UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

PUBLIC MEETING 

ON

FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLAST

ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585

Room 8E-089

Tuesday

May 10, 2011

Chair:

Tina Kaarsberg

Department of Energy

Facilitator:
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

2

Doug Brookman

Public Solutions

Participants Identified: 

Susan Anderson

Osram Sylvania

103 Endicott Street

Danvers, MA 01923

Timothy Ballo

EarthJustice

1625 Massachusetts Avenue

Suite 702

Washington, DC 20036

Michele Cano, Esquire

U.S. Department of Justice

450 Fifth Street NW, Suite 8218

Washington, DC 20530

Keith Cook

Philips

1050 K Street, NW

WA, DC 20001

Ku’uipo Curry

ICF International

1725 Eye Street NW

Suite 1000

Washington, DC 20008

Andrew deLaski

Appliance Standards Awareness Project

20 Belgrade Ave, Suite 1

Boston, MA 02131

Tom Eckman

Northwest Power and Conservation Council

851 SW Sixth Avenue

Suite 1100

Portland, OR 97204-1348

Cheryl English

Acuity Brands Lighting

One Lithonia Way

Convers, GA 30012
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

3

Bob Erhardt

Philips Lighting and Electronics

10275 West Higgins Road

Rosemont, IL 80018-5603

Chris Holstein

Universal Lighting Technologies

26 Century Blvd, Suite 500

Nashville, TN 37214-3683

Kate Jensen

Steptoe & Johnson

1330 Connecticut Ave NW

Washington, DC 20036-1795

Amanda Lowenberger

American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy

529 14th St. NW, Suite 600

Washington, DC 20045

Joanna Mauer

Appliance Standards Awareness Project

529 14th St. NW, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20045

Mike McGaraghan

Energy Solutions

1810 Harrison Street

Oakland, CA 94812

Robert Nachtrieb

Lutron Electronics

7200 Sutler Road

Coopersburg, PA 18036-1299

Justin Neumann

National Electrical Manufacturers Association

1300 North 17th St., Suite 1752

Rosslyn, VA 22209

Joe Parisella

Osram Sylvania

54 Cherry Hill Drive

Danvers, MA 01923
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

4

Jeffrey Plaskon

GE Lighting

1975 Noble Road

Cleveland, OH 44112

Tom Poehlman

Universal Lighting Technologies

1430 West Triana Highway

Madison, AL 35756

Timothy Rasinski

National Institute of Standards and Technology

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2140

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Charlie Stephens

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

421 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204

Jeremy Stephens

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

421 SW Sixth Avenue, Suite 600 

Portland, OR 97204

Ed Thomas

GE Lighting

1975 Noble Road

Cleveland, OH 44112

Participants from Navigant:

Rob Carmichael 

Navigant Consulting

1801 K St. NW, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20006

Mahima “Mimi” Gupta

Associate Director

Navigant Consulting

1801 K St. NW, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20006

Ali McDonald 

Navigant Consulting

1801 K St. NW, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20006
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

5

Matthew Walker

Navigant Consulting

1801 K St. NW, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20006

Erin Potocki

Navigant Consulting

1801 K St. NW, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20006

Rachel Dickenson

Navigant Consulting

1801 K St. NW, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20006

Aisha Husain

Navigant Consulting

1801 K St. NW, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20006

Participants from DOE:

Elizabeth (Betsy) Kohl

General Counsel’s Office

John Cymbalsky

DOE Appliance Standards

Robert van Buskirk

Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory

Presenters:

Ali McDonald

Navigant Consulting

1801 K St. NW, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20006

Erin Potocki

Navigant Consulting

1801 K St. NW, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20006

Matthew Walker

Navigant Consulting

1801 K St. NW, Suite 500

Washington, DC 20006
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

6

Natasha Collins (telephonically)

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

902 Battelle Boulevard

PO Box 999

Richland, WA 99352

Bob Lingard

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

620 SW 5th Ave, Suite 810

Portland, OR 97204

Grant Williams

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

902 Battelle Boulevard

PO Box 999

Richland, WA 99353
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

7

AGENDA

 ITEM PAGE

Welcome, John Cymbalsky 8

Introductions 10

Agenda Review, Doug Brookman 12

Welcome, Tina Kaarsberg 15

Introduction, Overview and Statute

Ali McDonald 18

Opening Statements 22

Market and Technology Assessment 

Ali McDonald 66

Engineering Analysis

Matthew Walker 89

Energy Use and Markups Analysis 

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

Bob Lingard 154

Shipments Analysis

Grant Williams 171

National Impacts Analysis

Grant Williams 195

Manufacturer Impact Analysis

Erin Potocki 197

LCC Subgroup Analyses

Bob Lingard 219

Utility Impact Analysis

Bob Lingard 221

Employment Impact Analysis

Bob Lingard 223
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

8

Environmental Assessment

Bob Lingard 231

Final Proposed Standard

Tina Kaarsberg 233

Final Comments 236

Closing Remarks 242
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

9

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

2

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s take our seats and 

4 get started. Good morning everybody, and welcome. 

5 This is the US Department of Energy’s public meeting 

6 on Energy Conservation Standards Notice of Proposed 

7 Rulemaking for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts. Today is 

Tuesday, May 10th 8 , here in the Forrestal Building, 

9 Washington, DC. Welcome. Glad you could make it. 

10 We’re going to start off this morning with welcoming 

11 remarks from John Cymbalsky. 

12 WELCOME

13 MR. CYMBALSKY: Thanks, Doug. Welcome 

14 everybody to the Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts public 

15 meeting for the release of our NOPR. I think this 

16 is a very significant rule, as you’ll see as we go 

17 through the slides today. We have an estimated 

18 savings range of four to six quads, roughly, and if 

19 you look at the numbers, that’s all the lighting for 

20 one year in buildings, residential and commercial 

21 buildings. So I think this is a very significant 

22 rule and I thank everybody for coming and paying 

23 attention to this because I think it is one of these 

24 big energy savings rules.

25 I would also like to introduce Tina 

26 Kaarsberg, who is the newest member of the appliance 

27 standards program. She’s taking over most of the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

10

1 lighting rules from Linda Graves who retired in 

2 January, and Tina has a Ph.D. in physics, which is 

3 impressive to me, because physics in high school is 

4 what scared me out of becoming an engineer. So I 

5 slid down to an economist/statistician rung on the 

6 ladder. But Tina and I have known each other for 

7 lots of years back in our former jobs. I remember 

8 in the mid 90s, we would be across the table from 

9 one another arguing whether or not Kyoto would 

10 actually have an impact in the year 2010. Now we’re 

11 on the same team with that, so I would just like to 

12 welcome everybody here and have a good meeting. I 

13 can’t stick around for very long, but I hope this is 

14 very productive, and everybody shares their views on 

15 what we present today.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. It’s our 

17 tradition to do introductions around the room. If 

18 you’d say your name and your organizational 

19 affiliation. It also gives you a chance to test 

20 your ability to turn this mic on and off. The 

21 little green light needs to be illuminated. Your 

22 name and organizational affiliation. 

23

24 Introductions

25 MR. HOLSTEIN: Chris Holstein with the 

26 Universal Lighting Technologies.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

11

1 MR. NACHTRIEB: Robert Nachtrieb with 

2 Lutron Electronics.

3 MR. NEUMANN: Justin Neumann with the 

4 National Electrical Manufacturers Association.

5 MS. ANDERSON: Susan Anderson, Osram 

6 Sylvania.

7 MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English, Acuity 

8 Brands.

9 MS. JENSEN: Kate Jensen, Steptoe & 

10 Johnson. We represent Acuity Brands.

11 MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon, GE Lighting.

12 MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt, Philips 

13 Lighting Electronics.

14 MR. COOK: Keith Cook, Philips Lighting.

15 MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman, Northwest Power 

16 and Conservation Council.

17 MR. McGARAGHAN: Mike McGaraghan with 

18 Energy Solutions, but here representing the 

19 California investor-run utilities including Pacific 

20 Gas and Electric Company, Southern California 

21 Edison, SoCal Gas Company and San Diego Gas and 

22 Electric.

23 MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, EarthJustice.

24 MR. STEPHENS: Jeremy Stephens with the 

25 Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

12

1 MR. DeLASKI: Andrew DeLaski, Appliance 

2 Standards Awareness Project.

3 MS. KOHL: Betsy Kohl, Department of 

4 Energy, General Counsel’s Office.

5 MR. CYMBALSKY: John Cymbalsky, DOE 

6 Appliance Standards.

7 DR. KAARSBERG: Tina Kaarsberg, DOE 

8 Appliance Standards. Are you all going to come up 

9 to the mic? Oh, you have one. 

10 MS. GUPTA: I think we have some. Mimi 

11 Gupta, Navigant Consulting.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Why don’t you all stand up?

13 MR. WALKER: Matthew Walker, Navigant.

14 MS. POTOCKI: Erin Potocki, Navigant.

15 MS. McDONALD: Ali McDonald, Navigant.

16 MR. WILLIAMS: Grant Williams, Pacific 

17 Northwest National Labs.

18 MR. LINGARD: Bob Lingard, Pacific 

19 Northwest National Labs, and I’ll also introduce our 

20 colleague Dr. Natasha Collins, who will be attending 

21 electronically.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s then proceed, the 

23 back of the room, please say your name. Yes. This 

24 does not need to be on the record. We have folks 

25 who registered. (Recorded those who were clear.)
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

13

1 MR. PARISELLA: Joe Parisella, Osram 

2 Sylvania.

3 MR. THOMAS: Ed Thomas, GE Lighting.

4 MR. POEHLMAN: Tom Poehlman, Universal 

5 Lighting Technologies.

6 MS. LOWENBERGER: Amanda Lowenberger, 

7 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.

