the 

17 analysis period. 

18 Now, this is done for both the 

19 Base case and a Standards case. And the 

20 difference between the two cases is a 

21 quantitative representation of the impacts on 

22 manufacturers due to Standards. Additionally, 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 273

1 DOE uses the interviewing process to further 

2 refine the GRIM inputs, and to develop other 

3 sub-analysis for this section. 

4 I'd also like to point out that 

5 interviews are conducted in confidentiality, 

6 so manufacturers' information is not made 

7 public individually. 

8 So this slide shows the basic 

9 process of the MIA. In Phase I, which happens 

10 during the ANOPR, DOE looks at publicly 

11 available information, such as 10Ks, and 

12 annual reports, and develops an industry 

13 profile. In Phase II, which happens during 

14 the NOPR, DOE develops a strawman GRIM, 

15 develops the interview guides, which are used 

16 during interviews. And in Phase III, DOE 

17 conducts the interviews, and uses the 

18 information to assess other impacts, such as 

19 employment, cumulative regulatory burden, and 

20 also uses the information to finalize the 

21 results. 

22 So during manufacturer interviews, 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 274

1 GSFL manufacturers brought up some key 

2 issues. The main take of these interviews was 

3 that higher efficacy lamps earn a higher 

4 margin than lower efficacy lamps, in general. 

5 Manufacturers are concerned that by 

6 eliminating the lower efficacy lamps from the 

7 market via higher standards, manufacturers 

8 would have difficulty differentiating lamps 

9 using the efficacy. So manufacturers are 

10 concerned that by reducing the differentiation 

11 in the market, the market thus becomes 

12 commoditized. This then reduces the 

13 manufacturer's product portfolio, which then 

14 would ultimately impact their revenues, or 

15 their margin. 

16 To address this concern, DOE 

17 developed a four-tier markup scenario where 

18 each phosphor series is given a separate 

19 markup. In the analysis, the manufacturing 

20 markups for higher efficacy lamps are lowered 

21 as lower efficacy lamps are removed from the 

22 market, thus capturing this commoditization 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 275

1 effect. 

2 The second main issues that 

3 manufacturers had is of the high conversion 

4 cost of converting T12 production lines into 

5 T8 production lines. Now, for this DOE 

6 gathered information from manufacturers, and 

7 derived an industry average cost, and then 

8 implemented these costs in the GRIM. 

9 And, finally, the other issues 

10 that manufacturers brought up was of the rare 

11 earth phosphors, which we have heard already 

12 today. For this, DOE developed a study on 

13 global demand and prices, which can be found 

14 in Appendix 3C of the TSD. 

15 Okay. To bound the potential 

16 impacts of INPV, DOE developed the two 

17 markups, as I previously mentioned, and used 

18 the various shipments from the NIA. The lower 

19 bound of impacts is observed with the flat 

20 markup. This is where manufacturers are able 

21 to maintain gross margin as a percentage of 

22 revenues as production cost increases with 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 276

1 higher efficacy. The higher bound of impacts 

2 is observed with the four-tier markup. 

3 Now, this is a case where 

4 standards reduce manufacturers' product 

5 portfolio, thus, squeezing their margins on 

6 higher efficacy lamps as they are 

7 commoditized. As for shipments, DOE uses the 

8 same bounds used in the NIA to report the 

9 results. 

10 Here, the results shows that if 

11 manufacturers are not able to differentiate 

12 products by efficacy, the impacts are 

13 significantly greater, as higher standards are 

14 required. For example, if you look at TSL3, 

15 if manufacturers have a constant markup, 

16 there's actual positive impact on INPV. But 

17 in the case of the four-tier markup, you have 

18 a negative impact on INPV of about 24 percent. 

19 One thing I would like to point 

20 out is also that at TSL3, in general, 

21 manufacturers are still able to manufacture 

22 both T12s and T8s, and, therefore, still are 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 277

1 able to have that differentiation that I spoke 

2 before. And I guess this is a good place to 

3 ask questions. 

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's pause here. 

5 There's a lot of data on this chart, should 

6 anybody wish to address these. Yes, Steve 

7 Rosenstock. 

8 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock. 

9 Yes, just a quick question for both the 

10 fluorescent and the IRL. What percentage of 

11 the products are produced domestically, and 

12 what percentage is imported, just out of 

13 curiosity. 

14 MR. RIVEST: Doug, I think I can 

15 take that. I think I visited maybe not all 

16 the facilities, but the vast majority. This 

17 is a product that's different from most of the 

18 other products. I have been going on 

19 interviews recently, and the vast majority of 

20 the product seems to be still domestically 

21 produced. Probably due to the linear 

22 fluorescents, I would assume. They're fairly 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 278

1 brittle, they're fairly large, and fairly 

2 cheap, so that would explain. But for more 

3 precise numbers, I look across the table. 

4 MR. ROSENSTOCK: And the reason I 

5 mention that is with some of the numbers, 

6 would this tend to shift overseas? 

7 MR. RIVEST: Well, if guys want to 

8 interrupt me there. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: I see Ed is ready. 

10 Ed, go ahead. 

11 MR. YANDEK: Absolutely. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: They would shift 

13 overseas under those conditions. 

14 MR. YANDEK: Well, all you have to 

15 do is look at what happened to compact 

16 fluorescent. Okay. So we will comment more 

17 in detail on this for our written comments. 

18 We're not prepared to give numbers here today, 

19 but the bottom line is yes, this is a concern 

20 of ours. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 

22 Mike Rivest. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 279

1 MR. RIVEST: Right. Just 

2 commenting a little bit on the setup of the 

3 scenarios here, and we'll be able to contrast 

4 later with the IRL market. 

5 This product is very capital6 intensive, but the capital-intensity -- you 

7 should see these facilities. They're just 

8 amazing. You guys should bring a video of the 

9 person drawing the line. That's something 

10 quite amazing. But the capital-intensity 

11 really is related to the diameter of the 

12 tubes, and not so much on the variable costs 

13 of producing a more efficient phosphor series, 

14 for example. 

15 Now, so the major impact here 

16 we're talking about would be the shock to 

17 converting those last T12 lines to T8 lines, 

18 something that's happening through the market, 

19 but at a gradual pace. Here, you would have 

20 that shock. Those remaining T12 lines would 

21 have to be converted at costs of tens of 

22 millions of dollars. And really, when we do 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 280

1 our GRIM analysis, we capture these capital 

2 costs coming in gradually over time, so from a 

3 total investment number perspective, it's not 

4 really different in the Base case as it is in 

5 the Standards case. It's more the cash-flow 

6 impact of a spike. So what may not be seen 

7 here because these are discounted cash flows, 

8 is that cash flow spike. 

9 The uncertainty for future profits 

10 is what's really driving this GSFL analysis, 

11 because the markup scheme today correlates 

12 with efficiency. And as we start squeezing 

13 that product line, they have to find ways of 

14 differentiating other than efficiency, so life 

15 time for the bulbs, low mercury content, just 

16 different things. But one of the major 

17 differentiators is gone, so what happens in 

18 the long run really depends on how much, and 

19 how quickly they can re-establish a full 

20 product line. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments 

22 on this slide? Okay. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 281

1 MR. ROSSIN: Okay. During 

2 interviews, manufacturers of IRL brought up 

3 some key issues which are listed in this 

4 slide. The first one I'd like to point out is 

5 that first, manufacturers are concerned that 

6 emerging technology is already penetrating the 

7 IRL market. With emerging technology already 

8 taking a portion of the IRL industry, future 

9 shipments are uncertain. 

10 Manufacturers are also concerned 

11 that IRL Standards could also make it likely 

12 that the IRL market would shrink faster. 

13 Additionally, higher price IRLs could make 

14 substitutes more attractive by lowering the 

15 difference in cost between IRL and RCFLs and 

16 making the exempt BR lamps relatively cheaper. 

17 Another major issue that 

18 manufacturers brought up during interviews is 

19 of the high capital conversion cost to comply 

20 with Standards. The overall majority of 

21 covered IRL is estimated to be in standard 

22 halogen lamps. Manufacturers are concerned 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 282

1 that if they have to switch this majority of 

2 the market to all HIR technology, they would 

3 have to incur significant capital conversion 

4 costs. 

5 In the analysis, DOE preliminarily 

6 finds that these high capital conversion costs 

7 is a significant driver of the INPV. Now, 

8 large capital conversion costs, combined with 

9 emerging technology creates a situation where 

10 investments are made in a market that would 

11 shrink over the entire lifetime of the 

12 investments. Depending on the market 

13 penetration of the emerging technologies, 

14 manufacturers are concerned that these high 

15 costs may never be recouped. 

16 Another issue brought up was the 

17 competitive concerns, specifically the 

18 patented technology, which we have already 

19 discussed. And also, manufacturers brought up 

20 the issue of xenon, which DOE developed a 

21 specific study, which can be found in Appendix 

22 3B of the TSD. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 283

1 For the IRL GRIM, DOE uses all of 

2 the NIA shipment scenarios and reports the two 

3 that bound the potential impacts on INPV. The 

4 lower bound of impacts is observed when IRL 

5 shipments are maintained after Standards. 

6 This occurs on the existing technology Base 

7 case, with no product substitution, and where 

8 Standards do not cause additional shifts to 

9 the exempt lamps or RCFLs. 

10 The upper bound of the impacts on 

11 RL industry occurs during the emerging 

12 technology Base case with product 

13 substitution. This is where Standards do 

14 cause additional shifts to non-covered lamps. 

15 Additionally, this is the scenario 

16 where DOE incorporates manufacturers' concerns 

17 about emerging technology and product 

18 switching that are currently eroding the IRL 

19 market. 

20 Okay. So this slide shows the 

21 results for the IRL INPV from the GRIM. One 

22 thing I'd like to point is that regardless of 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 284

1 the scenario that we look at, the negative 

2 INPV at Standard Level 4 is due to these high 

3 capital conversion costs that manufacturers 

4 have to incur during the conversion to an all5 improved HIR lamp. I guess, for example, we 

6 can say that at TSL4, manufacturers have to 

7 incur around $166 million in conversion costs, 

8 and this is for industry that's currently 

9 valued between somewhere of $207 and $267 

10 million, so you can see that's a significant 

11 portion. And I guess I can invite comments. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Let's pause here. 

13 Comments? Yes, Pam Horner. 

14 MS. HORNER: While you have that 

15 slide up, Pam Horner. I think Greg will 

16 conclude after I have my say, but I'd like to 

17 say that the INPV results that you showed for 

18 general service fluorescent, it appears that 

19 the manufacturer impact was taken into 

20 consideration in selecting the EL, whatever 

21 you're calling that final thing, EL; and 

22 thereby creating a sort of balanced look at 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 285

1 all of the economic justifications that we 

2 talked about. 

3 It appears to us that the slide 

4 that you show up here, when it's plastered 

5 with negative numbers, looks like nothing but 

6 bad news for manufacturers. And that it would 

7 appear that one might have said gee, they're 

8 all negative. Who cares? I hope that wasn't 

9 the case. But it appears that the 

10 manufacturer impact has not been considered in 

11 setting the standard. 

12 We have four points, or I have 

13 four points to make, and then I'll pass it to 

14 my colleague here. I'd like to point out that 

15 these products are the ones you see up here, 

16 to a great extent domestically made. The 

17 alternatives are not. Second, if this is the 

18 picture for the manufacturers of lamps, IRL 

19 lamps in the future, only the products made 

20 today and at current capacity will be made in 

21 the future. All of these INPVs are negative 

22 for the manufacturer, and the higher the TSL, 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 286

1 the greater the negative value. Third, any 

2 lack of investments on our part provides 

3 scarcity of product, further increasing price. 

4 And, fourth, we believe that all of that 

5 taken into consideration, meaning the true 

6 impact on our manufacturing, invalidates the 

7 entire economic analysis for IRL. So, 

8 obviously, we'll be providing a lot of 

9 comments in this particular area, but it does 

10 appear that this selection of the particular 

11 trial standard level has done a very good job 

12 of hastening the demise of IRL lamp 

13 manufacturing in the United States. Greg. 

14 MR. NELSON: Pam, I'm not sure 

15 there's much left to say. I think that 

16 captured it extremely well. We don't see as 

17 an industry an opportunity to invest, to 

18 expand capacity given the recognized negative 

19 NPVs, as well as the limited time horizon 

20 against emerging technologies. So, in fact, 

21 we would find ourselves after 2012 in a highly 

22 capacity constrained situation. And that 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 287

1 calls into question all of the pricing 

2 analysis of the higher energy tiers that was 

3 used earlier in the analysis. Therefore, the 

4 economic benefit to the end-user is really 

5 questionable in the overall. 

6 What more can I say? I think I'll 

7 end it there, Pam. I didn't really have 

8 anything else. I think it was a valid point, 

9 as well, about the emerging technologies are 

10 primarily being manufactured overseas versus 

11 this halogen business, which is a domestically 

12 manufactured business, for the most part. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Greg. 

14 Okay. Additional comments on slide 75 and the 

15 implications? Yes, please, Amanda. 

16 MS. STEVENS: Thank you. Amanda 

17 Stevens on behalf PG&E. I just had a question 

18 about DOE's calculation, just a clarification 

19 question, I think, for me. So as I understand 

20 it, the emerging technologies forecast will 

21 shrink the traditional IRL market and the 

22 shipments, which then has a negative impact on 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 288

1 the industry net present value. Is that 

2 correct? 

3 MR. RIVEST: Yes, that's correct. 

4 MS. STEVENS: So I just wondered 

5 how, or if, the analysis considered if some 

6 say manufacturers are the ones selling the 

7 emerging technologies, or the replacement 

8 technologies, does that sort of benefit side 

9 of the equation also get accounted for in this 

10 calculation? 

11 MR. RIVEST: I'll take that one. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike Rivest. 

13 MR. RIVEST: I remember seeing 

14 that issue somewhere. No, it does not. So 

15 the -- if you will, in setting the definition 

16 of what the impacted industry is, it's the -

17 in one situation, it's the general service 

18 fluorescent lamp industry, and the other one, 

19 it's the incandescent reflector lamp industry. 

20 So in and out flows, if you will, and the 

21 corresponding investments that a manufacturer 

22 would have to make to serve those new markets, 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 289

1 or the incremental revenues from those markets 

2 is not considered within this cash flow. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew. 

4 MR. DELASKI: So, Mike, who does 

5 that cash flow affect, then? 

6 MR. RIVEST: Who does this cash 

7 flow affect? 

8 MR. DELASKI: Yes. 

9 MR. RIVEST: Profit centers within 

10 manufact - 

11 MR. DELASKI: And who owns that 

12 profit center? 

13 MR. RIVEST: Would you like to 

14 answer the structure of the industry here? 

15 MR. DELASKI: I'll stop the 

16 question. I mean, the point I want to say is 

17 that there are shareholders for these 

18 companies. Ultimately, the companies are 

19 owned by the shareholders. And those 

20 shareholders get the benefit, they get the 

21 costs, ultimately, it's the shareholders of 

22 the companies, so to draw a box around a 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 290

1 business center of the company strikes me as 

2 completely artificial, because there's no 

3 person that gets or loses that benefit. 

4 MR. RIVEST: If I take that 

5 analogy say to the extreme, one would draw the 

6 box so large that there would be no analysis, 

7 because there would be a pure in and out. 

8 Right? So, eventually, you have to draw a 

9 box. One could draw a box around GE, for 

10 example, because it's such a large 

11 multinational industry, so that would probably 

12 be too big, as well. So you're drawing that 

13 box to something meaningful, and what's been 

14 the record of the program has been to draw it 

15 around the regulated products of concern. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Joe. Yes. 

17 MR. HOWLEY: Yes, I just wanted to 

18 add. I mean, a lot of this is theoretical in 

19 terms of how big you draw this supposed box or 

20 not, but if I could just bring us back to 

21 reality. The reality is, we're all companies 

22 with limited investment dollars, and so we're 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 291

1 all placing bets on what in technologies we 

2 want to invest in, because we don't have 

3 unlimited resources, despite how big you think 

4 we are. We have limited resources to put 

5 money in different investments, so in this 

6 particular area, you're choosing between 

7 investing in a technology which we believe is 

8 slowly going to decline versus investing in 

9 the newer emerging technologies, if you will. 

10 And although I'm not the business manager 

11 that makes that decision, I could speculate 

12 what technologies are going to get the 

13 investment money. 

14 For this particular rulemaking, 

15 what we're suggesting, if it goes too far, too 

16 fast, too high, it's going to produce a 

17 situation that is going to produce a 

18 significant lack of availability of this 

19 particular product type. Even though 

20 customers may want it, companies will most 

21 likely be unwilling to take their limited 

22 investment dollars and place it here. So you 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 292

1 are limited to the capacity already available. 

2 And if you go too high, and too high for us 

3 is 4 or 5 certainly, you're going to produce a 

4 constrained market situation, and availability 

5 situation based on existing manufacturing 

6 capacity. We know that's one of the items 

7 that DOE has to factor in, is what is it going 

8 to do to the availability of this product? 

9 And we're suggesting these high levels are 

10 going to produce a serious negative, maybe 

11 even crippling effect on availability, because 

12 of those internal realities we have to deal 

13 with of limited investment dollars. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please, Greg. 

15 MR. NELSON: Just to follow-up, 

16 because it may be interpreted that hey, after 

17 Level 3 you need IR anyway, so what's the 

18 difference, 3 or 4? But there's a very real 

19 impact to the industry in terms of the loading 

20 that we can put through existing equipment. 

21 Because to go to the higher levels requires 

22 increasing cycle times, requires increasing 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 293

1 use for a fewer number of products of the 

2 existing infrastructure. So it does 

3 continuously further constrain capacity. 

4 In addition, you've got -- let's 

5 say in terms of the energy-saving graph you 

6 showed, the biggest step was between TSL2 and 

7 TSL3, as soon as you made the IR conversion. 

8 TSL4 and TSL 5 were, let's say, incrementally 

9 positive. I think that was Pam's point. If 

10 you look at the manufacturer graph, or the 

11 manufacturer impact INPV, there is still a 

12 very dramatic shift to the negative of the 

13 INPV in going from Level 3 to Level 4. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So go to the 

15 next slide, would you? I just want to 

16 summarize here. I think we've been covering 

17 the following questions or opportunities for 

18 comment listed here as Issue 13, as we have 

19 been going along. DOE invites additional 

20 comment and methodology and inputs used for 

21 manufacturer impact analysis, invites comment 

22 on the ability of GSFL manufacturers to 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 294

1 maintain current margins. And Mike Rivest 

2 described some of the ways that might do that. 

3 And further comment on how small businesses 

4 could be impacted by standards on GSFL and 

5 IRL. So additional, perhaps final comments on 

6 those? Yes, Tim. 

7 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo. One final 

8 comment on drawing the box, and where you do 

9 that. I think in the challenge to the 

10 furnaces standard, I believe the State of New 

11 York has raised the issue of -- FCA defines a 

12 manufacturer as any person who manufactures a 

13 product, and any person is traditionally, I 

14 think in some other statutes defined as the 

15 corporation, and not the division of the 

16 corporation that happens to manufacture the 

17 GSFL or IRL. So I would argue that you draw 

18 the box at the corporation. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: A bigger box. 

20 Okay. 

21 MR. DELASKI: It's not just a 

22 bigger box, Doug. It's a corporation, it's a 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 295

1 person, it is a legal entity that is treated 

2 as a tax entity, it's treated as -- there is a 

3 beneficiary. It is the shareholders. I don't 

4 think it's arbitrary, Mike. We can go round 

5 and round on this, but - 

6 MR. RIVEST: I'm not trying to. 

7 MR. DELASKI: -- a corporation is 

8 not an arbitrary entity. It is how - 

9 MR. RIVEST: I would just want to 

10 -- this is not belittling the issue. I would 

11 just pose to you some of the challenges in 

12 doing what you're wanting to do. So we have 

13 to forecast out the sales of Solid State 

14 Lighting, for example, to be able to bring 

15 them in our model. We would need to know the 

16 price. We would need to know the investment 

17 size of that equipment going to 2042. So that 

18 is a challenge that goes way beyond just 

19 looking at the IRL market. 

20 MR. DELASKI: And I think as you -

21 that something being challenging does not 

22 limit the Department's responsibility to 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 296

1 tackle it. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Let me ask if 

3 anybody on this side of the table, do you have 

4 any follow-on comments based on what's been 

5 stated. 

6 MR. NELSON: Sorry, I didn't catch 

7 the question. 

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Steve 

9 Rosenstock. 

10 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, 

11 EEI. I understand both sides of the argument, 

12 but especially in this case with large 

13 companies that make more of the lighting 

14 products, it gets even more complex, because 

15 you have to look at the whole corporation. I 

16 know General Electric makes power equipment, 

17 and consumer appliances, so trying to do it 

18 with that whole analysis for just one product, 

19 it could delay the rule makings, 

20 unfortunately. That could be the unintended 

21 consequence. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Pam. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 297

1 MS. HORNER: Pam Horner. In our 

2 case, we're a wholly owned subsidiary and a 

3 standalone corporation. We make only 

4 lighting. 

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So then I 

6 just read the three items listed as Issue 13 

7 on page 76 of the presentation materials. Any 

8 additional comments before we move on? Okay. 

9 MR. GOUDARZI: My name is Lessly 

10 Goudarzi. I represent OnLocation and the 

11 Department. I'm going to talk about three 

12 issues, one of which, the first one here is 

13 the utility impact analysis that was done. 

14 Can you hear me okay? 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 

16 MR. GOUDARZI: Our goal here is to 

17 try to investigate the impact on utilities of 

18 the energy-savings associated with these 

19 Standards. In doing that, we rely on the 

20 energy-savings estimates that came from the 

21 other parts of the analysis that have been 

22 previously described. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 298

1 The tool that we used for this 

2 particular analysis is the National Energy 

3 Modeling System, a special version of that, 

4 which we call NEMS-BT. And the variation 

5 there is primarily to open up the model to be 

6 able to have it accept these energy-savings 

7 exogenously into the model. So that's the 

8 primary difference, and that's what NEMS-BT 

9 stands for, as opposed to Standard NEMS. In 

10 this particular case, we're using AEO 2008's 

11 version of NEMS, which is the one that was 

12 available at the time the analysis was 

13 performed. 

14 Our primary interest is looking at 

15 the changes in electricity sales and prices as 

16 they affect the marketplace in utilities, the 

17 mixed generation that would be affected, and 

18 the amount of capacity that would be 

19 installed, and the amount of generation that 

20 would flow from that capacity. That's 

21 basically the technique we're using, and NEMS 

22 model, itself, if you want to know more about 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 299

1 it, it basically is a integrated model that 

2 describes all sectors of the energy system, 

3 and takes the electricity piece in some great 

4 detail, and models both capacity expansion 

5 generation, electricity prices. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: So do we have 

7 questions or concerns about the utility impact 

8 analysis? Okay. 

9 MR. GOUDARZI: I'm next going to 

10 talk about the employment impact analysis, and 

11 recognize in this particular case we're 

12 talking about the indirect employment impacts, 

13 not the direct ones. The direct ones are 

14 addressed elsewhere. 

15 Here we're trying to look at the 

16 flow of dollars that would go through the 

17 consumer back into the economy, and what kinds 

18 of jobs that would represent. We used the 

19 ImSET model that's been used in a number of 

20 the other standard setting processes. It's 

21 intended to estimate the employment impact 

22 over the entire United States economy. It 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 300

1 basically has an IO matrix that represents the 

2 flows in and out of the different components 

3 of GDP, and therefore, the jobs that flow from 

4 that. 

5 It takes estimates into it, the 

6 cost and benefits as estimated by the other 

7 parts of the analysis, specifically, the NAI 

8 analysis. And as mentioned in the last bullet 

9 here, the direct impacts were measured 

10 elsewhere. This is just the indirect impacts. 

11 And what we look as is a change in employment 

12 that would be forecast by the ImSET model 

13 given those assumptions. Any questions? 

14 MR. MELNYK: I have a question. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. 

16 MR. MELNYK: Jack Melynk Southern 

17 Cal Edison. I see this general outline here, 

18 but I wonder what the impact is on the, 

19 essentially, disappearing labor, especially 

20 related to SSL lamps. You'll have a major 

21 reduction in need to repair this stuff over 

22 any amount of time, and it's probably in the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 301

1 neighborhood of half the labor, or maybe even 

2 much more than that. I wonder how that's 

3 factored into any of your studies? 

4 MR. GOUDARZI: I'm not sure it is 

5 directly factored in there. Making sure I 

6 understand your question, first. Are you 

7 asking about the impacts that would be 

8 associated with the shifts going on through 

9 the consumers investment in these 

10 technologies? 

11 MR. MELNYK: Maybe to give an 

12 example, if you go out and repair a 

13 streetlight now, you might encounter a lamp 

14 change at $50 or $60, and you have to replace 

15 or do more difficult stuff, you might spend 

16 $100 per fixture. If you put a source in that 

17 lasts two, or three, or four times as long, 

18 the labor to do that disappears, and that 

19 translates to lost jobs. And I wondered how 

20 that might be factored into your assessments. 

21 MR. GOUDARZI: It is factored into 

22 it, because our given estimates about the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 302

1 amount of installation cost, and how much they 

2 change between the two scenarios, if you will. 

3 And so that change of those costs is, in 

4 fact, passed through the model, and 

5 represented in these impact analysis. So it 

6 is there directly. I mean, there is an 

7 installed cost associated with each scenario, 

8 if you will. The difference between those is 

9 what's passed into the model, so we're 

10 measuring all the variants between the two 

11 cases, if you will, reference case, and the 

12 alternative standard cases. I hopefully 

13 answered your question. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Were you finished 

15 describing this slide? 

16 MR. GOUDARZI: I was. 

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Greg. 

18 MR. NELSON: Maybe I missed 

19 something, but I don't see any follow-up to 

20 this in the presentation. What exactly is the 

21 outcome of the employment impact assessment? 

22 MR. GOUDARZI: It's actually in 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 303

1 the TSD and in the NOPR. 

2 MR. NELSON: Can you give us - 

3 MR. GOUDARZI: I don't actual 

4 numbers right here, but I can tell you roughly 

5 there is a slight positive impact in 

6 employment associated with these flows, and 

7 that impact is basically netted against what 

8 he described a minute ago, the savings and the 

9 flow of those dollars back into the economy 

10 when the consumer actually benefits from the 

11 savings, and so there's a net effect. It's a 

12 very small impact, like point tenths of a 

13 percent of employment. 

14 MR. NELSON: Greg Nelson, again, 

15 He identified a negative, and I think we, as 

16 manufacturers, have identified some negatives. 

17 Can you identify where the positives are 

18 coming in that are overriding this? 

19 MR. GOUDARZI: Sure. And, again, 

20 I want to re-emphasize the fact that the 

21 impacts we're talking about here are very, 

22 very small on a national scale. We're talking 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 304

1 a tenth of a percent of employment change. 

2 And so given the uncertainties of lots of 

3 things, I'm not sure I'd dwell on that a whole 

4 lot. 

5 Now, having said that, the savings 

6 parts comes from the fact that the consumer 

7 has more dollars in his pockets, having 

8 experienced the energy savings. He's not 

9 spending on his consumption for electricity, 

10 and the replacement cycle may be extended so 

11 he doesn't have to replace it quite so often. 

12 The combination of those savings is what's 

13 being spent to offset. Now, granted this is 

14 the indirect impacts alone. It does not try 

15 to net it against the direct impacts, so I 

16 don't mean to imply that it does. 

17 MR. NELSON: I think diluting it 

18 by putting it as a total employment rate for 

19 the country as opposed to a net shift on this 

20 obscures a bit - you say a tenth of a percent, 

21 but also to take into account what people 

22 might be spending their money on, that they 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 305

1 have saved from doing this. They may be 

2 spending their money on consumer goods from 

3 China, so it's very questionable when you get 

4 into those kind of discussions. 

5 MR. GOUDARZI: I would agree. 

6 You're talking about a complex thing to try to 

7 figure out how these dollars will flow back 

8 into the system. The model has been vetted 

9 and you guys have seen it. So it basically 

10 is, in fact, the framework from which this 

11 calculation is being done. 

12 MR. NELSON: I hate to obscure a 

13 net loss of domestic jobs, and also 

14 installation by an overall model which hides 

15 that in smoke. 

16 MR. GOUDARZI: Okay. Again, this 

17 part of the analysis was only focusing on the 

18 indirect, the direct impact is not addressed 

19 here, and so the offset there is not trying to 

20 be netted out. We're just talking about the 

21 positive piece. And, again, it's a small net 

22 positive in this context. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 306

1 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo. Just to 

2 clarify, though, the indirect model does model 

3 change in domestic and national employment, 

4 not -- it doesn't - 

5 MR. GOUDARZI: Correct. 

6 MR. BALLO: So we are talking 

7 about a difference then of something like 20-

8 22,000 jobs increase. 

9 MR. GOUDARZI: That's the right 

10 magnitude on some of the higher level - 

11 MR. BALLO: And those are domestic 

12 jobs. 

13 MR. GOUDARZI: Those are domestic 

14 jobs. 

15 MR. BALLO: Thank you. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: And additional 

17 money being freed up. John. 

18 MR. McHUGH: John McHugh. On the 

19 fluorescent level 4 analysis, does this 

20 calculate all the replacement fixtures and 

21 ballasts that you're hiring local electricians 

22 to replace, or is this only -- you're only 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 307

1 looking at the selected standards that you've 

2 selected. So, for instance, in the case of 

3 fluorescent, only looking at Standard 3, or 

4 have you done this analysis all the way 

5 through for each of the cases? 

6 MR. RIVEST: The analysis that's 

7 being talked about here is a macro 

8 input/output model that doesn't get to the 

9 specifics of who's installing what types of 

10 lamps, where, or anything like that. So it's 

11 purely conversion of purchases from utility 

12 bills to other uses, which may be more capital 

13 -- more labor-intensive, and domestic with all 

14 the complexities that that is. As far as I --

15 and I think I know, there are no -- we assess 

16 the manufacturer direct impacts that are 

17 reported to us. We did not, and have never 

18 looked at changes in employment due to 

19 installation costs, for example. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional? 

21 MR. RIVEST: It's an input into 

22 his model, but it's not -- I could not say the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 308

1 man-hours used to install fixtures had gone 

2 down this many thousand. I don't - 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks, Mike 

4 Rivest. So then let's move on to 

5 Environmental Assessment. 

6 MR. GOUDARZI: Again, the goal 

7 here is to take the energy savings that flow 

8 through it, and try to convert it to -- from 

9 power plants, in particular, the amount of 

10 emissions that would be changed as a result of 

11 these standards. Again, the principal tool to 

12 measure that was the NEMS-BT model. That 

13 model has an electricity generating segment 

14 that is in great detail. 

15 In order to do this, because of 

16 the state of the affairs of the court 

17 decisions on these things, what was used 

18 instead of the direct output for Nox and for 

19 mercury, we used ranges of estimates of -

20 based on displaced generation, if you will, 

21 and took the generation amount, and used some 

22 standard numbers which are described in the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 309

1 NOPR itself, as well as the TSDs, as to where 

2 those numbers came from. Basically use for -

3 Nox, we used average NOX emissions per 

4 kilowatt hour output, for the high end, and 

5 the low end we used the combined cycle plant, 

6 which is assumed to be the type of plant that 

7 would displaced in this context. Okay. On 

8 the margin. 

9 For mercury, we used the coal 

10 generation change, and the number -- and the 

11 average coal mercury emitted by coal plants as 

12 the high end. On the low end, with the 

13 combined cycle as the alternative, it doesn't 

14 emit mercury, so it's zero. 

15 SO2 was done slightly different. 

16 It's assumed it's still being operated under 

17 cap, and so the assumption is that the amount 

18 of SO2 emitted would not really change, but 

19 we'd have to the lesser degree banking and 

20 other inter-temporal transfers, is basically 

21 what you have is the same level of SO2 because 

22 it's working under a cap. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 310

1 We then took these values and 

2 monetized them, if you will, based on the 

3 various studies that are mentioned in the NOPR 

4 itself, and the TSD, which put a dollar value 

5 per ton, or per pound of emitting emissions 

6 reduced. And that's all I was intending to 

7 say at this point, without answering 

8 questions. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Monetized the CO2, 

10 NOx, and mercury. 

11 MR. GOUDARZI: Correct. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, Steve 

13 Rosenstock. 

14 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, 

15 Edison Electric Institute. Just out of 

16 curiosity, how did you monetize a value for 

17 mercury since -- because of the quota that -

18 there was a cap, now there's not a cap, but I 

19 haven't seen any, I'll say organized mercury 

20 trading markets out there, so I'm just kind of 

21 curious where you got the information to 

22 monetize, or are you just using it as a 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 311

1 commodity price of mercury? 

2 MR. GOUDARZI: This is the impact 

3 -- excuse me. This is the impact of that 

4 mercury. It's not the actual value of the 

5 mercury that would be traded in the 

6 marketplace, if you will. And so the studies 

7 that are referenced in there give you 

8 estimates of what the impact of reducing a ton 

9 of mercury in the environment would result in. 

10 And so it's not the same as measuring, if 

11 you will, an allowance price associated with 

12 mercury, or an allowance price associated with 

13 NOx, or CO2. 

14 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Okay. Thank you. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Lane. 

