FF

r 11

April 28 , 1998

Washington D. C.

Presentation By Appliance & Lighting Standards Group

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

PUBLICWO 

F UORE CE 

BALL 

} 

HOP ON 

-LA P 

April 28, 1998 

Washington D.C. 

Presentation By Appliance & Lighting Standards Group II 

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

I 
EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

L L Staff for Ballast Analysis 

• Barbara Atkinson 

• Christopher Busch 

• Andrea Denver 

• Diane C. Fisher 

• Sajid H. Hakim 

• Jiang Lin 

• Xiaomin Liu 

.• Chris Mamay 

• James E. McMahon 

• Isaac Turiel 
L

Life-cycle cost parameters:

• Annual Lighting Hours

• Ballast Price

• Ballast Lifetime

• Electricity Prices

• Discount Rates

Variability and Uncertainty

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

Life-Cycle Cost Analysis 

Life-cycle cost parameters: 

• Annual Lighting Hours 

• Ballast Price 

• Ballast Lifetime 

• Electricity Prices 

• Discount Rates 

Variability and Uncertainty 

3 
1997 Draft Report.

Average operating hours lamps

Commercial Sector f T12 & 4ft T8 3600 Hrs

Commercial Sector 8 ft T12/HO 4000 Hrs

Industrial Sector ft TT2/HO Hrs

Single-Value Sensitivity Analysis performed at 2500 and

8000 hours for each ballast type.

Probability-Based Sensitivity performed using lighting

hours distribution from e r y' s XENCAP database.

- 1 11 0

s Proposed

4

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

Annual Lighting Hours 

In the 1997 Draft Report: 

• Average annual operating hours for lamps 

Commercial Sector 4ft & 8ft TI2 & 4ft T8 

Commercial Sector 8 ft TI2IHO 

Industrial Sector 8 ft T12/HO 

3600 Hrs 

4000 I-Irs 

5000 Hrs 

• Single-Value Sensitivity Analysis performed at 2500 and 

8000 hours for each ballast type. 

• Probability-Based Sensitivity performed using lighting 

hours distribution from Xenergy's XENCAP database. 

In the TSD: 

No Changes Proposed 
ast Prices

• Average end-user 1996 ballast prices were derived

from a survey by Gough and Associates.

• The survey asked ballast and fixture

manufacturers to estimate OEM prices and LMCs

to estimate contractor prices.

• Mark-ups developed from the survey were applied

to yield the end-user price through each of three

different channels.

• Ballast price sensitivities were not performe

5

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

B llast ric s in 1 7 port 

• Average end-user 1996 ballast prices \vere derived 

from a survey by Gough and Associates. 

• The survey asked ballast and fixture 

manufacturers to estimate OEM prices and LMCs 

to estimate contractor prices. 

• Mark-ups developed from the survey were applied 

to yield the end-user price through each of three 

different channels. 

• Ballast price sensitivities were not performed. 

5 
e

In response to comments on markups used to generate

end-user ballast prices, LBNL conducted a survey to

obtain end-user prices more directly.

Thirty electrical distributors across the were called, 22

responded with pricing information.

The distributors were asked to assume:

1) quote was for a "good" client ordering at least 1 00

ballasts and

2) all ballasts were for 2-lamp 120 Volt fixtures.

Not all distributors provided quotes for each of the five

ballasts types.

b

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

Price urv y thodology 

• In response to comments on markups used to generate 

end-user ballast prices, LBNL conducted a survey to 

obtain end-user prices more directly. 

• Thirty electrical distributors across the US were called, 22 

responded with pricing information. 

• The distributors were asked to assume: 

- 1) quote was for a "good" client ordering at least 100 

ballasts and . 

. - 2) all ballasts were for 2-lamp 120 Volt fixtures. 

• Not all distributors provided quotes for each of the five 

ballasts types. 

6 
an s on of

all ballasts are 2-lamp a (c

rices

120-V)

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

omparison of Ballast ric s 

(all ballasts are 2-lamp and 120-V) 

7 
ncrer.

agneuc to t,

ce

2

ionic

8

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

Increm ntal Price 

a n tic t 1 tronic 

8 
Ba

• Proposal: Use the draft Report prices as

input to the TSD.