8 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer, Appliance 

9 Standards Awareness Project.

10 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Northwest 

11 Energy Efficiency Alliance.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Welcome again 

13 all of you; glad you could make it here for an early 

14 start. It’s going to be a full day, I think. My 

15 name’s Doug Brookman, by the way, from Public 

16 Solutions in Baltimore.

17 Agenda Review

18 MR. BROOKMAN: I’m going to do a very 

19 brief agenda review, and then we will proceed with 

20 the content. This is still providing a little bit 

21 of feedback, Brenda. All of you received a packet 

22 of information when you came in the door. It was 

23 the Federal Register notice, photocopy -- colorful 

24 photocopy of the PowerPoint slides that will be the 

25 basis for presentation and the bulk of the comment 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

14

1 today. Immediately following this agenda review, in 

2 fact, the agenda that you have is slightly --

3 there’s one error in it. After we do the agenda 

4 review, we’re going to go to the 9:10 block as 

5 referenced in the agenda. Tina is going to provide 

6 an overview, talk about the statute and the context, 

7 and then, at that point, there’s an opportunity for 

8 opening remarks. Anybody that wishes to do so can 

9 make brief summary statements. We understand NEMA 

10 has quite a few PowerPoint slides they want to lay 

11 out first thing this morning to provide context for 

12 their day of work. That’s going to happen at that 

13 point. 

14 Following that we’ll launch into the more 

15 detailed content: market and technology assessment, 

16 and Screening Analysis, followed by Engineering 

17 Analysis. We’ll take a break mid-morning, round 

18 about 10:45 or so. Following that, Energy Use and

19 Mark-ups Analysis, Life Cycle Cost, Pay Back Period 

20 Analysis, Shipments and National Impacts Analysis. 

21 We’ll take a lunch mid-day.

22 And then continuing on, Manufacturer 

23 Impact Analysis, Utility Impact, Employment Impact, 

24 Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Impact 

25 Analysis. Break Mid-afternoon, and then comments on 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

15

1 proposed standard and then closing remarks at about 

2 2:45 or so this afternoon. 

3 There’s yet another opportunity at the end 

4 of the day for issues that haven’t been covered 

5 sufficiently, issues that anybody wishes to raise 

6 one more time, or whatever, so there’s that 

7 opportunity for you then. 

8 Comments, questions about the agenda?

9 Then I’d ask for your consideration, you 

10 see, what I think is common courtesy over here. 

11 Please speak one at a time. Please say your name 

12 for the record. You don’t need to say your 

13 organizational affiliation unless it’s stuck as a 

14 part of your mantra. But please say your name each 

15 time you speak. 

16 I’m going to be queuing individuals by 

17 name as best I can, so everybody knows where they 

18 are in the queue. I’ve also found it’s useful for 

19 the Department to have follow-on comments. 

20 Sometimes the back and forth is very useful for 

21 them. 

22 Please keep the focus here. Turn your 

23 cell phones on silent mode, please limit the sidebar 

24 conversations. If you can remember to turn your 

25 mics on. These now work well, so your sidebar 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

16

1 conversation will come in over the amplification 

2 system, so limit that please. Be concise, share the 

3 air time. There’s a lot to cover here today and 

4 we’re looking forward to hearing a lot from you as 

5 the day goes on.

6 So questions and comments before we launch 

7 into this? Okay. Now we’re going to hear from Tina 

8 Kaarsberg, from the Department of Energy.

9 Welcome

10 DR. KAARSBERG: Hello. For the record and 

11 the webinarians, this is Tina Kaarsberg, and I 

12 expect a lot of really good comments today, but make 

13 sure you don’t limit your comments to the standard, 

14 but feel free to comment on the process in any way. 

15 We’re always trying to innovate. For example, this 

16 webinar thing is pretty new to us and today we are 

17 pioneering the first ever remote speaker via 

18 webinar, should be interesting, and would like to 

19 know what you think of that. And webinar 

20 participants other than the speaker would be asking 

21 questions by posting them, and as those questions 

22 come in we would perhaps pause at an appropriate 

23 time to go over those questions as well. 

24 As John mentioned, I’m one of the newest 

25 members, only since February, so my learning curve 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

17

1 is still very steep and so please bear with me if I 

2 don’t get it right away. Now, as most of you know, 

3 this public meeting, we invite your comments. We 

4 present and seek your input on all of our analysis

5 and our results. We want to discuss issues both 

6 inside and outside the box, and describe the next, 

7 and hopefully final, steps in our rulemaking. 

8 Since we’re in the final stages of a long 

9 process, I think beginning in 2008, depending on how 

10 you count, instead of taking -- you know, normally -

11 - oh, yeah, comments -- okay. Normally we might 

12 take statements at this point, but actually what 

13 we’d like to do is just go through a few more 

14 background slides and then I think at slide 14 we 

15 would take the longer comments, including anyone who 

16 has PowerPoints.

17 Okay. One more reminder - next slide 

18 please -- the issue about -- okay, this is just --

19 the issue box is familiar. These are all questions/

20 issues from the NOPR that’s on the web and the URL

21 for the web is there for your convenience. We do 

22 not include all of the issues that are in the NOPR, 

23 and we -- the ones we include are not in the same 

24 order, but we number as the order in the NOPR just 

25 so you know, if you wonder why they’re not 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

18

1 sequential. And finally, we actually have 

2 deliberately repeated a couple issues -- just to 

3 explain.

4 Finally, this is the sort of canonical 

5 slide. Remember to submit written comments. The 

6 different ways, and also the deadline of Friday, 

June 10th 7 . And finally, I just wanted to pile on, 

8 since this is probably going to be the second or 

9 third time you hear this -- what John said about all 

10 the quads we saved and how significant this ruling 

11 is. In addition to all those quads, we estimate 

12 over ten years that the cost savings will be at 

13 least ten billion dollars, and a lot more in some

14 scenarios. 

15 So this is pretty important and we’re very 

16 pleased that you all are here, and with that, I will 

17 turn it back over to Doug.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Do you want to go 

19 through these remaining slides through slide 14?

20 DR. KAARSBERG: Oh, no. Ali is up there. 

21 Ali is the Navigant lead on this effort.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Please introduce yourself, 

23 Ali.

24 Overview, Statute and Context

25 MS. McDONALD: Good morning. My name is 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

19

1 Ali McDonald. I’m just going to give you a brief 

2 overview before we open the floor for some more 

3 detailed comments.

4 So, minimum efficiency standards for 

5 fluorescent ballasts were first established by the 

6 National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments of 

7 1988. In addition, these amendments directed DOE to 

8 review those standards twice. The first review was 

9 completed with the publication of the 2000 ballast 

10 rule, and this rulemaking constitutes the second 

11 review, and is scheduled to be completed by June 30, 

12 2011 as required by the consent decree.

13 This rulemaking started in January 2008 

14 with the publication of a framework document. At 

15 the framework document public meeting, DOE received 

16 several comments on potential drawbacks of the 

17 existing active mode test procedure. For example, 

18 stakeholders commented that ballast efficacy factor 

19 was dependent on the input power of a ballast, and 

20 therefore could not be used to directly compare 

21 ballasts of different types. In addition, the use 

22 of photometric measurements resulted in significant 

23 measurement variation. Stakeholders were concerned 

24 that the existing procedure would not be sufficient 

25 to delineate between electronic ballasts that were 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

20

1 currently on the market.

2 Therefore, DOE initiated a test procedure 

3 rulemaking in addition to the standards rulemaking. 

4 The final rule for the active mode test procedure 

was issued on April 27th 5 and published in the Federal 

Register on May 4th 6 . The test procedure introduces a 

7 new metric, ballast luminous efficiency, or BLE. 

8 BLE is the ratio of measured lamp arc power to 

9 ballast input power. The final rule requires the 

10 ballast to be operating a lamp when measurements are 

11 taken, and does not correlate BLE to any other 

12 metric. Therefore, the NOPR for this rulemaking 

13 sets standards in terms of ballast luminous 

14 efficiency. 

15 So, as I mentioned, the framework document 

16 was published in January 2008. A little over two 

17 years later, the preliminary analysis followed with 

18 the publication of a notice announcing the 

19 availability of the technical support document. 

20 About a month ago, DOE published a Notice 

21 of Proposed Rulemaking, or NOPR, which proposed 

22 energy conservation standards for the ballasts 

23 included in coverage. The final rule is scheduled 

to be completed by June 30th 24 , and compliance would be 

25 required three years after publication in the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

21

1 Federal Register.

2 When setting standards, EPCA directs DOE 

3 to consider seven factors. These factors are

4 summarized on this slide, along with the analysis 

5 that is conducted to evaluate each factor. For 

6 example, to quantify the total projected energy 

7 savings, DOE conducts a national impact analysis, 

8 which calculates national energy savings and the net 

9 present value of those savings.

10 After considering these seven factors, DOE 

11 is proposing trial standard level three. DOE has 

12 proposed standards using an equation of the form 

13 shown on this slide. As you can see, the standard a 

14 ballast is required to meet depends on the measured 

15 lamp arc power it operates. The greater the 

16 measured lamp arc power, the higher the standard. 

17 This slide shows the corresponding 

18 equations for each covered ballast type. The total 

19 lamp arc power is measured according to the method 

20 specified in the active mode test procedure. The 

21 arc power varies according to various 

22 characteristics, such as ballast factor, number of 

23 lamps operated, and type of lamp operated.

24 So on this slide we provided a few 

25 examples of the standard levels various ballasts are 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

22

1 required to meet. This table specifies 

2 characteristics of the ballasts analyzed, the 

3 measured lamp arc power, and the corresponding 

4 standard. Four-lamp ballasts are required to meet a 

5 higher standard than two-lamp ballasts because 

6 operating additional lamps increases the measured 

7 lamp arc power. Similarly, ballasts that operate T5 

8 high output lamps are required to meet a higher 

9 standard than ballasts that operate T5 standard 

10 output lamps, because high output lamps have higher 

11 wattages than standard lamps.

