## FF

r 11 

## April 28 , 1998 Wa s hin gto n D . C . Presentation By Appliance & Lighting Standards Group Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory 

# 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

# 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 

# Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Life-cycle cost parameters: • Annual Lighting Hours • Ballast Price • Ballast Lifetime • Electricity Prices • Discount Rates Variability and Uncertainty 31997 Draft Report.

Average operating hours lamps Comm erc ial Sector 

### f T12 & 4ft T8 3600 Hrs Commercial Sector 8 ft T12/HO 4000 Hrs Indu stri al Sector ft TT2/HO Hrs Single-Value Sen s i tivi ty Analysis 

### p er

### f o 

### rmed at 2500 and 8000 hou rs fo r each ballast type. Probability-Based Sensitivity performed using lighting hours distribution from e r y' s XENCAP database.

- 1 11 0 s Proposed 

### 4 

# 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 Proposeda 

# st P 

# rices

• 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 

# 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, L B NL 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 

# 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 o n of

all ballast s are 2-l amp a (c 

## rices 

## 120-V) 

# omparison 

# of Ballast ric s

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

7

# ncre r

# .

a 

# gn eu 

# c t o t, 

# ce
2



# ionic

8 

# 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 

# 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 prO p osed for the TSD. • Since ballast price is an important parameter in the LCC analysis,

- a sensitivity analysis should be performed. 

# 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.

10Ballast Survey

M = Energy Efficient Magnetic Ballast E = Electronic B allast



## /I Ballast Price Telephone Survey M = Energy Efficient Magnetic Ballast E = Electronic Ballast



## II

# Bala
0 

### 45,000 hou rs u 

### sed fo r 

### magne t 

### ic e 

### l e 

### ct 

### ron i 

### c balla sts 

### 60 000 and , 

### 33 , 

### 000 hou r

### s w It 

### po i

### nt 

### s e

### ns it

### iv

### i ti 

### es o f 

### Pr

### obabil

## ity- Ba s 

### ed sen siti v 

### ity anal ys 

### is per

### fo r

### med wi t

### h dis tr

### ibuti 

### on of life ti

### mes TSDO 50,000 hours i s r se fo r magneticand electron ic ballast s w it h po i n t se n sit i vitie s o f 80,000 and 3 3, 000 hou rs 

### New dis tri

### buti 

### on c 

### an u se 

### d f or 

### p r

### obab i

### l i

### ty-bas e 

### d s e

### ns itivi

### ty ana lys 

### i s 

### b a se 

### d t

### he d at 

### a on Replace

### ment 

### Rate 

### s E lectr

### onic a

### nd tic 

### b a

### lla sts (f 

### rom Enterp rises, 

### Inc .) 

### Id.- 

# 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 

# umulative Pro ability of 

# allast Lifetime

o 20 40 60 80 100 Hours of Use (1000) 

### 13

# last L if

etime 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 

# 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 calcula t ion s P robab i 

### l ity - Based Sen siti v ity Analy s i s pe rf ormed w ith 1995 i nvestor- owned publicly-owned u t il ity s ales and re v enue data. H i gh si ng le - value sen siti v iti e s used fo r LCC Analy sis



### 15 

# 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 

# 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

ti me s e ri e s elec tric ity p rices fo r the anal ysi s 

### pr

### o v 

### ides mo re accurate pi 

### ctur

### e prices are v ary ing o ve r time. Sen s itivity analysis wil l perf ormed to acc ount fo r the v ar i ab ility in e 

### l e ctr i c ity p ri c es by utility. Av e rage p r i c es are be i ng becau s e ma rg i na l p ri ce s a re a functi on of bo t h kW d e mand and kWh energy u se charge s, wh ic h v ary by s ea s on, u ti l ity a nd f a c i lity , t he ir accurate de te r m i nat i on is v e ry d i fficult.



### /7 

# 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

## u isc o In 1997 m Discoun t rate s 4% , 8 % and 12 % were u s ed fo r the LCC an a l ysis.

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 

### (al s 

### o as the F ive Lab y) , it i s to rai s e the upper limit o 

### f the rang e disc ount rate s . 

# 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 b e cau se end

- u sers w ith hi gh elec tricity pric es or lighting hours would already be u si ng ef fici ent ba

### ll asts. exam i ne th i s poss ib i 

### l ity, LBNL obtained d at a from EPA's Green Lights program, example large voluntary lighting efficiency 

## 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 EPA'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. backElectricity prices were not r directly. calculated 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. 