• Sensitivity Analysis can be performed using

the hig7a and low prices obtained from the

telephone survey.

• A probability based sensitivity analysis can

be performed using the distribution of the

telephone survey prices.

9

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

Ballast Pri s in T D 

• Proposal: Use the Draft Report prices as 

input to the TSD. 

• Sensitivity Analysis can be performed using 

the high and low prices obtained from the ' 

telephone survey. 

• A probability based sensitivity analysis can 

be performed using the distribution of the 

telephone survey prices. 
• Although the price difference between

magnetic and electronic is somewhat lower

in the phone survey, no change in prices is

prOposed for the TSD.

• Since ballast price is an important

parameter in the LCC analysis, - a sensitivity

analysis should be performed.

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

Ballast Price ationale 

• Although the price difference between 

magnetic and electronic is somewhat lower 

in the phone survey, no change in prices is 

proposed for the TSD. 

• Since ballast price is an important 

parameter in the LCC analysis,. a sensitivity 

analysis should be performed. 

10 
Ballast Survey

M = Energy Efficient Magnetic Ballast E = Electronic Ballast

/I

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

Ballast Price Telephone Survey 

M = Energy Efficient Magnetic Ballast E = Electronic Ballast 

II 
Bala

0 45,000 hours used for magnetic electronic ballasts

wIt point sensitivities of 60 000 , and 33 ,000 hours

Probability-Based sensitivity analysis performed with

distribution of lifetimes

TSDO

50,000 hours is r se for magneticand electronic

ballasts with point sensitivities of80,000 and 3 3,000 hours

New distribution can used for probability-based

sensitivity analysis based the data on Replacement

Rates Electronic and tic ballasts (from

Enterprises, Inc.)

Id.-

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

Ballast LiD time 

1997 Draft Report: 

• 45,000 hours used for magnetic and electronic ballasts 

with point sensitivities of 60,000 and 33,000 hours· 

• Probability-Based sensitivity analysis performed with a 

distribution of lifetimes 

TSD: 

• 50,000 hours is proposed for magnetic and electronic 

ballasts with point sensitivities of 80,000 and 33,000 hours 

• New distribution can be used for probability-based 

sensitivity analysis based upon the data on Replacement 

Rates of Electronic and Magnetic ballasts (from T & J 

Enterprises, Inc.) 
etime

1 3

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

umulative Pro ability of allast 

Lifetime 

o 20 40 60 80 100 

Hours of Use (1000) 

13 
last Lifetime 10

1

• Replacement lifetime of 50% of the

magnetic and electronic ballasts was

calculated from data provided by T & J

Enterprises, Inc.

• 50% of magnetic and electronic ballasts are

replaced by 52,000 and 56,500 hours,

respectively.

• 50,000 hours is proposed as the li fetime,

consistent with previous stakehol r,lP , r

comments.

iy

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

Ballast Lifetime Rationale 

- Replacement lifetime of 50% of the 

magnetic and electronic ballasts was 

calculated from data provided by T J 

Enterprises, Inc. 

- 50% of magnetic and electronic ballasts are 

replaced by 52,000 and 56,500 hours, 

respectively. 

-50,000 hours is proposed as the lifetime, 

consistent with previous stakeholder 

comments. 

1'1 
lectricity nces in 1 -^,_epof

Average prices for from EIA's

for all years in LCC calculations

Probability-Based Sensitivity Analysis performed with

1995 investor-owned publicly-owned utility sales

and revenue data.

High single-value sensitivities used for LCC

Analysis

15

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

1 ctricity Prices in 1997 eport 

• Average prices for 2001 from EIA's AEO '97 were used 

for all years in Lee calculations 

• Probability-Based Sensitivity Analysis performed with 

1995 investor-owned and 1994 publicly-owned utility sales 

and revenue data. 

• High and Low single-value sensitivities used for Lee 

Analysis 

15 
• A Time Series of Average Prices from EIA's AEO

1998 is proposed for the LCC analysis.

• Probability-Based Sensitivity Analysis can be

performed using the most recent distribution from

individual utility sales and revenue data.