12 The standard level DOE is proposing offers 

13 several benefits to the nation. The proposed 

14 standard level represents an average efficiency 

15 improvement of about 12 percent compared to the 

16 baseline model. DOE forecasts potential energy 

17 savings to be between 3.7 and 6.3 quads. These 

18 energy savings have a net present value of between 

19 eight and eleven billion dollars, at a seven percent 

20 discount rate, and between $16 and $24 billion 

21 dollars at a three percent discount rate. We’ll be 

22 discussing these calculated benefits in greater 

23 detail later today.

24 So at this time, we invite comments on our 

25 approach to establish efficiency standards using an 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

23

1 equation dependent on measured lamp arc power, and 

2 also on the proposed standard level. We’d also 

3 welcome any other opening remarks at this time.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: This is the place for 

5 opening remarks. Justin.

6 Opening Statements

7 MR. NEUMANN: Before we get into what 

8 Chris is going to present for NEMA, I have a 

9 question for the Department. As written comments 

are due on June 10th 10 , yet the final rule is going to 

be issued June 30th 11 , in those 20 days, how do you 

12 intend to reply to public comments, given usually 

13 there’s a much larger, talking months, sometimes in 

14 different rulemakings, a year, gap between that time 

15 frame?

16 MR. BROOKMAN: John Cymbalsky.

17 DR. KAARSBERG: John should answer that.

18 MR. CYMBALSKY: Well, there’s 24 hours in 

19 a day. No, let’s see -- we will respond to the 

20 comments. We will work very hard and diligently to 

21 respond, so we’re confident we can respond to 

22 everybody’s comments.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Justin.

24 MR. NEUMANN: And that’s a hard set 

25 deadline for you guys? I realize it’s --
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

24

1 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yeah. So I don’t want to 

2 go to jail, and I believe if we don’t meet the 

3 consent decree, somebody goes to jail. So we will 

4 meet the deadline.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

6 MR. ERHARDT: I guess another way of 

7 asking the question is, maybe you can respond to the 

8 comments, but are you prepared to adjust your 

9 rulemaking based on the comments?

10 MR. BROOKMAN: So I know that NEMA has 

11 prepared a bunch of PowerPoint slides, and maybe 

12 Chris, you can go up and cue those. I think this 

13 provides something of an overview, and Chris tells 

14 me they’re somewhat integrative, so I think we’ll 

15 start with this and then we’ll get other additional 

16 comments after that. John Cymbalsky?

17 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yes, just to add on to the 

18 comment period. I know it’s common practice for 

19 everyone to wait until five p.m. on the last day of 

20 the comment period to submit their comments. I’m 

21 sure there’s lots of good reasons for that, but I 

22 guess in this instance, since we all have -- we 

23 share the same concern here, to the extent that your 

24 comments could be submitted tomorrow, you know, that 

25 would be great. Honestly, the sooner the better for 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

25

1 everybody in this situation. Thank you.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. So let’s 

3 proceed. Chris. Say your name for the record.

4 MR. HOLSTEIN: This is Chris Holstein. 

5 I’m with Universal Lighting Technologies, but 

6 speaking on behalf of NEMA. We’d like to start by 

7 thanking the Department of Energy for allowing us to 

8 participate in the development of the rule. We’d 

9 like to stress that we’d like to continue working 

10 with Navigant and DOE as we work through this 

11 process for the rulemaking and the deadline of June 

10th, June 30th 12 . We have a lot of input here today 

13 that we’d like to share. I believe that Doug has 

14 asked that we would do this as a block and hold 

15 comments for when the presentation’s over for the 

16 sake of time. So I will go ahead and move into the 

17 presentation.

18 Basically, over the past several months, 

19 NEMA, as a group, and the major manufacturers have 

20 gathered their NEMA premium data, which for us, 

21 these are our highest efficiency product lines, and 

22 we really wanted to look at our sample size and 

23 compare these to the BLE-min that was proposed by 

24 the DOE. And today -- and we’ll go through some of 

25 this -- the data, 88 percent of our highest 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

26

1 efficiency products fail the BLE-min standard. And 

2 of that subset, 95 percent of those are our highest 

3 volume, instant start, programmed start product 

4 lines. And to give you a perspective on that, 

5 that’s probably 80 to 85 percent of the total 

6 market. So we talk about availability in the market 

7 place in this time line, the R&D efforts of these 

8 products, it would be very difficult to meet this.

9 The way we see this is as the rule stands 

10 today, if implemented, it would cause a catastrophic 

11 ballast shortage in the market. 

12 This is a plot line -- the red line 

13 represents the BLE-min calculation. The plots --

14 the individual plots are the manufacturers’ data. 

15 This is four foot medium bi-pin start. As you can 

16 see -- and once again, let me stress, these are our 

17 NEMA premium products. These are not representative 

18 of the hundreds of other products we have below 

19 this. These are our highest efficiency, highest 

20 volume products in the marketplace. And you can see 

21 in this sample set, 50 of the 52 samples failed the 

22 BLE number.

23 On our four foot medium bi-pin programmed 

24 starts, we have 49 of the 52 samples fail the BLE25 min number. As we start to move into some of the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

27

1 other classifications, you’ll see less data points 

2 because the market is smaller in these areas, but in 

3 this particular, eight foot HO, two of four samples 

4 fail. Eight foot HO programmed start, two of two 

5 fail. T5 HO, we have three of six; and residential, 

6 eight of eight fail the BLE-min. And then with our 

7 sign products, and this is a limited set as well, 

8 all of these pass the BLE-min number.

9 As we looked at that we wanted to try to 

10 understand where the BLE-min calculation came from 

11 so we pulled your appendix 5C, which I believe is 

12 your test sample data set, and we tried to 

13 understand how the BLE-min was calculated. And some 

14 things that we saw, some variations that we saw 

15 would suggest that there were some manufacturing 

16 variance in your data, and these are just a couple 

17 examples. 

18 But one thing would be, we looked at 

19 catalogue BF and tested BF, and we just tried to peg 

20 ones that were greater than five percent variation 

21 in between printed and tested. And in your sample 

22 set, 24 of your samples, that represent 20 percent 

23 of your total sample set, had a five percent or 

24 greater variation. Some of those went up to ten, 15 

25 percent. So we, as manufacturers, we went and did 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

28

1 the same thing. We took our NEMA premium products 

2 and we verified our printed data versus test data, 

3 and we all understand there’s manufacturing 

4 variance. In ours, we tested 25 samples. We had a 

5 1.5 percent variance, and that actually matches up 

6 fairly well with what is listed in the ballast test 

7 method. So that starts to have us question your 

8 sampling set, and we think you have a lot of 

9 manufacturing variance there. I don’t exactly know, 

10 because we don’t know the products or who -- they’re 

11 just listed manufacturer A, B, C, or D. So that 

12 gives us a question.

13 And then also, we looked at your measured 

14 BLE and we also used your formula to calculate BLE. 

15 Those should match fairly closely, and in your 

16 sample set, you have a number, 16 samples out of 

17 your 118, where your measured BLE percent doesn’t 

18 match your calculated BLE percent. And I just give 

19 a couple examples at the bottom, just to give you an 

20 idea of the variance. And we’re not talking small 

21 variances -- 72 to 80, 69 to 77, 70 to 78, and 72 to 

22 80. And I’ve listed those as the test number, so 

23 you can go back and reference those, but we believe 

24 those should be at least in a significant digit 

25 matching, so that once again had us question the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

29

1 sample set.

2 Statistically speaking, on the five

3 samples, we believe that that’s a very small set, 

4 especially in some of these sub-product 

5 classifications to develop a standard from. And 

6 even in your own data which we graphed, in a minute 

7 you’ll see there’s very little test data to back up 

8 the BLE-min and the calculation number. 

9 Once again, we’d like to state that if 

10 these efficiency levels are adopted, it’s going to 

11 bring some extreme limited availability in the 

12 industry. And this just kind of gives you an idea 

13 of your own set -- sample size, classification, the 

14 pass, the fail and the sample size. And you can see 

15 as we get down, you know, 49, 22 fail; 17, 10 fail; 

16 13, 12 fail; 16, 6; and then 4, 3; 4, 3; 6, 5; and 

17 8, 3. Those are small sample sets to develop a 

18 national rule.

19 These are your own data plotted. I 

20 believe you have these in your presentation as well 

21 so I won’t dwell on these too much. Everything 

22 below your red line is a fail, everything above is a 

23 pass. And we’ll talk a little bit about some of the 

24 efficiency, and where some of these products may 

25 have come from and make sure we’re all on the same 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

30

1 page, but I’ll just -- yes, sir.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob, go ahead.

3 MR. ERHARDT: Come back one slide? No, no 

4 -- right there. One point that we find discrepancy 

5 is you have so many points above your line, and yet 

6 when we test our data, we don’t. So we really 

7 question the test methodology. You know, we’re all 

8 certified to 82.11, ISO certified test labs to 

9 82.11. There was no information from Navigant, DOE, 

10 what labs they used. Are they certified test labs 

11 or did somebody do this in an academic environment 

12 that does not have the same rigor with calibrations 

13 and what not? This is one area that we find a 

14 little bothersome, that you’re generating rulemaking 

15 on test points that we can’t duplicate with our 

16 product.

17 MR. HOLSTEIN: Once again, I’ll kind of 

18 float through these. When we get into smaller sets, 

19 you can see more and more fail. An example here, 

20 you have one product that passes to develop the 

21 rule. ... 60 or 16, resi, only one product passed. 

22 T5 standard output, one product passed.

23 MR. DeLASKI: Excuse me, and this is the 

24 Department data?

25 MR. HOLSTEIN: This is the Department’s 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

31

1 data, the Appendix 5C which is available on the DOE 

2 website in that published data.