16 MR. BURT: Lane Burt, NRDC. We 

17 commented several times in various rule 

18 makings that the value of carbon emission 

19 should be part of the economic analysis, as 

20 well as the environmental assessment. And to 

21 this point, the Department's response has been 

22 that they do take into account in the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 312

1 environmental assessment, and that a value of 

2 zero is a reasonable estimate for the domestic 

3 price for reduction of carbon dioxide 

4 emissions. 

5 I would just like to point out 

6 that carbon dioxide is determined in the 

7 market currently for the northeast. What I'd 

8 like to ask, is that going to be included 

9 moving forward, since the previous reasons for 

10 keeping it out had been the lack of market 

11 price. 

12 MR. GOUDARZI: I'm sure the 

13 Department will consider it. I don't have an 

14 answer for that. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Eric Stas. 

16 MR. STAS: Please give us your 

17 comments on that point. I don't think we have 

18 anything to add right now. 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

20 MR. GOUDARZI: I would point out 

21 in the study itself, there is a range for 

22 carbon dioxide, there's zero and $20, so it's 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 313

1 not just zero. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments 

3 on environmental assessment? 

4 MS. GUPTA: So I will be 

5 discussing the last analysis, the last NOPR 

6 analysis, the regulatory impact analysis. The 

7 purpose of the regulatory impact analysis is 

8 to analyze non-regulatory alternatives to 

9 mandatory efficiency standards, and determine 

10 what the national impacts would be from these 

11 non-regulatory alternatives. 

12 DOE considered several non13 regulatory alternatives, such as no new 

14 regulatory action, consumer rebates, consumer 

15 tax credits, manufacturer tax credits, 

16 voluntary energy efficiency targets, such as 

17 Energy Star, and bulk government purchases. 

18 The way that DOE analyzed these programs was 

19 to take the NIA's spreadsheet model for each 

20 of the products, and to modify specific 

21 assumptions, namely, the market share matrices 

22 to determine what the impacts would be from 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 314

1 these alternatives. 

2 In general, DOE accounted for 

3 these alternatives by increasing the market 

4 share of higher efficacy products based on the 

5 penetration predicted by these alternatives. 

6 The results of the analysis ultimately showed 

7 that none of the alternatives achieved the 

8 same level of national energy savings, nor 

9 national economic benefits at the proposed 

10 standards for any of the products. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Steve Rosenstock. 

12 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, 

13 EEI. I guess under this area, especially 

14 recently with commercial building codes, ASRAY 

15 2004, and now IACC 2009, which both increased 

16 stringency on the lighting areas, is DOE going 

17 to try to account for those in any sort of 

18 final analysis, because there were significant 

19 changes in both of those codes in terms of 

20 lighting technology, lighting efficiency 

21 designations. 

22 MS. GUPTA: Well, our national 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 315

1 impacts analysis efficacy projections and 

2 distributions of efficacy projections are 

3 meant to account for all of those types of 

4 things. So if you could comment on those, and 

5 whether you feel those are adequate, given 

6 those new developments, that would be very 

7 helpful. 

8 MR. ROSENSTOCK: Thank you. 

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 

10 Additional comments on regulatory impact 

11 analysis? So that is the last of the analyses 

12 to be described. I would just call your 

13 attention to the fact that in the next three 

14 pages, the Department has provided a summary 

15 of key issues for which it has explicitly 

16 sought comment. And maybe this would be an 

17 outline for your written comments, looking 

18 ahead. So now is an opportunity for anybody 

19 that wishes to do so, to make summary remarks, 

20 raise any additional issues that you wish to 

21 raise at this point. Yes, Pekka. 

22 MR. HAKKARAINEN: Pekka 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 316

1 Hakkarainen from Lutron. Just would like to 

2 raise another issue on behalf of my company 

3 perhaps more than NEMA. In the incandescent 

4 reflector lamp standards analysis, an issue 

5 that wasn't taken into account was the loss of 

6 function for the consumers that comes about 

7 from the loss of dimming capability with the 

8 likely replacement sources. So I would just 

9 like to -- we'll provide some more substance 

10 to that in the written comments, but I'd just 

11 like to urge that to be taken into account. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. And I'm sure 

13 the Department would appreciate you being able 

14 to describe the penetration there; that is, 

15 the breadth of that application. 

16 Okay. Additional closing remarks, 

17 summary remarks? Amanda. 

18 MS. STEVENS: Not so much a 

19 closing remark, actually, a remark that I 

20 didn't make this morning, that I overlooked. 

21 So this goes back to the reflector lamps and 

22 the design options, the technology options 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 317

1 considered. And I noted that one of the 

2 options that wasn't considered in the analysis 

3 was using integrated ballast to convert the 

4 line voltage to a low voltage, which would 

5 increase the efficiency. I see it was 

6 screened out from -- at an earlier stage, 

7 because there were no products available in 

8 the U.S., although, this is obviously a 

9 technology that's used in Europe and around 

10 the world. And I was just wondering if this 

11 was an additional design option, maybe a 

12 question too for the manufacturers, whether 

13 this was an additional design option that 

14 could be considered in looking at these higher 

15 standard levels for reflector lamps. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Greg. 

17 MR. NELSON: Greg Nelson. I can 

18 speak a little bit to that. We also have a 

19 similar product here in a professional range, 

20 in a part 20. But primarily, you see those 

21 products in Europe, and it fundamentally has 

22 to do with the issue that the line voltage in 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 318

1 Europe is 220, 230 volt. And that is 

2 inherently much less efficient than a 120 volt 

3 system. So the improvement to go from 220 

4 volt to 12 volt is significant; whereas, going 

5 from 120 volt to 12 volt is much less. But 

6 you still have to pay the same expensive cost 

7 of the integrated electronics. And when we've 

8 looked at applying similar products to a North 

9 American situation starting at 120 volt, there 

10 was not a positive case for the end-user. So 

11 that was a difficult -- and it's fundamentally 

12 rooted in the difference in supply voltages. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, John. 

14 MR. McHUGH: I was wondering if 

15 one of the authors of the NOPR could describe 

16 in some detail the rationale behind the 

17 exemption for the ER lamps. My reading of the 

18 comment seems somewhat confusing in that it's 

19 clear that these lamps are covered, and then 

20 that the example was given comparing the 

21 coverage of these lamps relative to new 

22 standards for, I believe it was televisions. 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 319

1 And the discussion was well, the covered 

2 equipment wasn't described. And what I think 

3 I'm reading between the lines here is that if 

4 that table had said these are the luminous 

5 efficacy requirements for lamps greater than 

6 50 watts to 65 watts, but not including 65 

7 watts, and then greater than 65 watts, then 

8 these other lamps could be covered. But 

9 because for the simplicity of the language in 

10 the standard, they said well, these are the 

11 requirements for all lamps, the 65 watt lamps 

12 are excluded, and these less than 50 watt 

13 lamps are excluded. That language to simplify 

14 the tables is now seen as an exclusion for 

15 those lamps until Congress basically revisits 

16 this question. So I was wondering if someone 

17 could kind of explain to me this rationale, 

18 because to me, it wasn't clear from reading 

19 the response. 

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Eric Stas. 

21 MR. STAS: Eric Stas, DOE. As 

22 explained in the NOPR, and I think it is 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 320

1 pretty clearly explained in the NOPR, it comes 

2 down to the statutory construction. 

3 Obviously, we're having differing viewpoints 

4 on that. Congress -- we have to live with 

5 what Congress put in the law, and they set 

6 standard levels for these lamps, so the 

7 question is, when we have authority to amend 

8 our standards, can we amend the exclusion? 

9 Our interpretation, as explained in the NOPR, 

10 is that the standard levels are the table of 

11 levels set by Congress, and we were given 

12 authority to amend the levels, and I guess 

13 Subsection B, that's the table, not C, which 

14 is the exclusion. So I think that just 

15 clarifies what's in the NOPR. 

16 MR. BROOKMAN: John. 

17 MR. McHUGH: Just a short one. 

18 John McHugh, again. So is there an 

19 opportunity for DOE to get some clarification 

20 from Congress about their intent, or is -- it 

21 sounds like this was a legal interpretation, 

22 but is there that process available to DOE to 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 321

1 actually get the clarification from Congress? 

2 MR. STAS: Eric Stas, again. 

3 That's a hard question to answer, too. I 

4 mean, whose intent do you get? If you have 

5 one member say this was my view, and I voted 

6 for this, that could be one out of 435 or 535. 

7 Where do you get that clarification from 

8 exactly? I mean, what's most important is 

9 what passed, and that's the language we have, 

10 so we have to try to - 

11 MR. DELASKI: Doug, if I could 

12 just come back to this point. You don't need 

13 clarification from Congress. You have the 

14 authority today to cover the lamps. And, 

15 indeed, as we argued in our ANOPR comments, 

16 you have the requirement to. And this is 

17 something that you don't need new 

18 Congressional authority. It's with your 

19 authority today. It's within your requirement 

20 today, and we strongly urge the Department to 

21 revisit -- do a supplementary NOPR as soon as 

22 practical, and to reopen this question for 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 322

1 public input and propose a standard. 

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Pam 

3 Horner. 

4 MS. HORNER: It's industry's view 

5 that DOE's interpretation is correct. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So, as I 

7 said earlier, this is an opportunity, a final 

8 opportunity for anybody to raise any other 

9 issues they wish to raise at this point. 

10 We're drawing to a close now. Yes, Ed. 

11 MR. OSANN: Ed Osann. This is a 

12 question, I think, for Linda. Here we are at 

13 the conclusion of NOPR public meeting, and the 

14 NOPR has not been published in the Federal 

15 Register. It's well known that the 

16 administration has put out a directive 

17 relating to the status of ongoing rule 

18 makings, and I wonder if you could shed some 

19 light on the Department's current thinking or 

20 plans as to how this rule making fits into the 

21 general directive from the administration to 

22 slow down or forebear ongoing rule makings 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 323

1 until they had a chance to look at them. 

2 Where does this fit in that general policy? 

3 MS. GRAVES: Linda Graves. I'm 

4 basically going to defer to General Counsel 

5 that has been working directly with the 

6 appropriate memos responding to this, and to 

7 our Policy Office. What I can tell you is 

8 that we're still interacting with the Federal 

9 Register, and my concern is that I can't start 

10 the clock on this public comment period, even 

11 though it's been officially issued by the 

12 Department, until the Federal Register 

13 publishes it. So I will tell you, too, that I 

14 will be sending out an email to all 

15 stakeholders who are on my lighting 

16 stakeholder email list informing you when it 

17 is published in the Federal Register, which 

18 will insert the date, the comment period ends. 

19 Obviously, this makes it much more difficult 

20 for my team to achieve the consent decree 

21 deadline. 

22 Now, I assume that the parties 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 324

1 involved in the timing of publication, my 

2 understanding is that they are aware there is 

3 a consent decree, and that this is a rule 

4 making that falls under that schedule. 

5 Someone will have to be accountable on the 

6 consent decree. 

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Eric Stas. 

8 MR. STAS: Eric Stas, DOE. I 

9 think you're all familiar with the memo that 

10 Linda is talking about, it's the transition to 

11 a new administration. There is an exception 

12 in that memo for rule makings tied to judicial 

13 deadlines and things like that. We consider 

14 this to be clearly that case, but until the 

15 powers that be say the appropriate blessings, 

16 it's being slowed down somewhat, so we're 

17 hoping it publishes as soon as possible, and I 

18 think the fact that we're having this meeting 

19 today and has gone forward, suggests that's 

20 how it's going to go, and keep checking the 

21 Federal Register. And please don't wait until 

22 the last second to get your comments in. The 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 325

1 sooner you get them in, the better that it is 

2 for us, as always. 

3 MR. BROOKMAN: But, Linda, you'll 

4 be sending out an email to everybody once 

5 there is something to say about this. 

6 MS. GRAVES: Correct. Yes, I will 

7 give you whatever -- I'll pass that on. You 

8 should be watching for the Federal Register 

9 and share it with other interested parties. 

10 Please make sure that I have you on my 

11 stakeholder email list, and you can do that 

12 just by sending me an email requesting to be 

13 on the list. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: So then from my 

15 perspective, I thank all of you for a very, 

16 very productive day. I'll turn it back to 

17 Linda Graves for closing remarks, and how to 

18 submit your comments. And please feel out the 

19 evaluation form that's being circulated. The 

20 Department reads them carefully. 

21 MS. GRAVES: I really would like 

22 to give you my sincerest thanks for all of 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 326

1 your active participation. The Department 

2 finds the give and take among all stakeholders 

3 of all viewpoints very useful. Sometimes it's 

4 that give and take that really elucidates some 

5 points for us, so I think this has been an 

6 extremely useful meeting from the point of 

7 view of the Department. And I hope it's been 

8 useful to you. I appreciate your efforts to 

9 travel to get here. 

10 All oral comments made at this 

11 meeting are a part of the official record. 

12 They're transcribed into the official 

13 transcript. The transcript becomes part of 

14 the docket, and we will post the transcript on 

15 our website after it's finalized. And in 

16 terms of submitting written comments, this is 

17 described in detail in the Notice of Proposed 

18 Rule Making, in Section VII-D, but I would 

19 just point out that you all know you can 

20 submit comments by email, or snail mail, or by 

21 courier. We ask that you always provide an 

22 identification of the docket number, or the 

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 327

1 regulatory identification number, and that you 

2 follow-up with an original signed copy. 

3 Again, thank you very much for 

4 your participation and attendance in this 

5 meeting. 

6 (Whereupon, the proceedings went 

7 off the record at 3:55:12 p.m.) 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 328

A

Abear 2:8 8:22,22

ability 114:6

115:11 257:21

293:22

able 13:20 36:16

71:9 86:4,6 97:18

101:19 169:18

209:1 213:18

254:22 255:6

275:20 276:11,21

277:1 279:3

295:14 298:6

316:13

absolute 32:1

absolutely 185:21

278:11

absorb 121:13

abstraction 187:13

accelerate 238:15

accept 298:6

access 76:8 97:16

97:22 98:11

100:16 119:19

120:11,12,14

accomplish 39:5

account 88:12

89:21 95:9 98:7

120:16 121:12

124:8 147:21

164:15 173:6

188:22 189:5,7

223:16 304:21

311:22 314:17

315:3 316:5,11

accountable 324:5

accounted 75:21

76:5 156:20

179:19 193:16

288:9 314:2

accounting 192:1

192:10

accounts 159:20

accuracy 77:8

accurate 65:3

222:10 236:7

ACEEE 2:21 3:3

3:12 27:5 28:11

44:15

achieve 62:4 68:17

68:19 99:5 105:8

111:14 113:6

116:17 121:22

140:1 175:11

323:20

achieved 96:22

100:1 147:5 314:7

achieving 104:4

131:4

acknowledge 16:19

187:7

acknowledgement

47:20

Act 18:2 20:9 58:16

Actia 247:4

action 313:14

active 326:1

actual 30:12 45:7

89:19 109:4

119:19 120:12,13

121:1 124:1

276:16 303:3

311:4

acute 260:3

add 16:4 42:1

46:19 62:15

136:21 139:9

212:14 261:3

290:18 312:18

added 49:1 81:21

adding 104:14

addition 24:19

43:16 46:1 56:9

56:15 192:14

193:14 227:8

232:10 236:16

293:4

additional 13:13

14:11 18:11 33:14

38:15 40:5 41:9

45:19 50:4 53:21

58:2,4 61:10,13

68:2 69:21 80:14

84:16 91:12

106:18 113:17

117:21 120:20

122:3,6 124:12

129:9 136:19

140:22 145:11

156:15 157:21

165:8 186:4 188:6

196:21 213:18

214:1 241:12

250:4 254:8 256:3

265:3 280:21

283:8,14 287:14

293:19 294:5

297:8 306:16

307:20 313:2

315:10,20 316:16

317:11,13

additionally 139:9

272:22 281:13

283:15

additions 44:1

address 20:10

26:12 32:20,22

33:13 37:19 38:20

53:12 60:7 62:19

66:9 102:20 107:1

115:15 181:11

196:15 202:6

222:1 274:16

277:6

addressed 18:14

27:5 32:17 62:17

70:12 80:18

299:14 305:18

addresses 41:4

227:3

addressing 33:4,7

40:13 54:5

adequate 315:5

adjourn 4:22 15:18

15:21

adjust 212:19

adjusted 78:16

147:21 268:19

adjustment 77:13

adjustments 75:11

92:9

ADLT 8:19,21

107:8

administration

26:1 148:15

271:13 322:16,21

324:11

administrations

33:11 53:3

admittedly 76:8

adopt 58:14

adopted 119:8

adopting 249:13

adopts 30:1

advance 111:16

advanced 3:10 7:7

7:9 8:16 19:14

36:8 98:20 99:2,6

99:10,21 100:4

104:6 108:4

109:18,20 204:18

advantage 139:20

252:9

advice 29:18

advocates 204:12

AEO 155:2 193:9

298:10

affair 113:2

affairs 308:16

affect 55:12 233:2

289:5,7 298:16

affiliation 5:15

affirmation 40:2

afford 28:10 213:1

afternoon 15:16

190:12 270:13

age 193:22

agenda 4:5 14:3,12

38:19 39:13 191:4

aggregate 254:18

257:1

ago 26:2 28:20

35:20 88:4 116:8

206:14 258:3

303:8

agree 43:16 60:15

89:8 90:1 112:18

129:6 256:22

305:5

agreement 73:19

agrees 43:14 57:12

57:13 72:9

ahead 36:21 83:18

93:14 112:7 121:6

155:10 196:20

207:9 208:13

218:6 240:13

261:17 266:4

278:10 315:18

aims 229:16

air 17:10 28:16

104:19 270:4

alerting 78:12

aligned 93:7

Alison 2:1 8:6

Alliance 2:17 197:1

208:1

allots 225:19,21

allow 45:14 59:6

76:11 79:16 80:7

91:22 114:13

230:17 258:15

allowance 128:14

311:11,12

allowed 49:4 80:2

87:10 204:22

allowing 204:8,18

allows 177:2 242:8

alluded 40:9

alter 46:3

alternate 208:5

alternative 200:1

302:12 309:13

alternatives 12:19

70:18 143:21

285:17 313:8,11

313:13 314:1,3,5

314:7

altogether 29:19

aluminum 94:6

110:17

Amanda 2:21 3:9

9:7,11 94:12,16

98:15 131:22

132:1 287:15,16

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 329

316:17

AMANN 3:12

amazing 279:8,10

amend 18:7 41:5

47:1 54:6 320:7,8

320:12

amended 18:2,14

47:12

amending 46:2,4

amendment 47:15

America 1:1 24:6

26:9

American 9:12

26:18,20 29:8,11

37:5 318:9

America's 26:13

amount 47:16

183:10 232:10

255:22 298:18,19

300:22 302:1

308:9,21 309:17

amplify 47:17

analogy 290:5

analyses 12:22 13:8

20:14 54:16 55:1

84:21 143:8

188:21 224:16

315:11

analysis 4:10,12,13

4:14,14,16,17,17

13:5 15:1,5,8,9,10

15:11,11,13 27:5

28:11,14 38:16

51:9,13,14 54:18

54:19,20 55:4

57:4 70:7,11,16

72:13 74:9,17

81:2 82:5,16,21

85:18 95:13

102:10 103:14

108:6 109:17

112:1 113:4

118:16 119:5

122:8 123:21

124:21 134:14

141:4 143:10,18

145:4 147:3

148:18,21 149:13

150:18 155:14,15

157:13,17 159:18

162:12 163:19,22

164:1,11,12,14

168:3,4,8 169:1,3

173:2,5 177:19

178:1,12,16

182:15 185:16

187:2 188:1,5

189:12 191:5,7,8

191:11,12,15,20

201:14,16,19

205:8 206:2

210:19 214:12

215:4,12,15

217:20 218:17

225:15 226:9,10

227:3,15 231:19

235:3,6,8,11

241:2,3,13,14

249:1 253:17

265:12,14 268:8

268:12 269:14

270:15,20 271:4

272:11,14,17

274:19 280:1,10

282:5 286:7 287:2

287:3 288:5 290:6

293:21 296:18

297:13,21 298:2

298:12 299:8,10

300:7,8 302:5

305:17 306:19

307:4,6 311:19

313:5,6,6,7 314:6

314:18 315:1,11

316:4 317:2

analyze 56:21

96:19 112:15

114:1 124:17

125:9,17 130:7

143:10,21 152:7

175:3,6 176:16

180:16 240:7

243:8 313:8

analyzed 21:11

22:10 71:3 80:22

96:4,5 102:21

118:7 119:4

124:21 144:2,8,10

145:4 151:10

155:14 177:10

199:2 205:10

225:12 245:8,21

263:21 264:1

313:18

analyzes 56:20

96:20 245:14

analyzing 125:13

127:16 130:5

225:14 237:16

Andrew 2:12 7:4

24:22 25:2 32:11

51:4 68:4 93:11

95:18 124:12

130:1 215:21,22

218:6,7 222:21

223:3 235:1 240:5

289:3

Andrew's 243:1

anecdotal 165:22

announcement

142:16

annual 148:7

149:10 193:8

273:12

ANOPR 29:15

31:20 48:19 52:6

54:14,16 68:5,12

70:13 71:6 80:19

84:22 88:5 92:8

97:4 118:13 135:5

135:12 191:9

222:16 273:10

321:15

ANSI 42:20 43:3

67:3,8 78:1 88:11

137:13

answer 126:7

169:13,16,18

178:9 212:5

289:14 312:14

321:3

answered 302:13

answering 310:7

Anwar 259:3

anybody 76:12

208:17 277:6

296:3 315:18

322:8

anyway 165:9

292:17

apparently 123:21

appear 181:6 202:7

205:1 285:7

286:10

appears 74:14

82:10 105:21

264:16 284:18

285:3,9

appendices 99:19

appendix 99:17

132:3 275:14

282:21

applaud 31:6

appliance 7:5 14:7

25:3

appliances 296:17

applicable 228:15

230:3

application 48:12

48:16 222:7

316:15

applications 48:8

48:22 49:3 50:1

56:14 61:17 82:12

140:17 152:16,17

152:19 222:9

239:14 242:3

applied 61:3 67:3

95:20 180:18

235:5

applies 147:5

apply 18:10 58:16

135:6 137:9

187:16

applying 111:11

147:6 318:8

appreciate 31:11

64:18 89:12 98:8

153:12 162:10

221:5 239:17

246:15 316:13

326:8

appreciates 47:13

approach 64:13

95:6 115:22

119:21 128:16

196:19 233:1

approaches 22:6

131:4 215:4

approaching

251:21

appropriate 10:7

49:22 73:5,8,21

95:2 127:19 130:5

134:8 152:1,16

221:7 224:7 236:4

242:4 264:16

323:6 324:15

appropriately

60:16,20,21 74:16

appropriateness

246:3 264:10

approximately

134:17 152:14

158:7 161:2 176:1

183:15 222:17

224:9

approximates

224:9

April 83:5

arbitrary 295:4,8

area 62:6 65:1

115:4 205:10

207:2,3,12 233:16

286:9 291:6

314:13

areas 30:13 61:18

62:18 66:4 84:2

314:16

argue 294:17

argued 68:15

321:15

argument 69:4

296:11

arrived 61:6

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 330

152:12

artificial 290:2

ASAP 2:12,13

Asia-Pacific 262:22

asked 211:20 224:4

224:12 232:17

256:20

asking 16:7 76:19

160:17 162:3

163:15 232:18

248:5,8 301:7

aspect 26:11

aspects 177:19

ASRAY 314:14

assess 226:21 239:1

243:19 270:21

273:18 307:15

assessed 127:12

assessing 199:18

assessment 4:17

15:12 55:3 302:21

308:5 311:20

312:1 313:3

assessments 75:11

75:18 301:20

assign 168:21

169:2

assigned 245:3,11

assigning 57:7

assigns 245:14

associated 22:18

23:3 165:8 220:18

225:16 245:17

297:18 301:8

302:7 303:6

311:11,12

ASSOCIATES

2:14

associating 148:9

Association 6:18

9:14 23:19

assume 158:2,5

159:7 163:20

173:3 189:9

235:16 238:8

256:9 277:22

323:22

assumed 156:3

167:21 178:2

179:22 227:13

309:6,16

assumes 146:16

168:1 170:16

176:6 219:2,10,18

220:7,10 225:9

227:18 230:21

231:12 232:3,12

237:1,7 257:13

assuming 155:3

170:1 178:13

assumption 97:6

162:8,11,12

170:17 172:19

173:8,12,16

221:13 309:17

assumptions 13:7

150:8 158:17

167:6 169:7

189:11 193:5

194:13 197:11,13

208:22 251:12

256:1 300:13

313:21

assurance 121:5

assured 76:13

attempt 124:22

attendance 327:4

attended 142:19

attention 29:14,16

315:13

attractive 281:14

attributable 160:18

attribute 160:10,12

Australia 258:12

authority 16:13

18:1,22 52:8,15

320:7,12 321:14

321:18,19

authors 318:15

availability 257:20

291:18 292:4,8,11

available 42:8

71:13,16 81:14

99:10 101:18

105:22 127:15

146:2 164:9 198:7

229:2 232:10

271:1 273:11

292:1 298:12

317:7 320:22

Avenue 1:10

average 130:15,16

130:18,22 131:19

150:15 151:21

155:15,17 156:1

156:11 157:15

164:19 172:14,17

176:5,7 192:7

193:19 194:1,3

195:7,8,10 197:7

208:4 275:7 309:3

309:11

averages 73:11

76:4 172:10

aware 49:18 59:10

65:10 90:16 96:6

111:5,9 324:2

Awareness 7:5 25:3

awful 121:13

A-F-T-E-R-N-O-...