• Values near the endpoints of these distributions

can be used for the point sensitivity analyses.

16

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

EI ctricity • • 

fIC S In D 

• A Time Series of Average Prices from EIA's AEO 

1998 is proposed for the LCC analysis. 

• Probability-Based Sensitivity Analysis can be 

performed using the most recent distribution from 

individual utility sales and revenue data. 

• Values near the endpoints of these distributions 

can be used for the point sensitivity analyses. 
Rati onu

time series electricity prices for the analysis

provides more accurate picture prices are varying

over time.

Sensitivity analysis will performed to account for the

variability in electricity prices by utility.

Average prices are being because marginal prices are

a function of both kW demand and kWh energy u se

charges, which vary by season, utility and facility, their

accurate determination is very difficult.

/7

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

Electri ity Price Rationale 

• A time series of electricity prices for the LCC analysis . 

provides a more accurate picture when prices are varying . . . 

over tIme. 

• Sensitivity analysis will be performed to account for the· 

variability in electricity prices by utility. 

• Average prices are being used because marginal prices are 

a function of both kW demand and kWh energy use 

charges, which vary by season, utility and facility, their 

accurate determination is very difficult. 

17 
uisco

In 1997 m

Discount rates 4%, 8% and 12% were used for the LCC

analysis.

0

Discount rates 4%, 8% and 1 5% are proposed for the LCC

analysis.

Rationale.

be consistent with the terl t ri s Working Group

report (also as the Five Lab y), it is to raise

the upper limit of the range discount rates .

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

Discount ates 

In 1997 Draft Report: 

• Discount rates of 4%,8% and 12% were used for the Lee 

analysis. 

In TSD: 

• Discount rates of 4%; 8% and 15% are proposed for the Lee 

analysis. 

Rationale: 

• To be consistent with the Interlaboratories Working Group 

report (also known as the Five Lab Study), it is proposed to raise 

the upper limit of the range of discount rates to 15%. 

If 
Variability and Uncertainty

draft the distribution of

commercial electricity prices to represent prices paid

ballast users.

The distribution of lighting hours found in the XenCAP11

database was used to represent ballast user lighting hours.

Commentors suggested that these distributions would not

be representative of end-users impacted by standards

because end-users with high electricity prices or lighting

hours would already be using efficient ballasts.

examine this possibility, LBNL obtained data from

EPA's Green Lights program, example large

voluntary lighting efficiency

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

Variability and Uncertainty 

• In draft report, LBNL used the distribution of u.s. 

commercial electricity prices to represent prices paid by 

ballast users. 

• The distribution of lighting hours found in the XenCAPTM. 

database was used to represent ballast user lighting hours. 

• Commentors suggested that these distributions would not 

be representative of end-users impacted by standards 

because end-users with high electricity prices or lighting 

hours would already be using more efficient ballasts. 

• To examine this possibility, LBNL obtained data from 

EP A's Green Lights program, as an example of a large 

voluntary lighting efficiency program. 

1'1 
EPA Green Lights (GL) Data

Voluntary lighting efficiency retrofits, only "costeffective" measures implemented.

Data is self-reported by participants.

Lighting hour estimates were generally not based on

detailed audits. Many reported very round numbers such

as multiples of 1000 hrs/yr.

Electricity prices were not r directly. backcalculated by dividing dollars saved by kWh saved.

LBNL obtained data July 30, 1997. This

represents million electronic ballasts installed in 1. 5

billion square feet.

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

EPA Green Lights (GL) Data· 

• Voluntary lighting efficiency retrofits, only "cost ... 

effective" measures implemented. 

• Data is self-reported by participants. 

• Lighting hour estimates were generally not based on 

detailed audits. Many reported very round numbers such 

as multiples of 1000 hrs/yr. 

• Electricity prices were not reported directly. LBNL backcalculated by dividing dollars saved by kWh saved. 

• LBNL obtained GL data through July 30, 1997. This 

represents 10 million electronic ballasts installed in 1.5 

billion square feet. 
EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

ectronic Ballasts Installed Per Year 

.0-.-----------------... 