3 MR. DeLASKI: And just for clarification, 

4 so these were all the test products, these weren’t 

5 necessarily all “premium” quote, unquote, certified 

6 premium, this was not an attempt to characterize the 

7 population.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Ali.

9 MS. McDONALD: This is Ali. Yes, you’re 

10 correct, it was the whole sample, it wasn’t only 

11 identified as premium products.

12 MR. DeLASKI: Right. So they could argue 

13 because the NEMA data you’re showing premium 

14 products.

15 MR. HOLSTEIN: Right. 

16 MR. DeLASKI: Whereas this was a 

17 characterization of the -- more of a spread. Okay. 

18 Just wanted to clarify that. Thanks.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: So, useful comment. Let’s 

20 proceed though.

21 MR. HOLSTEIN: T5HO, one product passed. 

22 And your sign ballast, you had three of your eight 

23 samples that failed.

24 And then what we’d like to do now is talk 

25 about what drives the market a little bit, and then 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

32

1 how some products may have been looked at that have 

2 a higher efficiency level that quite possibly 

3 shouldn’t be looked at. One thing that we’d like to 

4 speak about is that we believe that what the market 

5 dictates, we are currently developing in our highest 

6 practical efficiency with our NEMA premium products. 

7 Now we, as an industry, have been driving in this 

8 direction for a number of years, and we -- and we’re 

9 talking basically about the volume of the can, which 

10 is how much componentry, technology, and efficiency 

11 you can drive out of this space. What we’d like for 

12 DOE and Navigant to understand is the industry is 

13 driving more and more to smaller and smaller case 

14 sizes, can sizes, and today we’re moving into what 

15 we call an N-can, which is, as you can see, and I’m 

16 sorry for people on the webinar. This is what we 

17 consider our A-can and this is an N-can. You can 

18 see that the product is beginning to become smaller. 

19 And this is being driven by drive from consumers 

20 looking for like zero plenum applications. They 

21 want to reduce the height of the fixture. They want 

22 to reduce the height of the plenum in the building. 

23 And from a manufacturing standpoint, the reduction 

24 to an N-can for a fixture manufacturer, is a ten to 

25 15 percent reduction in steel used in the product 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

33

1 itself, as well as more denser product shipping and 

2 logistics, so moving to smaller cans is saving in 

3 gas and steel and waste, very, I would say, 

4 environmentally friendly from where we have been.

5 We do have some products that are in the 

6 market, some of the full line manufacturers that are 

7 in what we call our standard can, which is this. 

8 Some of these products have a fairly high efficiency 

9 rating, we’ll see in a second, but what we need to 

10 understand is this is where the consumers are going. 

11 This is very little of the market any more. Not 

12 sustainable from a fixture perspective, or from a 

13 consumer demand perspective.

14 We believe that the new efficiency levels 

15 could quite possibly cause the fixture manufacturers 

16 and the ballast manufacturers to retool, which would 

17 then go into retesting, engineering, R&D, relisting. 

18 We believe that it’s in the order of tens of 

19 millions of dollars per fixture manufacturer to do 

20 this, because for the last several years we’ve been 

21 moving to smaller and smaller can sizes, and smaller 

22 and smaller fixtures to go into smaller and smaller 

23 plenum spaces. Moving the opposite direction is 

24 kind of counter-intuitive from where the market has 

25 been going. We would like for the DOE and Navigant 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

34

1 to understand that this is a consumer-driven factor.

2 The other -- yes.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Cheryl.

4 MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English. Just to add 

5 on to the consumer considerations is as we design 

6 light fixtures with these smaller cans, we’re able 

7 to do more optically in the fixtures, so you’re 

8 generally seeing about a two to six percent increase 

9 in the fixture photometric efficiency with the 

10 smaller cans. We’re very concerned that with the 

11 current proposal it’s going to require us to go back 

12 to the larger can. We’re going to have to retool 

13 all of our fixtures to make them less efficient.

14 Also the point about the shallow plenum, 

15 it gets directly to the sustainability of building 

16 construction, green building construction, so we’re 

17 now looking at having to make buildings taller in 

18 order to accommodate a larger plenum space.

19 MR. DeLASKI: Just to follow up Cheryl, so 

20 I can understand. What about a smaller can enables 

21 you, as a fixture manufacturer, --

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew deLaski, go ahead 

23 Cheryl.

24 MR. DeLASKI: -- to make -- to get that 

25 five or six percent.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

35

1 MS. ENGLISH: It provides better optical 

2 control so you don’t have this big box up there 

3 blocking the light from the lamp. So as we get a 

4 smaller and smaller ballast can, we can redirect the 

5 light off the back of that reflector to get more of 

6 it out of the fixture, rather than being blocked by 

7 that ballast housing.

8 MS. ANDERSON: Remember that the ballast 

9 is usually on the underneath side of the reflector.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Susan, find a microphone.

11 MS. ANDERSON: Susan Anderson. Remember 

12 that the ballast is normally on the under side of 

13 the reflector, so the thinner, the more shallow it 

14 is, the less of an obstruction it becomes for 

15 allowing light to get out of the fixture.

16 MR. DeLASKI: Right, for those fixtures 

17 where that’s the design.

18 MS. ANDERSON: Right. But see, that’s 

19 where the majority of them are, and that’s also a 

20 consumer demand, because then it gives them easier 

21 access to the ballast in the event they need to 

22 replace it, or they upgrade the fixture either 

23 because of ballast failure or a renovation.

24 MR. DeLASKI: Okay. Thanks for that 

25 explanation.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

36

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Chris, keep going.

2 MR. HOLSTEIN: Yes. The other issue would 

3 be the difference between the -- what we call 

4 universal voltage or multivolt versus dedicated 

5 voltage. Dedicated voltage inherently has the 

6 ability to be more efficient, but once again, 

7 consumer demand dictates the universal voltage 

8 product over dedicated. It is a reduction in 

9 inventory, a reduction in logistics. It is across 

10 the entire supply chain, from manufacturer to 

11 consumer, it is a benefit. And we believe that at 

12 some of these levels, it would almost push us to 

13 reevaluate multivolt or universal voltage, and look 

14 back at a dedicated voltage product to be able to 

15 meet some of these efficiency standards. And once 

16 again, we would like to state that, for the DOE and 

17 for Navigant, it’s not the direction that the 

18 industry and the consumers would like for us to go.

19 Just as a graphical example of the can 

20 size, on the left side of this chart, you’ll see the 

21 A’s on the axis. Those are our A can, which would 

22 be this product. And on the right hand side of this 

23 chart, is the standard can which is the large 

24 product. And the piece to look at here is there are 

25 some standard products that have high efficiency 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

37

1 numbers, 93 percent, 92 percent. They are much 

2 larger, able for us to make the product more 

3 efficient and fit inside of the space dimensions. 

4 The red line represents the market size 

5 for products, and the key take away here is, those 

6 three products on the left hands side represent 80 

7 percent-plus of the total ballast market in the 

8 United States. So you can see the products in the 

9 standard can basically don’t exist. And just to be 

10 clear, the A can is moving to a smaller can, an M 

11 can, as we speak. I think every major ballast 

12 manufacturer in this room has invested in the 

13 tooling, R&D efforts, and equipment, and are all 

14 moving towards that can size.

15 The other issue we wanted to point out was 

16 this system approach, in terms of energy efficiency, 

17 rather than just looking at the ballast. We’d like 

18 to point out that energy saving lamps control 

19 fixture design flexibility -- these all create 

20 better system efficiencies than what you would 

21 derive from just a ballast. The high efficiency

22 products, they are optimized for use today with all 

23 the energy saving lamps, and these will produce a 

24 greater input power savings than what we are looking 

25 at for this DOE rule. 80 percent of our sales are 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

38

1 NEMA premium products in the industry today, so 

2 consumers are already buying efficient products.

3 We do think that DOE needs to take this 

4 into consideration for the payback analysis and 

5 determination, that these are high efficiency

6 products, and not magnetic ballasts in the market.

7 As an example, this chart/table shows low 

8 power, a standard power, and a high power ballast. 

9 And these are lamp input watts. You see input power 

10 on the left-hand side, 32 to 25 watt, and percent 

11 change in input power. As you see, as you move down 

12 to a 25 watt lamp, you’re talking about a 20 percent 

13 input power savings. And to point this out, I think 

14 the standard lamp used in this analysis was a 32 

15 watt, and I believe that in the document it states 

16 that the ballast used was a magnetic ballast as a 

17 baseline, and that’s not a good representation to 

18 calculate your net present value, because that’s not 

19 what’s in the market, that’s not what’s being 

20 purchased. The majority of applications today are 

21 running with energy saving lamps, 30 watt, 28, 25 

22 are not uncommon to be specified by lighting 

23 specifiers, contractors, ESCOs.

24 We’re looking at, for the ballast rule, an 

25 input savings of one percent. One watt. Not one 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

39

1 percent, one watt. And as you can see, we can save 

2 much greater than that in the system efficiency side 

3 of things. So we’re talking about millions of 

4 dollars in investment, R&D time, and lost 

5 opportunity for one watt, where the industry is 

6 already saving five to ten watts on their own, 

7 without anybody telling them to. That’s where 

8 consumers are going.

9 We believe that the ruling will have a 

10 negative impact on industry and the nation. 

11 Standard levels, basically today our R&D efforts are 

12 on energy efficient products, LED controls. If this 

13 ruling would go through, it would pull efforts away 

14 from those technologies back to standard products. 