191:1

a.m 1:11 5:2

142:13,14

B

B 3:5 320:13

back 8:13 11:8,12

13:20 32:3 40:7

49:1 55:5 62:14

93:5 103:12 104:2

113:4 116:20

120:8 125:7

136:16 154:21

159:1 162:2,3

169:20 173:4

180:16 181:7

182:13 185:4,22

190:17,19 208:14

213:3 223:18,20

224:1,4,8 232:18

233:4,12 234:9

238:7 239:8

242:17 248:3

256:5 262:17

270:8,17 290:20

299:17 303:9

305:7 316:21

321:12 325:16

background 18:21

18:22 35:20

backup 14:10

back-and-forth

17:16

bad 27:13 157:9

285:6

badge 141:16 190:9

balanced 284:22

balancing 252:12

ballast 81:5,11,11

81:11 82:1,11

83:1,4,14 84:4,6

84:14 144:6,22,22

145:19 146:3,5,6

146:7,10,13,13

147:16,19 149:1

149:14,17,22

150:2,4,6,12,14

150:16,18 151:4,9

151:12,18,19,20

152:4,6,10 153:1

154:11,12,15

155:20 156:12,14

162:13,14 163:9

163:14,17,21

164:4,4,10,11,12

164:14,16,20

165:1,4,6,6,7

166:4 168:2,6

169:12,14 170:2,3

170:9,14 171:3,8

171:22 173:19

174:5,9 175:10,16

175:22 176:8,20

177:1 182:20,21

183:7 192:2

209:21 219:10,12

219:12,13 220:3,4

220:8,17,17,22

221:4,9 230:16,17

231:6,7 232:7

234:12 251:8

269:8,10,12 317:3

ballasts 21:17 83:4

83:7 149:18 150:5

151:5,11,14

152:11 154:19

167:14 184:6

210:1,5,18,20

219:13 220:5,9,12

221:4 233:13

253:7 269:6

306:21

Ballo 2:9 186:5,5

187:14,14 294:7,7

306:1,1,6,11,15

ballparking 110:14

Baltimore 5:12

ban 105:15

bank 142:2

banking 309:19

bar 62:4 267:4

bars 263:13

base 111:22 145:20

171:18,21 173:5,9

173:10 174:8

180:19 191:14,21

192:19,20 193:4

197:17 198:1

206:22 213:20

218:21 228:5,7

229:18 237:2,4

238:10 240:2

250:2,22 256:11

257:13 266:18

272:19 280:4

283:6,12

based 18:1 21:15

31:7 32:21 42:7

45:1 55:16 56:11

58:7,10 59:5

68:18 71:15 75:22

76:6 88:6 95:6

98:4,20,21,22

99:1,14 101:6,21

104:17 105:12,21

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 331

114:20 121:15,17

122:9,11 125:17

132:13 138:2

149:4,8,10 150:19

151:4 178:16

193:22 201:2

215:16 221:2,14

222:15 227:12

237:22 241:22

254:5 264:3 292:5

296:4 308:20

310:2 314:4

baseline 70:16,22

71:22 72:6 75:8

81:3 82:1,10 85:1

85:21 91:20 92:11

113:22 135:13

136:5 143:20

144:1,18 145:22

147:1 155:21

164:4 168:1 175:4

175:18 177:9,14

178:5,16,17

188:16 189:8

195:11 225:14,16

225:18,20 226:5

229:5,11,14 230:2

baselines 85:18

basement 168:10

basic 10:22 106:3

273:8

basically 36:16

51:18 63:12 105:3

143:14 145:15

148:5 150:7

154:11 162:4,9

163:6 167:22

206:2 215:2,8

255:18 298:21

299:1 300:1 303:7

305:9 309:2,20

319:15 323:4

basing 79:22

basis 47:15 91:10

104:2 121:10

battery 36:8

becoming 32:2

beginning 21:3

32:6 163:22 215:3

215:11 217:20

behalf 9:8 23:20

34:5 39:17 94:13

287:17 316:2

behave 204:21,22

behavior 241:6

253:8

belief 56:11

believe 38:12 62:3

62:19 65:9 73:11

74:6,19 79:6,9

80:8 99:4 117:15

117:17 123:17

135:6 154:14

205:21 207:14

233:3,21 238:11

264:18 286:4

291:7 294:10

318:22

believed 21:19

believes 186:12

212:1

belittling 295:10

bend 124:3,4

beneath 142:4

beneficiary 295:3

benefit 87:21 287:4

288:8 289:20

290:3

benefits 21:20

231:9 300:6

303:10 314:9

best 16:19 17:14

77:7 96:12,15

107:16 246:9

261:13

bets 291:1

better 121:2 181:10

182:3,8 186:12

221:9 241:18

325:1

beyond 260:11,18

295:18

big 25:12 32:8

111:7 139:22

161:14 290:12,19

291:3

bigger 294:19,22

biggest 246:22

293:6

billion 26:21

billions 206:16

bills 307:12

bins 172:12,13

bipin 41:16,20 42:3

43:8 55:20 56:1,3

80:21,22 81:21

84:16 85:6 122:22

123:7 144:10

158:6,12 161:4,5

175:1 209:4,6,20

210:1 211:6,9,12

218:20 224:22

245:1,7 254:20

bit 25:17,18 28:9

35:20 40:5 54:9

54:10 63:5 86:17

94:8 104:12

128:11 184:12

196:4 262:4

263:21 269:16

270:5 279:2

304:20 317:18

black 131:11

blessings 324:15

blips 212:21

blue 49:21 95:10

207:4 209:15

Bob 7:8

body 131:11

Boling 2:10 8:20,20

106:22 107:4,7,7

107:8 108:15,22

109:3,12 112:8,12

112:12,14

bolster 26:13

bottom 176:17

203:2 209:19

217:17 278:19

bound 275:15,19

276:1 283:3,4,10

bounds 276:8

box 103:15 109:14

289:22 290:6,9,9

290:13,19 294:8

294:18,19,22

boxes 166:15

boxing 69:4

BR 33:16 37:14

49:10 216:14

236:20 237:8,14

237:22 238:22

239:8,9,13 241:4

242:7,14,18

281:16

breadth 316:15

break 15:2,6,14,16

31:21,22 69:15

126:15,18 141:1,9

141:22 188:8

265:16,19,22

268:6 269:19

breakdown 227:9

breaking 141:21

breakout 103:15

breath 270:3

Brenda 142:17

143:2

bridge 125:3

brief 14:3,4,15,19

16:9 20:19 23:10

39:14 60:9,10

briefly 70:10 94:7

179:13 265:13

brighter 251:5,18

bring 51:1 103:21

110:9 116:19

173:3 224:7

248:14 261:1

270:17 279:8

290:20 295:14

bringing 34:6

brings 78:5 110:13

brittle 278:1

broad 118:19

broke 231:19

Brookman 1:11,13

4:5 5:3,11 8:12

9:22 11:16 13:21

13:22 16:10 23:8

24:20 25:5,8,12

32:11 33:9,17,19

37:8,18,22 38:5

39:11 40:4,17

43:10,12,21 44:12

45:16,19,22 47:4

47:10,19 49:14

50:2,11,20 51:2

53:21 54:2 57:10

57:17,20 58:1,4

60:1,19 61:7

62:10,21 64:10,19

65:5,11 66:21

67:20 68:2,10

69:21 70:2 72:7

75:2 76:17 77:22

78:4,20 79:1

80:12,16 82:3,18

83:11,17 84:7,15

84:19 86:10,20

87:1,6 88:1 89:6

90:5 91:12,15

93:2,11 94:10,16

94:18 95:16 98:15

100:7,19 102:14

106:17 107:2,5

108:11 111:2

112:6,10,13

113:16 117:7,21

119:16 120:2,6

121:3 122:3,14

123:15 124:11

126:14 127:2

128:3 129:8 130:1

131:22 133:10

134:2 135:1

136:18 137:3

139:3 140:10,20

141:5 142:15

150:22 152:2,22

153:3,7,11,16

154:5 155:9

156:15 157:21

160:5,16,22 161:8

161:12,16 162:19

162:22 163:3

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 332

165:14 167:5

169:4,10 170:6,19

174:19 177:20

179:5,9,11 181:12

181:17 182:9,12

184:18 186:2

187:5,20 188:3,11

189:14,21 191:3

194:14 196:1,17

197:14 200:17

201:20 202:22

204:2 205:3,11

206:4,6 207:9,21

208:13 210:6

211:18 213:7,22

214:16 215:21

216:18 218:6,14

220:13 221:19

222:11,20 223:3

224:2,17 225:4

226:1 227:6 228:1

232:15 234:16,21

235:10,13 236:12

240:1 242:19

243:13 246:7

251:22 253:10

254:8,14,17,21

255:10 256:2

259:17,21 261:5

261:15 262:1,8

263:2 264:13

265:1,15,21 266:3

266:8 267:13,20

268:1,5 269:15

270:10,16 277:4

278:9,12,21

280:21 284:12

287:13 288:12

289:3 290:16

292:14 293:14

294:19 296:2,8,22

297:5,15 299:6

300:15 302:14,17

306:16 307:20

308:3 310:9,12

311:15 312:15,19

313:2 314:11

315:9 316:12

317:16 318:13

319:20 320:16

322:2,6 324:7

325:3,14

brought 16:5 88:3

135:5 274:1

275:10 281:2,18

282:16,19

brush 118:20

BR65 33:15 51:17

build 26:14

building 124:2

141:18 145:9

146:18,22 148:9

148:13 157:16

190:7 193:7,14

194:1 204:5 205:1

221:22 270:4

314:14

build-up 104:10

built 113:10,10

185:5

bulbs 280:15

bulk 313:17

bullet 130:3 139:6

197:7 238:8 300:8

bunch 10:6 190:7

248:19

burden 21:15 24:8

272:1 273:19

burdens 21:19

22:17

Bureau 147:15

Burk 1:19 4:12 8:8

8:8 143:4,5,6

151:9 153:21

154:13 155:7,11

157:1,12 158:5,11

158:18 159:3,14

159:17 167:3,22

168:21 171:11,15

174:21 178:4,15

179:3,22 180:6,13

185:15 189:6

burner 107:14,15

108:3,3,4,10

109:5 138:3

burners 136:3

Burt 2:11 7:2,2

262:2,2 311:16,16

business 142:17,21

143:2 212:18

271:11,13,17

287:11,12 290:1

291:10

businesses 294:3

buy 61:21 91:6

107:11,13 110:3

247:15

buying 5:20 255:19

262:18

buys 236:2

byproduct 104:21

C

C 2:14 5:1 72:19,20

73:5,10 76:19

77:4,6,13,16,17

77:18,21 79:4

320:13

cafeteria 190:4,8

Cal 213:13 300:17

calculate 192:8

193:12,15 209:1

228:8 237:10,13

263:8 265:7

268:21 306:20

calculated 143:19

199:11,19,22

200:6 203:6

210:11 228:6

calculates 215:5

272:14

calculating 174:6

197:6

calculation 170:16

287:18 288:10

305:11

calculations 161:6

calibrate 192:19

California 2:8 3:2

9:1,3,5 34:6,9,10

34:15 36:1 165:21

188:14,16 189:3

193:19 194:17,19

194:22 195:5,9

258:16

California's 204:6

call 234:3 260:14

298:4 315:12

called 84:3 250:7

calling 284:21

calls 196:6 205:15

287:1

campaign 26:5,6,8

26:17

campus 190:3

CANADA 3:6

cancel 51:18

cans 193:21 194:11

197:5,8

cap 260:14 309:17

309:22 310:18,18

capability 316:7

capacity 35:15

55:11 257:21

285:20 286:18,22

292:1,6 293:3

298:18,20 299:4

capital 185:2 279:5

280:1 281:19

282:3,6,8 284:3

307:12

capital-intensity

279:6,10

capsule 96:15

244:14

capsules 92:2 136:3

264:5

capture 154:10,15

241:6 280:1

captured 248:2

286:16

capturing 48:7

174:11 207:6

274:22

car 36:5,6

carbon 311:18

312:3,6,22

card 142:17,22

143:2

carefully 24:18

113:3 325:20

cares 285:8

Carlo 157:18

Carmichael 1:21

8:10,10

case 29:14 49:10

85:9 114:4 121:21

145:20 146:6,8,11

146:16 156:10

162:15 164:19

170:3 171:18,19

173:5,6,9,10

174:8,8,9 178:11

191:14,14,21

192:19,20,22

193:2,4 197:17

198:1 206:22

218:21 228:5,7,9

228:10,11,12,14

229:1,18,19 230:5

236:12,15,18

237:2,4,5 238:3

238:10,11 240:2,3

250:22 256:11

257:13 260:17

266:17,18 272:19

272:19 276:3,17

280:4,5 283:7,12

285:9 296:12

297:2 298:10

299:11 302:11

307:2 318:10

324:14

cases 64:3 67:6

73:9 88:16 95:13

106:14,15 123:3

242:6 272:20

302:11,12 307:5

cash 272:13,16

280:7,8 289:2,5,6

cash-flow 280:5

casual 197:4

catalogue 65:16,18

75:16,20 103:5

119:1 120:18

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 333

122:19 134:12

147:7

catalogues 89:15

123:20

catch 296:6

categories 196:11

category 79:20,20

106:7 114:11

122:18 137:1

cause 145:11

170:14 283:8,14

caused 134:15

causing 210:2

CCT 46:12,16,17

47:2 55:17 56:16

56:22 126:19,21

126:21

CCTs 46:20 119:3

ceiling 77:4

cell 16:22 247:4

center 2:7 3:7 7:19

7:21 260:2 261:19

289:12 290:1

centers 289:9

Centigrade 78:16

ceramic 192:13

199:4,13,17,21

certain 22:7 84:9

89:9 109:13

125:12 133:18

147:18 231:21

certainly 72:13

113:13 196:3,12

204:9 212:20

242:13 246:12

260:21 262:14

292:3

certainty 228:3

certifies 205:20

certify 205:19

cetera 202:5

CFL 51:17 201:5

214:8 215:15

218:1 237:9 241:3

242:14,16 243:5

260:13

CFLI 196:12

CFLs 117:13

192:12 199:7,9,19

199:21 200:20,22

215:1,12,18 216:6

216:22 217:3,11

217:13,19 236:21

242:6

chair 6:5,11,16

47:6

Chairman 6:8

challenge 294:9

295:18

challenges 247:20

295:11

challenging 295:21

chance 30:15 44:22

152:7 186:7 323:1

change 26:12 33:10

53:2 80:7 129:13

148:22 163:9

251:8 252:5,7

253:7 300:11

301:14 302:2,3

304:1 306:3

309:10,18

changed 84:14

146:18 196:4

228:22 247:10

308:10

changer 201:12

206:1

changes 43:15 70:6

75:20 76:9 89:9

198:12 254:4

298:15 307:18

314:19

changing 253:4

chapter 132:3

169:6 197:11

characteristics

102:8

characterization

148:12 157:14

236:7

characterize 12:21

218:18 225:8

228:11,18

characterized

192:15 235:20

chart 93:8 277:5

cheap 278:2

cheaper 281:16

check 126:12

158:21 160:21

checked 224:7

checking 324:20

chemist 5:17

China 247:22

249:17 262:20

305:3

choice 81:22

135:15

choose 124:14,15

240:6

choosing 70:19

136:5 291:6

chose 81:2 125:16

125:19 149:20

150:9,18 151:15

172:13

chosen 105:20

106:8 135:15

186:10

Chris 7:22

CHRISTOPHER

2:4

chunk 41:1,1

circulated 325:19

circumstances

173:2

citation 154:6,16

citations 153:19

161:20,22

claimed 133:22

clarification 50:3

98:18 287:18

320:19 321:1,7,13

clarifies 320:15

clarify 170:7

266:12 306:2

class 56:5,6 57:5

58:7,22 60:18

61:15 65:22 66:6

66:14 68:9,14

71:2 85:17 87:13

87:13 89:2 118:15

118:19,22 125:5

134:21 144:8,10

244:8,17 245:13

246:6 263:22

classes 4:9 15:1

55:9,10,16 56:10

56:16,19,22,22

57:3,8,13,14 58:2

58:10,19 59:5

60:12 62:8 68:3,4

70:4,17,20,21,22

71:3 79:11 85:3

88:14 118:6

119:13 123:14

124:16,19 125:16

128:1 138:14

139:1 224:6 245:3

245:5,20 246:1,2

classic 49:10

classification 61:12

Clean 26:5

clear 40:17 97:2

121:7 131:14

169:9 234:8,13

318:19 319:18

Clearinghouse

147:10

clearly 184:21

207:11 320:1

324:14

climate 26:12

clock 141:7 323:10

close 27:21 28:2

31:14 94:16

123:22 124:10

128:9,18 132:18

261:14 322:10

closed 31:17

closely 63:5 100:12

closer 234:2

closing 4:20 10:16

15:19 28:12

316:16,19 325:17

clothes 28:18

clue 234:9

CM 2:14

coal 309:9,11,11

coated 116:6

135:17,20 181:4

coating 39:4 92:18

93:20 94:1,2

98:20 99:2,6,11

100:4 109:7,18

110:22 111:9

112:3

coatings 5:19 92:5

92:5 93:21 99:21

102:1 107:16

108:5 109:20

111:16 113:1,10

116:8

code 18:3 148:1

205:14

codes 204:6 205:1

205:21 221:22

314:14,19

codified 18:3

coefficient 107:20

107:22

coefficients 110:17

110:19

coffee 141:18,22

142:4

coil 139:19

Coke 269:22

colleague 57:1 70:5

285:14

colleagues 17:11

40:3

collectively 210:8

color 55:17 118:11

119:14

colored 46:4,6,9,10

46:12 47:1 48:1

48:14 95:9

combination 87:19

228:5 304:12

combinations

246:5

combined 282:8

309:5,13

combustion 36:14

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 334

come 32:3 62:14

103:12 120:12

136:16 218:4

258:12 321:12

comes 121:20

133:14 139:5

213:13 247:22

262:20 304:6

316:6 320:1

coming 45:8

130:13 262:21

280:2 303:18

comma 212:7

comment 10:18

13:15 22:4,20

25:16 32:12 37:12

39:16 40:15,19,21

43:5 46:22 49:17

49:17 60:9,10

64:20 65:2,4,21

67:1 71:7 72:4

74:22 76:21 78:21

83:13 87:8 88:22

94:19 96:7 102:4

102:22 106:20

122:6 124:14

128:21 131:8

154:17 165:22

177:18 180:17

181:7,16 194:12

204:3 208:17

212:4 213:10

222:16,22 225:3

232:19 242:11

253:15 255:14

257:12 259:18

265:2 267:16

278:16 293:18,20

293:21 294:3,8

315:4,16 318:18

323:10,18

commented 29:15

68:6,13 311:17

commenting 40:20

74:21 189:15

196:18 279:2

comments 4:8

12:13 13:12 14:19

14:21 16:1,11

17:16 24:17,19

33:21 39:8 40:10

43:19 44:1,16

45:18,20 47:16,18

47:22 48:4 50:4,9

57:5 58:2,5 61:2

61:11 62:13 64:18

67:2,19 68:3

69:22 71:5 73:6

73:20 74:15,17

75:5,7,10 76:16

79:2 80:14,19

81:20 82:7,7,17

84:13,16 89:11

90:4,21 91:13

97:12 98:5 102:7

106:18 113:17

114:2 117:22

119:11,22 122:4

123:12 124:12

127:21 134:19

135:12 136:17,19

138:21 139:3,5

140:22 141:3

142:7 152:9,10

153:13 156:13,15

162:11 165:15

179:7,15 181:11

186:4 188:7 196:3

196:16,21 201:17

202:7 207:11,20

210:7 211:16

214:1 221:5

222:20 227:21

236:11 238:3

239:18,22 240:2

241:12 246:3

253:12 254:8

256:4 264:10

265:3 278:17

280:21 284:11,13

286:9 287:14

294:5 296:4 297:8

312:17 313:2

315:10,17 316:10

321:15 324:22

325:18 326:10,16

326:20

commercial 24:14

81:8,15,19 85:20

137:2 140:16

144:11 148:4

150:10 151:7

152:13,16,19

175:2 177:11

178:18 179:17

180:12 189:6

193:6 200:15

210:2 212:16

219:1,16,20,21

220:6,7,15 221:21

222:14 223:12

227:16 230:3

233:16 237:15

239:4 242:2

269:12 314:14

commercially 42:7

71:13,16 101:6,18

127:15

committed 26:8

34:11

Committee 6:1,12

47:7 253:18

commoditization

274:22

commoditized

274:12 276:7

commodity 5:20

311:1

common 16:15

153:6 173:4

compact 117:11,16

278:15

companies 30:9

112:20 271:14

289:18,18,22

290:21 291:20

296:13

company 36:14

75:11 112:4 290:1

316:2

comparatively

209:18

compare 139:15

174:3

compared 75:16

81:8,10 104:13

126:6 127:11

163:11 199:22

200:2 256:22

comparing 119:3

318:20

competing 238:16

competition 106:2

competitive 282:17

competitors 271:20

complete 13:10

142:18 191:19

completed 29:1

54:13 82:8

completely 112:18

140:7 141:6

259:13 290:2

complex 296:14

305:6

complexities

307:14

complexity 124:2

compliance 76:13

79:21 88:7,19

89:3 122:8,9,12

123:1,4 133:7

compliant 229:12

238:1

complicated

103:10 150:8

171:14

comply 281:19

complying 272:8

components 300:2

Conan 2:7 4:11

7:18 57:1 66:15

70:5 78:17 106:19

122:15

concepts 171:14

concern 13:13

62:16 82:13

121:20 152:17

180:17 222:9

274:16 278:19

290:15 323:9

concerned 80:1

115:11 274:5,10

281:5,10,22

282:14

concerning 128:12

concerns 11:12

14:17 24:18 37:13

104:9 112:2

282:17 283:16

299:7

concise 17:9

conclude 284:16

concluded 21:13

68:22 253:19

concludes 50:8

52:14 70:3 269:13

conclusion 22:15

241:13 322:13

condition 79:5

138:16

conditioner 28:16

conditions 63:16

63:18 79:7 136:10

139:11 170:2

278:13

conduct 99:21

268:12

conducted 273:5

conducting 54:11

conducts 54:22

271:18 273:17

confidence 90:21

212:9,13 213:19

confident 132:11

confidential 192:17

confidentiality

98:14 273:5

conflict 34:22

conform 76:3

conformance 91:2

91:10

confused 184:12

216:20

confusing 318:18

confusion 223:19

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 335

Congress 52:20

319:15 320:4,5,11

320:20 321:1,13

Congressional

321:18

conmpliance 77:20

consent 53:17

323:20 324:3,6

consequence

296:21

consequences

24:12

conservation 1:5

5:6 12:14 18:2

19:12 20:9 24:5

46:7 143:11,22

166:7 177:2

205:14 270:21

conserve 24:6

consider 83:9 95:4

103:12 186:21

197:9 233:7 242:2

255:9 256:9,15

264:17 265:16

312:13 324:13

considerably 37:20

considerate 17:8

consideration

16:14 98:6 197:22

284:20 286:5

considered 21:2,6

30:2 38:14,14

43:6 102:5 180:22

197:3 222:6

226:16 230:1

244:19 246:4

256:18 260:4

265:4 285:10

288:5 289:2

313:12 317:1,2,14

considering 105:20

208:21 209:12

217:12,18 226:17

232:7 256:19

considers 199:6,9

206:22 209:16

226:10 232:8

consisted 245:11

consistency 77:7

consistent 119:6

216:6 235:7

consists 244:15

constant 276:15

constrain 293:3

constrained 286:22

292:4

constraints 56:12

125:22 254:11

constructed 193:21

construction 145:7

146:14 147:20

192:4 193:6

203:18 204:9,20

205:15 209:8

211:11 214:15

232:2 233:6,8

234:1 320:2

constructions

193:15

consultant 8:19

CONSULTANTS

3:1

Consulting 1:19,20

1:21,22 2:1,2,3,4

2:6 7:15,17 8:1,3

8:5,7,9,11 171:17

consume 255:21

consumer 2:19

3:12 4:14 15:8

22:8 23:4 35:16

55:1 69:6,6

137:20 143:12

144:17 145:3

146:20 147:4,5

159:19 175:18

176:22 180:2

185:6 193:1 230:8

230:10,13,18

231:8 236:2,3

241:6 254:16,18

255:17 265:13

268:8,9,16 271:10

296:17 299:17

303:10 304:6

305:2 313:14,14

consumers 21:15

22:18 24:11 51:20

52:4 68:16,20

95:1 137:2 144:1

146:8 164:7 168:5

175:11 176:14,15

218:10 219:11

223:17 228:13,21

229:1,4,8,10,13

229:17 230:21

231:3,13,15,18,22

232:4,8 236:19

237:1,3,7,18

238:9 253:9

268:13,16 269:5,7

301:9 316:6

consumption 26:18

26:21 35:17 37:4

148:16,18 193:11

195:4 228:7,9

304:9

contact 41:18

42:16 210:21

211:2,14 245:2

contacts 55:22

contains 231:13

contaminated

260:20

content 280:15

CONTENTS 4:1

context 18:13

25:17,22 28:9,15

32:17 63:11

305:22 309:7

continue 69:14

70:5 202:10 205:7

209:7 211:4 237:3

237:5

continued 238:10

continues 139:21

203:22

Continuing 91:17

continuous 61:22

continuously 293:3

contradictions

196:8

contrast 269:9

279:3

control 222:1

controlled 67:16

conversation 17:1

17:7 117:10

186:14

conversion 275:3

281:19 282:3,6,8

284:3,4,7 293:7

307:11

convert 308:8

317:3

converted 279:21

converting 275:4

279:17

copy 142:20 327:2

corporation 3:9

9:19 294:15,16,18

294:22 295:7

296:15 297:3

correct 48:10 78:22

87:16 131:21

132:5,6,9 135:7

160:21 161:2

162:18 164:5

165:12 189:19

201:1 208:7,10

216:13,16 217:1

218:5 223:10,14

226:8 235:9

266:14 288:2,3

306:5 310:11

322:5 325:6

corrections 90:3

correctly 47:13

61:13 183:3

correlated 55:17

103:19 118:11

119:14

correlates 59:1

280:11

corresponding

225:13 288:21

cost 4:12 15:5

30:21 35:17 54:18

104:10,13,17

115:19 116:17

143:7,9,13,14,16

143:19 144:13

145:4 147:3 148:5

148:17 149:13

155:15 157:13,17

159:10 160:1,4

162:7 163:5,7,13

165:4,6,8,10

168:3,8,22 171:7

174:12,22 175:3,6

175:12 176:2,4,9

177:5,8,12,15,19

179:7,16,17 180:9

181:5 182:22

183:3,15,20 184:9

184:10,13 185:3,5

185:10,12 186:12

186:13 188:5

229:2,12 238:1,14

239:5 241:7

244:11 254:12,14

254:16,17 255:14

272:8 275:4,7,22

281:15,19 300:6

302:1,7 318:6

costs 23:4 144:3

147:12 148:2

149:5 174:22

175:17 177:4

179:18 180:2

183:22 184:4

185:2,2 186:18

188:7 272:8 275:8

279:12,21 280:2

282:4,6,8,15

284:3,7 289:21

302:3 307:19

cost-effective

215:13,18

Council 9:12

Counsel 7:3 323:4

count 131:13 184:1

counterpart 81:9

269:10

country 26:9 61:18

67:6,10 147:11

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 336

195:13 304:19

couple 25:15 26:2

28:20 44:16 48:3

65:15 79:2 125:7

152:9 158:1

166:22 177:14

195:1 202:3

218:12

coupled 96:14

128:11

courier 326:21

course 22:3 47:17

62:10 75:9 145:13

247:21 255:3

court 223:1 308:16

courtesy 16:16

cover 19:21 43:8

52:8,9 190:11

239:19 244:8

269:16 321:14

coverage 4:9 14:22

41:12,22 42:10,18

42:18 43:1,15

44:8 46:4,19,21

50:8,10,13,18,19

53:22 55:19 64:14

64:17 80:20 84:13

318:21

covered 13:1 43:6

46:18 48:13 52:10

52:11 88:8 125:1

125:3 141:5

190:10 281:21

318:19 319:1,8

covering 18:16

127:7 293:16

covers 41:15

COWDEN 2:20

3:11

CO2 310:9 311:13

create 30:2 37:4,5

48:15 76:10 172:3

243:18 258:18

created 30:5,7 33:4

76:10

creates 30:10 69:13

138:4 282:9

creating 69:7 115:4

136:6 284:22

credited 160:4

171:3,5,12 185:4

185:22

crediting 185:10

credits 313:15,15

crippling 292:11

crisis 213:2 259:2

criteria 41:5 54:6

55:15 133:2

198:14

critical 24:7 26:11

critiquing 182:5

cross-licenses

98:10

cross-licensing

97:14,19 98:2,6

CSL 247:7,11

249:13 250:9

254:3,4 256:3

CSLs 259:8

CSL2 253:21

CSL3 135:14

CSL5 257:15

cue 50:12

cumulative 272:1

273:19

curiosity 277:13

310:16

curious 63:6 82:22

156:19 220:16

310:21

current 24:3 41:14

42:18,21 43:3

44:8 59:6 84:10

92:12 93:6 99:3

151:6 155:8 173:9

173:10 226:11

227:12 237:16

247:1 251:6

257:14 285:20

294:1 322:19

currently 45:4 88:8

116:15 135:19

137:13 198:7

201:15 222:5

229:10 237:1

269:5 283:18

284:8 312:7

curve 206:11 212:9

212:20

curves 205:5 209:5

customer 64:1 69:9

customers 106:12

106:13 158:3

291:20

cutting 248:3,7

cycle 4:12 15:5

54:18 143:7,9,13

143:19 144:2,13

145:4 147:3

148:17 149:13

155:15 157:13,17

168:3,8,22 169:9

174:22 175:3,6,12

176:2,4,9 177:12

177:15,19 182:22

183:20 184:13

185:11 186:12,18

188:5,7 244:10

292:22 304:10

309:5,13

cycled 167:2

cycles 105:13

C-84.1 67:3,8

D

D 5:1

Dain 2:16 6:17

23:15,17

dark 266:15

data 13:8 14:11

66:1 76:6,7 77:15

79:21 88:6,7,9,10

88:11 89:4,16,17

89:17,18,18 90:9

90:12 119:2,20

120:3,9,10,12,15

120:20,21 121:1

121:11,15 122:9

122:10,12 123:2,4

124:1,22 127:16

129:11 130:5,7

132:15,18 133:7

134:12 148:10

149:9,16,18 150:7

152:7 155:5 159:2

167:17 169:19

186:3 195:3

212:16 213:18

233:4 277:5

date 323:18

Dave 253:19

259:18,18,20

David 2:14,22 3:4

5:16 9:9,13 206:7

206:8 246:7 262:8

262:9

day 37:22 91:1

142:21 157:7

185:6 190:22

325:16

daylight 222:1

days 13:15 197:5

day-to-day 121:15

deadline 53:17

323:21

deadlines 324:13

deal 114:14 121:10

292:12

dealing 80:5

163:16

dealt 20:7 112:19

decade 26:14 29:2

decades 26:15

deceive 266:11

decide 90:9

decimal 247:7

decision 43:7 46:22

89:3 125:8,11,20

231:1 262:19

291:11

decisions 228:22

229:9 231:16

233:12 234:10

308:17

decline 210:3,17

211:1,4 214:6

291:8

declining 195:18

decrease 218:3

decreased 35:17,18

209:18 214:7

decreasing 67:14

248:1

decree 53:17

323:20 324:3,6

Defense 7:3

defensive 257:17

defer 323:4

deficiency 246:21

define 58:13 233:5

233:10

defined 133:15

205:17 271:12

294:14

defines 46:10

294:11

defining 42:19

definitely 157:10

definition 41:14

46:2,4,5,9,16 47:1

47:12 48:1 58:14

129:16 131:10,17

131:21 132:4,19

133:9,13 134:1

288:15

definitions 115:21

degree 49:18 95:8

95:12 197:22

248:6 309:19

degrees 72:19,20

73:5,10 76:19

77:18,21 78:16

230:8

deLASKI 2:12 7:4

7:4 25:2,2,6,10,14

32:12 33:10,18

37:11,21 38:2

50:15 51:4,5 68:5

68:12 69:20 93:11

93:12 94:3,9

95:17,18 97:3,9

98:9 124:13 125:6

126:1,9 130:2,16

130:18,22 131:3

131:18 137:21

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 337

215:22,22 216:9

216:14,17 218:7,7

218:13 223:5,11

235:1,2,7,15,18

240:5,6 289:4,8

289:11,15 294:21

295:7,20 321:11

delay 296:19

deliberately 79:15

166:19

deliver 252:13

259:15

delivered 64:1

demand 275:13

demise 286:12

department 1:3,14

1:15,16,17,18 3:7

5:5 6:21 7:11,13

12:2 21:1 23:22

24:13 25:21 31:6

31:12 32:18,21

33:2,5 34:1 40:19

53:18 57:18 62:11

68:22 72:4 80:21

81:10,20 88:22

102:4,6 105:19

106:20 118:14

119:5,11 122:18

123:11 125:8

127:9,12,17,21

128:8 134:9,14,19

138:12,17,21

153:12 181:12

192:21 240:6

297:11 312:13

315:14 316:13

321:20 323:12

325:20 326:1,7

department's 89:3

196:19 295:22

311:21 322:19

dependent 264:6

depending 88:17

114:3 128:7 137:8

149:1 282:12

depends 280:18

Depot 223:7

derived 138:12

147:9,12,14

148:11,19 275:7

Deriving 150:6

describe 13:9 70:11

93:15 219:15

222:13 316:14

318:15

described 106:19

184:21 294:2

297:22 303:8

308:22 315:12

319:2 326:17

describes 299:2

describing 302:15

description 15:5

design 86:7 109:22

139:19 264:3

316:22 317:11,13

designations

314:21

designed 76:10

139:16

Designers 9:15

designs 106:4,5

112:16

desire 10:14

desk 143:1

despite 291:3

destroy 106:7

detail 13:2 37:20

66:10 102:17

108:16 152:21

278:17 299:4

308:14 318:16

326:17

detailed 15:4 23:14

33:21 153:12

details 62:12

determination

33:12

determine 18:10

21:4 41:8 66:1

130:8 134:7