1989 1990 1991 1992 1993, 1994 1995 1996 

Year 

J..I 
Electricity Price Methodology

Green Lights:

- Electricity price estimated by dividing dollars saved by

kWh. Adjusted to 1995 dollars.

U.S. Commercial Electricity:

Prices calculated dividing commercial revenues in

dollars sales in kWh.

- 1995 data used for investor-owned utilities, 1994 for

publicly-owned (most recent available at time).

Both Data Sets:

Data grouped into 1-cent intervals ( cents,2-3, etc.).

Fraction ballasts or sales in each intervai calculated.

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

Electricity Price Methodology 

• Green Lights: 

- Electricity price estimated by dividing dollars saved by 

kWh. Adjusted to 1995 dollars. 

• USfI Commercial Electricity: 

- Prices calculated by dividing commercial revenues in 

dollars by sales in kWh. 

- 1995 data used for investor-owned utilities, 1994 for 

publicly-owned (most recent available at time). 

• Both Data Sets: 

- Data grouped into I-cent intervals (1-2 cents, 2 ... 3, etc.). 

Fraction of ballasts or sales in each interval calculated. 
Electricity Price Distribution

0

O O 0

8 a'

O

Commercial Electricity

Green Lights

O tO O

Electricity Price ($ IkW h )

1.0

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0.0

0

O

O

O

rno T7 r r 0) co r`

O O O O O O

E lectricity Price ($ /k W h )

N

O

N

O

M

N

O

N

0

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

Electricity Price Distribution 

0.25 

0.20 

C 0.15 --Commercial Electricity 

0 -+-Green Lights 

~ 

l! 

u.. 0.10 

0.05 

0.00 

0 a 8 ~ 2 (f) 10 ..... Ol N ~ ~ 

(f) 10 .- ~ N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ci 0 

E Ie chic ity P ric e ($/kWh) 

1 .0 

c 0.9 

0 0.8 :e::; 

u 0.7 f 

u.. 0.6 

CI) ---- 0.5 Commercial Electricity >-

~ 0.4 • G r e e n L i9 h t s 

'3 0.3 E 0.2 ::3 

0 0.1 

0.0 ..- (") 10 r-- 0> ..... (") 10 r-- 0> ..- (") 10 0 0 0 0 0 ..- ..- ..- ..- ..... N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

E Ie c trlc Ity P ric e ($/k W h ) 
Conclusions: Electricity Price Distribution

Both distributions broad. The GL distribution is

somewhat broader than the . commercial l trl i

distribution.

The fraction data above or below any given electricity

price is similar for the two t t.

The average electricity price is $0.078/kWh for

commercial electricity, $0.079/kWh for GL.

Efficient ballasts installed the program are

disproportionately 'in regions with high electricity prices.

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

Conclusions: Electricity Price Distribution 

• Both distributions are broad. The GL distribution is 

somewhat broader than the u.s. commercial electricity 

distribution. 

• The fraction of data above or below any given electricity 

price is similar for the two datasets. 

• The average electricity price is $O.078/kWh for 

commer~ial electricity, $O.079/kWh for GL. 

• Efficient ballasts installed in the GL program are not found 

disproportionately in regions with high electricity prices. 

J..'I 
Lighting Hours Methodology

For both Green Lights and Xenergy data.

Results tabulated separately for 8ft, and t

ballasts, and for stri sector.

Ballasts grouped t lighting hour 'Intervals (0-417

hrs/yr, 418-834 hrs/yr, etc). Fracti*on of ballasts 'in each

interval was calculated.

Small sample sizes make results for ballasts other than

4ft commercial less reliable.

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

Lighting Hours Methodology 

• For both Green Lights and Xenergy data: 

- Results tabulated separately for 4ft, 8ft, and 8ftHO 

ballasts, and for commercial and industrial sector. 

- Ballasts grouped into 21 lighting hour intervals (0-417 

hrs/yr, 418-834 hrs/yr, etc). Fraction of ballasts in each 

interval was calculated. 