15 These standard products which are already efficient, 

16 these profits drive our R&D efforts. So one thing 

17 that’s interesting in the Federal Register document 

18 is that DOE and Navigant recognize that these, which 

19 are today beneficial products, they have a higher 

20 premium in the market, the document states that you 

21 all believe that these prices will compress to our 

22 commodity level prices. By doing that, it reduces 

23 our profits and it reduces our ability to invest our 

24 R&D efforts in solid state lighting, in controls, in 

25 the areas where you’ll see greater efficiency 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

40

1 levels. This is not a good resource spend for the 

2 industry, for us to go back and look at the majority 

3 of our products.

4 I think the Federal Register document 

5 states that they understand that these things will 

6 happen, but they actually state -- and I’ll have the 

7 page number on the written response -- that they 

8 understand it happens, but it’s good for the nation. 

9 But we tend to disagree. We ask you guys to relook 

10 at your analysis and understand that we’re already 

11 getting efficiency gains on our own. The consumer’s 

12 already gone for efficiency gains. This would be a 

13 drill back from the direction that we’re moving as 

14 an industry.

15 This kind of reiterates what I said 

16 earlier about LED lighting, next generation 

17 fluorescent and HID products. And diverting our R&D 

18 efforts. Once again, this ruling would cost 

19 millions for us to reduce one watt of input power.

20 Once again, an energy saving lamp realizes

21 as much as 20 watts worth of energy savings in a 

22 fixture, so it’s much more efficient than I believe 

23 the analysis indicates. Once again, controls, 

24 that’s another large part of the equation. More and 

25 more installations are requiring controls and 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

41

1 controllability, and obviously a fixture that’s 

2 turned off when nobody’s in the room is about the 

3 most efficient thing that you’ll have. And solid 

4 state lighting, if you have the opportunity to go to 

5 a light fair, I think what you’ll see is that every 

6 major manufacturer in the lighting industry will be 

7 displaying probably 90 percent-plus LED. That is 

8 where we are going, it is where R&D efforts are, 

9 it’s where the market will be. And this will 

10 definitely be a drawback to that direction, and I 

11 think the Department of Energy would agree that’s

12 where lighting will end up and that’s where the 

13 efficiency levels really rely.

14 So what we’ve tried to do is we’ve looked 

15 at our products and we’ve looked at your logarithmic 

16 formula and we have -- we’re trying to come up with 

17 some proposals or formulas that would allow a 

18 passing of our NEMA premium products, and once 

19 again, I’d like to state, there’s a lot of products 

20 that we make that don’t meet even what we’re trying 

21 to -- what we would like to propose, but we’re 

22 trying to have a proposal where you don’t have 

23 limited availability, that there is no disruption in 

24 the market, and there’s no extreme cost in R&D in 

25 the industry to redesign.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

42

1 This chart kind of isn’t our chart and I 

2 think Bob -- if -- Bob, you want to speak to this 

3 before I show the graph?

4 MR. ERHARDT: Well, you know the graph --

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Get the microphone on.

6 MR. ERHARDT: Basically, what we did was 

7 we put the number of products that met for even one 

8 manufacturer, two manufacturers, three manufacturers 

9 and then compared against the lowest efficiency 

10 level, again of our highest efficiency products. 

11 And we might say we have close to what, 500 tests 

12 were performed to fill out this data sheet. Each of 

13 the hundred or so points just call out instant start 

14 and programmed start represent four to five ballasts 

15 each, so we’re talking several hundreds of tests 

16 went into this dataset.

17 And you can see for the -- each column 

18 then compares with the DOE 1.32 times the natural 

19 log of the power times -- plus 88 plus .11. We came 

20 up with a fit, using the same formula structure, 2.2 

21 times the natural log of the power plus 80.1, and we 

22 show a comparison of how many manufacturers can meet 

23 at each level, and you can see with the NEMA 

24 proposal, at least two manufacturers are able to 

25 meet the level. And we would like the Department of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

43

1 Energy to consider this to be an absolute minimum, 

2 that one product out there -- every product -- every 

3 manufacturer has a, we’ll call it a platform, that 

4 might be optimized at a given point. And because of 

5 component commonality, not all products across the 

6 line are going to be optimized as well.

7 When the DOE goes and takes just the one 

8 optimized product from each manufacturer, it’s 

9 doesn’t necessarily follow that it’s going to be a 

10 simple task to make all products as efficient as 

11 that one that they picked from that one manufacturer 

12 and ask the whole industry to comply to. 

13 So this is why, when we worked out our 

14 proposal, we looked at the premium offerings. These 

15 are the top product offerings from the industry, 

16 from the four major manufacturers, and in principle, 

17 if only two manufacturers meet you’re maybe 

18 eliminating half of the market in that area; if 

19 three meet, only a quarter. We did find at the low 

20 end it was realistic to expect some redesign. There 

21 were some outliers at the low end that actually one 

22 of them picked up while we were doing our analysis. 

23 We apologize that this data wasn’t available 

24 earlier, but we are getting our -- we’re getting our 

25 tests redone with the new format, this is with the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

44

1 BLE format, and this is -- this was just being 

2 generated within the last six months, and so we’re 

3 presenting it here.

4 DR. KAARSBERG: Did you look at other 

5 formulas, like a power law fit or anything --

6 because it looked -- I mean this is all sort of 

7 flashing by, but it looked like the DOE standard was 

8 not really fitting your data, especially at the low 

9 end, that it was dropping off.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: That was Tina, now back to 

11 Bob.

12 MR. ERHARDT: From my point of view, I 

13 felt that if I made a proposal using the DOE form, 

14 it was more likely to be accepted than if I had come 

15 up with something else, so that’s why I stuck with 

16 the DOE form.

17 DR. KAARSBERG: Okay. 

18 MR. BROOKMAN: I’d like Chris to finish 

19 with the presentation.

20 MR. HOLSTEIN: Basically, we just have two 

21 slides that show the same plot that we showed 

22 earlier, with the addition of the new formula. And 

23 I think the key thing for people to understand as 

24 they look at this slide, you see a lot of products 

25 are above the proposed green line, is that these are 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

45

1 our NEMA premium products. These are the most 

2 efficient products in the industry today. These 

3 don’t represent the -- in our organization, speaking 

4 personally, the 275 products that we have, and that 

5 multiplies out with the other manufacturers. So 

6 when we look at this, to Bob’s point, we know that 

7 there are some products that need to be redesigned, 

8 but we think that there is a better fit for this 

9 line from a, I guess from an energy efficient 

10 standpoint, and a market drive standpoint.

11 And that’s just an example on the four 

12 foot medium bi-pin instant start, and then a four 

13 foot medium bi-pin programmed start. We have not 

14 had the opportunity yet to get into the other 

15 product classes. To Bob’s point, the calculations 

16 are new. We are retesting products. It takes time, 

17 so we do not have everything else completed yet.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: So obviously a lot of work 

19 went into that. Let’s hear other opening remarks at 

20 this point. Andrew deLaski.

21 MR. DeLASKI: So this is a tremendous 

22 amount of data being presented, and I’ve got maybe 

23 five or six questions for NEMA, I know some of my 

24 colleagues do as well. So I don’t know, Doug, in 

25 terms of format how you --
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

46

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Hang on for just one 

2 second. We want to confirm -- I want to confirm for 

3 the record that your PowerPoint slides will be 

4 available to the Department of Energy? Justin will 

5 e-mail them. Okay. Andrew, please proceed.

6 MR. DeLASKI: So I don’t know how you want 

7 to handle it in terms of just the flow of the 

8 meeting in terms of -- because I’ve got a number of 

9 questions about the slides I can pull back up.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: I think that NEMA -- and 

11 this presentation raises a bunch of important 

12 issues, and I think that we should try to address 

13 them as best we can right now, and then we’ll 

14 proceed and -- with the PowerPoint slides, and we’ll 

15 make sure we’ve got completeness. So, Andrew, if 

16 you want to start off.

17 MR. DeLASKI: So it strikes me, just as a 

18 general point, that one of the key issues here is 

19 the testing issue. You know, NEMA is testing their 

20 products and coming up with some results that aren’t 

21 geared with what’s seen and what’s published by the 

22 Department. The Department is showing results that 

23 show that, I think, based on the dataset, 70 percent 

24 of NEMA premium products that were in the sample met 

25 the standard proposed. And what Bob’s and what the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

47

1 NEMA team is showing is that their testing doesn’t 

2 corroborate that. Is that a fair characterization?

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob says yes.

4 MR. DeLASKI: So it strikes me that this 

5 issue of the testing is really a critical issue.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Bob.

7 MR. ERHARDT: I’ll make one comment. Now, 

8 when I spoke with Navigant, they indicated that 

9 their test results included a point eight percent 

10 confidence factor for 99 percent confidence of true 

11 mean. When we plot against the curves, we were 

12 including a point eight confidence factor. But that 

13 is what we will be subject to when we have to 

14 submit. What we showed you is our test data, our 

15 labs test our best products, and what we will see 

16 when we want to submit against that proposal. So if 

17 -- so basically all the numbers -- we took a mean of 

18 four or five samples, and then we adjusted that mean 

19 by the point eight percent for a 99 percent 

20 confidence level of true mean. We were told 

21 Navigant did the same thing with coming up with the 

22 levels, so in principle that should have been 

23 correlated. But what we’re finding is what we 

24 showed you, is that the vast majority of the 

25 products do not meet.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

48

1 MR. DeLASKI: So what I’m struck by, 

2 though, is --

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Hang on one second. It 

4 looks like Navigant wants to respond to Bob’s 

5 characterization.

6 MS. GUPTA: Yeah, this is Mimi Gupta. 

7 Bob, just as a clarification. We didn’t adjust the 

8 points. We adjusted the efficiency levels down, so 

9 the test data in the appendix represents actual 

10 measured test data, but after fitting a curve to 

11 that test data, we adjusted that curve down by point 

12 eight percent.

13 MR. ERHARDT: Correct. So our point eight 

14 percent adjusted data should meet that curve is what 

15 you’re saying. Our products, adjusted at point 

16 eight percent, should meet that curve.