149:15 172:5

231:17 271:19

313:9,22

determined 22:11

130:4 138:17

148:8 198:15

216:11 231:21

312:6

determines 236:2

develop 71:14

122:19 200:5

272:6 273:2

developed 79:17

225:7 227:10

244:15 272:11

274:17 275:12,16

282:20

developing 71:1

193:3

development 35:22

developments

315:6

develops 218:17

273:12,14,15

deviations 90:14

dialogue 17:15

diameter 58:8,19

85:12 134:16,22

279:11

diameters 59:3

134:4,5,7

Diana 1:19 4:12 8:8

143:4,6 164:5

173:1 189:16

201:1

Diana's 160:20

difference 111:7

123:3 129:11

130:13 139:22

174:6 207:3 208:3

208:8 243:3

256:11 257:9

266:2 267:3,7,12

272:20 281:15

292:18 298:8

302:8 306:7

318:12

differences 45:6

127:13 129:17

134:10 177:5

241:7,8 243:7

different 79:11

80:6 81:17 85:9

91:21 92:4 110:17

124:4 130:19

131:4 137:8,15

138:10,11 149:16

167:20 168:12

181:22 207:2

213:8 225:13

241:21 271:9

277:17 280:4,16

291:5 300:2

309:15

differentiate

276:11

differentiating

274:8 280:14

differentiation

274:10 277:1

differentiators

280:17

differing 320:3

difficult 112:20

113:1 140:6

207:12,13 212:11

235:19 262:12

301:15 318:11

323:19

difficulty 274:8

dig 100:11 154:5

digging 161:9

diluting 304:17

dim 67:17 201:9

DiMASCIO 2:13

diminishing 188:20

dimmable 200:22

200:22 201:3,5,8

222:6

dimmer 67:16

dimming 222:2

243:5 316:7

diodes 192:12

199:3,17,20 200:9

200:13

dioxide 312:3,6,22

direct 56:13 74:9

299:13,13 300:9

304:15 305:18

307:16 308:18

direction 116:2

212:3,12

directive 322:16,21

directly 14:22

56:21 71:4 118:7

124:17,21 125:9

125:13,17 220:18

233:15 301:5

302:6 323:5

dirt 108:8

disadvantage 140:3

disagreeing 78:13

disappearing

300:19

disappears 301:18

discharge 211:7,15

disconnect 147:22

222:4

discount 135:7

136:7 147:6 149:3

149:6 184:14

263:17 268:20

discounted 184:16

272:16 280:7

discounting 180:9

185:18

discounts 180:9

discuss 13:4 30:15

54:9 57:2 63:11

86:14 138:7

189:13 218:12

discussed 96:10

114:18 116:8

120:8 138:9 176:5

209:21 214:10

218:16 230:9

237:12 238:4

244:6 245:21

263:12 264:2

266:18 282:19

discusses 147:2

discussing 49:11

70:6 118:5 191:7

236:16 313:5

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 338

discussion 4:19

10:11 23:14 38:3

40:14 50:8 60:17

70:4 86:18 118:13

246:10 259:2

261:16 263:3

269:14 319:1

discussions 11:14

127:5 246:14

305:4

dislocations 213:15

dismissed 74:18

displaced 308:20

309:7

Disposal 148:2

disposed 162:14

disproportionately

268:10

distills 168:16

distinct 58:20

61:15

distribution 64:5

65:7 90:19 192:16

218:18 219:8

220:2 227:10,17

228:12,19

distributions

148:13 193:22

315:2

diversify 26:12

diversity 156:20

157:2,6

divide 243:8

divided 156:1

division 6:9,16

294:15

docket 16:7 326:14

326:22

document 13:3

19:13 30:12 53:14

53:20 54:14

documentation

184:21 197:10

documents 19:18

99:8

DOE 21:6,11,19

22:1,4,10,20

27:18,20,21 28:2

28:4,10 29:1,3,14

29:16 30:1,4,17

31:4,14,18 33:11

38:11 40:10,15

41:12,20 42:1,8

42:10 43:1,5 46:3

46:15,22 47:13

48:10,22 51:7,8,9

51:13 52:9,10,14

53:3,9,11 54:10

54:21 55:9,15,19

56:5,9,15,19,20

57:2 58:7,9,13,18

58:21 59:4,10,20

61:12 62:17 64:17

73:1 74:2,14

79:20 80:10 86:14

89:12 91:8 96:13

96:18 113:4

115:14 120:11,12

126:19 130:3

135:4 143:18

144:2,8,10 146:16

147:5 148:21

149:12,15,20,21

150:8,10,14,18

151:15 155:4,5,11

155:14,18 156:2,6

157:13,17 159:17

159:19,22 167:22

168:4,8 169:22

176:6 177:10

179:22 186:10,15

186:19,20 187:21

191:20 192:4,9,14

192:17 193:6,10

193:16,18 194:1

198:1,14,18 199:2

199:6,11,15,19

200:3,8,11 205:19

205:20 209:1,6

210:11 211:3,10

211:15 214:6

215:4,8 216:11

218:17 219:2,6,10

219:12,18 220:7

220:10,16 224:8

225:7,9,12,19,21

227:10,13,16

228:6,9 230:6,21

231:2,12,18,20

232:3,8 236:17

237:7,11,18,20

243:19 244:1,4,6

244:20 245:3,8,13

245:20,21 246:2

246:16 263:21,22

268:13,19 271:1

271:10,11,16

272:2,2,5,11

273:1,10,14,16

274:16 275:5,12

275:16 276:7

282:5,20 283:1,16

292:7 293:19

313:12,18 314:2

314:16 319:21

320:19,22 324:8

DOE's 22:15 27:4

30:12 43:7 52:7

55:8 56:4,11 98:3

193:4 224:16

226:9 287:18

322:5

doing 5:13 89:14

109:17 207:14

295:12 297:19

305:1

dollar 310:4

dollars 35:18

279:22 290:22

291:22 292:13

299:16 303:9

304:7 305:7

domestic 305:13

306:3,11,13

307:13 312:2

domestically

277:11,20 285:16

287:11

dominant 168:18

173:12

dominate 217:21

door 31:12 261:14

double 41:18 42:16

55:22 210:21

211:2,14 245:2

247:16 249:15,18

258:7

double-ended

107:15 108:4

109:5 135:17,22

137:6 138:4

Doug 1:11 3:1 4:15

5:11 8:4 9:20

13:20 16:3 32:13

33:18 34:4 38:7

126:3 270:13,18

277:14 294:22

321:11

Douglas 1:13,20

2:3 4:5

downstairs 269:22

downturn 196:6

do-it-yourself

223:16

DR 260:1 261:18

draft 33:6

dramatic 293:12

draw 79:9 289:22

290:5,8,9,14,19

294:17

drawing 279:9

290:12 294:8

322:10

drawn 79:10

drill 259:3

drilling 259:3

drive 109:21,22

115:10 162:8

257:20

driven 47:15 239:4

driver 282:7

driving 116:4

280:10

drop 206:15

dropped 48:19,22

DSI 2:10

due 30:5 35:13

59:14 66:18

125:21 135:9

141:1 155:20

192:1 194:10

208:9 209:7

210:14,17 211:4

211:11 214:7,12

214:15 215:6,20

216:5 226:18

265:7 272:22

277:21 284:2

307:18

dwarf 28:22

dwarfs 28:21

dwell 304:3

dwindle 205:7

D.C 1:11

E

E 5:1,1

earlier 41:4 73:18

80:1 86:15 139:5

154:22 176:5

203:11 208:14

209:21 214:10

218:16 220:4

224:12,15 226:9

230:9 235:20

237:12 241:20

244:6 245:21

264:2 266:18

269:11 287:3

317:6 322:7

early 163:10

211:21

earn 274:3

earth 248:13,15

249:9 254:11

275:11

Earthjustice 2:9

186:6

earths 248:19,20

251:17 262:12

easily 270:2

eat 190:2

echo 196:3

economic 21:15,22

22:17 143:11

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 339

173:21 186:17,19

196:6 213:2,15

238:18 285:1

286:7 287:4

311:19 314:9

economically 21:5

21:8,14 22:12

24:9 104:4,8

106:9,11 111:15

116:11 117:3

139:12 187:1,19

253:1

economics 82:14

106:13 212:17

241:8 248:6

economy 9:12

26:14 37:6 213:5

252:12 299:17,22

303:9

Ed 6:10 8:18 47:4,5

66:21 68:10 74:22

75:3 86:12 89:6

90:9 119:16 207:9

235:20 253:15

255:11 259:7

278:9,10 322:10

322:11

Edison 2:8 3:2,8

7:1 9:1,3,6 34:6

34:10 82:20

165:21 177:22

188:14 194:16

200:19 205:13

213:13 300:17

310:15

education 230:8

EDWARD 3:5,12

Ed's 212:4

EEI 44:4 63:2

100:10 140:13

151:2 156:18

214:18 220:15

226:3 296:11

314:13

effect 236:19 275:1

292:11 303:11

effective 30:21

effectively 66:4

105:15 136:7

169:22 209:22

220:4 245:6

effectiveness 163:5

186:13

effects 240:8

241:21

efficacies 127:14

201:3 244:9

efficacious 70:18

79:17 138:19

efficacy 56:7 58:21

59:13,15 71:1,18

72:2 81:6,13,17

81:18 85:2,7 86:2

86:3,5 88:4,6,15

88:17 89:1,5,8,22

91:13,18,20 92:9

92:13,16,19,22

94:22 95:4 99:10

100:6 101:2,2,8,9

102:5,13 103:6,21

106:19 110:1

113:18 115:17

116:20 117:22

118:5,18,21,21

119:8,12 122:20

123:2,5,9,13

127:13,22 130:13

134:10,15,20

138:12,22 140:1

191:18 198:9,13

199:8,18 215:17

219:7,9 227:10,17

228:19 229:4,15

229:18 230:12,14

231:5,8 238:12

244:7,8,11,12,16

244:22 245:3,9,12

245:14,15,17,22

246:5 264:1,7

274:3,4,6,9,20,21

276:1,6,12 314:4

315:1,2 319:5

efficiencies 113:11

134:6

efficiency 2:22 9:10

14:7 26:4,9,11

52:3,22 55:12

70:18 78:10 83:3

102:1 103:18

113:14 114:22

123:20 136:1

139:20 143:20

144:14,16,18,21

145:16,17,22

146:7,12,19 166:2

166:3 175:13,16

175:20 176:11,12

176:13 177:3,13

177:16 178:5,7

205:17 255:7

280:12,14 313:9

313:16 314:20

317:5

efficient 9:12 21:4

21:6 28:8 35:15

37:2 52:1 79:13

92:1,3 101:4

135:9 136:4

139:18 220:20

240:9,10 247:13

279:13 318:2

effort 12:10 246:15

efforts 326:8

EIA 149:9 155:6

EIA's 149:10

eight 41:17,18

42:15,17 55:21,22

123:19 124:9

131:6,18 188:17

EISA 18:13 63:7

133:13

either 46:12 48:8

87:7 105:5 114:16

144:19 178:6

EL 269:6,6 284:20

284:21

elaborate 75:5

election 26:6,8

electric 7:1 34:9

35:22 36:4,5

82:20 148:1

177:22 194:16

200:19 205:13

296:16 310:15

electrical 6:18

23:18,21

electricians 306:21

electricity 26:18,21

29:7 149:8,9

155:1,2,5 268:19

298:15 299:3,5

304:9 308:13

electronic 3:8

151:6,10 154:10

154:15 165:7

210:5,20 220:8,11

268:16 269:5

electronics 2:15

6:15 152:5 169:18

318:7

element 247:5

250:11,11

elements 249:9

250:14

elevator 142:2

eliminate 98:3

106:2,3 115:5

136:8 140:7 163:6

245:6 247:8

eliminated 105:7

eliminates 105:10

209:22 220:5

264:20

eliminating 43:2

82:14 105:2 274:6

elimination 210:17

256:8

elucidates 326:4

EL1 102:6

EL2 105:1 181:2

EL3 115:2 181:2

EL4 92:20 93:7,16

95:21 105:3 115:3

EL5 93:16 95:21

96:20 99:3 100:1

101:16 102:6,21

105:17,19,20

106:1

EL6 96:4 97:5

email 323:14,16

325:4,11,12

326:20

embracing 37:2

emerging 192:11

197:16 198:3,9

199:1,11 200:7,15

201:7,17 202:2

203:3 206:12,13

206:19,21 207:1

208:3,9,11,17,21

209:15 214:9,12

215:5,6,10,19

237:13 281:6,7

282:9,13 283:11

283:17 286:20

287:9,20 288:7

291:9

emission 36:2,17

311:18

emissions 21:21

34:13 308:10

309:3 310:5 312:4

emit 309:14

emitted 309:11,18

emitting 192:12

199:17 310:5

emphasis 26:3

employees 271:15

employment 4:16

15:11 55:3 243:21

273:19 299:10,12

299:21 300:11

302:21 303:6,13

304:1,18 306:3

307:18

en 190:8

enable 97:20

encompass 12:10

encounter 301:13

encountered

149:13 155:12

166:17

encourage 17:15

79:13

encouraged 11:11

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 340

ended 138:2

ends 141:20 142:1

323:18

end-user 287:4

318:10

energy 1:3,5,14,15

1:16,17,18 2:17

2:22 3:1,9 5:6

7:11,13 9:5,8,10

9:12 12:2,13 14:7

18:2 19:12 20:9

21:2,9,20 22:6

23:22 24:5,7 26:3

26:5,9,10,13 27:9

30:6 32:5 35:16

37:4,15 46:7 52:3

55:11 58:15 59:19

66:18 69:12 87:15

103:2,18 133:16

143:11,22 144:16

144:22 148:14,16

148:18 149:10

166:6 177:1

180:20 183:1,3,11

183:15 184:10

191:16 193:8,11

195:4 197:2 204:5

204:10 205:1,14

208:2 221:22

228:7,9 230:11,18

231:10,16 240:21

251:7,15,19 252:3

255:17,22 263:9

263:13,14,14

265:7,10 270:21

287:2 298:2 299:2

304:8 308:7

313:16,17 314:8

Energy's 5:5

energy-saving

222:8 231:1

242:17 293:5

energy-savings

297:18,20 298:6

engineering 4:10

15:1 38:15 54:17

57:3 70:7,11,15

102:10 141:4

225:14

enhanced 31:8

60:13

enormous 27:9

29:12

enter 16:6

entire 16:6 106:7

235:3,10 282:11

286:7 299:22

entirely 230:1

entities 64:6

entity 295:1,2,8

enumerated 40:11

environment

111:13 250:20

311:9

environmental

4:17 15:12 55:3

243:22 258:14

308:5 311:20

312:1 313:3

envision 135:13

EPAC 89:13

EPACT 117:11,19

EPCA 63:7 92:12

equal 42:12,14 44:6

44:9 46:13 56:17

59:1 95:12 134:8

equally 242:16

equals 195:22

equation 260:22

264:6 288:9

equipment 77:18

143:15 292:20

295:17 296:16

319:2

equivalent 95:6

135:14 138:13

ER 37:14 318:17

era 37:6

Eric 1:17 187:20,21

312:15 319:20,21

321:2 324:7,8

erode 202:8

eroding 238:21

283:18

erroneous 33:11

error 51:8

errors 78:9 159:7

especially 24:9

60:15 63:13 103:8

106:14 140:16

184:13 195:15

196:5 233:19

243:10 296:12

300:19 314:13

ESQ 2:9,20 3:11

essential 28:16

essentially 36:15

106:2,6 171:6

183:9 184:4 255:8

300:19

establish 89:4

91:19 123:2 130:3

199:1,14 264:7

established 55:16

56:9,15 57:14

58:10 59:4 60:13

71:18 72:3 101:10

102:9,12 118:17

123:8 127:17

192:14 227:17

230:6 237:21

244:1,7 263:7,22

establishes 54:21

55:10 244:21

establishing 20:10

85:6 120:22

192:20

estimate 160:21

163:7 191:11,16

193:19 240:20

271:7 299:21

312:2

estimated 101:7

191:21 194:1

199:12,15 281:21

300:6

estimates 222:17

235:19 255:13

297:20 300:5

301:22 308:19

311:8

estimating 163:8

et 202:4

Europe 317:9,21

318:1

europium 250:15

evaluate 136:14

268:8

evaluated 149:15

evaluation 119:7

325:19

event 145:13,14,15

145:16,21 146:3,4

146:4,8,15,15

147:20 156:2

163:20 175:9,10

175:10 176:6,8,18

176:19,19,20

events 144:3

145:11 175:7,8,15

176:18

eventually 290:8

everybody 5:4 10:9

10:17 270:13

325:4

ever-increasing

204:5

evidence 182:3

EV1 36:6

exact 161:3 223:18

223:21 251:5

exactly 65:19 78:17

88:11 95:14 97:8

174:17 302:20

321:8

examine 31:9

271:22

examined 134:9

202:3

example 77:3 88:13

113:15 144:4,9,17

145:17 148:10

151:19 178:7

216:15 218:8,20

238:17 241:7

242:7 244:12

276:14 279:14

284:5 290:10

295:14 301:12

307:19 318:20

examples 242:12

exceed 205:22

excellent 27:3

exception 269:4

324:11

exceptions 269:3

excess 111:18

116:16

exclude 46:18

48:14

excluded 63:7

224:5 319:12,13

excludes 46:6

exclusion 319:14

320:8,14

excuse 50:15 311:3

exempt 83:7 220:9

281:16 283:9

exempted 27:6

28:1,3 33:13,16

51:9,21 53:6,8

83:15 216:12

218:10 226:15

236:20 237:8

exempting 33:8

exemption 49:5

318:17

exemptions 49:8

exist 42:9 114:16

177:3

existing 21:16 41:6

46:9 54:6,16

64:14 70:17 73:8

111:22 114:10,22

123:9 146:5,10

192:11 198:2,5,15

198:18 199:10

200:21 203:9

209:13 216:21

217:7 260:5

266:22 283:6

292:5,20 293:2

exists 36:8 105:6

114:20

exogenously 298:7

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 341

expand 37:6

286:18

expansion 299:4

expect 116:10

133:17 180:11

183:11 184:4

204:10 218:2

expectation 164:20

expects 200:8,11

209:6 219:6,12

expeditiously 32:19

expenses 117:6

143:17

expensive 77:19

105:21 106:11

116:12 231:9

255:19,20 318:6

experience 176:15

207:15 269:8,12

269:17

experienced 304:8

experimental 111:5

expertise 230:6,7

230:20,22 231:4

231:12,14,15,18

231:22 232:5,9,14

233:16 234:1,11

236:3

experts 60:7

253:18

explain 66:9 227:7

278:2 319:17

explained 319:22

320:1,9

explains 66:12

185:8

explicitly 89:11

315:15

export 248:1

extend 41:12 42:10

43:1 48:10 64:17

71:20

extended 41:9

304:10

extension 44:17

extensive 16:5

extent 34:22

174:16 240:20

285:16

extra 104:10

extraordinary 12:9

extreme 159:16

290:5

extremely 49:21

104:1 127:1

128:16 286:16

326:6

eyes 266:11

F

face 172:8,9 202:5

faced 61:22

faces 10:6,8,20

11:19

facilitator 1:11

13:20

facilities 75:12

104:20 268:14

277:16 279:7

fact 66:19 100:1

135:15 166:17

185:3 203:2

204:20 217:12

221:3 243:8

248:15 286:20

302:4 303:20

304:6 305:10

315:13 324:18

factoid 136:21

factor 66:13 81:11

81:12 84:9 104:4

118:18,20 129:13

138:13 144:22

146:13 149:2

219:10,12,13

221:4,9 230:16

231:7 233:20

250:4 260:16

292:7

factored 205:2

301:3,5,20,21

factories 5:21

factors 20:8,13,15

55:13 120:13

147:13 188:2

220:17,17,22

234:12 262:6

fail 145:6 165:2

170:17

failed 170:10

fails 144:5,6 146:5

150:4,6 176:22

182:20

failure 145:13

146:3 156:3,5

158:8 175:8,10

176:6,8,15,18,20

269:8

fair 38:13 104:1

fairly 38:15 74:19

82:11 159:16

179:13 277:22

278:1,1

fallacy 255:22

falls 324:4

familiar 10:8 11:19

14:5 20:6 33:20

324:9

families 106:3,4

far 29:2 101:11

107:22 108:5

111:20 113:7

166:21 239:9

248:9 291:15

307:14

fast 53:15 188:20

202:16 291:16

faster 269:18

281:12

FCA 294:11

feasible 21:8 96:2

246:11 264:18

features 55:12

February 1:8 5:9

federal 13:17 20:2

32:20 75:22 84:10

186:11 272:3

322:14 323:8,12

323:17 324:21

325:8

feds 52:19

feel 64:16 66:1 68:8

72:15 90:3 152:1

315:5 325:18

feeling 34:22

feels 10:17

felt 149:21 151:16

fewer 293:1

field 11:5 76:14

150:1,5 151:19

Fifteen 155:22

figure 17:18 235:8

305:7

filament 109:16

110:10

fill 92:15 101:4

102:12 123:5,7

264:4

fills 92:1

final 19:9 20:3

32:21 155:4,8

165:15 188:6

261:16 284:21

294:5,7 314:18

322:7

finalize 273:20

finalized 326:15

finally 59:4 104:22

211:8 236:14

271:21 275:9

finance 149:5

financial 272:7

financially 272:4

find 29:20 91:1,7

98:9 109:5,15

112:16,16 126:16

161:15 188:17

249:1 280:13

286:21

finding 38:3

finds 282:6 326:2

fine 48:14 87:17

119:20

finished 302:14

first 27:14 44:16

54:15 55:7 79:3

102:22 114:15

115:7 121:8 135:3

143:16 165:2

179:15 183:13

184:15 185:2,3,5

191:20 199:15

209:11 228:14

229:2,12 233:3,22

238:1 241:7 245:9

257:12 281:4,5

297:12 301:6

Firstly 58:9

fit 136:2 137:6

262:17 323:2

fits 322:20

five 21:12 22:10,12

23:3 56:20 63:19

87:11 92:22

126:10 140:19

144:19 145:18

146:1 175:16,20

177:4 178:8

211:18 212:7

213:8 244:21

248:21 249:4

264:2 270:1

five-sixth 184:5

185:20

fixture 84:1,6

146:16 155:20

156:12 162:13,14

162:16 171:2

174:13 192:2

232:7 234:3,4,17

235:22 236:9

301:16

fixtures 83:2 84:5

146:17 157:4

172:2 195:21,22

220:19 252:19

253:6 306:20

308:1

flanked 60:6

flat 205:7 275:19

flawed 181:9

floor 40:14 141:19

142:3 190:5 193:6

193:10,13 238:3

flow 280:8 289:2,5

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 342

289:7 298:20

299:16 300:3

303:9 305:7 308:7

flows 272:13,16

280:7 288:20

300:2 303:6

fluorescent 1:5 5:7

12:5,16 18:8,11

19:6 20:22 41:7

41:10,15 42:19

46:2,5,6,7,10,11

47:1 48:1 54:7

57:6 74:1 83:1

89:2,5 91:19

117:12,16 118:8

118:11 119:15

127:6 145:10,12

148:3,5,21 149:14

155:12,14 168:17

189:17 193:20

194:2,4,9 197:20

198:17,19,22

199:5 200:2,10

209:3,14 222:18

224:11 228:15

244:2,20 247:1

260:5 263:8

277:10 278:16

284:18 288:18

306:19 307:3

fluorescents 166:16

168:18 197:8

277:22

focus 16:21 95:1

focused 69:8

focusing 305:17

folks 65:12 270:16

follow 128:21

138:9 160:6

170:20 179:14

184:17,22

followed 212:6

following 14:12,14

14:21 15:4,7,10

15:15 81:16 92:10

132:22 139:4

293:17

follow-on 17:16

49:17 87:3 206:9

296:4

follow-up 95:17

126:2 132:2,21

170:22 292:15

302:19 327:2

foot 41:16,17,17,18

41:19,20 42:3,5

42:11,15,17 43:8

55:20,21,21,22

56:1,2,21 57:8

71:20 74:1,5

80:21 81:21 82:14

84:16 85:5 119:20

122:21 123:7,14

123:17 124:7

144:10 158:6,12

161:4,5 166:1

168:16,18 175:1

209:4,5,6,8,9,12

209:15,19,22

210:10,12,14,15

210:21 211:1,5,8

211:12,13,13

218:20 224:22

245:1,1,2,7

252:17 254:19

footage 195:8,17

footnote 161:21

178:11

forced 21:16 61:21

forces 164:20 256:8

forcing 105:14

fore 23:11

forebear 322:22

forecast 191:21

192:21 193:9

196:20 197:18

199:16 203:3,4,7

206:22 209:11,12

209:14,16,18,19

209:19 214:21

215:1 217:7,8,8

217:18 287:20

295:13 300:12

forecasted 192:9

Forecasting 207:12

forecasts 192:19

193:2,4 198:6,10

199:15 200:5

209:2,4,11 210:11

211:16,17,19

213:8

foregoing 142:12

forever 167:11

form 149:9 325:19

format 14:6

forms 42:9

formula 91:9

Forrestal 141:17

forth 104:2 136:11

forward 10:10,13

23:21 25:13,21

54:9 122:2 196:7

202:17 312:9

324:19

foster 124:4

found 22:11 42:8

119:5,7 134:15

142:3 150:11

155:18 161:17,18

161:19 197:11

237:18 275:13

282:21

four 15:21 22:14

30:13 32:7,15

41:15,16,20 42:3

42:5,11 43:8

55:20 56:1,2 57:8

71:20 74:1 80:21

81:21 82:14 84:16

85:5,17 86:5

87:11 101:7

104:12 114:2

122:21 123:7,17

124:7 131:13

144:9 145:17

146:1 158:5,11

161:4,5 166:1

168:16,18 175:1

175:16,20 177:3

190:11 285:12,13

301:17

fourth 286:4

fourthly 31:18

four-tier 274:17

276:2,17

FR 242:14

fraction 222:13

fractions 249:5

framed 94:20,21

framework 19:13

54:14 305:10

framing 94:15 95:4

FRANCINE 1:16

freed 306:17

frequency 167:19

frequent 167:15

frequently 14:10

fresh 53:4 270:3

freshen 270:5

front 19:21 107:21

250:9

fruit 35:8 141:14

full 159:10 162:7

188:1 190:4

197:10 263:11

267:22 280:19

fully 201:8 227:6

function 92:12

316:6

functional 95:3

fundamentally

238:11 317:21

318:11

funds 149:5

funny 39:22

furnace 53:11

furnaces 294:10

further 39:8 43:19

47:13,17 57:2

60:17 61:5 74:22

82:15,17 98:5

169:7 205:4

227:21 233:21

234:18 253:12

273:1 286:3 293:3

294:3

future 79:18 280:9

281:8 285:19,21

FYI 64:2 206:3

G

G 2:19 5:1

gain 71:10 104:12

219:6

gaining 49:19

231:9

game 201:12 206:1

games 45:9 104:2

gap 123:8 125:3

gaps 123:6

gas 34:9,13 92:1,15

101:4 102:12

264:4

gathered 272:6

275:6

gauging 186:19

GDP 300:3

GE 2:19 3:12 6:7

6:10 43:13 47:5

65:21 133:21

249:15 290:9

gee 114:6 285:7

general 1:5 5:7

12:4,16 18:7,11

18:15 19:6 20:22

36:3,19 41:6,9,15

46:5 48:8,12,16

48:21 49:3,20,22

50:18 54:7 57:6

65:6 70:15,19

72:15 73:17 78:14

82:9,13,13 83:22

89:1,4,7 90:1 91:4

91:18 102:22

118:8,10 119:15

124:13 127:5

128:4,22 141:3,13

162:11 177:12

187:7 194:9

198:19 199:4

200:2,10 209:2

211:22 212:11

222:18 224:10

229:15 244:19

268:12 269:1,3

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 343

274:4 276:20

284:18 288:17

296:16 300:17

314:2 322:21

323:2,4

generally 55:9

58:21 64:22 72:9

73:19 79:5 119:17

125:18 153:4

160:18 176:10

212:7 229:3

232:12,22 263:15

263:17 265:9

generate 128:17

253:2

generating 308:13

generation 298:17

298:19 299:5

308:20,21 309:10

generous 104:12

gentleman 25:1

34:2 165:16

geometry 135:22

getting 32:9 95:22

142:8 162:2,3

221:10 224:3

227:9 256:5

Ghatan 2:14 9:13

9:13

give 16:8 35:19

133:11 143:1

150:3 169:15

234:22 242:12

278:18 301:11

303:2 311:7

312:16 325:7,22

326:2,4

given 21:5 29:13,16

91:1 111:21

142:17 144:13,16

164:4 215:9

225:17 261:18,21

274:18 286:18

300:13 301:22

304:2 315:5

318:20 320:11

gives 152:13

240:19

giving 20:19 182:7

200:16

glad 5:4 10:9

global 5:20 104:18

275:13

globally 5:21

GM 35:21

go 8:12 14:13,22

20:14 23:12 25:1

29:20 38:21 39:3

39:7 55:5 70:10

73:14 83:17 86:1

89:10,14 93:14

95:11 107:12

108:15 109:5

112:7 113:4 114:5

114:7 115:18

116:2 121:6,17

142:3 166:7

180:16 181:7

182:13 190:2,4,6

190:14 203:22

204:8 205:4 207:9

208:14 213:3

218:6 222:19

223:5 232:18

234:12,18 240:12

242:6,7 247:5,18

248:17,22 251:14

253:21 261:17

266:4 278:10

292:2,21 293:14

295:4 299:16

301:12 318:3

324:20

goal 26:16,17,20,20

27:3,8,8,12,14

39:3,6 251:14

297:16 308:6

goes 37:22 70:19

166:9 212:10

269:18 291:15

295:18 316:21

going 5:12,13 10:2

11:7 13:19 14:2

16:18 17:7,13

20:16,19 23:6,12

31:10,22 34:16

37:18 40:22 41:2

54:4,8 55:5,7

70:10 74:3,22

80:17 85:11 86:18

87:4 88:2 93:12

93:15 102:22

105:2 110:6 115:3

116:5,9 118:5

121:21,22 122:10

122:17 141:6,8,10

142:9 143:6 146:9

154:19,21 155:9

157:5 165:1,4

174:19 177:6

180:19 184:1

190:8 203:15

204:14 206:15,17

206:17 207:15,18

214:2 216:2,5

220:20,22 223:8,9

238:6 239:7

242:17 248:4

249:18,20 250:3

250:12 252:3,13

253:21 254:13

255:6,15,17,18,21

257:5,6,15 258:8

259:6,10 260:13

262:17 263:1

264:21 265:12,13

266:4 269:20

270:3 277:18

291:8,12,16,17

292:3,7,10 293:13

293:19 295:17

297:11 299:9

301:8 312:8

314:16 318:4

323:4 324:20

good 5:3 11:21

20:18 70:8 87:1

109:13 117:4

135:21 142:6,8

182:6 190:18

233:1 259:12

270:13 277:2

286:11

goods 305:2

gotten 148:14

166:20 188:4

Goudarzi 2:5 4:18

297:9,10,16 299:9

301:4,21 302:16

302:22 303:3,19

305:5,16 306:5,9

306:13 308:6

310:11 311:2

312:12,20

government 6:19

272:9 313:17

governor's 34:12

gradual 279:19

gradually 280:2

Graham 3:5 8:14

granted 304:13

graph 92:6 94:21

182:18 206:13

217:3 293:5,10

graphs 208:19

grasp 187:13

Graves 1:15 4:4,7

4:21 7:12,12

11:21 12:7 16:2,3

17:21,22 40:1

323:3,3 325:6,17

325:21

great 10:12 36:11

121:10 210:9

285:16 299:3

308:14

greater 13:2 42:12

42:13 44:8 46:13

46:14,17 47:2

56:17 118:12,16

276:13 286:1

319:5,7

green 25:9 95:10

249:4 258:5

greenhouse 34:13

Greg 3:4 6:2 60:9

61:8 67:21 102:14

102:15 111:3,3

113:21 133:10

135:1,2 137:5

139:3 179:5 196:1

238:6 242:19

261:5 284:15

286:13 287:13

292:14 302:17

303:14 317:16,17

Greg's 197:16

202:9

GRIM 272:10,13

273:2,14 275:8

280:1 283:1,21

GRIMs 272:11

gross 275:21

ground 190:5,5,6

190:10 258:2,6

group 118:20

grouped 56:5

grow 202:10 203:5

209:7 211:11

212:3,12

growth 34:19 35:7

193:5,7,12,13,15

194:1,4,8,9,12

195:14,20 196:9

196:14,19,21

202:8 205:5,9

208:21 210:13

GSFL 21:11 22:5,8

27:19 30:18 38:11

43:15 46:3 50:16

55:15 72:5 126:6

191:17 193:20

198:14 201:18

225:6 228:8

229:20 230:4,10

246:4,6 265:5

270:22 272:12

274:1 280:10

293:22 294:4,17

guess 29:18 47:8

48:18 96:3 122:6

132:21 166:11

168:15 203:13

260:2 265:2 277:2

284:5,11 314:13

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 344

320:12

guessing 158:19

guides 273:15

Gupta 2:6 4:7,10

4:13,15,18 7:16

7:16 20:17,18

40:9 41:3 44:7

45:17 46:1 50:7

50:17,22 54:3

58:6 64:12 66:11

69:18 70:3 86:22

96:8,9 97:8 98:1

98:12,22 99:15,15

99:20 100:18

125:15,15 126:8

126:11,17 160:7

160:20 161:1,11

161:13,18 162:10

162:18 163:18

165:12 169:5,5

191:5,6 194:21

197:6,15 201:1,15

202:13,16,20

203:1,21 206:5,18

207:7 208:7,20

210:9 214:3 215:2

216:4,13,16 217:1

217:4,6,12,17

218:5,11,15 221:2

221:13 222:15

223:10,14 224:3

224:20 225:6

226:8 227:8 228:4

232:21 234:4,14

235:5,9,12,16

236:10,14 239:17

240:12 241:11

243:15 253:12

256:15 263:6

265:5,18 266:6,14

266:21 267:4,8,11

267:17,21 268:3,7

313:4 314:22

guys 99:9 132:10

278:7 279:8 305:9

H

Hakkarainen 2:15

6:14,15 152:3,4

153:2,5,8,14

169:16,17 216:19

216:20 217:2,5,10

217:15,22 221:20

221:21 315:22

316:1

half 32:5,10 103:22

139:10 159:8,10

159:12 160:7,14

162:5,17 163:10

163:21 164:1,13

164:15 171:1,8,9

172:15,17 183:14

184:15 185:19

253:6 301:1

halide 192:13

199:4,21

halides 199:13,17

hall 142:2,5

halo 73:7,13 247:2