- Small sample sizes make results for ballasts other than 

4ft.commercialless reliable. 
Operating Hours Distribution, Oft Commercial

0.18

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000

Annual Lighting Hours

1

0.9

0.8

0.7

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

0 1000 2000 3000 4000

X e n e r g y

Green Lights

5000 6000 7000

8000

8000

Annual Lighting Hours

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

Operating Hours Distribution, 4ft Commercial 

0.18 

0.16 

0.14 

0.12 

0.10 

0.08 

0.06 

0.04 

0.02 

0.00 

1 

0.9 

0.8 

0.7 

0.6 

0.5 

0.4 

0.3 

0.2 

0.1 

o 

o 

o 

1000 2000 

1000 2000 

--Xenergy 

• G re en L ig h ts 

3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 

Ann u a I L i9 h tin 9 H 0 u rs 

--Xenergy 

• G re e n L ig h ts 

3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 

Ann u a I L 19 h tin 9 H 0 u rs 
Conclusions: Lighting Hours

* GL and Xenergy distributions are both it

* GL distribution has many distinct peaks, due to

projects r 1 ht hours as lt

* GL data may be shifted somewhat tr hi

compared to Xenergy ai ® Average 4ft commercial value

is 3600 hrs/yr for Xenergy, 4300 hrs/yr for GL.

• This shift results from fewer GL ballasts below 1500

hrs/yr, and a large number of GL ballasts at 8760 hrs/yr

(24 hrs/day).

Given the large uncertainties inherent in self-reported GL

data9 it is difficult to determine if difference is significant.

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

· Conclusions: Lighting Hours 

• GL and Xenergy distributions are both quite broad. 

• GL distribution has many distinct peaks, due to many 

projects reporting lighting hours as multiples of 1000. 

• GL data may be shifted somewhat towards higher values 

compared to Xenergy data. Average 4ft commercial value 

is 3600 hrs/yr for Xenergy, 4300 hrs/yr for GL. 

• This shift results from fewer GL ballasts below 1500 

hrs/yr, and a large number of GL ballasts at 8760 hrs/yr 

(24 hrs/day). 

• Given the large uncertainties inherent in self-reported GL 

data, it is difficult to determine if difference is significant. 

J.7 
I

Lighting `

ours

All Ballast Types in Both Sectors

Operating Hours Distribution , Green Lightsva Xonargy

4FT Commercial

Amend Operating More

--Xaaarly

....... Gees Lt,ta

Xenergy ballasts: 6.4 million

GL ballasts: 9.1 million

Xenergy ballasts: 770,000

GL ballasts: 670,000

Operating Hours Distribution, Green Lights %m Xenargy

OFT Commercial

0.96

0.90

025

0.20

0.16

0.10

0.06

XanerOy

....... Ocan LVft

0.001 ./

Annual Operating Hours

Xenergy ballasts: 570,000

GL ballasts: 160,000

Xenergy ballasts: 310,000

GL ballasts: 41,000

Xenergy ballasts: 85,000

GL ballasts: 14,000

Xenergy ballasts: 59,000

GL ballasts: 19,000

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

Lighting Hours : 

All Ballast Types in Both Sectors 

Operating HoIII'II Dletrlbutlon, Graen Lighlu ... Xonergy 

4FT Commarclal 

0.19~--------------' 

0.18 

0.14 

0.12 

I 0.10 

0.08 .. 0.09 

0.04 

0.02 

0.00 0 H 4~ ...,.:.:,t-.-.--~ ..... a ...... ~ .............. ~ --~.............:ii ~i"'" 

0.30 

0.25 

0.20 I 0.15 

.. 0.10 

0.05 

0.00 0 

Annual OperattnG Houre 

Xenergy ballasts: 6.4 million 

GL ballasts: 9.1 million 

Operating Houra Dllllributlon, Groon Lighla va Xenergy 

4FTlnduolo.1 

i! ~ ~ a ~ ; ~ i ~ i _ OperoHng IIounI 

Xenergy ballasts: 770,000 

GL ballasts: 670,000 

Oporallng Hours Distribution, Gr •• n Lights VII. Xonorgy 

8FT Commarclal 

0.35 .----------------, 

0.30 

0.25 

I::: 0.10 

0.08 

0.00 l-o=:;::;.~_t_+......_.. ......... ._;.:..,.:.:;.....;~",...,....,.,:::t 

o i! ~ ~ a ~ ~ ~ ii ~ a Annual Operating Hour. 