17 MS. GUPTA: I can’t be certain of that. I 

18 mean we -- your test data when -- in developing that 

19 point eight percent, the intent was that if you 

20 tested five samples, took the average and then 

21 applied the compliance equation, it would meet the 

22 standard, so that’s what you’re asking --

23 MR. ERHARDT: Which is the point eight 

24 percent.

25 MS. GUPTA: Okay. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

49

1 MR. BROOKMAN: And so I think on this, I 

2 think any discontinuity in this calculation could 

3 make a difference. You don’t need to answer now, 

4 but we do want to hear from you. Andrew, I left it 

5 with you. You want to continue?

6 MR. DeLASKI: Right. So what I was struck 

7 by is that in the formulation which Bob presented, 

8 which is that I think in the slide that was 

9 presented towards the end, the eye test --

10 MR. BROOKMAN: The eye chart?

11 MR. DeLASKI: The eye chart, the principle 

12 that you were functioning under in developing that 

13 eye chart proposal was a similar principle, which is 

14 the principle of let’s set a standard at a level 

15 that a couple of products can meet within each 

16 class.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Most of the products. The 

18 great majority of the products, correct?

19 MR. ERHARDT: Well, we were saying at 

20 least two, and preferably three or four manufacturer 

21 would meet with their highest quality, highest 

22 efficiency product. 

23 MR. DeLASKI: I can understand that each 

24 of the four largest manufacturers would like their 

25 existing products to meet, but it may not be the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

50

1 case that that will be --

2 MR. ERHARDT: And what we found was that 

3 the manufacturers were pretty close, the data 

4 between the manufacturers was much closer than the 

5 difference between the manufacturers’ data and the 

6 DOE requirement in many cases. So if you -- when 

7 you get that in your hands and you can expand it, 

8 you can see where we showed compliance level by just 

9 one manufacturer, two manufacturers, or three 

10 manufacturers, or if the lowest efficiency product 

11 met the requirement. That’s how that chart was laid 

12 out.

13 MR. DeLASKI: So -- now when we looked at 

14 the DOE data, it looked to us that there were two 

15 products that were compliant in each of the classes. 

16 I know your data shows something differently, but 

17 that’s the way we read it. So we think the levels 

18 are appropriate as proposed, based on the data that 

19 we’ve seen. And we look forward to being able to 

20 examine your data as well. That’s the way we read 

21 it, okay. 

22 The other question I had for NEMA, or my 

23 second question is, the testing. So the testing 

24 that you’ve conducted over the past six months --

the final test method came out May 4th 25 , or end of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

51

1 April -- so the test method you conducted over the 

2 past six months is based on the SNOPR or which?

3 MR. ERHARDT: The BLE test procedure. 

4 Formerly called the BRE test procedure.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: The new one.

6 MR. ERHARDT: The jointly developed test 

7 procedure between Navigant and --

8 MR. BROOKMAN: The newest one, yes.

9 MR. ERHARDT: -- industry that we felt so 

10 good about collaborating.

11 MR. DeLASKI: So this is testing conducted 

12 in each of the manufacturer’s labs. Can you 

13 describe a little bit about that testing, how it was 

14 conducted and how it was brought together? Is this 

15 manufacturer testing in your labs and accumulated by 

16 NEMA?

17 MR. ERHARDT: Yes.

18 MR. DeLASKI: Masked, so that the data is 

19 -- can’t tell which manufacturer’s product is which? 

20 I guess my question ultimately will be, what can you 

21 share in terms of the data?

22 MR. ERHARDT: I think it’s our intent to -

23 - actually, we were in such a panic if you will, 

24 that we just submitted the data even without masking 

25 the -- because it’s going to be public domain data 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

52

1 anyway, so we weren’t so concerned about masking 

2 manufacturers. We are submitting the same -- we 

3 will be submitting the same data to the Federal 

4 Trade Commission.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: I’m looking at Justin and 

6 Chris over here. So that unmasked data, that will 

7 be made available to the Department when you file 

8 your comments or -- I guess the advocates would like 

9 to see it in advance.

10 MR. ERHARDT: I don’t know if per NEMA 

11 requirements if we need to have a vote on it, but I 

12 was expecting --

13 MR. HOLSTEIN: We’d have to have a NEMA 

14 discussion on it, so we can’t answer at this time.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So can you commence 

16 that discussion because there are many parties in 

17 the room that would like to --

18 MR. HOLSTEIN: Not at this moment, but 

19 yes, tomorrow or Thursday, yes.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you.

21 MR. ERHARDT: It was my perception that we 

22 had the intention of releasing this data.

23 MR. DeLASKI: So I would just encourage 

24 you if having data associated with model numbers 

25 would be extremely valuable to be able to --
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

53

1 MR. ERHARDT: No, we don’t have it by 

2 model number. We have it by power level.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: So I’ll just say, as an 

4 observer, watching DOE do its work for many years, 

5 they would very much appreciate you having that 

6 consultation and getting back to them quickly. That 

7 would be helpful to them. Andrew.

8 MR. DeLASKI: Just to follow up on that, 

9 having it by power level, is that sufficient, or do 

10 you need model numbers.

11 MS. GUPTA: Yeah, this is Mimi Gupta. I 

12 think having enough information, whether it be 

13 manufacturer or model number, such that we can cross 

14 reference it with the tested data that we have would 

15 be really helpful, so we can say, well we tested 

16 this model, NEMA tested this model, this is the 

17 difference, and hopefully account for that, if 

18 necessary.

19 MR. NEUMANN: This is Justin Neumann 

20 again. I will say I sense there’s an urgency to get 

21 this back from NEMA, given the job security the 

22 Department of Energy is providing me, we will be 

23 working on the metal halide comments for Monday 

24 after this meeting, and so we will most likely not 

25 be having this discussion until some time later next 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

54

1 week, because many of this room -- and Light Fair is 

2 next week, and so probably not next week either. So 

3 many in this room are working on the metal halide 

4 rulemaking as well, and so there will be a delay in 

5 us getting those comments back to you that you’re 

6 requesting, the data.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. That’s reality-based 

8 stuff. I wanted to -- I just consulted with Tina, 

9 briefly, following NEMA’s presentation, I’m 

10 wondering if the contractor/consultant team has 

11 questions you’d like to put to them, or whether at 

12 this point you are feeling like you understood what 

13 they were coming up with? You’re okay for now? 

14 Okay. 

15 So now I want to open this up. There’s a 

16 lot of content there. Additional comments or 

17 questions, opening remarks, perhaps in response to 

18 the NEMA presentation, and other opening remarks. 

19 Tom Eckman.

20 MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman. Northwest Power 

21 and Conservation Council. Question for NEMA is 

22 whether you tested non-premium products as well, so 

23 that we get a full array? DOE was testing both 

24 baseline level products and non-premium products.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Chris?
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

55

1 MR. HOLSTEIN: For this analysis we tested 

2 just our premium products. To your point, we do 

3 know that these would be the products -- anything 

4 below these products are going to fail the BLE-min

5 number. Testing them would be -- would not be good 

6 for the timing we had for this meeting.

7 MR. ECKMANN: The economics and the 

8 savings are based on differentials between baseline 

9 products and these products. If there’s an offset 

10 that we have at the high end, there may be a 

11 comparable offset at the lower end efficiencies. So 

12 I just wanted to know if there’s a systematic 

13 difference in all the test results across the array 

14 of efficiencies, rather than just at the top end. 

15 Because that just tells us where the line might be 

16 drawn, but it doesn’t tell us the differences.

17 MR. HOLSTEIN: I’d have to point down to 

18 one of the double-Es in the room to answer that 

19 question.

20 MR. ERHARDT: I guess I understand your 

21 question. Your question is if we similarly found 

22 that the low end measured by Navigant was actually 

23 lower, then we would still have the same 

24 differential and the same payback --

25 MR. ECKMANN: Right.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

56

1 MR. ERHARDT: -- if we adopted the new 

2 levels. We can take this under advisement, but 

3 these tests, they are time consuming. We have 

4 capacity issues in our labs, and lead time issues, 

5 because there’s a queue for our labs. We’re always 

6 testing product for one requirement or another, so 

7 it’s not clear how much or how quickly we can get 

8 additional test data through our labs, there’s at 

9 least a two or three week lead time.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: That was Bob speaking. As 

11 a follow on to Tom’s comment, did you not say when 

12 you were presenting, Chris, that the NEMA premium 

13 products were 80 percent of the products in the 

14 market, something like that?

15 MR. HOLSTEIN: Yes. Based off of the NEMA 

16 data, manufacturers’ report, and they have a 

17 statistical organization that provides data, 80 

18 percent of our products sold today are NEMA premium 

19 products, 80 percent plus. So that’s a large 

20 portion, yeah.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie Stephens.

22 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. I just 

23 want to reiterate Tom’s concerns. It’s really 

24 unfortunate to arrive at less than two months before 

25 DOE has to publish this stuff without understanding 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

57

1 what the differences mean, or why there are 

2 differences. I don’t know whether we have a testing 

3 issue here or not. I can see it at the premium 

4 level, but I haven’t seen the same test differential 

5 at the bottom levels to know whether it’s a test 

6 issue or something else. 

7 I also didn’t see any N-can data up there, 

8 only A- and standard. It would have been helpful to 

9 have some N-can data, since that seems to be a point 

10 that NEMA’s making, but that wasn’t there either.

11 So it’s really hard to understand, quite 

12 frankly, the import of what I’m looking at, because 

13 I don’t have but one piece of a very complicated 

14 puzzle here. So anything that NEMA can do in the 

15 meantime to shed a little light on this would be 

16 helpful, but it’s hard to take one slice of this and 

17 put all the weight on it. When I do that, or when 

18 I’ve done that in the past, it frequently falls down 

19 in the end. 