247:8,11,13,17

249:14 262:11

halogen 92:18,20

92:21 96:14 101:4

102:11 103:17

105:4 116:3 129:2

129:11 131:7

135:17 138:3

139:20 181:3

225:16,18,20

226:5,7,13,13

227:14,19,20

237:18 238:21

244:14 264:5

281:22 287:11

halogens 92:14

129:15

halophosphate

43:18

halophosphor

71:15 72:5,11

79:12,14 85:11

245:10

halophosphors

71:13

halophsophor 71:9

hand 67:5 142:20

handbooks 109:4

handed 142:21

handle 10:15 11:7

handled 10:16

handouts 19:21

Hang 266:4

Hansen 2:16 6:17

6:17 23:17,18

happen 75:12

213:5 242:5

249:22 258:22

259:5

happened 278:15

happening 216:2

236:8 279:18

happens 51:20

215:3 246:22

252:11 259:12

273:9,13 280:17

294:16

hard 184:17,22

187:13 188:17

321:3

hardware 221:16

Harris 2:17 196:22

197:1,1 207:22

208:1,1 242:20,21

hastening 286:12

hate 305:12

head 154:1 158:19

223:20

headlines 30:9

heads 65:13 259:10

hear 17:6,12 76:20

212:5 223:4

297:14

heard 64:3 254:2,6

254:10 275:11

heart 139:6

heartily 10:8

heater 28:19

heavy 261:13

height 267:22

held 1:10

Hello 143:5

help 49:1 66:1 94:2

169:9 182:3

228:11

helpful 34:1 127:1

181:22 182:1

241:17 249:6

315:7

helps 93:22

hey 270:16 292:16

Hi 25:2

hides 305:14

high 11:4 39:5 42:5

42:13,16,22 43:9

55:22 56:3,22

57:15 61:16 72:1

73:4,12,12,14

74:13 76:6 89:20

102:1 114:22

121:16 125:17

126:21,21 128:13

129:3 135:13

138:3 155:16

156:6 158:3,8,20

159:6 163:19

166:2,3 170:3

172:14 173:11,15

176:16 197:22

205:16 210:22

211:2,6,6,9,14,14

223:12 230:20

231:14,18,22

232:3,5,14 239:6

245:2,13 250:3,3

264:22 267:17,22

275:3 281:19

282:6,14 284:2

291:16 292:2,2,9

309:4,12

higher 27:20 30:1

31:11 59:16 62:5

64:4 65:17 66:16

66:17 67:7 70:18

71:1 77:11 81:13

83:3 85:2,7,21

86:1,2,7 91:20

92:2,3 98:19

99:11 103:9,9

106:15 110:19

112:22 113:5,14

114:7 116:4,20

117:5 119:14

138:8 139:2 140:5

143:20 144:21

146:6,11,19

157:10 175:13

176:12 189:2

194:8 219:9

229:15,17 230:11

230:14 231:5,8

238:19 250:1

263:18 274:3,3,7

274:20 276:1,1,6

276:13 281:13

285:22 287:2

292:21 306:10

314:4 317:14

highest 21:7 96:20

229:3 244:22

247:5

highlight 187:9

highly 103:19

205:9 286:21

high-efficiency

198:21 205:17

HIR 31:7,8 92:17

93:16 101:14

105:2 114:1 129:2

129:12,12,15,18

129:21 131:7,7

282:2 284:5

hiring 306:21

historical 28:15

35:10 149:18

150:7 192:5

193:12,17 210:22

214:4 216:7

268:14

historically 195:8

history 213:20

hit 27:15 182:7

260:19

hits 182:6

HO 252:3

home 157:4 168:7

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 345

193:22 195:9,21

197:3,9 223:7

242:15

homeowner 179:19

homes 165:1

193:21 194:2,19

195:5,7,17,21

197:8 202:15

honest 10:13

Honestly 202:18

hope 30:15 31:1

182:15 187:3

234:8 285:8 326:7

hopefully 302:12

hoping 324:17

horizon 286:19

Horner 2:18 6:4,4

38:7,8 39:19,21

60:1,2,2 108:11

108:12,12,20

109:1,11 111:3

136:20,20 201:20

201:21,22 202:14

202:18 211:19,20

213:14 232:15,16

232:16,22 234:7

234:15,20 266:1

266:10,10,19

267:2,5,10,15,19

284:13,14,15

297:1,1 322:3,4

hour 105:1,5,8

113:22 114:10,15

115:4 116:21

151:20 156:9

158:3 163:19

166:10 173:11

190:1,19 309:4

hours 26:22 37:17

81:8 109:12 110:7

110:8 111:18

114:5,9 115:10

116:16 117:1,14

148:7,9 150:3,15

151:14,17,21,21

152:14 153:1,6

155:16,17,18,22

155:22 156:1,7,7

157:7,9,10,16,19

158:8,20 166:5,11

168:7,9,10,12

169:8,14 170:3,4

171:21 172:5,12

172:14 173:16

176:5,7,16 178:6

178:8,18,20,22

180:7,12 255:4

268:20

house 84:2

household 29:11

193:18 194:11

households 29:5,8

housekeeping

142:16

houses 268:13

housing 92:2

Howley 2:19 6:7,7

43:11,13,13 49:16

57:10,11,11,19,21

60:11,11,22 64:19

64:20 65:8 72:7,8

82:3,4 83:13 84:3

105:18 123:16

128:4 129:5

189:14,15 204:2,3

205:6 264:14

290:17

huge 26:5 36:13

266:12

Humphrey 2:20,20

3:11 7:8,8

hurdle 238:18

hurdles 31:2 33:4

hybrid 36:21

I

IACC 314:15

ICC 205:22

idea 48:12 259:12

identification

326:22 327:1

identified 32:8

70:21 85:8 127:9

248:10 268:13

271:11,17 303:15

303:16

identify 70:16

101:19 271:7

303:17

ignored 29:19

30:11

II 273:13

III 273:16

immediately 33:6

impact 4:13,14,16

4:16,17 15:7,9,11

15:11,12 29:13,17

29:21,22 30:4

55:2,2,3,4 78:10

168:4 169:3

189:12 191:5

195:19 226:21

239:3,3 270:15,20

272:4,10 274:14

276:16,18 279:15

280:6 284:19

285:10 286:6

287:22 292:19

293:11,21 297:13

297:17 299:7,10

299:21 300:18

302:5,21 303:5,7

303:12 305:18

311:2,3,8 313:6,7

315:10

impacted 18:13

268:11 271:19

288:16 294:4

impacting 240:21

impacts 21:2 22:7

24:13 38:14 54:19

62:12 143:11,21

191:8,15,20

226:10 241:12

243:20,20,21,22

270:21 271:7,22

272:21 273:18

275:16,19 276:1

276:12 283:3,4,10

299:12 300:9,10

301:7 303:21

304:14,15 307:16

313:10,22 315:1

imperative 24:12

implemented 203:6

203:18 272:9

275:8

implications 133:3

287:15

Implied 90:8

implore 24:17

imply 75:7 304:16

import 117:20

important 103:7,11

104:1 105:13

110:20 145:15

146:4,8,15 147:8

148:8,17,20 149:4

220:1 243:3,6

245:5,18 249:8

321:8

imported 116:1

117:13 277:12

imports 117:20

imprecision 45:13

improve 25:20

27:21 94:2

improved 27:18

92:14,18 93:1,15

102:11 284:5

improvement

25:11 30:13 92:21

101:8 104:14

318:3

improvements

93:18,20

improving 25:10

101:3

ImSET 30:6

299:19 300:12

inappropriately

61:3

inaugural 26:7

incandescent 1:6

5:8 12:5,17 18:8

18:15 19:7 21:1

22:9,22 41:7 51:2

54:8 58:6,16 59:2

59:16 64:15 67:16

67:17 69:2,5

91:17 96:11,12

100:3 118:9 127:6

127:9,20 128:22

134:5,17 138:7,14

145:5 177:7

197:20 200:3,11

203:4,9 206:19,20

226:6,19 228:16

237:17 243:4

244:3 264:8,11

288:19 316:3

incandescents

201:8

incandescent-type

226:14

inches 59:1 134:9

include 45:10

46:17 47:2 92:1

101:14 103:7

149:16 184:3

198:20 244:9

271:13

included 84:9,22

85:16 90:10 148:2

179:18 184:14

191:22 217:3

223:22 312:8

includes 143:16

216:22 230:5

including 38:15

44:18 169:8

217:10 319:6

inclusive 216:10

incomplete 139:8

incorporate 74:16

incorporates

283:16

incorporation

264:4

incorrect 48:9

164:5

incorrectly 61:6

72:17

increase 30:19

103:21 104:17

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 346

145:16 177:13

195:16 204:1

214:11 247:12,14

250:13 255:7,15

306:8 317:5

increased 26:3

35:16 37:15 59:17

175:17 237:10,21

238:1 314:15

increases 263:15

263:19 275:22

increasing 48:7

51:11 67:14

177:13 194:10

214:15 263:15

265:9,10 286:3

292:22,22 314:3

increasingly

104:15

incremental 165:4

165:5,10 171:7,9

174:12 289:1

incrementally

293:8

increments 257:9

incur 282:3 284:4,7

Independence 1:10

58:15

independently

253:16,20

indicate 75:10

214:6

indirect 299:12

300:10 304:14

305:18 306:2

indirectly 125:14

individually 273:7

indoor 239:15,20

241:20

induced 145:14

175:9,14

industrial 2:19

3:12 85:20 111:12

148:4 193:10,12

industry 21:18

35:4,14 37:4

43:11,14 44:19

49:18 57:12 64:21

65:12 71:19 72:8

76:22 77:1 78:3,4

82:4 87:8 112:5

128:5 181:16

212:1 249:7

253:22 260:4

272:1,15 273:12

275:7 281:8

283:11 284:8

286:17 288:1,16

288:18,19 289:14

290:11 292:19

industry's 322:4

information 14:11

18:20 23:1 40:5

90:18 148:14

152:8 157:13,15

179:13 182:10

207:19 232:10

271:2,2,4 272:6

273:6,11,18,20

275:6 310:21

informed 182:3

informing 323:16

infrared 39:4 92:5

92:20,21 93:20

96:15 116:6

135:20 226:14

227:21 244:14

264:5

infrastructure

260:18 293:2

inherent 134:10

139:20

inherently 134:6

135:9,16 318:2

inhibit 40:20

inhibiting 35:7

initially 210:13

216:3,4

innovation 35:4,14

37:3

input 10:14 11:2

13:6 81:12 138:11

147:4,9 148:8,17

149:4 180:22

193:3 197:17

307:21 322:1

inputs 147:3 273:2

293:20

input/output 307:8

INPV 21:18 272:15

275:16 276:16,18

282:7 283:3,21

284:2,17 293:11

293:13

INPVs 285:21

insert 323:18

inside 141:17

install 146:21

175:22 230:16

308:1

installation 147:12

147:19,22 179:18

180:2 210:4,20

302:1 305:14

307:19

installations

146:17

installed 143:16

174:22 175:17

176:12 177:4,5

179:7 180:3 181:9

182:21 184:9

298:19 302:7

installing 231:6

307:9

instance 105:12

152:13 307:2

instances 177:15

Institute 3:8 7:1

82:20 177:22

194:16 200:19

205:13 310:15

institutions 268:14

integrated 111:13

299:1 317:3 318:7

intend 17:20

intended 48:21

90:11 299:21

intending 310:6

intends 245:21

intensity 211:7,15

intensive 279:6

intent 95:14 320:20

321:4

interacting 323:8

interest 10:12 11:4

298:14

interested 13:6

62:11 325:9

interesting 36:10

78:6 111:20

115:14 169:22

212:15 261:16

263:3

intermediate

183:20

internal 36:14

292:12

International 9:14

205:14

interpretation

320:9,21 322:5

interpreted 292:16

interrupt 278:8

interview 273:15

interviewing 273:1

interviews 221:14

271:18 273:5,16

273:17,22 274:2

277:19 281:2,18

inter-temporal

309:20

introduce 270:11

introduced 11:17

71:10 101:3,16

221:5

introduction 43:18

218:2 245:10

introductions 4:2

5:13

invalidates 286:6

invest 286:17 291:2

investigate 97:18

297:17

investigating

136:12

investing 291:7,8

investment 36:3

280:3 290:22

291:13,22 292:13

295:16 301:9

investments 282:10

282:12 286:2

288:21 291:5

invitation 181:21

invite 12:13 57:4

156:13 177:18

194:12 264:10

284:11

invited 13:11

invites 40:10 72:4

81:20 88:22 102:4

102:7 119:11

123:11 127:21

134:19 138:21

211:15 246:2

293:19,21

involve 197:4

involved 35:21

324:1

involves 89:19

108:8

IO 300:1

IR 39:3 63:9 64:21

65:8 98:20 99:2,6

99:10,21 100:4

102:1,9 105:6

113:1 114:20

116:15 135:17,22

181:4 292:17

293:7

IRL 22:9 27:21,22

31:5,15 39:2 51:9

59:4 68:3 102:5

102:11 106:18

107:13 178:1

179:9,10 191:18

194:2,5,7 196:9

196:13 199:6

201:18 202:1,8

203:7,16 204:1

214:6,7,11,20

215:14 217:9,19

225:8,12 228:8

229:22 236:12,16

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 347

237:2,4 238:9,13

241:19 263:20

265:4,8 270:22

272:12 277:10

279:4 281:2,7,8

281:11,12,15,21

283:1,4,18,21

285:18 286:7,12

287:21 294:5,17

295:19

IRLs 31:7,16 178:3

216:22 226:6

281:13

isolumen 231:1

issue 37:14 53:4

63:10 66:9 75:1

103:17 132:22

135:5 139:6

155:11 181:10

260:3 264:21

281:17 282:16,20

288:14 293:18

294:11 295:10

297:6 316:2,4

317:22

issued 28:17 53:11

78:9 323:11

issues 4:19 11:12

13:5,13 14:16

15:17 23:11 40:11

40:13,16,18 50:14

51:1 53:12 60:18

64:5 79:3,21

84:12 86:14

100:13 102:20

106:20 112:5

124:4 138:5

149:12 222:1

242:1 250:20,20

259:14 261:6

274:2 275:2,9

281:3 297:12

315:15,20 322:9

item 44:5 191:4

items 292:6 297:6

J

J 2:3,22 3:8

Jack 3:2 9:2 165:20

188:13 213:12

252:1 300:16

Jeff 8:2 196:22

197:1 207:21

208:1 242:20

JEFFREY 1:22

2:17

JENNIFER 3:12

job 29:16,20,22

30:3 286:11

jobs 26:14 30:3,5,7

30:10,11 37:5

39:10 258:18

299:18 300:3

301:19 305:13

306:8,12,14

Joe 6:7 43:10,12,13

49:15 57:10,11

60:8,11 64:19

72:7 76:18 82:3

83:12 102:19

105:16 123:15

128:3 129:8

189:14 204:2

264:13 290:16

Joe's 128:21

John 3:11 8:16

222:11,12 254:9

306:17,18 318:13

320:16,18

Jon 3:1 9:4 34:5

163:2 165:14

170:19,21 182:12

JOSEPH 2:19

journals 71:19

judicial 324:12

jump 181:2,5

257:15

jumped 208:13

June 19:10 20:3

27:13 53:16

Justice 3:7 6:21

justification 186:17

186:19

justifications 285:1

justified 21:5,9,14

22:13 90:3 187:2

187:19

K

k 2:18 46:13,13,14

46:18,20,20 47:3

48:5,6 56:17,18

184:22

keep 16:21 47:8

118:1 127:3

155:10 174:19

214:2 263:4

324:20

keeping 312:10

Kelvin 49:19

key 14:16,16 104:4

147:3,4 248:11

274:1 281:3

315:15

kidding 212:6

Killed 36:5

kilowatt 26:22

255:4 309:4

kind 63:5 85:5

113:11 128:14

132:21 156:19

157:10 165:22

181:21 201:7

205:22 206:9

220:16,18,21

221:1,18 246:9

251:12,20 262:4

305:4 310:20

319:17

kinds 243:8,9

299:17

Kingman 1:22 8:2

8:2

kitchen 84:1 166:2

166:8,15 168:11

kitchens 167:13

KLING 2:14

knew 160:19

know 12:11 13:14

14:20 15:21 17:11

33:20 34:21 36:12

37:15 39:9 44:18

45:10 49:7 63:8

64:7 66:8 67:5,6

76:22 77:10 78:21

79:16 80:5 83:2

86:17 90:22 97:18

105:18 112:20

117:17 119:19

125:11,12 130:6

133:3 139:19

140:14 141:19

153:11 155:4

157:9 166:2,12,15

167:6 168:17

169:12 170:15

172:7,13 181:22

182:1,2 184:11

185:1,5 186:8

188:18 195:12

201:13 207:12

212:10 213:2

220:20 223:7,9

226:4 232:17

233:15 238:22

246:13 249:13,19

260:22 262:14,20

292:6 295:15,16

296:16 298:22

307:15 326:19

knowing 23:12

knowledge 125:1

239:6

known 76:22 83:15

322:15

knows 78:17 96:13

Korane 2:21 9:11

9:11

Kristen 3:7 6:20

L

L 2:10

lab 72:20 114:13

labeled 133:1

labeling 133:18

labor 147:13,13,14

147:15,16 300:19

301:1,18

Laboratories 3:1

3:10 9:17,21

laboratory 3:3,6

8:15 111:8 112:21

113:6,7 121:18

labor-intensive

307:13

lack 36:20 52:14

286:2 291:18

312:10

laid 26:17

lamp 6:11 24:2

38:10 41:15 42:3

42:4,5,6,9,20

45:11 46:2,5,6,10

46:11,11,12 47:2

47:6 48:6 49:10

49:19,21 51:8

55:16,20 56:2

58:8 59:2 66:4

67:17 71:12,17,20

72:10 73:13 74:1

74:5 76:3 81:2,3,5

81:6 82:1 83:1

87:15 89:2,5

90:12 91:17 95:3

96:12 100:3 101:6

101:12,14 105:2,4

105:13,22 106:1,5

107:13,14,20

108:14 109:1

111:13 113:9,15

114:15,16 115:15

115:19 116:6,12

116:12 119:2

123:17 124:3

129:3 130:10,13

131:14 133:15

134:12,13,16

135:20 136:10

138:18,19 139:9

139:15,17 144:4,5

144:6,7,18,20,21

145:3,6,8,12,12

145:19,20 146:7

146:10,12 148:6

148:21 149:1

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 348

155:13,14,19,21

155:21 156:3,5,8

156:9,10,14 158:6

158:7 159:9,19,20

160:1,4,11,13,14

162:5,13 163:6,9

163:14,20 164:8,9

164:21 167:14,20

168:2,12 169:8

171:4,7,12,21

172:8,18,19,20,21

173:14,17,18,22

174:2,5,10 175:8

175:8,21 176:6,15

176:18,19,19,20

176:21 177:1

178:4,6,7,17,17

179:1 180:3

182:20 183:7

189:19 191:11

192:1,8 210:18

214:14 222:5

224:13,21 225:17

229:2,12 230:12

230:14,16 231:5,9

237:8,22 239:8

243:4 244:13

251:6,7,19 254:20

255:5,5,8,19,20

269:8 284:5

286:12 288:18,19

301:13 316:4

lamps 1:6,6 5:8,8

6:1,5 12:5,6,16,17

18:8,9,11,15 19:6

19:7 20:22 21:1

22:10 23:1 27:6

28:1,3,5 31:22

32:2 33:8,13,16

37:14 41:7,8,10

41:11,16,18,20

42:2,2,11,13,16

42:17,18,22 43:2

43:9,18 44:8,17

44:22 45:4,10

46:7,17,18,20

47:2 48:1,13,14

48:16 51:3,21

52:1,4 53:6,7 54:7

54:8 56:3,6,8,10

56:12,14,16 57:7

57:9,15,16 58:7

58:12,17,19,20,22

59:6,8,11,15,17

59:18,22 60:14

61:22 62:8 63:6,9

63:12 64:15,16

66:3,18,20 70:16

70:22 71:9,16

72:2,6,16,18 73:2

73:6,8,8 74:8 77:2

80:6,21 81:13,18

81:19 82:10,11,15

85:6,10,12 91:2,6

91:19 96:11 102:9

106:7 107:18

111:5 114:10

115:1 116:1,5

117:12,17 118:8,9

118:11 119:14

121:17 122:17

123:7,14 124:7,8

126:20,21 127:6,7

127:10,12,15,20

128:2,6,22 130:10

132:4,8,12,22

133:22 134:4,5,18

134:22 138:8,9,15

139:2,14 140:7

143:18,20 144:1

145:5,10,22 146:1

148:3 159:9

163:12 166:1,3,6

166:10 167:2

172:4,6 173:11

175:4,13,19 177:3

177:8,9,14 184:6

188:18 189:8,10

189:10,17,18

192:13 193:17,20

194:2 198:19,21

199:4 200:2,3,11

203:4,10 209:3

210:4 211:7,10

213:1 216:11

218:10 219:3,4,6

219:9,19,21

220:20 221:10,11

221:16 222:14,18

224:8 225:1,14,18

225:21 226:14,14

227:13 228:15,16

231:17 236:20

237:14 238:2

239:13 244:3,3,20

245:7,8,10,13

247:9,11 249:7

251:5,10,18

252:20 253:4

255:3 259:16

262:11,15 263:8

264:8,12,20 274:3

274:4,6,8,20,21

276:6 281:16,22

283:9,14 285:18

285:19 300:20

307:10 316:21

317:15 318:17,19

318:21 319:5,8,11

319:11,13,15

320:6 321:14

lamp-ballast 87:19

land 52:11,18,21

Lane 2:11 7:2

262:1,2 311:15,16

language 319:9,13

321:9

lap 260:12

large 21:17 47:16

59:10 129:20

175:17 177:4,5

178:19 271:20

278:1 282:8 290:6

290:10 296:12

larger 134:7

largest 29:2 36:14

36:22

lasts 301:17

late 213:16

Laughter 39:18,20

78:19

launch 14:4

Lauren 3:10 9:16

law 117:12 320:5

layer 261:13

LC 2:14

LCC 143:13 179:7

181:8,10 185:4

225:15 268:20,21

269:1,9,13,14

271:9

leader 12:8

learn 31:1

leave 68:11 190:16

leaving 37:16 51:8

86:7

led 25:9 68:18

202:4 203:14

204:6 207:5

214:20 215:16

LEDs 199:12 203:8

203:8,16 207:7

209:17 215:13,17

215:20 217:21

left 20:13 31:16

52:4 103:15

156:11 163:21

164:15 184:7

218:22 286:15

legal 33:12 52:6,7,9

295:1 320:21

legislation 117:19

legislative 18:21

legitimate 62:16

legitimately 139:13

Lehr 2:1 8:6,6

length 71:17,20

137:22

lengths 137:8

lesser 309:19

Lessly 2:5 4:18

297:9

let's 62:17 65:10

75:16 100:20

103:20 111:5,8,14

111:17,21 115:18

116:7 127:2 143:3

174:19 180:18

181:3 189:22

191:3 196:8

208:14 210:6

225:5 238:20

239:2 247:19,19

252:21 268:3

269:19 270:10,16

277:4 284:12

293:4,8 308:4

level 21:3,4,5,7

22:5,12,14 23:3

38:13 39:7 53:7

61:1,5 73:18

85:21 86:3,5

87:10,20 88:18

90:22 91:3 92:13

92:16,19,22 93:1

93:1 95:15 96:1

96:10,16,19,20

98:3 99:4,12

100:6 101:2,9,17

102:13,21 106:8

108:6,7 111:22

113:15 118:18,21

118:21 123:5,17

128:13 135:13

144:14,16,19

145:17 175:16

177:17 178:5,8

190:5 212:9

228:22 229:4,14

230:2 236:4 239:6

244:5,10,10,12,15

244:16 245:12,14

245:15,18 247:5

250:3 254:13,13

260:19 261:8

264:1,17 284:2

286:11 292:17

293:13,13 306:10

306:19 309:21

314:8

levels 4:14 12:14,15

15:8 21:7,12

22:10,22 27:20

30:2 31:11 34:14

34:16 43:20 54:22

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 349

69:16 71:1 72:2

73:15 81:17,18

85:2,7 86:2 88:5,6

88:15,21 89:1,5

91:13,18,21 92:9

95:4 99:10 101:2

102:5 103:2,9,14

105:3,9 106:19

107:1,11 113:5,18

117:22 118:5

119:13 120:22

122:20 123:9,13

127:14 128:1,10

134:21 136:1

138:22 146:1

175:13,20 176:11

176:12,13 177:3

177:13 180:20

229:18 238:20

243:17,18,19

244:2,4,7,8,11,19

244:21,22 245:4,9

246:4,6,11 250:1

252:16 263:7,18

264:11,15 265:4,6

265:9 292:9,21

317:15 320:6,10

320:11,12

Lew 3:9 9:18

Lewis 1:14 4:4 7:10

7:10 10:4 11:18

181:19,20 182:11

183:17

license 100:15

life 4:12 15:5 54:18

59:12 62:1 66:4

92:17 101:14

104:3 105:4

108:14,18 109:1,4

109:11,14 113:22

115:15 117:14

143:7,9,13,19

144:2,13 145:4

147:3 148:17

149:13,19,20,22

150:9,11,12,20

151:16,18,18

153:19 155:15,21

156:11 157:12,17

158:3,4 160:2

161:20,22 162:7

163:21 164:15

166:19,21 168:2,8

168:22 169:14

170:8 171:2 172:1

172:16,17 173:18

174:12,22 175:3,6

175:12 176:2,4,9

177:8,12,15,19

178:17 182:22

183:20 184:6,13

185:11 186:12,18

187:11 188:5,7

244:10 255:4

280:14

lifetime 81:7 102:8

103:18,22 104:7

105:14 110:6,7,13

110:20 111:15

114:4 115:20

116:13,19 139:10

139:16 140:2,9

143:15 149:14,15

149:17 150:3,6,14

150:18 151:4,11

151:12 155:13,19

155:21 156:8

169:8 178:2,4,7

179:2 180:13

208:5 243:6

282:11

lifetimes 103:16

111:17 151:8

156:14,14 167:8

168:13 192:7

light 83:14,21 84:4

87:20 93:22 95:12

95:15 102:8

133:20 145:1

146:20,22 168:1,5

168:17 192:12

199:16 209:15

220:18 221:9

242:15 252:13

253:2,5 255:20

266:12,15,19,21

267:6,8,19 322:19

lighting 2:7 3:7,9

3:10 5:18 6:3,8,9

6:11,16 7:7,9,19

7:20 8:17 9:14,19

11:5 12:8 38:9

49:20,22 102:16

112:19 148:12

156:20 157:2,4,14

195:20,22 197:19

205:16 230:5,7,9

230:20,22 231:3

231:12,14,14,18

231:22 232:5,9

236:5 239:6,16

248:17,21 252:14

260:1 261:19

295:14 296:13

297:4 314:16,20

314:20 323:15

lights 166:14

167:11 168:6

light-emitting

199:3,20 200:9,13

liken 35:5

Likewise 79:19

limit 41:21 45:4

46:16 48:4 132:18

295:22

limited 37:7 120:15

129:18 155:19

286:19 290:22

291:4,21 292:1,13

limiting 222:7

limits 42:18 75:15

Linda 1:15 4:4,7,21

7:12 12:7 16:2

17:21 41:3 322:12

323:3 324:10

325:3,17

line 61:16 67:3,7

76:2 79:9,9

249:16,17 278:19

279:9 280:13,20

317:4,22

lineal 225:9

linear 166:16

168:17,18 277:21

lines 95:10 207:4

208:3 262:7

263:16 275:4,5

279:17,17,20

319:3

liquefaction 104:20

Lis 2:22 9:9,9

list 43:22 181:18

243:18 323:16

325:11,13

listed 42:20 281:3

293:18 297:6

listen 11:13 24:17

listing 43:3 142:18

lists 41:11 244:4

literature 71:19

119:8 148:19

149:17 150:2

151:13

little 25:8,16,17

28:15 29:14,16

35:19 36:12 40:5

43:20 54:10 63:5

74:10 86:17 88:4

94:8 120:8 124:2

124:5,6 128:11

152:14 171:13

184:12 213:19

216:20 223:19

241:19 257:17

270:5 279:2

317:18

live 151:14,22

320:4

lived 178:17

lively 10:10

load 104:5

loading 292:19

local 262:19 306:21

Lockard 3:1 9:20

9:20

locked 190:15

251:9

locus 131:12

long 13:15 101:14

104:3 112:19

116:13 166:19,21

196:20 257:2

280:18 301:17

longer 18:16 59:12

66:4 92:17 105:4

136:3 146:2 151:8

151:13 177:2

180:8,10,12,14

longest 178:17

look 23:21 35:5,9

35:20 53:4 63:16

65:18 70:17 79:14

90:22 91:20 95:21

96:9 98:1 101:3

129:12 130:12

132:15 154:7,16

164:19 174:2

180:20 181:1

182:18 183:6,22

184:8,9 186:7,9

206:11,12 211:22

217:6 222:2

233:21 234:8

239:14 240:15,21

249:22 250:2,21

252:8 258:21

261:1 267:21

276:14 278:3,15

284:1,22 293:10

296:15 299:15

300:11 323:1

looked 45:3 71:12

80:9 99:9 118:14

129:16 179:12

248:11 249:2

307:18 318:8

looking 10:10,13

11:2 37:15 62:1

65:22 79:21 80:19

81:5,16 82:9 85:2

88:4,7 91:21

92:14,16 95:22

99:3 101:22 103:5

113:5 118:10

119:1,2 121:1

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 350

122:16 124:1

127:8 134:4,11

152:12 156:21

159:2 160:11

161:14 163:5,13

163:19 164:6

165:10 171:6

178:11 182:19

183:8,13,14

196:18,20 212:2

236:5 240:9,10

255:2,8 256:12

259:8 264:15

266:9 295:19

298:14 307:1,3

315:17 317:14

looks 38:18 45:2

102:1 202:18

246:9 254:21

270:2 271:1,10

272:2 273:10

285:5

loophole 28:6,12

31:17,20 32:2

33:4 48:15 62:20

66:6 133:4

loopholes 27:22

28:2 31:15 76:10

loses 290:3

loss 52:3 305:13

316:5,7

lost 59:19 66:18

301:19

lot 10:7 11:18 17:6

37:19 38:19 63:8

76:1 77:10 80:4

89:17 106:2 120:9

120:10 121:13

128:7 132:22

142:8 167:12

186:3 190:10

197:4 204:7

248:10 252:10,15

253:11 258:20

259:1 277:5 286:8

290:18 304:4

lots 17:11 23:13

304:2

love 228:2 258:18

258:19

low 72:11 79:11

81:11 84:5 125:18

139:19 170:5

180:21 231:14

232:9 280:15

309:5,12 317:4

lower 41:21 58:21

59:14 74:10 79:16

90:10 95:11

115:18,19 129:7

134:6 137:10

144:22 146:12

179:17 205:8

219:13 220:17

221:4 230:14,16

234:12 245:16

274:4,6,21 275:18

283:4

lowered 74:6 88:17

101:10,13 274:20

lowering 281:14

lowest 229:2,12

244:10

low-income 268:13

268:15

LPW 72:18 73:5,17

108:17 109:9

110:2,14,15

LPWs 72:16

lumen 56:12 72:9

74:4 80:7 88:20

90:17 115:16,16

117:2 225:13,15

225:18,21 227:9

230:19 252:20,22

lumens 74:2,7,10

75:14 81:7 94:22

95:2,5,6,9 123:18

128:6 205:18

251:2,3,3

luminaire 147:22

212:18

luminaires 172:2

212:22,22 233:9

233:14,19

luminous 319:4

lumped 241:9

lunch 15:6,7

141:11,21 188:8

189:22 190:2,14

190:21

Lutron 2:15 6:15

152:4 169:17

316:1

M

M 2:16,20 3:2,12

MA 2:15

machine 257:21

269:22

macro 307:7

magnet 36:9

magnetic 151:5,10

154:11,20 163:17

165:6 210:1,17

219:14 220:5,11

269:10

magnitude 306:10

mail 326:20

main 18:5 37:12

54:17 180:6

270:19 271:6,21

274:2 275:2

maintain 27:20

31:4 35:1 87:20

95:12,15 111:17

116:2 146:22

229:16 246:19

275:21 294:1

maintained 283:5

maintaining 145:1

230:18

maintenance

105:12

major 18:9 167:10

190:3 193:3

197:17 279:15

280:16 281:17

300:20

majority 30:21

66:2 129:21

154:18 164:22

189:16 252:14

264:20 277:16,19

281:20 282:1

making 44:10

120:9 160:1

170:17 226:12,16

227:1 231:15

249:7 251:11

281:16 301:5

322:20 324:4

326:18

makings 296:19

311:18 322:18,22

324:12

mall 148:10

manager 291:10

mandate 244:13,14

mandatory 75:21

313:9

manner 72:17

manufact 289:10

manufacture 65:6

107:18 116:6

136:9 276:21

294:16

manufactured

111:1 117:13

287:10,12

manufacturer 4:14

15:9 23:4 36:22

55:2 65:12 77:14

120:21 121:9

147:6 148:19

149:17 150:2

151:13 193:11

221:14 243:20

260:8 270:14,20

273:22 284:19

285:10,22 288:21

293:10,11,21

294:12 307:16

313:15

manufacturers

6:18 21:18 22:17

23:19,21 24:2,8

24:11 38:10 72:21

95:1 97:16,20,21

98:11 119:2 126:7

126:22 134:13

152:6,10 153:1,9

167:18 181:1

196:7 228:2

233:12 234:6

262:3,19 270:22

271:3,12,17 272:4

272:22 273:6

274:1,5,7,9 275:3

275:6,10,20 276:4

276:11,15,21

281:2,5,10,18,22

282:14,19 283:16

284:3,6 285:6,18

288:6 293:22

303:16 317:12

manufacturer's

120:18 122:19

274:13

manufacturer’s

272:7

manufactures

294:12

manufacturing

89:20 103:4,8

121:16 271:8,14

274:19 286:6,13

292:5

man-hours 308:1

March 19:7,15

margin 75:16

132:17 274:4,15

275:21 309:8

margins 276:5

294:1

MARIANNE 2:13

mark 3:7 7:20 90:7

182:6,7 260:1

261:18

market 28:1,7

31:15 36:13 47:14

48:7 49:13,19,20

51:10 71:10,10,14

79:15 82:15 115:1

115:6 125:17,19

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 351

126:5,6 129:20

136:8 137:1,17

140:8 148:12

157:14 168:21

172:9 179:21

189:11,18,20

192:15 196:13

198:17 199:14

200:4,8,10 201:17

202:1 204:21

207:5 211:21

217:14,19 218:3

218:17,21 219:7

221:3,12,17 224:5

224:11 225:7,17

225:19,22 226:7

227:18 228:5

231:11,13,19,20

236:1,4,8 237:11

238:4,14,21

239:16 240:3

241:19 245:7

247:1 252:15

256:8 259:13

272:12 274:7,11

274:11,22 279:4

279:18 281:7,12

282:2,10,12

283:19 287:21

292:4 295:19