Xenergy ballasts: 570,000 

GL ballasts: 160,000 

Opemtlng Houra Dllllributlon, Gr •• n Lights ... Xonorgy 

IFTlnduolrial 

0.25.------------, 

0.20 

Xenergy ballasts: 310,000 

GL ballasts: 41,000 

Oporating Houro Dllllributlon, Gr •• n Lights "" X.norgy 

IIfTHO Commerclol 

0.25.------------, 

I 0.15 

.. 0.10 

0.05 

Xenergy ballasts: 85,000 

GL ballasts: 14,000 

Op.ratlng Houro Dllllributlon, Groen Lights va Xonergy 

IIfTHO Indulllrial 

0.25r-----------~ 

I 0.15 

b. 0.10 

o ~ I ~ a ~ ~ ~ i ~ i AIIIlIUII Openll1ng 110 .... 

Xenergy ballasts: 59,000 

GL ballasts: 19,000 
Discuss shipments, aii 'Input

- Historical Data

- Utility DSM Programs

• Demonstrate National Energy. S avings

Spreadsheet

CZ?

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

ational nergy Impacts 

• Discuss shipments, a key input 

- Historical Data 

- Utility DSM Programs 

, 

• Demonstrate National Energy Savings 

Spreadsheet 
• NEMA ballast shipments data for 1993-

1997

• Disaggregated by magne ^^rC , electronic an(^!

cathode cutout ballasts for several

lamp/ballast systems

• LBNL analyzed both % magnetic and

shipments of magnetic ballasts

30

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

hipm nts Data 

• EMA ballast shipments data for 1993-

1997 

• Disaggregated by magnetic, electronic and 

cathode cutout ballasts for several 

lamp/ballast systems 

• LBNL analyzed both % magnetic and 

shipments of magnetic ballasts 

3() 
etic

ent ofT 1

1J _ Lents

60%

2 40%

All 4ftTl

20% 8ft T12

8ft T12/HO

°/®

1993 1994 1995 1997

Source:NEMA Cutout Ballasts not included

=last S

31

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

agnetic Ballast Shipm nts as 

P rcent of Tot I Ballast hipm nt 

U 

...... 

.. 

CD 

C 

0) 

«S 

:E 

~ 0 

100% ....... 

.:;. 

- I 80% -I60% -I- A 

40% -~ 

~~-

• AII4ftT12 

20% -IIII 8ft T12 

-Ik- 8ft T12/HO 

00/0 

1993 

I 

1994 

Source: NEMA 

..... ..... iIIIi IiIB 

- -

... 

- ....... ..~ 

I I 

I I 

1995 1996 1997 

Cathode Cutout Ballasts not included 

31 
H

rents of 2JP4O"'i 2 Magn

all

y =1163622.1x +2345679187.1

FO.72

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

hipm nts of 2F 0 1 

Ballasts 

agn tic 

~.86~--------------------~ 

In 1: 3O.E+6 

(I) 

E 20.E+6 - c111-

..c 10.E+6 y=-1163622.1x+2345679187.1 

R2=o.n 

00.86~~--~~~--~~--~~ 

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 
LL A +6 y =-283617.5x +572227373.

R2 x.865987

2010 2015 2010 2025

I

33

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

hipm nts of2F96T12 

Ballasts 

a n tic 

8.E+6 ----------------. 

en C 6.E+6 

CI) 

·e 4.E+6 y =-283617.5x +572227373. 

R'! =0.865987 

111-

J:: 2.E+6 

1990 1995 2CXX) 2005 2010 2015 

33 
mere are Several Non-Regulatory Programs

to Encourage Electronic Ballast Use

• Utility DSM

• Green Lights /Energy Star Buildings

• NEMA's Energy Cost Savings Council

• ASHRAE/1ES9001

• FEMP Guidelines

3 ^{

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

There are Several Non-Regulatory Programs 

to Encourage Electronic Ballast Use 

• Utility DSM 

• Green Lights I Energy Star Buildings 

• NEMA's Energy Cost Savings Council 

• ASHRAE/IES 90.1 

• FEMP Guidelines 
E

is n

J'^ or Most Utility DSM

Rebates mostly for T8 lamp/ballasts

• Focus is not on T12 lamp/ballast

replacement market

Analysis of DSM programs may not inform us

about future T12 lamp /ballast shipment

forecasts.