20 So right now I can tell you, I don’t have

21 enough material here across a cross section to 

22 really make any judgments. It’s nice to have the 

23 data, but I’m seeing two or three different possible 

24 stories here coming out of it, and I have no idea 

25 where to begin with it.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

58

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Mimi Gupta.

2 MS. GUPTA: This is Mimi Gupta. I just 

3 wanted to confirm. Did the NEMA test data include 

4 any N-can ballasts?

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Let me see, that’s Jeff.

6 MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon, GE. I know 

7 our data did include N-can data for a majority of 

8 the test samples, test results that we submitted. 

9 I’d also like to make a comment about the -- we’re 

10 generalizing the data set, and what we found at our 

11 company is a larger mismatch of the dataset between 

12 efficiency levels at the lower power end versus the 

13 high power end. So of particular concern for our 

14 company, and I think in general for NEMA is that the 

15 shape of that curve as the slope continues down on 

16 power, and we found that we didn’t find any ballast 

17 in the low power range that met the minimum DOE 

18 requirement.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: John Stephens.

20 MS. GUPTA: Can I please?

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Mimi.

22 MS. GUPTA: If NEMA has a recommendation 

23 on the correct function form of an equation, I would 

24 suggest that they put it in their written comments.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: You want a confirmation 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

59

1 and/or elaboration?

2 MS. GUPTA: It sounds like they’re 

3 suggesting that the natural logarithmic form is not 

4 the correct form, right.

5 DR. KAARSBERG: They actually had a --

6 their counter proposal was exactly the same form 

7 with just different constant factors.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Right. So that was Tina 

9 Kaarsberg. Bob explained that he built off your 

10 formula to create the NEMA proposal. Bob follow on.

11 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, what I found, you have 

12 two constants in the formula, and if you increase 

13 the natural log constant and decrease the additive 

14 constant you can get a bigger curvature to the line, 

15 and that went a long way to fitting data.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: So -- okay, Charlie 

17 Stephens.

18 MR. STEPHENS: Just a -- Charlie Stephens. 

19 Just a point of clarification. You were speaking 

20 about low power and not the low end of the product 

21 efficiency range, right?

22 MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon. Correct.

23 MR. STEPHENS: Okay. Thanks.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Jeff, good job with your 

25 name. I like that.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

60

1 MR. PLASKON: Thank you very much.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew deLaski.

3 MR. DeLASKI: So when you came up with 

4 your equation, were you limiting it to the small 

5 cans, or they call it an A-can, is that the --

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob? Yeah, Chris.

7 MR. HOLSTEIN: Chris. The dataset wasn’t 

8 limited to N-can. It was -- we looked at our 

9 premium products, different manufacturer, different 

10 power levels have different products and different 

11 can sizes. They’re either A- or N-. I don’t 

12 actually for a fact, there are no NEMA premium 

13 products in a standard can. So what you saw on the 

14 dataset, depending on manufacturer, depending on 

15 power level, it would either be an A-can or an N16 can. 

17 MR. DeLASKI: So when you came up -- and A 

18 can is the smaller of the two?

19 MR. HOLSTEIN: The N-can is the smaller.

20 MR. DeLASKI: The N-can is smaller?

21 MR. HOLSTEIN: Yes.

22 MR. DeLASKI: Of the two. So when you 

23 came up with your equation, was that back to this 

24 concept of an equation where you could have two 

25 products meeting, was it that you wanted two N-can 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

61

1 products?

2 MR. ERHARDT: Two premium products.

3 Products from two manufacturers. 

4 MR. DeLASKI: Okay. But you didn’t set on 

5 a constraint on that, or did you? Did you or did 

6 you not set a constraint?

7 MR. ERHARDT: No, that data was not in the 

8 spreadsheet that I was working on.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks, Bob. Yes, Please, 

10 and find a microphone.

11 MR. PARISELLA: Yes, I’m Joe Parisella.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Find a microphone. Thank 

13 you for saying your name.

14 MR. PARISELLA: Joe Parisella. One of the 

15 things that I think that we, as NEMA, noticed, even 

16 though we’re talking about the DOE data, is even the 

17 DOE data in the low end of the power level, the arc 

18 wattage, is the arc wattage was lower. A lot of 

19 their own data was showing that they didn’t meet 

20 their proposed standard.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Mike.

22 MR. McGARAGHAN: Mike McGaraghan. I agree 

23 with Andrew that it seems to me like the main issue 

24 is discrepancy in the testing, so we would love to 

25 hear from DOE if they can talk a little bit about 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

62

1 how they did their testing, or Navigant. But in the 

2 meantime, I just wanted to say that the California 

3 utilities are very supportive of the standard levels 

4 that are being proposed by DOE, based on the test 

5 data. And one thing we did, we went through and 

6 looked at the different utilities of the products, 

7 so focusing in, within a product class, looking at, 

8 for example, one-lamp ballast with low ballast 

9 factor, and one-lamp ballast with a medium ballast 

10 factor, and went through that way and took a look at 

11 what portion of the products tested would meet the 

12 new levels, and found that in -- we haven’t done an 

13 exhaustive review of that, but in general, there are 

14 products, based on the DOE’s test data, that match 

15 at every one of the specific utilities that we 

16 looked at, and in general there’s two, sometimes 

17 there’s three, sometimes there’s four products that 

18 met that level, including those with low ballast 

19 factors. So I’m not sure if I misunderstood your 

20 point, but what we saw is, for example, two-lamp 

21 instant start low ballast factor, there were two 

22 tested products that looked like they met the 

23 standard level. Four-lamp, there were also two, in 

24 fact, the only two tested, both met the standard 

25 level. So that gets a question back to you, but --
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

63

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike, when you say utility, 

2 you mean common usage by that word?

3 MR. McGARAGHAN: Yes, so when I say 

4 utility I mean a specific application, particular 

5 ballast factor designed for a particular number of 

6 lamps, yes.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. That’s what I 

8 thought.

9 MR. McGARAGHAN: And just another point. 

10 We appreciate that there are other lighting 

11 technologies that will be introduced and other 

12 design strategies to save energy, and considerable 

13 amounts of energy and that LEDs will have a growing 

14 market share, but we also agree with DOE that this 

15 is a very important rulemaking, that there’s a huge 

16 amount of savings on the table. There are still 

17 shipments forecasted in the tens of millions for the 

18 small product classes and the hundreds of millions 

19 for the larger product classes. So in general, we 

20 believe this is a really important effort that DOE 

21 has done here, and support the approach, the intent 

22 to set a standard level that can be met by the best 

23 performing products within each of those utilities.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

25 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, industry would like to 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

64

1 point out that industry already has realized the 

2 energy savings that this report is claiming. When 

3 you are claiming a baseline of an electromagnetic 

4 product against a high level electronic, the fact 

5 that you’re one or two percent higher than what we 

6 are already attaining with 80 percent of the product 

7 we sell through our own initiative, is not the kind 

8 of savings that you’re broadcasting to the world 

9 that you’re achieving. We can go back and rework 

10 the numbers, but I would guess that probably 80 or 

11 90 percent of the quads that you’re claiming that 

12 you’re going to save is something that we have 

13 already done as industry without any help.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: But in your premium 

15 products.

16 MR. ERHARDT: Yes.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Again, use the 

18 microphone.

19 MR. ERHARDT: And just one more thing. 

20 It’s just this additional one or two percent that 

21 will give marginal savings that is going to totally 

22 disrupt this industry.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: I thought you made that 

24 point well in your presentation.

25 MR. PARISELLA: I wanted to elaborate 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

65

1 again -- this is Joe Parisella -- I want to 

2 elaborate on the disruption of the industry. I 

3 don’t think we’ve gotten into the topic of component 

4 availability. Right now is pretty long lead times 

5 in electronic components, and as you go higher in 

6 efficiency, it’s going to limit the choices that we 

7 have in the electronic components that we put in our 

8 products, and as we limit those choices then the

9 product lead times are going to get longer and the 

10 availability of products is going to drop 

11 dramatically, and I wanted to point that out as 

12 well.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. So I 

14 think -- rather quickly here, yes, Mimi’s got a 

15 question.

16 MS. GUPTA: Mimi Gupta. I just wanted to 

17 clarify the electromagnetic baseline issue. I think 

18 actually most of the representative units that DOE 

19 analyzed do not have an electromagnetic baseline, 

20 only the sign ballast and the eight foot high output 

21 ballast have electromagnetic baselines. DOE, on the 

22 other representative units, does analyze two 

23 baselines in many cases, low efficiency T8 and a T12 

24 electronic baseline. Just as a clarification.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Tim first, and then 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

66

1 back to Jeff.

2 MR. BALLO: Just a quick question that 

3 Mike kind of already asked. I’m wondering if anyone 

4 at Navigant or DOE can -- if you all have any idea 

5 for the basis for the -- why there is such a 

6 distinction in the test data? Any suggestions why 

7 that might be?

8 MS. GUPTA: This is Mimi Gupta. We have a 

9 couple of slides on how we did our testing, and the 

10 various sources of data coming up later in the 

11 presentation. I think maybe that would be the best 

12 place to talk about it.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, I’m going to suggest 

14 we go in that direction pretty quickly. Jeff.

15 MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon. Just a 

16 comment on the data, and the comment of not many 

17 products meeting at the low power level. If you 

18 look at the NEMA data presented, at approximately 90 

19 watts, 80 watts and below, it shows very little to 

20 no manufacturers meeting instant start, programmed 

21 start minimum requirements for BLE. We do see in 

22 the subset data from Navigant, a few samples that 

23 meet, but not at all power ranges. So in certain 

24 cases that would leave no ballast available in the 

25 market at certain power ranges with today’s 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

67

1 ballasts.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Are we finished with 

3 this opening comments segment? I think we are. So 

4 let’s proceed then with the presentation material. 