312:7,10 313:21

314:3

marketed 46:11

131:9,15 133:19

marketing 49:2

77:9

marketplace

107:12,13 108:2

298:16 311:6

markets 197:21

198:22 199:5

211:15 212:16

288:22 289:1

310:20

markup 274:17,19

275:20 276:2,15

276:17 280:11

markups 106:16

274:20 275:17

masse 190:8

massive 12:11

166:13

match 88:10,11

matched 95:14

matching 96:2

material 104:19

109:7 258:1 263:5

269:16

materials 112:16

297:7

math 91:8

mathematically

95:5

matrices 192:15

218:17,21 222:21

225:7 228:5 238:5

240:3 313:21

matrix 227:7 300:1

matter 19:2 142:12

matters 11:6

maturation 198:8

mature 198:10,16

199:7

max 96:10 107:1

113:13 244:9

maximize 22:6

maximum 96:1

215:9

MaxTech 95:22

McCABE 1:18

McHUGH 3:1,1

9:4,4,4 34:4,5

162:20 163:2,2,4

164:18 165:13

170:20,21 173:8

174:1,11,15,18

182:13 183:19

185:9,13,17 186:1

222:12,12 254:10

254:16,19 255:1

306:18,18 318:14

320:17,18

mean 84:8 93:15

97:15 98:10

100:13,14 107:22

121:19 132:12,14

132:16 157:1

201:11 212:10

247:21 256:11

257:11 258:3,16

262:10 289:16

290:18 302:6

304:16 321:4,8

meaning 52:11

155:6 286:5

meaningful 290:13

means 147:14,17

186:18 205:4

meant 27:14 52:20

187:16 315:3

measure 62:9 95:2

109:14 110:1

149:18,20 150:9

150:11,20 151:15

153:18 161:20,21

165:8 172:1

186:13 308:12

measured 88:10

300:9

measurement

77:17 110:11

measures 170:8

measuring 127:14

302:10 311:10

medium 41:16,20

55:20 80:21,22

81:21 84:16 85:6

122:21 123:7

144:10 158:6,12

161:4,5 175:1

209:4,6,20 210:1

211:12 218:20

224:22 245:1

meet 23:2 27:7 29:7

86:4,6 89:22 91:2

104:7 115:1,20

129:16 131:10,16

132:16,19 133:2,8

133:8 140:9

190:16 205:21

meeting 1:5,10 5:6

12:3,12 13:20

16:16 22:3,18,21

24:16 27:3 71:8

118:13 190:21

322:13 324:18

326:6,11 327:5

meetings 10:22

14:8

Melnyk 3:2 9:2,2

165:18,20 167:9

168:15 188:9,13

188:13 213:12,12

252:1,1 300:14,16

301:11

Melynk 300:16

member 5:22 321:5

memo 324:9,12

memory 214:18

memos 52:7 323:6

mention 73:20

195:2 278:5

mentioned 26:7

41:3 71:7 73:18

85:15 95:19

104:11 114:8

137:6 153:18

202:3 203:11

249:12 259:7

264:14 275:17

300:8 310:3

mentioning 101:22

mercury 260:20

280:15 308:19

309:9,11,14

310:10,17,19

311:1,4,5,9,12

merely 146:20

176:7

merge 51:16

merging 51:14

met 27:12 131:20

132:4

metal 192:13 199:4

199:13,17,21

method 102:2

125:14

methodologies

12:21 13:7 134:20

methodology

119:12 123:12

127:22 138:22

184:20 272:5

293:20

methods 19:5

MIA 271:6,11,16

271:22 273:9

mic 25:4

Michael 1:18 3:2

242:22

microphone 98:16

161:9 165:17,18

223:1 241:16

microphones 17:5

25:11

mid 15:15

mid-afternoon

15:14

mid-morning 15:2

migrate 51:20 52:4

226:17 237:8

migrating 28:7

236:20

migration 59:18

227:20

Mike 2:2 7:14

170:6 171:16

184:18,19 187:5,6

207:3 240:13,14

241:14,16 256:4

278:22 288:12

289:4 294:1 295:4

308:3

million 29:8 262:15

284:7,10

millions 279:22

Mimi 2:6 4:7,10,13

4:15,18 7:16

20:17 40:7 70:9

85:15 86:21 96:7

96:9 99:15 100:19

101:22 125:15

126:4 160:5 163:4

169:4,5 189:13

191:5 208:18

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 352

232:16 235:1

mind 32:14 126:3

166:7 213:13

mini 245:7

miniature 42:3,5

43:8 56:1,3 211:6

211:9

minimum 32:1

41:21 56:7 75:22

78:10 89:22 103:6

117:14 128:14,14

245:17 264:7

mining 251:16

258:15

minor 119:22

254:4

minus 63:19

140:19

minute 116:8 303:8

minutes 141:9

166:8,8 167:1,1

269:20 270:1,6

missed 11:16 160:7

197:2 302:18

misses 238:12

missing 142:22

183:4 247:6

misspoke 180:14

mistake 10:4 69:11

mistaken 115:2

misuse 62:18

mitigate 66:18

mitigating 22:7

mix 191:12 225:8

233:2 242:18

257:14 261:2

mixed 298:17

mixes 225:10,11

mixing 171:14

mixture 231:13

mode 11:1 16:22

model 71:14,15

101:7 102:9 117:4

156:5 192:22

193:5 218:9

225:12 230:7

236:19 239:3,10

240:17 250:2

268:18,20 272:10

295:15 298:5,7,22

299:1,19 300:12

302:4,9 305:8,14

306:2,2 307:8,22

308:12,13 313:19

modeled 51:19

167:16 168:19

181:6 198:1,18

229:21

Modeling 298:3

models 35:13 214:7

229:7 236:17

299:4

modified 28:5

31:19,21 58:11,13

58:14 60:5,9

61:14 68:7,14,17

69:15 127:7,10,14

127:19 128:2

130:12,14,19

131:5,10,16 133:1

133:9,13,16,22

modify 313:20

moment 108:18

133:19 136:15

238:18

monetize 310:16,22

monetized 310:2,9

money 291:5,13

304:22 305:2

306:17

Monte 157:18

months 27:14

morning 5:3 11:21

20:18 30:9 70:8

190:18 316:20

motivation 262:7

motors 36:3,9,20

Mount 258:11

Mountain 248:14

248:18 249:3

258:12

move 32:19,21 50:5

53:15 54:4 80:13

113:18 122:2

243:16 247:19,19

251:1,2 256:4

263:18 270:4

297:8 308:4

movement 237:21

moving 118:1,1

143:4 155:10

196:7 214:2

243:14 256:2

262:5 263:4 312:9

multinational

290:11

multiple 91:7

144:15

multipliers 180:18

180:21

MYER 3:2

N

N 5:1

Nadel 3:3 44:13,14

44:14 48:2,3

65:14,15 79:1,2

84:7,8 87:4,7,14

87:17,22 88:3

113:19,20 115:9

120:6,7,19 129:9

129:10 137:4,5

153:16,17 154:2,9

154:17 157:22

158:1,9,13,22

159:5,15,22 162:1

162:15 169:10,11

169:21

NAI 300:7

name 5:14,16 16:18

16:19 23:16,17

34:3 43:12 90:6

94:11 106:21

107:3,6 112:6,11

143:5 162:22

165:17 188:12

213:11 259:19

270:13 297:9

names 133:20

nation 21:22

national 3:2,5 4:13

6:18 8:15 15:7

23:18 54:19 148:1

168:3 169:2

189:12 191:5,8,15

191:16,20 195:6

195:10 226:10

241:12 243:20

263:9 298:2

303:22 306:3

313:10 314:8,9,22

nationally 189:19

nationwide 194:20

Natural 3:6 7:2

133:20

Navigant 1:19,20

1:21,22 2:1,2,3,4

2:6 7:15,16 8:1,3

8:4,6,8,11 121:9

135:4 171:16

246:13

near 140:18

nearest 88:20

nearly 106:6

necessarily 139:8

139:18 238:13,20

necessary 73:14

103:3 128:19

need 17:1 20:11

24:6 27:17 29:7

39:6 53:15 78:13

78:14,15,21

111:17 118:1

124:6 125:14

139:13 141:13,16

247:10,16 248:5

251:16 260:17

261:12 292:17

295:15,16 300:21

321:12,17

needed 82:16

135:22

needs 10:15 27:18

27:20,21 28:2,4

30:17 31:4,14,17

31:18 32:1 33:14

77:21 187:2,3

negative 103:19

177:16 184:13

195:19 269:9

276:18 284:1

285:5,8,21 286:1

286:18 287:22

292:10 293:12

303:15

negatives 303:16

neighborhood

301:1

Nelson 3:4 6:2,2

61:8,8 62:14

67:22 102:15,15

111:4 114:14

115:12 133:11

135:2,2 137:11

138:1 139:4 179:6

179:10,12 180:4

180:11,15 181:15

196:2 238:6,6

239:21 242:10

261:3,6 286:14

292:15 296:6

302:18 303:2,14

303:14 304:17

305:12 317:17,17

NEMA 2:16 5:22

6:5,8,12,16,17

23:20 39:17 47:11

60:3 73:5,20 76:5

80:11 89:7 121:4

152:3,6 192:6

211:1 214:5 216:8

222:16,17 316:3

NEMA's 74:15

80:1 119:5 254:12

NEMS 298:9,11,21

NEMS-BT 298:4,8

308:12

nervous 36:12

NES 191:16

Nesting 3:4 5:16,17

206:8,8 224:19

246:8 252:6 257:4

257:7,11,18

259:20,20 260:6

262:9,9

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 353

net 21:21 191:17

263:9 265:10

269:13 272:15

288:1 303:11

304:15,19 305:13

305:21

nets 174:10

netted 303:7

305:20

never 52:10,11,22

242:13 261:7

282:15 307:17

Never-Never 52:18

new 10:21 17:5

25:22 26:14 28:6

31:20 32:2 35:2

37:2,6 42:1 54:22

70:12 84:21 88:16

88:21 92:22 145:7

145:9 146:6,14,16

147:20 164:10

172:21 175:21

176:22 179:13

192:3 193:5,14

195:7 202:15

203:17,18 204:7,9

204:20 207:14

209:7 211:11

212:22,22 214:15

232:2 233:6,8,8

233:14 234:1

251:7 261:8

288:22 294:10

313:13 315:6

318:21 321:17

324:11

newer 291:9

newly 101:3,16

news 285:6

NIA 275:18 276:8

283:2

NIA's 313:19

nice 5:10 25:11

47:20

niche 49:12

nine 107:22

NIST 74:15,18,20

75:7

nominal 63:15

75:20 89:15

120:10

non 200:21 201:2

313:12

nonlinear 113:2

non-covered

283:14

non-exempt 227:2

227:3

non-halogen 226:5

non-proprietary

22:19

non-regulatory

313:8,11

noon 15:6 141:11

NOPR 18:22 21:11

22:1 27:4 29:19

30:12 31:13 32:17

32:19,22 33:3,7

33:14,15 40:10

41:13 42:1 45:1

48:5,9 52:14 53:5

53:14,16 54:11,13

54:15 55:1,9

59:20 61:2 63:4

68:21 73:20 74:14

81:1 88:16 93:7

96:9 98:2 125:20

136:13 144:12

153:22 154:3

161:21 197:12

247:3 248:2,12

251:10 253:20

258:10 273:14

303:1 309:1 310:3

313:5 318:15

319:22 320:1,9,15

321:21 322:13,14

NOPRs 53:10,12

Norm 8:20 112:12

normal 76:11

116:3 129:11

170:1 233:20

253:7

normalized 183:18

Norman 2:10 107:7

North 318:8

northeast 2:22 9:9

312:7

Northwest 3:2,5

8:15

note 72:21 73:9,22

74:7 123:19 128:8

147:18 148:20

187:22 220:1

245:5,19

noted 317:1

notes 48:6

noteworthy 244:11

notice 12:3 13:1,16

18:19 19:4,14,17

19:22 128:21

161:19 186:11

197:13 326:17

noticed 88:9 132:3

Nox 308:18 309:3,3

310:10 311:13

NPV 191:17 263:13

263:16,19 265:7

NPVs 286:19

NRDC 2:11 262:2

311:16

number 27:16

59:11 73:1 74:6

90:11,16 91:6

95:19 129:20

130:8 150:3

152:11 157:15

160:1 161:3 170:9

173:4 193:17,20

194:2,11 195:20

197:7 203:20,21

214:14,22 224:14

225:1 234:17

240:19 247:9

259:15 280:3

293:1 299:19

309:10 326:22

327:1

numbers 27:4 73:3

73:6,10,18,21

74:1,13 78:14,15

91:11 121:11

126:20 129:2

156:22 181:14

200:16 218:9

222:3 233:3,22

235:3 278:3,5,18

285:5 303:4

308:22 309:2

NVLAP 74:15

75:11

O

O 5:1

Obama 26:4

Obama's 27:11

objective 43:17

objectives 34:12

121:22

obligation 52:9

obscure 241:10

305:12

obscures 304:20

observation 197:4

observed 275:19

276:2 283:4

observes 69:6

obtain 129:19

obvious 159:1

obviously 19:3 67:2

78:8 108:16

128:10 183:5

206:1 257:19

286:8 317:8 320:3

323:19

occupancy 166:22

occur 177:16

occurred 75:17

174:3

occurs 77:12,12

89:20 146:4 219:9

283:6,11

OEM 233:4,12,18

234:5,9

offer 61:20 64:22

offers 27:2

office 26:1,2 323:7

official 326:11,12

officially 323:11

offset 304:13

305:19

offsetting 240:8

offshore 259:4

off-base 249:13

oftenly 42:4,6

oh 107:7 159:22

161:16 178:13

185:17

oil 259:2

okay 16:10 17:3,18

17:20 20:5 33:9

33:17 37:21,21

38:5 40:4 43:21

45:17,22 47:11

48:3 49:14 50:4

54:2 58:1,5 61:7

62:21,21 65:13

68:2,12 69:20,21

70:2,3 75:4 78:20

80:13,16 83:21

84:15,19,20 86:19

86:21 87:1,17,22

88:1,2 91:12,15

94:9 95:16 99:20

100:7,20 109:9

113:16 115:12

118:3,4 120:6,19

122:3,14,15,16

124:11 126:1

127:2,4 129:8,9

132:7,20 134:2

136:18 137:3

138:6 140:10,20

142:15 143:3

153:7,11 155:9

158:13,22 159:15

162:1 164:18

165:13,19 169:10

169:21 171:15

174:15 180:4,15

181:18 183:5,5,19

183:21 185:17

186:2 188:4

189:21,22 190:18

191:3 195:1

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 354

197:14 201:4,19

203:5 206:4

213:22 216:9

217:18 218:13,14

221:8,15 224:2

225:4 228:4

234:15 235:15

236:10 239:21

240:1 243:13,15

253:10 255:1,10

256:3 257:17,18

259:21 262:15

263:2 265:2,19

266:19 267:2,20

267:22 268:1,7

269:15 270:12,18

270:19 275:15

278:16,21 280:22

281:1 283:20

287:14 293:14

294:20 296:8

297:5,8,14 299:8

305:16 308:3

309:7 310:12

311:14 316:12,16

old 10:6 35:6

older 35:13 204:8

204:19

old-style 226:6

once 10:5 82:7

129:1 205:20

250:1 263:6 325:4

ones 54:17 119:3

125:18 131:9,20

132:16 133:5

201:11 249:9

285:15 288:6

299:13,13

one-fifth 183:9

one-sixth 183:10

183:15 184:5

one-third 219:20

247:2,15 250:6

ongoing 75:10

322:17,22

online 259:6

OnLocation 2:5

297:10

open 53:4 115:17

238:2 298:5

opening 4:3 10:2

23:7 24:22 31:12

40:13 51:6

operate 67:11

115:4 150:4

operated 59:11

114:17 138:15

309:16

operating 117:5

138:18,20 139:10

140:17 143:14,17

148:7,9 151:21

152:15 155:16,17

156:1,7 157:5,16

157:19 158:3,4,8

158:20 159:7

163:19 168:7,9,9

168:11 170:1

171:21 172:5,12

172:14 173:11,16

175:2 176:5,7,16

178:18 180:7,9,12

268:19

operation 92:4

258:15

operational 64:4

opinion 182:1

opportunities

38:20 111:20

293:17

opportunity 10:18

14:14 15:15 23:9

23:13 27:2 31:9

37:3,19 41:1 71:8

73:17 97:13 105:4

140:8 208:16

234:22 286:17

315:18 320:19

322:7,8

opposed 69:5 185:2

298:9 304:19

optical 134:6 135:7

135:9 136:6

option 105:1 229:2

317:11,13

options 68:16,16

85:8 86:8 91:22

105:7 115:9

136:15,17 164:6

230:9,17 264:3

316:22,22 317:2

oral 16:8 326:10

order 33:13 45:9

111:14 143:21

156:5 191:19

248:3 249:18

268:18 308:15

ores 248:18

organizational

5:15

organizations

258:14

organized 310:19

original 75:6 327:2

originally 49:11

101:10

Osann 3:5 8:18,18

322:11,11

OSI 249:16

Osram 2:18 6:4

38:8

ought 122:1

outcome 302:21

outdoor 239:12,14

239:20 241:20

outlets 91:7 223:7

outline 102:19

137:14 300:17

315:17

outlined 32:6

outlining 52:7

outlook 149:11

193:8

output 42:3,5,11,13

42:16,22 43:9,9

56:1,2,2,3 57:15

57:15 72:1,2

95:13 145:1

146:20,22 210:22

211:2,6,9,10,14

220:18 230:19

245:3,8,12,13

255:21 308:18

309:4

outputs 272:13

outrageous 254:5

outset 16:2,12

25:15 39:15

outside 31:16

outweighed 21:20

overall 126:6 184:4

281:20 287:5

305:14

overlooked 316:20

overnight 256:21

overriding 303:18

overseas 278:6,13

287:10

overview 4:6 14:4

14:13 16:12 19:1

20:20 208:16

overwhelming

189:16

owned 289:19

297:2

owners 269:10

ownership 116:18

239:5

owning 143:14

owns 289:11

o'clock 15:3 190:12

O'NEILL 3:11

O'Rourke 2:7 4:11

7:18,18 57:1 70:5

70:8 78:22 80:17

84:20 86:16 87:12

87:16,18 88:2

91:16 93:9,19

94:5 95:8 96:6

100:21 118:4

120:14 122:5,16

124:20 127:4

128:20 129:14

130:9,17,20 131:2

131:6,20 132:6,9

132:14 133:6

134:3 138:6 141:2

P

P 5:1

pace 279:19

Pacific 3:2,5 8:15

34:9

package 56:12

225:15,19,21

227:9 240:10

packages 225:13

packaging 232:11

packet 14:2,8 23:8

page 4:1 19:19,20

19:21 48:5 161:20

169:7 247:3 297:7

pages 14:18 315:14

Pam 6:4 37:10 38:6

38:8 39:16 60:1,2

108:11,12 111:3

136:19,20 201:20

201:22 203:1

211:19 223:8

232:15,16 266:10

284:13,15 286:14

287:7 296:22

297:1 322:2

PAMELA 2:18

Pam's 293:9

panel 65:12

par 60:13,15 61:6

61:15 111:13

135:7,8,8,20

136:2,8,10,22

264:18,18,20

paradox 171:20

parallel 78:7

parameters 272:7

Pardon 107:4

Parker 3:5 8:14,14

parse 167:18 241:1

243:7

parsed 167:7

part 11:13 26:5

30:11 54:4 59:3

68:7,9 71:11

74:12 81:1 86:17

101:18 118:12

136:17 201:13,16

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 355

218:16 233:14

235:3 249:21

286:2 287:12

305:17 311:19

317:20 326:11,13

Participants 4:8

13:11

participation 326:1

327:4

particular 25:18

33:3 57:7 75:1

102:6 104:11,16

107:13 118:16

122:17 124:16,18

125:9 147:19

181:1 187:9

211:17 246:5

286:9,10 291:6,14

291:19 298:2,10

299:11 308:9

particularly 75:14

81:22 89:2 145:21

202:1 207:13

221:21 255:16

parties 13:7 323:22

325:9

partner 260:7

partners 112:5

Partnerships 2:22

9:10

parts 28:7 210:19

297:21 300:7

304:6

PAR20 106:4

134:11 137:7,12

137:20

PAR20s 137:8,10

137:22

PAR30 106:3

134:11 137:15,16

137:18

PAR38 106:1,5

134:11

pass 248:14,18

249:3 258:13

285:13 325:7

passed 83:1 302:4,9

321:9

patent 100:14

patented 282:18

pathway 96:17

pathways 23:2,5

144:15

pattern 157:11

pause 57:4 189:22

238:2 264:9 277:4

284:12

pay 100:15 111:15

159:10 162:5

318:6

payback 54:18

143:7,10 186:8,21

186:22 187:10,18

199:20,22 200:4

215:8 237:11,19

268:21

paying 162:7

payments 32:8

PE 3:1,8

peace 10:18

peek 126:15,17

Pekka 2:15 6:14

152:2,4 169:17

216:18,19 221:19

221:20 315:21,22

penetrate 198:16

203:9

penetrating 217:13

217:19 281:6

penetration 192:10

196:10 197:19

198:6,10,20 199:3

199:15 200:4,9,12

201:17 202:1,8

203:6,8,12,14

207:1 209:17

211:4,12 214:8

215:6,9,10,13,19

216:5 217:21

237:12,20 238:16

238:19 282:13

314:5 316:14

penetrations

199:12 200:6

237:11,14

people 10:5 17:14

45:8 49:6 61:21

66:7 213:1 224:4

226:17 235:16

236:5 242:5

251:12 252:17,21

262:17 304:21

percent 26:19 27:8

27:11,16,22 31:15

34:17 49:13 51:10

63:19 101:8

103:20 104:12

119:9,10 123:10

123:11,19 124:9

124:10 126:9,10

126:10 127:18

128:5,9,10,17

129:1 130:4,8,15

132:8 134:17

136:6 137:1

138:19 140:5,19

146:19 158:7,9,10

158:11,19 160:2,3

161:1,3,5 162:6

194:5,5 200:8,12

200:12,14 201:9

202:4 203:13,15

203:16 205:16

212:8 214:20,20

219:2,4,5,11,19

220:10,11 222:8

222:18 223:12,22

224:10,15,16

225:17,19,21

232:13 233:18

236:6 247:6,6,12

247:14,22 248:3

248:16 249:6,12

250:8,10,10 251:4

251:4,18 255:7

257:12,15 260:18

263:17 276:18

303:13 304:1,20

percentage 126:20

158:14 160:17

166:14 189:2

223:19,21 224:12

224:20 229:17

231:17 239:19

253:8 275:21

277:10,12

percentages 126:13

126:22 168:22

202:4 203:10

perfect 201:12

performance 55:11

73:7 79:10 95:3

102:7 117:15

125:4 127:11

138:14 199:16

250:4 252:16

performances 80:6

performed 157:18

298:13

performing 115:19

138:4 261:8

period 13:15 28:14

54:19 71:7 143:7

143:10 163:22

164:1,12,14 173:2

178:12,16 183:9

185:16 186:9,22

187:18 191:13

199:20 200:1,4

210:19 214:12

215:4,8,12,16

217:20 227:15

235:4,6,8,11

257:2 268:22

272:14,17 323:10

323:18

periods 173:5

186:21

permanent 36:9

person 279:9 290:3

294:12,13 295:1

personally 260:2

perspective 25:17

27:10 52:7 143:12

173:21 253:16

254:7 280:3

325:15

pessimistic 196:14

PG&E 9:8 94:13

287:17

phase 29:15 67:16

68:5,13 97:4,10

222:17 273:9,13

273:16

PHILIPPE 3:6

Philips 3:4,4 5:18

6:2 61:9 102:15

133:21 206:9

249:16 262:10

phones 16:22

phosphor 68:18

86:14 246:10

249:5 250:5,6

251:4 252:5,7,7

253:18 256:6

257:9 258:5 260:8

260:12 261:7,9,11

261:13 262:5

274:18 279:13

phosphors 5:19,20

252:10 256:13

260:4,13,14

261:14 275:11

phosphorus 85:9

photometer 109:8

photometry 75:12

physical 56:11

physically 250:15

257:22 258:9

259:11,15 260:11

Ph.D 2:10,15 3:4,7

picking 121:17

picture 285:18

piece 141:13

143:15 299:3

305:21

piggyback 212:4

pin 41:17 42:17

55:21 209:9

210:10,12,15,16

211:13 245:1

pink 207:4 217:7

PINTO 1:16

pipeline 246:19

place 77:18 170:9

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 356

170:18 172:2

247:7,16 277:2

291:22

placed 24:8 48:5

places 248:10

placing 24:10

165:9 291:1

plan 15:22 17:19

82:6

plans 322:20

plant 35:7 309:5,6

plants 308:9

309:11

plastered 285:4

play 45:9 105:14

played 88:21

playing 104:2

please 5:15 16:17

16:17,21 17:8

23:15 25:1 60:10

87:6 90:6 94:10

98:15 106:21

107:2,5 112:7,10

141:14 142:17

143:1 150:22

162:19 165:16

169:4 188:11

190:3,8 206:6

213:10 226:4

249:17 259:22

266:12 270:17

287:15 292:14

300:15 312:16

324:21 325:10,18

plus 23:21 63:19

99:2 140:18

pockets 304:7

point 38:11 51:3,6

78:6 88:3 103:11

108:5 109:13

115:7,8 120:4

125:7 139:7 152:8

181:8 182:9

197:16 199:8

202:9 203:11,15

203:17 212:14

213:4 214:19,20

234:19 238:8,12

238:18 241:5

242:12 243:1

250:17 255:2

271:21 273:4

276:19 281:4

283:22 285:14

287:8 289:16

293:9 303:12

310:7 311:21

312:5,17,20

315:21 321:12

322:9 326:6,19

points 38:9 53:21

60:4 102:19

285:12,13 326:5

POIRIER 3:6

policy 18:2 20:9

30:10 323:2,7

population 34:17

34:19 268:12

269:3

populations 268:15

portfolio 274:13

276:5

portion 172:6

232:4 281:8

284:11

pose 295:11

position 40:7 98:3

187:18 250:19

254:12

positive 21:21

175:12 176:10,11

269:13 276:16

293:9 303:5

305:21,22 318:10

positives 303:17

possibilities 111:9

possibility 31:10

115:18

possible 17:10

59:18 62:3 77:7

102:2 107:1

120:19 192:22

199:2 246:11

250:16 257:22

271:18 324:17

possibly 18:7 30:19

31:5 111:19

post 75:8 326:14

posted 19:19

potential 22:6 27:6

27:7 28:13,22

29:3,12 32:5

96:10 275:15

283:3

potentially 21:17

106:10 114:6

132:17 163:10

174:4 256:12

272:3

Potomac 3:5 8:18

pound 310:5

power 29:10 67:12

67:14,15 81:12

84:9 233:20

296:16 308:9

powers 148:22,22

324:15

practical 321:22

practice 77:1

precedence 53:9

precise 278:3

predicted 267:18

314:5

predominantly

137:17 260:12

preempted 52:12

preliminarily

282:5

preliminary 48:18

prepared 16:6

278:18

preparing 53:19

present 1:12 11:1

12:20 191:17

263:9 265:10

272:15 288:1

presentation 16:8

40:12 85:16 297:7

302:20

presented 14:9

22:2 40:16 88:5

175:7 196:15

presenting 10:22

270:14

presents 31:2

244:18 245:16

President 26:4

27:11

presiding 1:11

press 142:9

pressing 11:6 127:3

pressure 92:2

presumption 187:1

187:12 188:1

pretty 141:6 243:3

320:1

prevent 32:1 43:17

56:13

preventing 245:9

previous 65:3

202:9 243:1 266:7

312:9

previously 114:19

275:17 297:22

price 106:15 147:4

147:6 149:10

155:2,5 181:9

198:8,12 199:8,16

199:18 215:16

248:7 281:13

286:3 295:16

311:1,11,12 312:3

312:11

prices 149:8 155:1

176:13 201:3

268:19 275:13

298:15 299:5

pricing 147:7 287:1

pride 250:18

primarily 21:14

63:17 125:21

144:14 151:6

189:10 194:10

215:20 227:18

287:10 298:5

317:20

primary 77:15

167:6 189:9

238:18 298:8,14

principal 308:11

priority 53:18

probability 231:21

233:15

probably 48:10

50:10 63:4 97:18

106:12 126:8

141:12 153:6

169:11 181:4

204:15 233:2

234:1,2 255:12

277:21 290:11

300:22

problem 242:9

249:19

problematic

187:10

problems 201:10

procedures 19:3,9

59:6 78:7 138:10

proceed 17:20

39:15 40:7 100:20

143:3 191:4 225:5

270:11

proceedings 33:20

37:13 270:7 327:6

process 24:15

32:13 54:10 70:19

103:10 189:5

201:14 271:16

273:1,9 320:22

processes 299:20

produce 35:7

104:20 247:9

291:16,17 292:3

292:10

produced 277:11

277:21

producing 36:14

279:13

product 4:9 15:1

42:8 49:12 55:8

55:10,13,16 56:5

56:6,10,16,19,21

56:22 57:3,5,8,13

57:14 58:2,7,10

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 357

58:19,22 59:5

60:12 66:13 67:12

68:3,3,14 70:4,17

70:20,20,22 71:2

71:3,18,19 79:6

79:14 85:1,3,17

88:14 89:2 103:18

104:5 105:22

110:3,11 111:21

118:6,15,19,22

119:7,13 123:13

124:16,18 125:5

125:16 128:1

129:19 134:21

135:18 139:1

144:8,10 147:4,5

148:16 187:16

191:12 192:7,16

218:18 224:6

225:8 228:12,18

229:15 236:17,22

237:6 240:7

241:22 244:7,16

245:3,5,13,20

246:1,2,6 257:14

262:7 263:22

266:22 274:13

276:4 277:17,20

279:5 280:13,20

283:7,12,17 286:3

291:19 292:8

294:13 296:18

317:19

production 76:2,7

76:12 89:20

112:22 248:4,7

275:4,5,22

productive 325:16

products 24:3 28:7

37:5 43:6,16 49:9

51:17 52:8,9,13

52:16,18,21 64:21

64:22 65:6,18

67:9 68:15 70:12

75:14 76:13 77:10

79:15,17 80:3,4,8

84:8 87:9,10,11

88:8 104:21

107:10 109:6

116:15,21 121:16

125:1,2,9,12

126:5 136:4 149:6

187:11 189:17

226:11,22 227:2,4

238:15 239:19

261:10 276:12

277:11,18 285:15

285:19 290:15

293:1 296:14

313:20 314:4,10

317:7,21 318:8

professional

137:17,19 317:19

profile 273:13

profit 289:9,12

profits 280:9

program 290:14

programmed 166:3

167:13

programs 313:18

progress 36:11

142:6

progression 225:10

235:14

prohibiting 163:12

project 7:5 25:3

208:11 212:7

220:16

projected 196:9

projecting 212:13

projections 26:19

193:7 197:18

215:16,17 228:6

315:1,2

projects 211:3,10

prompt 145:18

properly 53:13

119:18 181:6

properties 72:5

102:11

proportion 158:16

proportionately

67:13

proportions 158:2

proposal 22:15

25:21 27:19,21

31:7 57:22 74:2

80:1 113:22 124:9

128:11,12 264:22

propose 53:5

121:22 322:1

proposed 12:4,13

12:15 13:1,16

18:19 19:5,15,17

20:1,20 22:4,13

22:21 41:12 43:15

56:5 57:5,12

58:14 61:1,4

66:17 72:14 74:11

74:13 80:11 93:6

99:12 244:5 259:9

261:9 264:19

314:9 326:17

proposes 22:1

41:20 42:1,10

43:1 46:3,15

58:18 59:21

proposing 19:5

20:21 74:3 105:19

114:10,12 128:9

128:13

proprietary 96:18

96:21 97:7,15,22

98:4,21 99:1,5,14

100:2,14 101:11

101:21 112:4,9,15

protect 49:2

provide 13:12

25:16 58:20 67:1

67:18 69:9 73:5

82:7,16 90:2,4,18

121:5 152:8,20

153:15 208:15

316:9 326:21

provided 67:8

271:2 315:14

provides 236:4

286:2

providing 286:8

provision 117:11

prudent 251:20

pruning 35:5,6

public 1:5,13 5:6

5:11 12:3 13:14

51:20 273:7 322:1

322:13 323:10

publication 19:22

324:1

publicly 24:4 271:1

273:10

publish 20:3 32:19

33:6

published 13:17

19:4,10,13 20:1

206:3 322:14

323:17

publishes 323:13

324:17

pulling 108:2

purchase 116:11

144:4,5,7,19,20

145:3,12,20 146:6

146:12 149:5

164:10 174:9,10

175:19,21 176:22

228:22 229:1,9,11

230:13,15 237:2

237:17

purchased 145:8

172:20 231:17

233:13 237:4

238:9

purchasers 30:22

purchases 232:4,13

256:13,22 307:11

313:17

purchasing 175:12

227:13 228:21

229:5,11,13,17

230:1,11 231:5,8

pure 290:7

purely 307:11

purple 266:12,15

266:15,20,21

267:6,8,19

purpose 12:12

16:16 17:12 143:9

191:10,15 243:17

268:7 270:20

271:6 313:7

purposes 73:1

push 120:7 261:11

261:20

pushing 204:13

put 10:11 11:2 12:1

25:21 51:21 52:10

52:21 65:10 109:8

109:17,19 110:15

110:16 112:21

138:3 139:7

166:18 206:1

239:21 246:16

251:7 253:15,21

255:12 291:4

292:20 301:16

310:4 320:5

322:16

putting 108:3,10

254:6 304:18

p.m 190:20,22

191:2 270:8,9

327:7

Q

quadruple 251:16

quads 28:13,17,18

28:19,20 29:5

quality 142:7

quantitative

272:21

quantity 256:6

quarter 188:19

quartile 90:10

question 33:7,15

63:3 69:8 79:8

86:13 87:5 93:2

94:14 95:18 96:3

97:10 98:18

108:13 113:20

114:7,8,15 126:2

129:10 132:2,21

137:5 150:21

160:8 162:2,4

163:15 167:4

168:15 169:11,17

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 358

169:19 170:21,22

177:21 178:9

188:10 194:17

196:6 207:16

224:12 226:2

232:17 242:22

243:2,5 252:2

266:6 277:9 287:1

287:17,19 289:16

296:7 300:14

301:6 302:13

317:12 319:16

320:7 321:3,22