## 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.GLElectronicBallastsInstalledPerYear4.0-.-----------------...3.53.02.5com'02.0enco1.5.----.-:E1.00.50.019891990199119921993,199419951996YearJ..I

## Electricity Price Methodology

Gr een L ig

hts: - Electricity price estimated by dividing dollars saved by kWh. Adjusted to 1995 dollars. U.S. Commercial Electricity: P rice s c alculated dividing commer c ial re v enu es i n dollars sale s i n kWh . - 1995 data u s ed f

o r i nvesto r- owned uti l iti es, 1994 fo r publ i cly
- owned 

### (mo st rece nt av ai labl e at time ) . Both Data Sets: Data grouped into 1-cent intervals ( cents,2-3, etc.). Fraction bal lasts o r s al e s i n each intervai calculated. 

## 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 rn co r` o T7 r r 0) O O O O O O E lectricity Price ($ /k W h ) N O N

O

M N O N

0 

## Electricity Price Distribution
0.25
0.20
C 0.15 --Commercial Electricity -+-Green Lights 0**~** 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

Bo t

### h d i s

### t r i 

### but 

### ions b r

### oad
. 

### The GL d i str i 

### buti 

### on is 

### somewha t 

### b r

### oade r t 

### han t 

### he

. 

### comme rc i 

### al l tr l i 

### distr 

### ibu t 

### ion

. The f ract i on data abo ve o r below any g iv en elec tric ity p ri ce is s i mil ar fo r the two t t. The average electricity price is $0.078/kWh for commercial electricity, $0.079/kWh for GL. E ffici ent ballasts i nstalled the program are d isproporti onately ' in re g i ons w ith h i gh electricity p ri ces . 

## 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

## Lightin g Hours Methodolo gy

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 s ample sizes make results for ballasts other than 4ft commercial l ess reliab le. 

## Lighting Hours Methodology

• For both Green Lights andXenergy 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 

## 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: L ighting Hours * GL and Xenergy dis t ribu ti on s are bo t h i t * GL dis tr i 

### bu t 

### ion ha s 

### many d ist 

### in ct 

### peak s, 

### due t 

### o p r

### ojects r 1 

### h t 

### hou r

### s a s 

### l t 

### * GL data may be shifted s 

### omewhat tr 

### hi compa re 

### d t

### o Xen e 

### rgy a i ® 

### Av

### erage 4 ft 

### comme rc 

### ia l v

### alue is 3600 hr s/



### yr fo r 

### Xene r

### g y, 

### 4300 hr

# s/y 

## r fo r 

### 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). 

### Gi v 

### en t 

### h e 

### large unc e 

### rta i 

### nti 

### e s 

### inherent i 

### n s 

### elf -r

### epo r

### ted GL dat 

### a 9 it is 

### d i 

### f

fic 

### u lt t 

### o d ete 

### rm i 

### ne i 

### f d if



### fe re 

### nce is s i 

### gn ifi 

### cant. 

## · 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.7I 

## 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 ....... O c

an L Vft
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 

## 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? 

# ational nergy Impacts
• Discuss shipments, a key input

- Historical Data

- Utility DSM Programs

, 

## • Demonstrate National Energy Savings Spreadsheet

## • NEMA balla s t shipment s 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 

# 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 S ource :N E MA C utout B allasts not inclu ded



# = last S

31 

# 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% -I8ft T12 III -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
31H 

# rent s of 2JP 4O "' i 2 Magn all

y =1163622.1x +2345679187.1 FO.72 

### 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 

# 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 2030LL A +6 y =-283617.5x +572227373. R2 x.865987 

### 2010 2015 2010 2025 I

33 

# 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 B allast Use

• Utility DSM
• Green Lights /Energy Star Buildings
• NEMA's Energy Cost Savings Council
• ASHRAE/1ES9001
• FEMP Guidelines
3 ^{



## 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 GuidelinesE



# is n DS M 

## J'^ or Most Utility 

## Rebates mostly for T8 lamp/ballasts • Focus is not on T 12 lamp /ballast replacement market Analysis of DSM programs may not inform us about future T12 lamp /ballast shipment forecasts. 25 

# 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

# th odology

• 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 

# 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 a le^ ,':_onic I all ast Shipments & Estth

iated Rebates
t

CD z 

### 35 30 25 20 1 5 10 

# 0 1994 1995


### 37 

# 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 

# 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 

# 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.

3'1r 

# t lit / F

J t I li iynvironrnena ^ Diayss • HEMS, an EIA Model, will be used. • It is a better representation

- of the 

## complexity of the energy market. Uti i fty/Environmental Analysis O utp uts: - Change in net generating capacity - Change in national generating fuel mix - Retail electricity price. - CO 2 and NOX emission reductions 

# 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.

- CO 2 

### and NO x 

### emission reductionsFF