25

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

It is Important to ote 

For Most Utility DSM Programs: 

.. Rebates mostly for T8 lamp/ballasts 

• Focus is not on TI2 lamp/ballast 

replacement market 

Analysis of DSM programs may not inform us 

about future T121amp/ballast shipment 

forecasts. 

35 
thodology

• Calculate percentage energy efficiency (EE) spending

devoted to electronic ballast rebates (13% in 1994)

• Calculate Average rebate per ballast ($10.70 in 1994)

• Assume % and $/ballast from sample is same for nation

• Multiply national spending ($1.6 Billion in 1994) on EE by

(13%) devoted to electronic ballasts. Result is $207

Million

• Divide national spending on electronic ballasts ($207M)

by average rebate per ballast ($10.70). Result is 19.4

million electronic ballast rebates.

34

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

D M Methodology 

• Calculate percentage energy efficiency (EE) spending 

devoted to electronic ballast rebates (13 % in 1994) 

• Calculate Average rebate per ballast {$10.70 in 1994) 

• Assume % and $/ballast from sample is same for nation 

• Multiply national spending ($1.6 Billion in 1994) on EE by 

% (13%) devoted to electronic ballasts. Result is $207 

Million 

• Divide national spending on electronic ballasts ($207M) 

by average rebate per ballast ($10.70). Result is 19.4 

million electronic ballast rebates. 
Comparison of ale^,':_onic I allast

Shipments & Estthiated Rebates

t

CD

z

35

30

25

20

1

5 10

0

1994 1995

37

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

Comparison of Electronic Ballast 

hipments Estimated Rebates 

o 35 

5 30 111-

-

== 25 m9M 26m OM 

~ 20 

~ 15 ·t:: 

5% 

~ 10 

.9a 5 

.c 

UJ O-l---

331111 30m3 

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 

119 Utilities III 6 Utilities D Not Subsidized 

37 
^14 11:-, ^I

Imo,,.

• Simp1hFed approach to estimating na^'onal

energy savings and NPV

• User friendly input screens which interface

with EXCEL spreadsheets.

• Shipments forecast is an input

Output shows energy savings and NPV for

four different types of ballasts operating

T 12 lamps.

39

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

E pr dsh t 

• Simplified approach to estimating national 

energy savings and NPV 

• User friendly input screens which interface 

with EXCEL spreadsheets. 

• Shipments forecast is an input 

• Output shows energy savings and NPV for 

four different types of ballasts operating 

T12lamps. 

38 
• Two ballast shipment scenarios (constant

and declining) analyzed.

• Tenergy savings range from 1.1 to

4.5 Quads.

• COMMEND energy savings in 1997 Draft

Report ranged from 1.5 to 5.3 Quads.

39

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

pr adsheet suIts 

• Two ballast shipment scenarios (constant 

and declining) analyzedo 

• National energy savings range from 101 to 

405 Quadso 

• COMMEND energy savings in 1997 Draft 

Report ranged from 105 to 503 Quads. 

3'1 
r

tiynvironrnena ^ Diayss lit /FJ t I li

• HEMS, an EIA Model, will be used.

• It is a better representation- of the

complexity of the energy market.

Utiifty/Environmental Analysis Outputs:

- Change in net generating capacity

- Change in national generating fuel mix

- Retail electricity price.

- CO2 and NOX emission reductions

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

Utility/Environm ntal Analysis 

• MS, anEIA Model, will be used. 

• It is a better <representation of the 

complexity of the energy marketo 

• UtilitylEnvironmental A11alysis Outputs: 

- Change in net generating capacity 

- Change in national generating fuel mix 

- Retail electricity price. 

- CO2 and NOx emission reductions 
EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF
EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF

FF 
EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 21FF