322:12

questionable 106:9

287:5 305:3

questions 16:1,11

158:2 216:1

241:16 254:9

256:3 277:3

293:17 299:7

300:13 310:8

queue 16:20

queuing 17:13

quick 19:1 38:9

63:3 66:22 93:2,6

94:14 98:18 152:9

177:21 179:14

188:9 194:17

226:2 252:2 277:9

quickly 280:19

quite 80:8 103:16

145:6 168:12

177:4,5 178:19

249:19 261:8

263:21 269:16

279:10 304:11

quo 35:1

quota 310:17

quotas 248:1

quoted 153:6

R

R 5:1

raise 13:13 15:17

23:11 24:18 50:21

315:20,21 316:2

322:8,9

raised 53:13,13

84:12 88:17 97:10

294:11

raises 103:17

238:13

raising 87:2 149:5

238:12

ran 26:4

range 44:22 45:2

63:22 64:6 106:13

119:9 123:10,22

129:7,14 141:13

144:12 153:4

178:19 244:8

263:11 266:16

267:17 312:21

317:19

ranged 123:10

ranges 72:14

308:19

rapidly 238:20

rare 248:13,15,19

248:20 249:8,10

251:17 254:11

262:12 275:10

rate 62:8 63:20

72:21 148:16,18

152:11 153:1

184:14 193:5

194:12 195:20

196:9 233:14

304:18

rated 45:3,5,6 59:5

59:6,8 62:9 88:6,9

88:11 120:9

122:12 138:9

264:6

rates 63:16,18

147:13,14 149:3,6

194:4,8,9 195:15

196:19,22 208:21

263:17 268:20

rating 45:9 77:11

77:12 105:8

ratings 45:14 75:17

ratio 188:22

rationale 66:10,12

318:16 319:17

ratios 237:17

Raymond 3:7 6:20

6:20

RCFL 237:14

RCFLs 281:15

283:9

Rea 3:7 7:20,20

90:7,7 260:1,1

261:18,18

reach 96:17 135:16

reached 21:7 198:8

reaching 214:13

reactions 179:14

241:6

read 14:18 20:11

256:10 297:6

reading 68:21

74:14 206:10

318:17 319:3,18

reads 325:20

ready 17:20 278:9

real 35:17 61:17

67:9 103:17 212:5

242:18 246:20

250:17 251:14

254:12,14 257:19

292:18

realistic 240:16

realities 292:12

reality 204:22

290:21,21

realize 119:18

121:13

realized 260:3

really 10:7 17:6

49:4 62:4 74:20

75:10 111:17

121:21 136:9

142:6,7 168:16

190:10 195:12

222:5 239:15

246:9,15 247:7,20

248:12 249:9

250:9 251:10,13

251:16 252:9

257:8,20 258:10

258:17,21 259:6,8

260:22 261:1

262:17 264:19

267:7 279:11,22

280:4,10,18 287:4

287:7 309:18

325:21 326:4

reason 74:12

135:21 143:1

180:7 214:21

221:15 233:11

278:4

reasonable 89:14

116:17 140:9

312:2

reasoned 38:13

reasons 64:5 65:1

145:2,5 170:11,12

195:2 312:9

rebates 313:14

rebuttable 187:22

recall 65:17 84:10

97:9,11 137:7

151:3 154:2,13

205:19

receipt 11:1

receive 12:18

received 14:1 71:6

192:17 212:15

216:7

recessed 41:18

42:16 55:22

190:21 193:20

194:11 197:5,8

210:21 211:2,14

245:2

reckoning 32:4

reclaimed 261:7,11

reclaiming 261:14

reclamation 260:5

260:10,15

recognition 26:10

recognize 10:21

61:15 104:22

114:18 187:15

299:11

recognized 61:13

103:3 286:18

recognizes 24:13

168:4 231:2

recognizing 103:5

135:4

recollection 65:20

recommend 32:18

45:7 74:3

recommendation

44:19

recommendations

12:18 25:20 32:16

33:1 119:6,9

reconvene 190:21

record 12:1 14:19

16:18 17:17 23:16

34:3 38:21 40:1

142:13 154:18

222:22 225:3

259:17 267:16

270:8,9 290:14

326:11 327:7

recouped 282:15

RECS 195:3

recyclable 260:14

recycle 260:15

recycling 148:5

260:19

red 95:10

redo 181:13

reduce 26:18 34:12

37:4 276:4

reduced 42:8 59:13

67:13 144:19

219:5,6 310:6

reduces 274:12

reducing 26:20

274:10 311:8

reduction 21:17

35:13 75:13

123:20 127:17

128:5 129:3 130:3

130:15 134:15,16

255:18 300:21

312:3

reductions 21:21

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 359

262:4

reestablished 75:8

reevaluate 213:3

refer 18:18 60:8

169:6

reference 77:5 93:6

302:11

referenced 311:7

referring 137:14

173:1 202:21

203:2

refine 273:2

reflect 40:2 93:22

reflection 110:18

reflector 1:6 5:8

12:6,17 18:8 19:7

21:1 22:9,22 41:7

51:3 54:8 58:7,17

59:2,17 64:15

91:17 92:18 93:22

96:11,12,13,14

98:21 99:2,5,14

100:3 101:12,20

110:16,17 118:9

127:7,10,20 134:5

134:18 138:8,15

145:5 177:8

192:12 197:21

199:6,9,19,21

200:3,11,20 203:4

203:10 206:19,21

214:8,14 215:12

216:5,22 217:3,11

217:13,18 218:1

226:19 228:16

236:20 237:9

244:3 264:8,12

288:19 316:4,21

317:15

reflectors 51:11

92:3 107:10 108:1

108:9 116:7

196:12 201:6

reflects 17:17

22:15

refresh 214:18

refrigerator 35:11

refrigerators 35:15

regard 41:19 219:1

regarding 19:2,12

22:16 50:9 58:9

66:7 161:19 169:7

230:8 238:22

regardless 204:20

256:14 283:22

regards 42:15

region 147:10

262:22

regional 148:12

regions 67:6,9

Register 13:18 20:2

32:20 186:11

322:15 323:9,12

323:17 324:21

325:8

registered 14:2

registration 143:1

regulate 52:19,19

regulated 24:3

137:12 226:12

237:2,4 238:9

239:19 290:15

regulating 52:12

226:22 227:1

regulation 35:11

36:1,2 52:5 53:1

62:7 67:4 83:16

272:2,3

regulations 34:21

35:3,10

regulatory 4:17

15:12 55:4 272:1

272:10 273:19

313:6,7,13,14

315:10 327:1

reiterate 140:14

related 13:5 19:3

55:12 252:2 269:4

279:11 300:20

relates 233:17

relating 322:17

relations 6:19

relationship 71:17

relationships 200:5

237:12,20

relative 26:19

30:20 31:3 77:12

77:16 158:16

222:13 241:8

318:21

relatively 72:11

114:22 199:8

232:3,9 281:16

released 155:5

relevant 144:9

189:12

rely 120:20 297:19

remaining 172:16

184:16 210:3,18

219:22 279:20

remark 316:19,19

remarks 4:3,20

5:14 10:3 11:22

14:16 15:19 16:4

16:7 23:7,10

24:22 25:15 39:14

51:7 315:19

316:16,17 325:17

remember 83:6

87:9 126:4 153:22

173:11 214:21

223:8 288:13

remind 115:8

124:15 125:10

reminded 117:10

remodeling 170:11

197:3,9

removed 274:21

renege 36:16

renewable 250:21

renovation 145:8

146:14 192:3

232:2 233:5,8,22

reopen 33:7,15

258:13,16 321:22

reopened 248:14

repair 300:21

301:12

repeat 51:7 167:3

repeatedly 121:20

repeating 47:9

replace 107:15,16

113:9 159:8 164:8

182:20 301:14

304:11 306:22

replaced 145:7

150:5 156:13

162:13,16 163:9

170:11,14 171:2

172:7 173:19,19

replacement 83:4

155:20 156:10

160:12,13,14

163:14,20 164:21

167:15,20 172:8

172:18 173:14,17

173:17 175:9

176:19,20 183:8

185:7 224:13,22

232:7 234:3,5,17

235:22 236:9

252:15 288:7

304:10 306:20

316:8

replacements

56:13 192:2,2,3

237:9

replacing 247:17

252:17

report 89:4 122:8

122:10,12 123:2,4

161:20,22 166:13

170:13 186:10

246:21 256:16

276:8

reported 80:6

120:17 307:17

REPORTER 223:1

reports 88:19

89:13 149:19,21

149:21 150:9,11

150:20 151:16

153:19 256:10

273:12 283:2

represent 9:5

151:17 253:1

263:13,16 266:16

297:10 299:18

representation

272:21

representative

70:20 132:11

179:20 195:12

245:20 246:1

263:22

represented 118:15

119:13 123:13

128:1 134:21

139:1 149:22

302:5

representing

244:22

represents 128:15

181:2 300:1

reproducibility

77:8

requested 33:22

38:16

requesting 325:12

require 204:17

required 133:7

148:1 150:7 163:8

256:6 269:7

276:14

requirement 86:4,6

140:5 163:12

174:2 264:8

321:16,19

requirements 35:2

36:17 59:15 76:3

238:13 245:17,22

319:5,11

requires 20:10

186:20 292:21,22

requiring 175:15

rerated 45:11

reread 82:22

Research 2:7 3:7

7:19,21 260:2

261:19

researcher 5:17

reserves 258:6

residences 168:19

resident 223:6

residential 24:14

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 360

38:16 51:12 63:13

80:20 81:1,3,15

81:17,22 82:2,6

82:12,15 83:7,14

84:5,17 85:19

106:14 144:11

150:17 151:20

155:12,13 156:4,6

156:21 157:8,11

158:10,14,16,20

160:9,18 161:6

163:18 164:22

169:14 172:9

173:13 176:3

177:11 178:2,3,21

179:16 180:1,8,14

189:9,18,20 193:7

193:16 194:4,13

195:4 200:12,14

203:14 205:15

210:4 219:17,18

220:2,9 221:11,12

221:17 222:14,19

223:17 224:13,21

225:2 226:3

227:12 229:22

232:6,11 235:21

236:9 237:16,19

237:22 239:9,16

242:3 243:10

259:13

residual 159:17,20

160:9,10,12

163:16 164:3,16

171:3,4,11 172:22

173:7,20 184:2,2

184:3 185:4,10

resistance 109:13

109:15 110:10,12

resource 125:21

resources 3:5,6 7:3

8:19 26:13 37:7

250:21 291:3,4

respectively 245:4

respond 20:14 41:2

228:13 231:4

242:21 254:22

responding 323:6

response 45:21

50:6 54:1 58:3

67:19 70:1 80:15

84:18 91:14 231:1

236:21 237:9

243:1 311:21

319:19

responses 193:1

responsibility

295:22

rest 189:4 263:5

Restate 224:17

restriction 42:22

restrictions 42:19

43:2

restricts 114:6

restrooms 141:20

142:1 269:21

result 28:6,6 56:7

59:17 61:20 117:5

138:13 156:8

162:8 231:7

266:17 308:10

311:9

resulted 21:9 75:13

209:1

resulting 59:12,14

139:9 193:2 194:3

200:6 264:2

results 12:21 13:8

56:18 58:21 91:9

131:5 144:13

175:1,3,7,17

176:3,4 177:8

179:8 186:9 196:8

263:10 269:1

273:21 276:9,10

283:21 284:17

314:6

resume 142:10

190:17

resumed 142:13

retail 105:11

148:10 242:13

retrofit 21:16

145:14,18 146:7,9

147:20 175:10,15

175:15 269:7,11

retrofitting 209:8

210:14

Reveal 133:21

revenues 274:14

275:22 289:1

reversals 204:13

reverse 204:12

review 4:5 14:3,12

18:6 82:5,8 92:11

reviewed 63:4

revise 46:15 54:16

revisions 55:8 70:6

191:8

revisit 321:21

revisits 319:15

re-emphasize

303:20

re-establish 280:19

re-evaluate 229:8

Rhodia 246:18

249:2 258:4 260:8

right 11:7 14:4

20:12 32:9 50:16

53:19 54:3 55:5

69:17 73:10 76:1

78:21 80:17 87:22

91:16 94:6 96:13

100:21 115:8

125:6 130:8

141:11 152:18

157:12 158:18

159:3 165:11

167:9 169:19

174:1,21 179:3,3

181:18 182:11

183:12,16 185:9

185:22 191:6

197:15 200:18

207:7,16,18

208:20 212:3

213:16 214:3

218:15 219:15

223:20 227:11

232:20 233:1

235:12 241:11

257:7,8,11 259:9

260:10 269:21

270:2,12 279:1

290:8 303:4 306:9

312:18

risk 69:13

risks 69:11

Rivest 2:2 7:14,14

170:6,7 171:13,16

171:16 173:10

174:7,14,16

184:17,18,19,19

185:11,14,21

187:5,6,6 203:20

207:2,3 240:14,14

241:15,16 243:11

256:4,5,17 257:5

257:8,16 277:14

278:7,22 279:1

288:3,11,12,13

289:6,9,13 290:4

294:1 295:6,9

307:6,21 308:4

RL 283:11

road 257:1

Roadil 246:17

Rob 8:10

ROBERT 1:21

2:20

robust 10:14

111:12

role 5:18 11:1

88:21 105:13

roll 228:16

rolling 229:3

roll-up 228:17,20

229:10,20 236:17

Ron 7:10 11:18,22

181:19

Ronald 1:14 4:4

room 1:10 11:19

17:3 157:16

190:15 261:10

root 96:3

rooted 318:12

Rosenstock 3:8

6:22,22 44:2,3,3

44:10 62:22 63:1

63:1 82:18,19,19

83:19,20 93:4,4

93:10 100:8,9,9

117:8,9,9 140:11

140:12,13 150:21

151:1,1 156:16,17

156:17 157:3,20

177:20,21,22

178:10 179:1,4

194:14,15,16

195:1 200:17,18

200:19 201:4

205:11,12,12

214:16,17,17

220:13,14,15

221:8,15 226:1,2

226:3 227:5 277:7

277:8,8 278:4

296:9,10,10

310:13,14,14

311:14 314:11,12

314:12 315:8

Rossin 1:20 2:3

4:15 8:4,4 270:12

270:14,19 281:1

roughly 126:5

137:1 160:3 303:4

round 88:20 295:4

295:5

RS 147:14,17

rule 18:12,16 19:9

19:18 20:3 27:18

28:2,10,17,18,19

28:20 30:2 32:9

32:21 53:11,11

79:12 83:1 116:1

120:9 147:16

150:16 151:3,9

155:4,8 187:4

209:21 220:4,10

226:12,16 227:1

296:19 311:17

322:17,20,22

324:3,12 326:18

ruled 97:5

rulemaking 4:6

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 361

12:4,11 13:1,10

13:17 14:13 18:1

18:6,19 19:5,15

19:16,17 20:1,8

24:1,4,15 25:19

27:1,9,12 28:21

28:22 29:1 31:17

41:4 43:7 54:5,15

61:19 69:12,13

71:11 78:7,9,11

83:8 84:11 96:5

97:11 136:7 187:9

191:13 271:5

291:14

rulemakings 27:7

28:16 29:17

186:16 187:8

rules 32:7

run 51:15 109:20

269:20 280:18

R20s 59:3

S

S 2:15 3:6,7 5:1

sacrifice 114:3

sale 83:5 209:22

220:5 236:1

sales 66:7 147:8,9

149:18 150:7

216:2,4 222:13

233:4 234:9

295:13 298:15

salient 145:21

sample 76:1,12

90:13

satisfied 10:17

satisfy 139:13

163:14

saturated 203:12

saturation 214:13

save 2:17 144:15,22

197:2 208:2

230:11,18

saved 305:1

saver 29:3

saving 87:15

231:16

savings 21:10,20,22

22:7 27:6,10

28:10,13,22 29:4

29:6,9,10,12

30:20 32:5,10

52:3 59:19 66:18

69:12 171:9

175:12 176:10

177:12,15 180:10

182:22 183:1,3,12

183:16 184:10,11

185:13 186:12

191:16 231:10

240:21 251:7,15

251:19 252:3

255:8,18 262:11

263:9,13,14,14

265:7,10 266:13

266:16,16 267:1

267:18 268:21

269:9,13 303:8,11

304:5,8,12 308:7

314:8

saw 201:21 226:9

253:20

saying 10:5 38:21

45:3 114:4,5

162:4,16 165:1

174:17 182:16

184:1 223:9

247:18 255:6

257:3 258:11

259:14 260:9

267:14

says 52:10 160:22

202:14 206:13

247:4

scale 124:16 125:19

127:22 134:20

138:22 190:4

245:22 303:22

scaled 61:1 74:8

122:10

scaling 61:2,3

66:12,16 69:18

70:13 71:2 74:9

86:17,19 118:6,14

118:17,20 119:12

120:13 123:6,12

124:14,18 125:4

125:10 129:13

134:3,8 138:7,12

139:21

scanning 38:18

65:11

scarcity 104:18,18

104:19 286:3

scenario 51:15,16

51:22 172:15

198:3,4,5,9,18,20

199:2,10,11 200:7

216:21 228:20

229:7,10,16 230:2

230:21 231:12

236:15 237:1,7

240:8 258:17

267:1,6,9 274:17

283:15 284:1

302:7

scenarios 51:15

192:22 198:2

218:9 228:10,11

228:15,17,18

229:20 230:5,6,7

236:13,18,19

238:4 240:2,4,15

263:12 266:18

279:3 283:2 302:2

schedule 324:4

scheduled 20:2

scheme 280:11

scope 4:9 14:22

31:16 43:5 46:3

46:21 50:8,10,13

50:17,19 53:22

64:14

scratching 259:10

screened 317:6

season 26:6

second 44:21 54:4

63:10 86:11 114:8

114:15 182:14

197:7 209:14

230:4 238:7 275:2

285:17 324:22

secondary 77:13

Secondly 31:4

67:11 255:16

seconds 17:2

section 6:6,11 47:6

141:4 169:12

273:3 326:18

sections 18:22

sector 30:6 51:12

63:14 80:20 81:1

81:4,22 82:2

144:9 148:4

150:10,17 151:7

151:20 152:13

155:13 156:4,6,21

157:8,11 160:9

173:14 175:2

176:3 177:11

178:15,18,21

180:1,8 189:7,9

193:13,16 194:13

200:14,15 203:14

210:2 219:2,17,18

219:20,21 220:2,6

220:7 222:19

223:6 225:2 226:4

227:12,16 230:1,3

232:6,11 235:22

237:15,16,19,22

242:2,3 243:10

269:12

sectors 30:6 81:15

144:12 177:10

229:21 299:2

Security 58:16

see 5:4,10 10:5,7

16:15 20:12 25:8

26:3 30:9,14

37:13 54:12 78:13

83:11 86:2 89:10

97:17 98:19 103:2

103:20 104:13

105:7 111:14

116:4,14 126:15

130:6 132:15

140:8 144:12

166:11 167:21

175:3,11 176:9,17

176:21 177:9

179:20 190:19

194:7 196:8,10

202:9 204:12

209:5,10,17 210:3

214:11 218:8,8,22

219:8,17 221:3,16

232:1,6 238:17,19

239:3 242:13

250:17 255:17

258:18 262:5,21

263:10 265:8

278:9 279:7

284:10 285:15

286:16 300:17

302:19 317:5,20

seeing 104:3 154:2

204:5 218:1 256:7

288:13

seek 13:6 22:20

40:19

seeking 22:4 122:1

seeks 43:5 46:22

106:20

seen 35:3 36:4,6

55:18 104:16

111:8 170:13

195:3,15 201:5,11

214:4 227:11

244:20 269:11

280:6 305:9

310:19 319:14

sees 185:6

segment 39:12

172:11 188:5

231:20 239:4,11

241:18 308:13

segmentation

172:4

segmented 167:7

segments 231:20

232:3

segment-based

231:11

selected 244:5,16

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 362

307:1,2

selecting 70:21

85:1 243:17 265:6

284:20

selection 243:16

286:10

selects 54:21

self 258:19

sell 116:9

selling 133:15

288:6

sending 63:13

75:21 323:14

325:4,12

sense 121:11

122:11 132:13

164:17

sensitive 49:7

sensors 166:22

separate 56:10,16

56:19 57:8,13

58:18,22 59:21

60:12 61:11 62:8

66:13 68:7,9,14

84:11 85:18

114:11 118:17

211:18 215:7

244:1 259:14

274:18

separately 193:9

239:11 240:11

243:9

separates 55:19

Sequeira 2:4 7:22

7:22

series 80:5 250:5

251:1 252:8,9

274:18 279:13

serious 51:8 52:3

292:10

serve 268:15

288:22

service 1:5 5:7 12:5

12:16 18:7,11,15

19:6 20:22 41:6

41:10,15 46:6

48:8,21 49:3,20

49:22 54:7 57:6

84:1 89:1,4 91:18

118:8,10 119:15

127:5 128:22

149:22 194:9

198:19 199:5

200:2,10 209:2

222:18 224:10

244:19 284:18

288:17

servicing 223:17

set 16:6 22:1,13

39:5 52:15 58:18

59:21 60:16,20,20

62:2,4 64:7 66:16

66:17 70:16 72:16

72:18 73:3,10,11

73:19 77:6 78:14

79:11 85:5 90:16

100:6 104:1 105:9

126:19 136:10

228:14 230:4

244:1 252:16,18

320:5,11

sets 58:10,21 96:19

120:15

setting 43:16 59:16

91:11 103:6

115:15 140:4

242:16 285:11

288:15 299:20

settings 105:11

178:3

setup 279:2

seven 20:8 258:8

severe 213:16

severely 212:18

shaking 65:13

shape 213:18 243:4

share 17:10 36:13

48:7 49:20 51:11

71:11 168:22

192:15 207:5,19

211:21 218:17,21

219:7 224:5 225:7

225:17,20,22

227:18 228:5

238:4,21 240:3

313:21 314:4

325:9

shared 121:10

shareholders

289:17,19,20,21

295:3

shares 125:18,19

126:5 189:11

sharp 210:16 211:1

shed 322:18

shedding 30:10

shelf 110:12,22

113:8

shift 30:5 51:17,17

218:10 219:8,13

221:1 228:17,17

229:7,14,16,21

230:2 236:17

257:19 267:1

278:6,12 293:12

304:19

shifting 85:12

shifts 207:14 283:8

283:14 301:8

shipment 191:21

192:16,19,21

193:2,4 197:18

198:2 209:2,4

211:19 213:8

283:2

shipments 158:6,12

161:4,5 191:7,10

191:11,19 192:1,5

192:6,9,18 201:18

203:7 206:16,19

206:20,21 208:4,9

208:11,15,19

209:7,20 210:2,3

210:13,18,22

211:2,3,11,16

214:5,6,7,11,19

216:7,10,15 217:9

218:2,16 219:16

220:3,8 224:13,14

224:21,22 225:1

226:9 228:6,8

275:18 276:7

281:9 283:5

287:22

shipped 218:19

219:19,21

shock 14:20 256:19

279:16,20

shop 83:14,21 84:3

141:18 142:4

166:14 167:10

168:1,5,6,17

174:4,5

short 62:1 115:19

187:11 248:22

265:16 268:6

269:19 320:17

shortened 104:7

shorter 71:15 81:7

105:14

shortly 11:13

show 51:22 88:13

103:1 133:8

167:19 188:15

202:10 209:11

211:1 256:21

263:11 285:4

showed 51:10 92:7

121:10 284:17

293:6 314:6

showing 71:21 85:4

85:14 88:15 92:6

95:11 182:17

210:13,16 226:4

shown 51:19 56:20

81:16 94:21 149:6

219:14

shows 30:7 209:3

218:19 227:19

245:19 273:8

276:10 283:20

shrink 281:12

282:11 287:21

shrinking 196:12

shy 10:20

side 20:13 140:22

142:4 162:21

185:13 190:6

220:15 221:22

249:11 258:10

271:10 288:8

296:3

sidebar 17:1

sides 296:11

side-by-side 130:10

signed 327:2

significant 21:9

75:19 91:6 104:15

181:5 196:10

198:12 227:20

255:15 267:11

282:3,7 284:10

291:18 314:18

318:4

significantly 30:20

73:4 117:5 136:2

179:16 194:8

238:14 276:13

silent 16:22

silver 94:1,4 96:14

96:21 110:16

silverized 101:20

similar 36:7 92:7

122:21 138:20

162:20 176:13

210:11 225:6

229:9 234:17

265:5 267:14

269:2 317:19

318:8

similarly 35:9

263:16

simple 117:1 145:6

268:21

simpler 263:21

simplicity 319:9

simplify 319:13

simply 39:2 108:1

113:9 116:17

231:4

simulation 157:18

sincerest 325:22

single 29:10 41:17

42:17 55:21 112:4

126:13 138:2

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 363

172:8 209:9

210:10,12,15,16

211:13 245:1

single-ended

107:18

sir 265:1

sit 5:19 167:11

site 246:12,14

sitting 259:14

situ 189:1

situation 34:15

35:12 69:7 91:5

103:22 104:8

116:11 139:12

163:11 165:3

171:20 180:19

181:3,4 182:17,19

183:7 229:8

240:17 250:22

282:9 286:22

288:17 291:17

292:4,5 318:9

situations 62:1

168:14 242:8

six 14:18 27:14

55:20 166:1 258:8

size 135:10 295:17

skews 180:5

skip 54:9

slack 80:2

slice 242:8

slide 22:2 40:22,22

41:11 44:5 45:20

47:22 50:5,7 54:9

54:12 55:6 68:4

80:18 81:16 85:4

92:11 93:5 94:8

103:1 147:2

154:22 182:14,17

202:11,17,20

206:11 214:4

216:21 218:19

227:22 232:19

238:7 244:18

245:19 263:11

265:19,20,21

266:5,7,10 268:2

268:5 273:8

280:22 281:4

283:20 284:15

285:3 287:14

293:15 302:15

slides 14:9,10 38:19

40:11,16 50:18

186:4 208:14,15

209:3 218:12

slight 76:9 89:9

90:2 92:8 129:17

210:13 213:9

303:5

slightly 101:9,13

146:21 309:15

slimline 41:17

42:17 55:21 209:9

210:10,12,15,16

211:13 245:2

SLOCUM 3:9

slow 182:16 201:22

322:22

slowed 324:16

slowly 291:8

small 75:22 119:21

132:17 195:5

223:12 253:8

271:11,12,17

294:3 303:12,22

305:21

smaller 58:19

85:12 134:4,5,22

195:6,21

smarter 235:17

smoke 305:15

snail 326:20

sockets 188:19

203:20,22 214:15

sold 42:4,6 81:14

116:15 172:9

206:13 221:12

223:6 226:7

solely 98:4

solid 261:20 295:13

solution 136:16

Solutions 1:13 3:9

5:12 9:8

somebody 10:6

91:5 144:5,6

somewhat 318:18

324:16

soon 11:8 56:4

204:15 247:8

293:7 321:21

324:17

sooner 15:20 325:1

sorry 93:3 94:17

98:13 108:22

137:11 161:13

167:3 178:13

180:13 201:22

224:1 296:6

sort 35:12 52:22

100:12 108:17

121:6 128:13

181:20 183:7

204:8 241:5

284:22 288:8

314:17

sought 66:13

315:16

sounds 210:9

223:12 261:19

320:21

source 301:16

sources 13:8

149:16 155:8

248:9 258:11

316:8

sourcing 262:18

Southern 2:8 3:2

8:22 9:2,5 34:5,10

165:20 188:13

213:12 300:16

SO2 309:15,18,21

space 193:6,10,13

spacing 146:17

252:19

span 174:12

speak 10:18 11:11

16:17,20 153:9

317:18

speaking 39:17

60:2 111:6 160:3

190:13 197:15

224:3

speaks 66:16

special 61:13 66:5

87:14 298:3

specialized 49:4,8

49:12 116:7

specialty 48:13

specific 13:5 26:16

40:19 44:1 62:13

69:10,16 105:11

148:9 153:18

282:21 313:20

specifically 43:7

64:21 66:9 73:22

99:9 101:1 102:10

102:20 105:7

114:9 115:15

186:21 191:22

193:18 202:6

238:7 282:17

300:7

specifics 38:20

182:2 307:9

specified 78:1,3

131:12

spectrum 28:5

31:19,21 58:9,9

58:11,11,13,15

60:6,13 61:14

68:7,14,17 69:15

127:8,12,18,19

128:2 130:11,12

131:5,10,16 133:1

133:9,14,17,22

spectrums 127:10

speculate 205:4

291:11

speech 26:7

speed 238:16

spend 301:15

spending 30:5

304:9,22 305:2

spent 304:13

spheres 77:19

Spiewak 3:9 9:18

9:18

spike 256:21 280:6

280:8

split 250:14 262:13

spoke 277:1

spoken 69:19

spreadsheet 313:19

spreadsheets

184:20

sprint 269:21

spur 37:3

spurred 35:4 36:2

square 14:4 195:8

195:17

squeezing 276:5

280:12

squires 246:18

squishiness 120:11

SSL 196:11 238:17

300:20

stable 199:8

stacked 267:4

stage 19:16 20:7

31:20 54:13,14,15

135:6 317:6

stake 25:18 32:3,4

32:6,9

stakeholder 323:16

325:11

stakeholders 24:1

31:10 271:3

323:15 326:2

standalone 297:3

standard 4:14

12:14,14 15:8

19:4 21:3,12 22:5

22:10,12,14,22

23:3 24:5 30:18

31:5 39:5 41:6

42:3,11,20 43:9

43:20 54:22 56:1

56:2,7 57:15

58:11 66:17 72:1

72:19 77:5 84:10

84:14 87:10 90:14

92:12 103:7

111:22 114:2,12

114:16 115:20

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 364

117:16 127:11,13

127:18 128:16,18

130:11,14 133:4

137:12 140:6,9

143:12 145:16

151:5 158:4

163:12 177:2

186:18,20 187:1

187:19 211:9

228:21 243:16,18

243:19 244:2,4,5

244:15,19,21

245:8,12,18 246:4

263:7,18 264:11

265:3,6,9 268:11

281:21 284:2

285:11 286:11

294:10 298:9

299:20 302:12

307:3 308:22

317:15 319:10

320:6,10 322:1

standards 1:5 5:7

7:5 12:4,8 14:7

18:7,10,14 19:13

20:11,20,21 21:2

22:1,14 24:10

25:3 30:1 38:12

39:2 41:8 43:4,17

46:8 52:15 53:6

54:6 59:16,21

62:2 72:10,18

75:22 76:2 77:1

78:3,4,11 79:22

88:12 94:20

115:16,17 133:16

143:22 145:14

146:5,11 163:5,8

164:7 171:19

173:6 174:7,9

175:9,14 191:14

191:18 192:22

193:1,2 204:7,10

204:14,17 226:15

226:18,21 228:9

228:10,11,12,13

228:14,20 229:1,6

229:12,14,19

230:5 231:2,4

236:12,15,18,21

237:5,10 238:1,3

238:10 240:3

256:14 265:8

266:17 270:22

272:8,19,22 274:7

276:4,13 280:5

281:11,20 283:5,8

283:13 294:4

297:19 307:1

308:11 313:9

314:10 316:4

318:22 320:8

standing 181:21

stands 61:19 298:9

Star 313:17

Starck 3:10 9:16,16

start 5:12 20:19

23:15 27:3 127:8

166:3 167:14

169:8 204:13

217:21 247:18

259:3 270:1,6

280:12 323:9

started 110:7,11

192:4 259:5

starting 83:2 181:8

202:11 205:18

221:22 261:1

318:9

starts 49:2

Stas 1:17 187:20,21

187:21 312:15,16

319:20,21,21

321:2,2 324:7,8,8

state 36:16 38:11

194:18,22 258:16

261:20 294:10

295:13 308:16

stated 39:2 123:16

150:12,13 220:3

296:5

statement 48:9,20

75:6 82:17 90:8

187:8 247:2

statements 13:12

102:18

states 1:1 52:12,18

109:6 125:20

151:13 189:1,3,4

205:20 251:15

258:19 286:13

299:22

statistical 76:11

statistician 211:21

Statistics 147:15

status 35:1 322:17

statute 186:20

187:16

statutes 294:14

statutory 16:13

17:22 18:20 41:5

54:5 320:2

stay 137:13 270:4

stays 253:3

step 25:13 40:22,22

54:15 85:1 92:12

131:13 183:21

293:6

steps 4:20 13:9

15:19 125:7

131:13

Steve 3:10 6:22 7:6

44:2,3,13,14 48:2

62:22 63:1 65:14

79:1 82:18,19

83:17,20 84:7

87:3 88:3 93:4

100:7,9 113:18

117:8,9 120:6

121:19 122:6

129:9 137:4

140:11,12,21

150:22 151:1

153:16 156:16,17

157:22 160:17

165:16 169:10

177:20,22 194:14

194:15 200:17,18

205:11,12 214:16

214:17 220:13

226:1 277:6,8

296:8,10 310:12

310:14 314:11,12

Steven 3:3,8 220:14

226:3

Stevens 3:9 9:7,7

94:12,12,17,19

98:17 99:7,18

132:1,7,10,20

287:16,17 288:4

316:18

Steve's 49:17

stick 109:16

stock 191:12 192:8

192:16 203:9,16

214:14 215:14

218:19 225:8,10

225:11 226:11,19

227:10,11

Stockdale 3:10 7:6

7:6

stop 141:11 289:15

stopped 195:17

store 110:4 236:2,6

stores 221:17

223:16

Storey 3:11 8:16,16

straight 14:13

124:8

strawman 273:14

streetlight 301:13

strengthen 27:18

30:17 31:5

strengthening 32:7

strikes 69:3 170:4

235:21,22 290:1

stringency 314:16

strip 251:16 258:15

strong 31:7

stronger 204:11

261:20

strongly 47:11

321:20

struck 68:21

structure 56:5 57:6

58:8 263:20

289:14

studies 170:8 172:1

301:3 310:3 311:6

study 193:19

194:17,18 275:12

282:21 312:21

stuff 190:16 259:1

300:21 301:15

subgroup 4:14 15:9

55:1 265:13 268:8

269:14

subgroups 22:8

268:9,17,18,22

269:2 271:8,9

subject 18:16 19:2

45:5 81:18

submit 325:18

326:20

submitted 52:6

192:6 210:22

214:5 222:16

submitting 326:16

Subsection 320:13

subsequent 24:19

subsidiary 297:2

substance 12:10

316:9

substantial 36:3

substantive 67:19

substitute 240:22

241:1,3,4

substitutes 281:14

substitution 236:18

236:22 237:6

240:7,18 241:21

242:14,17 243:9

267:1 283:7,13

substitutions

240:20 242:5

subtracted 226:18

sub-analysis 273:3

success 114:13

sudden 45:11 48:16

204:13

suffering 36:20

sufficient 231:3

258:20

suggest 141:1,9

suggested 60:14

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 365

61:2 72:12

suggesting 37:1

121:4,8 291:15

292:9

suggestions 119:22

suggests 23:9

324:19

summarize 102:17

293:16

summarized 12:22

summary 13:12

14:16,19,21 16:5

23:10 39:14 40:18

40:21 218:20

315:14,19 316:17

summing 272:16

Sunrace 35:21

super 116:7 250:7

251:2

supplementary

33:6,14 53:5,10

53:12,16 321:21

supplemented 27:5

28:11

supply 47:16

247:22 248:13,22

254:11 263:1

318:12

support 13:2 19:18

19:18 24:5 31:21

33:21 38:11 44:17

62:6 79:3,20

80:10 115:22

supporting 34:11

182:2

supports 47:12

supposed 290:19

supposedly 49:8

sure 10:12 11:9,10

17:17 20:6 28:4

31:19 44:10 63:11

65:2 66:5 78:8,15

133:6 166:22

195:7 202:13

222:15 250:11

256:18 263:4,6

286:14 301:4,5

303:19 304:3

312:12 316:12

325:10

surpass 108:5

surprised 136:13

166:18 220:19

221:1,18 258:13

surprises 220:21

surrounding

136:17 167:7

survey 42:7 193:11

195:4

suspect 205:9

sustainability

250:19

switch 166:9 239:7

239:12 282:1

switching 239:2,10

243:3,5 283:18

Sylvania 2:18 6:5

38:8

system 81:6 82:1

135:9 145:19

146:19 147:1

148:21,22 149:2

166:20 168:1,10

168:11 172:21

173:19 175:1,18

175:22,22 176:1

256:19 298:3

299:2 305:8 318:3

systems 146:21

168:20 173:13

209:9 210:15,16

219:1,14 251:11

268:16

S-E-S-S-I-O-N

191:1

S.W 1:10

T

T 268:16

table 4:1 10:15

37:16 55:18 56:4

85:15 176:4,17

178:12 181:13

182:18 219:15

232:1 244:20

245:16 278:3

296:3 319:4

320:10,13

tables 71:22 88:14

319:14

tackle 296:1

take 11:13 15:2,14

17:3 53:4 64:14

67:15 73:16 88:12

89:15,21 98:7

107:14,19,21

108:18 109:5,7,10

112:20 113:8

116:21 125:6

126:15,17 141:9

155:21 173:6

188:1,6 189:7

196:13 208:19

210:7 211:21

247:16 251:6

253:6 265:19,22

268:6 269:19

274:2 277:15

288:11 290:4

291:21 304:21

308:7 311:22

313:19 326:2,4

taken 23:2 26:1

29:18 77:16 95:9

120:16 121:12

122:7 128:15

188:21 189:5

249:14 284:19

286:5 316:5,11

takes 54:10 190:1

215:8 299:3 300:5

talk 25:19 30:14

55:8 60:16 61:5

69:16 70:13 73:17

76:15 90:21 92:10

94:7 118:6 254:4

262:4 297:11

299:10

talked 86:15

154:22 224:14

241:19 248:12

285:2 307:7

talking 27:1 74:18

78:17 84:22 85:9

99:16 101:1,17

113:12 143:6

160:8 170:8,18

185:1 200:21

206:16 247:12

249:5 250:8,10

251:10 255:16

279:16 299:12

303:21,22 305:6

305:20 306:6

324:10

tank 212:17,17

tapped 120:2

target 140:1

targeted 136:1

targets 313:16

tax 147:8,9 295:2

313:15,15

team 5:20 12:7,9

253:17 323:20

tech 244:9

technical 5:22 6:11

13:2 19:17 47:6

47:14 60:4 65:1

68:16 82:5 113:13

115:20 136:14

253:18

technically 62:3

96:1 117:1

technique 298:21

technological 93:17

technologically

21:8

technologies 3:11

7:7,9 22:19 37:2

61:4 68:18 95:11

95:20 96:2 97:1

104:6,10 111:10

112:3 122:21

192:11 197:16,19

198:6,11,16 200:1

201:18 202:2

203:3 204:8,18,19

206:12,14,20

207:1 208:5,9,18

208:22 209:13,14

209:16 211:5

214:9,13 215:5,6

215:7,11,14,19

216:21 217:8

237:13 238:16

244:12 266:22

282:13 286:20

287:9,20 288:7,8

291:1,9,12 301:10

technology 8:17

23:2 31:8,8 35:2

36:8 65:9 68:18

69:2,5,10 85:7

91:21 92:17 96:15

96:18,21 97:7,19

97:22 98:4,11

100:2,16 101:12

105:6,15 114:21

116:3,5 128:8

129:22 138:3

151:6 198:2,3,5,9

198:18 199:2,7,10

199:11 200:7,16

201:7,13 206:22

207:14 208:4,11

215:9 222:8

227:14,19,21

281:6,7 282:2,9

282:18 283:6,12

283:17 291:7

314:20 316:22

317:9

televisions 318:22

tell 66:15 93:14

161:3 166:21

233:17 255:14

303:4 323:7,13

temperature 55:17

72:20 77:4,6 92:4

109:15,21,22

110:9,13 119:14

temperatures 77:3

77:11 118:12

ten 27:8,11,16

146:19 159:12

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 366

166:4,8 172:13

184:11

tend 106:15 129:6

195:5,19 238:15

278:6

tended 195:6

tenfold 104:17

tens 279:21

tentative 22:15

tentatively 21:12

22:11

tenth 212:8 304:1

304:20

tenths 303:12

terawatt 37:16

terbium 250:15

258:5

Teren 2:8 8:22

terms 44:21 51:9

62:17 63:16 72:22

75:19 77:9 79:8

79:19 94:21,22

95:5,22 126:20

168:6 172:4

180:18 195:11,20

198:8 219:7,10

224:11 239:18

249:7,8 253:22

260:8 262:11

290:19 292:19

293:5 314:19

326:16

Tesla 36:7

test 19:3,5,9 59:6

72:20 78:7 89:18

89:18 90:12 91:8

121:18 130:5,7

131:5 132:15

138:10

tested 59:7,8 72:19

73:1,2 79:6

108:21 109:2,3,4

130:9,20 131:1,6

testing 72:22 73:4

74:16 76:1 77:20

78:16 79:3 99:21

101:21 129:21

140:15

thank 6:13 11:9,15

11:20,22 13:22

16:10 24:20 32:11

33:17 34:4,6 37:8

37:8 38:4,5,7 40:4

43:21 44:12,18

45:16 47:19,20

49:14 50:3 57:20

64:9,10 67:20

70:9 75:2 76:17

80:12 83:10,19

86:20 90:5 93:10

94:18 100:19,21

106:17 111:2

112:13 113:16

115:12 117:7

122:14 124:11

134:2 135:3

136:18 137:3

140:10 142:11

157:20 162:1,3

163:3 165:13

174:15,18 179:4

186:1,2 188:3

189:21 194:15

195:22 196:1,17

196:22 206:4,5

207:21 213:5,7,22

221:18 222:11

227:5 232:17

236:10 242:19

251:22 255:10

259:21 270:17

278:21 287:13,16

306:15 311:14

312:19 315:8,9

322:2,6 325:15

327:3

thanks 9:22 24:20

25:10 33:18 44:11

45:17 50:2,11

69:20 87:2 94:9

126:1 129:8

140:20 165:14

190:12,18 216:17

308:3 325:22

theoretical 290:18

thing 36:10 48:17

55:7 110:18

154:21 159:5

160:16 213:13

220:1 233:2

246:22 248:11

276:19 283:22

284:21 305:6

things 10:11 16:13

27:17 65:15

110:21 112:16,21

124:5 153:17

213:5 224:4

246:17 252:16

258:20 259:4

260:7 280:16

304:3 308:17

315:4 324:13

think 11:17 14:1,5

16:15 23:6 25:5

26:2 29:15 31:6

32:16,20 33:2,11

40:6 44:7 46:14

48:20,22 52:2,20

53:3,17 61:12

62:15 65:3 67:22

68:6,10 69:10,14

74:9,12 90:9 96:8

96:9 97:3 98:12

99:9,13 102:19

104:11 105:10

106:13 111:4

112:8,14 113:20

114:18,22 119:18

121:1,21 122:1

124:1 126:11

128:18 133:21

137:14 139:5

154:14 160:20

161:2 166:5,16

167:5,9 178:19

180:6 181:10,15

182:16 184:15

188:7 195:14

196:2,13 201:2,6

204:14,21 205:6

207:17,18 224:14

228:1 233:20

239:7,10 241:4

242:10 243:6,11

246:8 251:14,19

254:3,5,6 258:22

259:11 265:15

277:14,15 284:15

286:15 287:6,8,19

291:3 293:9,16

294:9,14 295:4,20

303:15 304:17

307:15 312:17

319:2,22 320:14

322:12 324:9,18

326:5

thinking 322:19

third 130:3 139:6

286:1

Thirdly 31:14

thirty 61:17

THORNE 3:12

thorough 72:12

thought 73:21 80:2

99:7,11 217:16

223:15,22 234:21

thousand 155:22

308:2

three 32:15 54:17

86:3 90:14,17

92:19 127:6 157:7

157:9 166:11

175:8 177:9

186:22 206:14

225:12,14 250:5

254:3 257:10

258:3 270:1 297:6

297:11 301:17

315:13

three-year 187:12

187:17

threw 214:22

throwing 121:18

159:19

throw-away 159:13

thrust 18:9

thrusts 18:5

tide 141:14

tied 112:4 324:12

tier 168:18

tiers 166:14 167:10

167:19 287:2

tighter 75:15

Tim 186:4,5 187:14

294:6,7 306:1

time 16:17 17:10

30:8 33:12 36:1

48:19 50:10 53:3

67:15 75:13 80:9

80:11 82:5 125:21

133:14 135:11

152:15 153:10

157:6 167:1

182:21 183:9,10

183:13 192:17

204:15 213:3,5

219:8 220:22

224:7 246:9 248:4

257:2 259:7 280:2

280:15 286:19

298:12 300:22

times 24:10 147:14

147:16,19 292:22

301:17 311:17

timing 324:1

TIMOTHY 2:9

tiny 255:20

Title 204:6

today 5:9 10:11,16

11:1 14:9 15:18

15:21 17:13 23:12

24:16 27:2,4

30:16 31:2 34:7

61:19 80:19 97:21

105:6 108:2 111:1

113:6,8,10,11

116:14,22 135:19

204:11 223:21

236:16 254:2

257:14 275:12

278:18 280:11

285:20 321:14,19

321:20 324:19

told 261:21

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 367

tolerance 124:6

tolerances 103:4,8

ton 310:5 311:8

tons 248:15 249:3,4

tool 298:1 308:11

top 53:18 154:1

158:18 176:3

182:18,18 196:9

209:10,11 250:7

topic 239:1

total 56:18 158:10

158:12 163:13

208:12 214:14

215:10 224:10

226:19 228:7

248:13 256:13

280:3 304:18

totally 208:10

touched 52:22

tough 24:9 128:16

tow 55:20

Toyota 36:21

tracking 246:16

tracks 57:17

trade 100:13

133:20

traded 311:5

trading 310:20

traditional 138:2

287:21

traditionally

294:13

trail 22:14

trajectory 212:20

transcribed 326:12

transcript 326:13

326:13,14

transfers 309:20

transform 63:14

transformer 28:19

53:10

transformers 63:14

transition 324:10

translate 29:5

translates 301:19

travel 326:9

treated 57:2 295:1

295:2

treatment 28:5

trees 35:6

trend 196:4

trends 149:10

155:2 193:17

227:13 256:7

trial 4:14 15:8 21:3

21:12 22:10,11

23:3 54:22 114:1

228:21 243:16,17

244:2,4,15,18,21

245:18 246:3

263:7,18 264:11

265:3,6,9 286:11

triband 247:2,11

247:13,15

trigger 144:3

triphosphor 85:11

254:1

triple 35:12

trouble 100:12

true 107:9 139:7

149:22 151:18,18

261:22 286:5

try 79:11 87:20

95:15 123:5,6

152:20 172:3,5,11

208:10 241:1

297:17 304:14

305:6 308:8

314:17 321:10

trying 16:18 34:12

35:1,19 95:11

113:21 125:3

132:12 158:15

159:6 182:14

186:16 208:8

226:20,21 241:5

295:6 296:17

299:15 305:19

TSD 29:20 30:1

45:1 66:8 99:8,8

99:17 153:22

154:3 161:12,14

169:6 186:8 187:3

197:11 224:8

275:14 282:22

303:1 310:4

TSDs 309:1

TSL 107:1 120:22

245:11,11 250:1

256:2,6 261:12

263:20 264:1,6

285:22 293:8

TSLs 244:2 245:4

245:15 263:15

264:2,3

TSL2 257:5,6

293:6

TSL3 12:15 22:2

27:19 30:20 73:19

73:21 261:9

276:14,20 293:7

TSL4 12:16 21:13

30:18,19 31:3

93:7 128:11

135:14,15 136:5

140:6 245:6

261:11 264:22

284:6 293:8

TSL5 21:13 22:18

30:19,19 31:2,11

31:12 98:19 99:12

107:11,19 108:6,7

244:22 245:6

264:16,21

tubes 279:12

Tuesday 1:8 5:9

turn 13:19 16:21

20:16 25:7 105:16

325:16

Twelve 161:1

two 18:5 34:8 38:9

40:11 41:4,8,16

41:19 42:1,2

51:15 56:21 58:10

60:4 74:5,6,10

91:2 92:16 101:9

104:16 106:19

109:7 119:19

123:14 126:10

127:5 130:10

132:4,11 137:15

147:13 153:17,18

157:7,8 158:7,9

158:10,11 159:9

159:12 160:14

161:3 162:16

163:10,21 164:1

164:13 167:10

168:13 171:1,8,9

171:14 172:15,16

176:18 183:13

184:15 185:18

198:1 209:5,10

216:1 233:3,22

240:8,11,15 243:8

243:9 245:8

247:20 248:22

257:10 266:3

272:11,20 275:16

283:2 301:17

302:2,10

two-thirds 247:1

type 39:3,4 49:19

55:10,16 94:1

96:10 131:15

157:16,17 166:19

220:8 222:7

291:19 309:6

types 41:16 42:1,2

55:20 56:8 84:5

92:4 94:4 128:6

129:4 134:12

148:13 231:21

307:9 315:3

typical 64:6 79:5,7

79:10 82:12 84:6

94:6 128:10 129:1

140:17 166:17

169:13

typically 14:6 64:3

67:7 77:5 103:20

116:16 129:6

137:19 140:16

152:11 153:2

167:12 195:2

T12 21:16 42:18

56:6,14 72:17

79:20 81:2 82:10

82:11,14 85:12,16

85:19,20,21 86:3

86:5 145:22 163:6

163:12,17 164:9

168:2,5,16 169:1

173:14,22 175:5,5

175:18 177:2

188:15 189:10

209:8,9,20,22

210:2,14,15,17

211:1 219:14,19

220:7,12 221:12

245:6 252:17

256:8 262:5 269:5

275:4 279:17,20

T12s 167:12 220:3

262:10 276:22

T5 42:2,11 43:8,17

43:18 44:17 56:2

56:10,12 57:8,14

57:15 71:9,12,16

72:1,1,5,10,16,18

73:6,7,8 77:9

198:21 211:5,8,17

212:1 245:10,12

245:13 252:3

262:6,16

T5s 78:15 79:4

T8 43:2 56:6,14

72:17 79:19 85:16

85:22 87:9,13,13

144:18 164:10,12

164:14,16 166:1

172:20,21 174:2

175:5,22 209:6,12

209:15 210:12

219:1 233:19

244:13 250:3,4

252:18,22 275:5

279:17

T8s 86:7 167:13

250:2,5,7,22

251:2 262:21

276:22

U

U 74:8

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 368

ultimate 261:12,12

ultimately 253:5

274:14 289:18,21

314:6

unaffected 229:5

unanalyzed 57:3

224:6 246:2

uncertain 281:9

uncertainties 304:2

uncertainty 22:16

90:15 198:1 280:9

unchartered

253:22

uncoated 181:3

uncomfortable

251:13

uncommon 61:18

undergo 158:7

undergoing 198:12

underlying 47:14

undermining 69:12

understand 17:4

24:6 67:2 74:15

79:4 113:21

121:14,19 133:12

159:6 174:17

182:4,15 189:2

207:17 235:15,18

240:16 257:2

267:5 287:19

296:11 301:6

understanding

66:2 71:17 179:15

183:2 241:18

324:2

understood 47:14

74:20,20

Underwriters 3:1

3:10 9:17,21

undesirable 24:12

undue 24:7

unfortunately

29:18 33:3 51:13

251:9 296:20

uniformly 187:17

unintended 296:20

unique 69:9 105:22

187:15

United 1:1 109:6

189:1,4 251:15

258:19 286:13

299:22

unlimited 291:3

unnecessarily

73:12

unproductive

77:20

unrealistic 24:10

unsuitable 239:13

unwilling 291:21

update 155:7

205:21

updated 155:3

upper 46:16 209:5

283:10

upward 147:21

urge 316:11 321:20

usable 61:20

usage 157:6,10

164:19 249:15

250:13 262:16

use 14:6 38:17

48:21 64:1 69:10

81:2 89:3 96:21

97:6 98:16 100:4

102:12 106:1

123:6 128:17

144:21 149:20

150:9,18 151:11

151:15,16 165:17

169:9 170:3

189:20 204:17

219:11 246:19

249:9 250:6 251:3

258:7 262:5 264:5

293:1 309:2

useful 171:2 172:17

173:18 248:17

326:3,6,8

user 104:5 111:16

116:10,18 117:3

145:18

users 24:14 55:14

61:16 116:10

139:13

uses 96:12 100:4

128:5 148:21

157:18 159:17

168:8,9 248:21

264:6 272:5 273:1

273:17,20 276:7

283:1 307:12

USGS 246:17

249:1

utilities 34:8,11

63:12,18,21 64:6

67:3 297:17

298:16

utility 4:16 15:10

55:2,13 58:20

61:14 63:16,21

67:9 68:17,19

69:1,9 105:11

115:5 241:22

243:21 297:13

299:7 307:11

utility-type 242:1

U-shaped 41:17,19

55:21 56:21 74:5

119:20 122:17,20

123:9,14,18 124:3

124:7 126:11

224:8

U.S 3:7 5:5 12:2

18:3 147:15

148:11 262:22

317:8

V

vague 65:20

valid 242:12 287:8

validate 99:22

validation 100:5

121:5

value 75:20 122:13

152:18 159:18,20

160:9,11,13,14

163:16 164:3,16

171:3,4,11 172:21

173:20,21,22

184:2,2,3 185:20

191:17 263:9

265:11 272:15

286:1 288:1 310:4

310:16 311:4,18

312:1

valued 284:9

values 71:22 88:16

89:8,15 103:5

173:7 310:1

variability 89:19

124:5 128:7

variable 279:12

variables 103:11

variants 302:10

variation 76:11

103:16 124:6

298:4

varied 178:5

varies 147:10

178:15

variety 77:3 168:9

170:11

various 133:20

144:3 145:2

180:19 275:18

310:3 311:17

vary 168:13

varying 230:7

vast 30:21 66:2

106:12 154:18

164:21 277:16,19

vehicle 36:21

vehicles 35:22 36:2

36:4,15,18

version 135:20

137:16,18 140:3

298:3,11

versions 137:15

191:9

versus 35:1 57:15

110:2 124:7,9

135:7 158:4

166:15 168:10

171:8 188:22

189:4 213:14

222:14 223:6

233:6 237:17

239:20 287:10

291:8

vetted 305:8

viable 104:4,8

106:10,11 111:15

116:11 139:12

vibrate 16:22

Vice 6:15

vicinity 233:18

video 279:8

view 39:2 133:12

196:14 207:20

321:5 322:4 326:7

viewpoints 320:3

326:3

views 33:22

VII-D 326:18

virtually 267:3

virtue 139:18

vision 36:20

visited 246:13

277:15

visits 121:9 246:13

visual 40:2

voice 24:4

volt 59:11,15,18,22

60:6,10,18 61:12

61:17,22 62:2,5

62:18,18 63:11

65:22 66:3,3,18

66:20 67:12,12

105:5 106:4

114:17 139:13,16

139:17 140:2,4,6

140:7 318:1,2,4,4

318:5,5,9

voltage 58:8 59:5

63:15,20,21 64:7

67:4,7 138:8,16

139:2,19 140:17

317:4,4,22

voltages 61:16 62:9

64:3 138:11

318:12

volts 59:7,7,8,9,12

63:15,20,22 64:8

109:20 110:5

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 369

138:9,18,20

139:21 140:15

264:19

volume 76:7

121:16 249:11

voluntarily 146:9

voluntary 313:16

voted 321:5

W

waffling 201:21

wait 86:10 324:21

waivered 36:15

wake 30:8

walk 236:6

walking 141:17

wall 141:8

want 23:11 24:4

25:14,16 30:14

32:13 40:21 48:15

50:20 60:19 63:10

67:21 78:8 86:14

95:1 100:11

102:18 110:8

120:7 135:3 160:5

187:8 204:21

212:4 213:9

234:18 249:8

252:20 263:3

268:2 278:7

289:16 291:2,20

293:15 295:9

298:22 303:20

wanted 11:8 38:21

65:21 66:5 97:17

98:19 262:3

290:17

wanting 295:12

wants 142:18 167:5

208:17

washer 28:18

Washington 1:11

wasn't 29:18 95:14

159:1 241:10

285:8 316:5 317:2

319:2,18

watch 113:3 141:8

watching 325:8

water 28:19

waters 253:22

watt 33:16 42:4,6

45:8,11 63:9 65:6

65:17 72:9 74:2,4

74:7,11 80:7 81:2

81:7 82:11 85:19

85:20,21,22 86:3

86:5,7 87:9,13

88:20 90:17

107:20 113:15

115:16 117:2

123:18 137:22

144:18,20,21

168:2,5 169:1

175:4,5,5 188:15

188:18 189:7,8,10

189:18 205:18

216:14 219:19,22

219:22 221:11,16

222:5 225:16,18

225:20 237:8,14

237:22 239:9

319:11,12

wattage 41:21 42:9

44:21 45:2,3,7,7

102:9 137:9,10

138:20 139:17

144:20 149:1

219:6 230:14,15

231:5 251:6 253:3

264:7

wattages 42:12,13

45:5 219:5

watters 188:18,20

188:22 189:1

watts 41:22,22

42:12,14 44:6,9

63:6 64:11,13,16

65:1 81:12 94:22

95:7 219:3,4

252:4 319:6,6,7,7

way 19:20 65:10

68:8 73:13 89:14

94:20 100:5

103:19 111:12,12

135:16 166:20

168:19 184:8

196:20 203:5,17

204:21,22 207:17

207:18 212:20,21

215:4 243:7

249:16 251:19,20

259:1 295:18

307:4 313:18

ways 32:7 62:19

230:10 280:13

294:2

weaken 114:12

wear 190:9

Web 19:19,20

website 326:15

weeks 26:2

weight 252:7

weights 262:14

welcome 5:4 10:8

12:2 31:9 51:1

welcomed 33:22

welcomes 40:15

welcoming 5:14

10:5 11:22

Weld 258:12

went 36:21 89:13

129:2 142:12

172:7 233:4,11

250:1 270:7,8

327:6

weren't 118:7

123:4

WESLEY 2:11

Westinghouse 3:9

9:19

we'll 14:3,12 15:1,6

15:14,18,21 17:18

30:14 40:22 47:17

49:10 67:1 75:4

76:15 89:10

101:17 102:17

103:12 119:21

127:8 136:16

142:9 152:20

153:14 154:6

169:20 188:8

190:19 196:15

202:5 210:7

236:15 241:2

265:22 268:6

270:1,6 279:3

286:8 316:9

we're 5:12 10:2

14:2 16:7 23:6

27:1 34:16 37:15

37:16 40:6 41:2

48:14 54:13 65:22

69:8 71:21 73:19

78:13 80:5 85:9

92:6 99:3 103:4,6

104:3 111:4 116:9

121:8,21 122:1

136:8 141:1,10,21

141:22 142:8,9

143:4 155:9 160:8

164:22 170:17,18

171:6,14 174:17

182:5 186:15,16

196:18 202:20

206:16 213:16

214:1 226:21,22

227:1 241:5

243:14 247:17

249:19 250:8,9,12

251:9,11 255:2,6

255:6,7 256:7,12

257:14 259:8,9,10

259:14 260:22

269:20 278:18

279:16 290:21,22

291:15 292:9

297:2 298:10,21

299:11,15 302:9

303:21,22 305:20

320:3 322:10

323:8 324:16,18

we've 10:11,19

11:2 17:5 20:6

35:3 54:13 101:17

104:16 141:6

142:6 179:12

190:11 208:16

212:15 214:3

244:6 248:10

249:14 252:18

259:16 260:7

263:6,12 264:14

293:16 318:7

wholly 297:2

widespread 49:9

win 35:12

wish 14:15 15:17

17:15 205:3

213:10 265:2

277:6 315:20

322:9

wishes 315:19

wonder 166:13

188:21 202:11

300:18 301:2

322:18

wondered 288:4

301:19

wondering 83:22

133:2 136:9

317:10 318:14

319:16

wood 35:6

words 234:7

work 6:19 17:6

27:13 29:4 106:14

141:12 254:3,3

260:11

worked 29:3

working 11:5 23:22

53:19 258:4 260:9

309:22 323:5

workout 28:10

works 26:20 28:12

29:6

world 26:10 34:19

39:4 105:20

240:22 317:10

worldwide 5:21

251:17 254:11

world's 36:22

worries 117:20

worship 268:14

wouldn't 27:13

91:2 151:7 242:5

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 370

242:6,7

writing 62:15

103:13 153:13

180:17 242:11

written 24:19

33:21 47:17 62:13

67:1,19 73:6 75:5

76:16 82:7,17

89:11 90:4,21

97:12 102:18

119:22 136:16

152:9 179:15

181:11 196:16

207:11,20 239:22

255:13 278:17

315:17 316:10

326:16

wrong 206:10

207:16

X

xenon 92:15 101:5

102:12 104:11,17

264:4 282:20

Xerox 142:19

Y

Yandek 3:12 6:10

6:10 47:5,5,11

66:22 75:4 76:21

78:2,5 86:13,19

89:7 90:20 119:17

120:5 121:7

207:10 253:14,15

255:12 261:22

278:11,14

year 19:11 20:4

29:8,10,11 37:17

104:15 151:22

152:15 154:9

155:18 156:7

185:12 188:17

194:5,6 205:21

206:17 248:3

249:4 260:19

years 11:6 28:20

35:20 100:17

104:16 150:12,13

150:14,19 151:22

152:11,12 155:19

156:2,9,11 159:8

159:12,12 160:15

162:6,17 163:10

163:21 164:2,13

164:15 166:4

169:15 170:9,18

171:1,8,10,22

172:15,17 173:4

178:12,13 183:13

183:14 184:15

185:19 186:22

187:12 195:16

196:5 204:9

206:14,15 212:8

218:3 256:12

257:1,6 258:3,5,9

yellow 56:20

York 294:11

Z

zero 36:1,17 173:20

232:13 236:6

251:8 309:14

312:2,22 313:1

$

$10 160:1 183:12

184:9

$100 301:16

$14 175:20 184:11

$166 284:7

$20 312:22

$207 284:9

$267 284:9

$4 177:6

$50 182:22 301:14

$54 177:6

$6 255:8

$60 183:12 255:5

301:14

$64 176:1

$66 183:2,3

$76 176:1

1

1 194:5 247:7,11

248:16

1E 1:10

1(a) 176:18

1(b) 176:19

1,000 110:6 271:14

1,210 156:7

1-4 245:11

1-5 245:4,4

1:19 190:22

1:20 191:2

1:30 190:17

10 4:4 197:12 219:5

251:4,18 255:7

256:12,22 257:6

269:20 270:6

10Ks 273:11

100 219:19 247:12

250:8

1000 1:10

11 4:4 15:2

11:14 142:13

11:15 141:8

11:30 142:10

11:31 142:14

114 63:22

115 66:3

12 56:18 134:17

136:6 139:21

158:19 159:7

160:22 162:5

164:14 166:4

204:9 224:15

318:4,5

12,000 170:2

12.5 156:8

12:19 190:20

12:20 190:1

12:30 141:12

120 59:8,8,12 61:11

61:21 62:5,18

63:15,20 64:7

66:3,19 67:12

109:20 110:5

114:17 138:11,20

139:16,22 140:2,6

140:18 318:2,5,9

126 63:22

13 150:12 293:18

297:6

13th 19:7

130 59:7,7,11,15,18

59:21 60:6,10,18

61:12 62:2,18

63:11 65:22 66:3

66:17 67:12 105:5

106:4 114:17

138:9,18 139:13

139:16,17,22

140:2,3,4,7,15,18

264:19

14 44:5 258:5

14.2 150:14 152:12

142 29:8

143 4:12

146 161:20

15 4:5 26:18 100:17

103:20 138:18

140:5 141:9

150:13,19 155:19

166:8 167:1 169:7

172:2 183:13

248:20

15,000 81:8 155:22

156:9

16 55:6 183:1

17 4:7 68:4

17.1 28:13

18 40:13 54:9

18,000 170:4

19 127:18 128:9,10

128:17 130:4,8,15

132:8 156:2

191 4:13

1990 34:13,16,18

1997 75:8,13

2

2 44:5 245:12 247:8

2,000 117:1

2,500 46:13 178:6

2.5 59:1 134:9

156:11

2.6 119:9 194:5

2.7 28:20

2:45 269:22

2:45:58 270:8

2:53:34 270:9

20 4:7 17:2 35:20

59:2 60:13,15

61:6,15 128:5

135:7,8,20 136:2

136:8,10,17,22

157:4 160:2 162:6

167:1 206:15

260:18 306:7

317:20

20s 59:3 264:18

20,000 166:10

248:15 249:3

200 37:16 247:14

2000 83:2 147:16

150:16 151:3

209:21 220:4

2001 28:17,18

192:5 193:21

2004 314:15

2005 83:3 117:11

148:1 154:14,18

192:5,8 193:21

194:3 197:9

2006 19:14 149:9

155:1 192:18

214:5

2006-2007 216:6

2007 18:14 53:11

155:5 192:18

214:5

2008 19:8,15 155:2

193:8

2008's 298:10

2009 1:8 36:19

205:13,22 314:15

2010 83:5

2011 225:9,10

227:18

2012 30:3 133:14

191:13,22 219:2

219:11 225:9

235:4 249:15

286:21

2015 260:11

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
(202) 234-4433

Neal R. Gross & Co., Inc.

Page 371

2020 26:19,22 27:8

27:12,15 30:3

34:13,17 203:5

204:4,16

2040 212:6

2042 191:13,22

194:3 197:9 200:8

200:13 212:13

213:19 219:5,12

222:2 225:10

227:20 235:8

295:17

216 247:3

22,000 306:8

220 318:1,3

23 4:8

230 318:1

24 45:12 103:1

109:9 110:2 204:6

276:18

243 4:15

245 1:10

25 41:22 45:11

72:19,22 73:2,4

76:19 77:4,6,16

77:21 78:16 79:4

87:9 109:9 110:2

128:5 129:1 161:4

222:8,17 223:12

223:22

26 42:12

2600 252:20,22

27 225:17

270 4:15

2700 252:20

28 41:22 42:4 44:6

44:9 144:20

2800 251:3

298 4:18

3

3 1:8 248:3 249:13

263:16 267:3,10

292:17,18 293:13

307:3

3B 282:22

3C 275:14

3M 111:9

3rd 5:9

3,000 109:12 110:8

113:22 114:5

115:10 116:22

178:6

3,450 178:20

3,500 152:14

3.4 178:13

3:55:12 327:7

30 29:9 135:8 247:5

250:10 257:15

30s 264:18

30th 27:13 53:17

30-year 28:9 29:6

300 251:3

31 247:6 249:12

257:12

3100 251:2,3

313 4:18

32 85:22 86:7 87:13

110:14,15 144:17

144:21 175:5

219:3,4 222:5

225:19

322 4:19

325 4:21

34 85:21 86:5 175:5

188:18,22 189:7

219:22 221:11,16

35 65:17 72:20,21

73:10 77:13,17,18

37 110:2

38 110:2 135:8

264:20

39 182:14,17

4

4 209:3,5,6,8,12,15

209:19,22 211:5,8

211:12 218:20

224:9,22 245:1,7

247:19 250:1

252:17 254:4,13

254:19 256:3

267:3,10 269:6

284:2 292:3,18

293:13 306:19

4,000 111:18 114:1

116:16 166:5,11

4,200 116:21 178:8

4,500 56:17,18

86:18 118:12,17

119:4 122:7,18

4.2 28:17

4.9 28:19

4:30 15:19,21 270:3

40 4:10 27:22 31:15

34:17 49:12 51:10

63:6,9 64:11,13

64:16,22 65:6

81:2 82:10 85:19

85:19 86:3,5

168:2,5 169:1

175:4 188:15,17

188:19 189:1,7,10

189:18 200:11,12

203:13,16 205:18

214:20 219:19,21

40,000 30:4,7,11

39:9

400 23:20 250:10

41 200:8 202:4

225:21

42 18:3

435 321:6

46 216:21

49 252:4

49,054 150:15

5

5 4:2 18:4 245:11

247:4,19 250:1,9

261:12 269:6

292:3 293:8

5,000 117:18

5.5 28:18

5.6 123:10,22

50 108:17 137:1,22

171:22 177:6

201:9 205:15

220:10,11 225:16

319:6,12

50,000 151:14,17

151:20 153:5

51 42:14 202:20

206:11 214:4

252:4

53 225:5

535 321:6

54 42:6 252:4

56 238:7

59 29:7

6

6,000 105:1,5,8

114:9,10,15,21

115:4 117:14,18

6,600 46:13,14,20

6.2 107:20 110:19

113:14

60 13:15 107:20

113:15 171:22

203:15 214:19

60,000 151:14,17

600 255:4 262:15

62 266:8

6295(i)(3) 18:3

63 151:22

64 161:21 266:8,11

65 33:15 161:21

216:14 237:8,14

237:21 238:22

239:9 319:6,6,7

319:11

660 26:21

68 81:11

7

7 263:17

7,000 30:3 46:17,20

47:3 48:5

7.1 28:13

7.2 119:10

7.7 123:11,22 124:9

70 4:11 81:12

70s 252:11

700 250:5 251:1

74 48:5

75 225:18 287:14

75s 137:21

76 74:7 123:19

297:7

76.8 81:6

78 74:7

78.1 42:21

78.3 42:21

789 151:21 155:18

8

8 169:7 209:9

210:10,12,14,15

210:21 211:1,13

211:13 245:1,2

8,000 48:6,11 49:18

80 160:3 252:8

80s 252:11

80's 213:17

800 80:5

82 200:14

83 74:2 123:18

84 74:3

861 149:9

88 219:11

880 178:21

9

9 178:12 187:12

224:16

9:00 1:11

9:02 5:2

90 219:2,4,11

225:20 233:18

247:21

90s 213:17

EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4
EE-2006-STD-0131 COMMENT 38.4