5 I think we left off with --

6 DR. KAARSBERG: Ali again.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, with Ali, with market 

8 and technology assessment.

9 Market and Technology Assessment 

10 MS. McDONALD: So now we’ll start to talk 

11 about each analysis in more detail than we’ve 

12 already been talking about it. So a fluorescent 

13 lamp ballast is defined as the device which is used 

14 to start and operate fluorescent lamps by providing 

15 starting voltage and current and limiting the 

16 current during normal operation. Several 

17 fluorescent lamp ballasts are already subject to 

18 energy conservation standards, and they’re 

19 summarized in the table on this slide. In general, 

20 only T12 ballasts that operate four medium bi-pin, 

21 eight foot slimline, and eight foot high output 

22 lamps are included in coverage.

23 As part of this rulemaking, DOE considered 

24 expanding the scope of coverage to include 

25 additional fluorescent lamp ballasts. When 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

68

1 expanding the scope, DOE considered three main 

2 criteria:

3 • The first was the potential for a ballast to 

4 demonstrate significant energy savings. 

5 • As part of this criteria, DOE also considered 

6 ballast types whose shipments may not 

7 currently be high volume, but have the

8 potential to grow, such as in the case that 

9 they become a substitute for a regulated 

10 ballast.

11 • And finally, DOE considered whether improving 

12 the efficiency of a certain ballast type was 

13 both technologically feasible and 

14 economically justified.

15 DOE concluded that several additional 

16 ballast types met the criteria to be included in the 

17 scope of coverage. And this slide summarizes all of 

18 the ballasts included in coverage, which were the 

19 same ballasts that were considered in the 

20 preliminary analysis. In general, DOE is extending 

21 coverage to ballasts that operate additional lamp 

22 types such as four-foot T5 lamps, ballasts that 

23 operate additional lamp diameters such as T8 four 

24 foot medium bi-pin lamps in addition to T12s; and 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

69

1 ballasts that operate additional numbers of lamps.

2 Please note that DOE did not include 

3 additional dimming ballasts in the proposed scope of 

4 coverage.

5 So the previous public meeting and in 

6 written comments, DOE received feedback that 

7 magnetic ballasts are still required in applications 

8 where electromagnetic interference is a concern. 

9 Some of these applications include medical operating 

10 rooms or rooms with life support systems, airport 

11 control towers, facilities that use electronic test 

12 equipment or radio communication devices, and 

13 aircraft hangars or other buildings with 

14 predominantly metal construction.

15 DOE conducted research and identified 

16 several ways to reduce electromagnetic interference, 

17 both internal and external to the ballast. However, 

18 DOE was unable to confirm that EMI could be 

19 sufficiently reduced or eliminated such that it 

20 would not constitute a safety concern in certain 

21 applications. Therefore DOE designed an exemption 

22 for T8 magnetic ballasts similar to previous 

23 exemptions for replacement ballasts. DOE does not 

24 believe that magnetic products will be used as 

25 substitutes in current electronic ballast 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

70

1 applications because of their higher cost and 

2 increased weight. 

3 So at this time we would like to invite 

4 comment on our proposed scope of coverage, including 

5 the exemptions designed for T8 magnetic ballasts.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Comments at this point? 

7 Bob.

8 MR. ERHARDT: NEMA supports the continuing 

9 exemption for electromagnetic ballasts in EMI 

10 sensitive locations.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: You’re speaking on behalf 

12 of NEMA?

13 MR. ERHARDT: Yes.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. And any 

15 comments on the proposed scope of coverage, those 

16 listed there on page 20 of your slides? No 

17 additional comments? Jeff?

18 MR. PLASKON: NEMA did -- Jeff Plaskon. 

19 NEMA did identify a class that we believe should be 

20 a subset of the data for residential ballasts. 

21 Considering the products that were on the market 

22 today, fell far short of the DOE proposal.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: So can you be more 

24 specific?

25 MR. PLASKON: There was -- I thought the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

71

1 residential was combined in the original proposal. 

2 I’ll hold my comment for right now. All of my 

3 comment for right now.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. I’m just looking at 

5 the descriptors on slide 20, and so if you can be 

6 specific, it might be helpful. Jeff.

7 MR. PLASKON: I originally thought the 

8 residential was included in the instant start 

9 category with the same formula. I’ll have to look a 

10 little deeper here.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: So then we’re going to 

12 proceed.

13 MS. McDONALD: All right. DOE establishes 

14 separate standards for different groups of products 

15 called product classes. To do this, DOE considered 

16 the type of energy used, the capacity, and any 

17 performance-related feature that would require a 

18 different standard level. Of these criteria, DOE 

19 focused on the last one, where a difference in the 

20 efficiency of a ballast was accompanied by a 

21 difference in consumer utility.

22 It was suggested by manufacturers that 

23 there is a relationship between the total lamp arc 

24 power operated by a ballast and its efficiency. 

25 Therefore, DOE evaluated its test data and found 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

72

1 that those relationship was best characterized by 

2 and equation relating BLE and the natural log of 

3 measured lamp arc power. As shown earlier, DOE 

4 proposed efficiency levels using these equations.

5 This relationship has several benefits for 

6 determining product classes compared to DOE’s 

7 approach in the preliminary analysis. It simplifies 

8 the product class structure and the amount of 

9 scaling required between product classes. It also 

10 does not automatically require a separate product 

11 class for factors that affect the total wattage 

12 operated by a ballast, such as ballast factor and 

13 number of lamps.

14 One of the factors DOE considered was 

15 starting method. DOE found that both programmed

16 start and rapid start ballasts have lower BLEs than 

17 instant start ballasts, due to electric heating. 

18 Even though there is a difference in BLE, DOE did 

19 not establish a separate product class for rapid 

20 start ballasts, because rapid start and instant 

21 start ballasts are commonly used as substitutes for 

22 each other. However, occupancy sensors are almost 

23 exclusively used in combination with programmed 

24 start ballasts. For this reason, DOE believes 

25 there’s unique utility associated with them. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

73

1 Because of this utility and the associated decrease 

2 in BLE, DOE established a separate product class for 

3 programmed start ballasts. 

4 DOE also established a second product 

5 class for ballasts that operate eight foot high 

6 output lamps. When analyzing the test data, DOE 

7 found that these ballasts did not follow the 

8 expected power efficiency relationship. Compared to 

9 slimline ballasts, DOE found that eight foot high 

10 output ballasts exhibited lower BLEs, although they 

11 operated higher lamp powers. DOE believes that this 

12 difference may be driven by different topology or 

13 circuit design compared to other ballast types.

14 Consumers use systems with different lumen 

15 packages for different applications. For example, 

16 high output lamps may be installed in certain high 

17 ceiling or outdoor applications where large 

18 quantities of light are needed. Therefore, DOE 

19 believes that lumen package offers a unique utility, 

20 and because of this utility and the associated 

21 decrease in BLE exhibited in test data, DOE proposes 

22 to establish a separate product class for ballasts 

23 that operate eight foot high output lamps.

24 And lastly, we noted a similar phenomenon 

25 for sign ballasts. Based on its test data, DOE 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

74

1 found that these products did not achieve the 

2 expected BLE predicted by the power efficiency 

3 relationship. Test data indicated these ballasts 

4 were not as efficient as regular eight foot high 

5 output ballasts. DOE believes this is because sign 

6 ballasts are often specified to operate multiple 

7 lamp length combinations, as well as both T12 and T8 

8 high output lamps. As a result, a sign ballast is 

9 not optimized for the operation of a particular lamp 

10 combination. Regular eight foot high output 

11 ballasts cannot always serve as substitutes due to 

12 the lack of moisture seals and more limited load 

13 specifications, and for these reasons, DOE proposes 

14 to establish a separate product class for sign 

15 ballasts.

16 So the table on this slide summarizes the 

17 product class structure. There are a few things I’d 

18 like to note about it. Ballasts that operate 

19 different lamp lengths, such as four foot medium bi20 pin and eight foot slimline lamps, are now combined 

21 in one product class. Ballasts that operate 

22 different lamp diameters are also combined. For 

23 example, the programmed start product class includes 

24 ballasts that operate both T5 and T8 lamps. And 

25 last, there’s no longer a separate product class for 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

75

1 residential products. All covered residential 

2 ballasts are in the same product class as commercial 

3 ones.

4 So DOE seeks comment on its approach to 

5 establish efficiency standards using the equation 

6 dependent on measured lamp arc power. We also 

7 request comment on the product class structure, 

8 especially the inclusion of several different 

9 ballast types in the same product classes.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

11 MR. ERHARDT: One comment on the 

12 appropriateness of the formula-based. In general, I 

13 think we support the formula base. One thing I did 

14 find, though, when trying to make a formula fit over 

15 very wide power range, was as we’ve said a couple 

16 times, it’s very difficult to match and get proper 

17 granularity at the higher power levels and still 

18 accommodate the lower power levels. What you end up 

19 with is a -- actually, where your main products are, 

20 you get a little bit of a gap. And so we might 

21 suggest breaking the power ranges into two or more 

22 levels to get the formulas to fit better.

23 MS. McDONALD: Okay. 

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Are there 

25 comments on the product classes? This is a new 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

76

1 structure, I guess, on slide 28. Yes, Mimi.

2 MS. GUPTA: Mimi Gupta. Bob, do you have 

3 a suggestion on the break point?

4 MR. ERHARDT: I haven’t worked too much 

5 with it, but I’m thinking somewhere in the 50 to 100 

6 watt range, somewhere like that. Maybe under 50 

7 watts, for instance. Somewhere in that range it 

8 seemed to -- it was very hard to get the products 

9 under 50 watts to come in and then not end up with 

10 some watts of range between the data and the 

11 formula. So it’s somewhere in the 50 to 100 watt 

12 range, I would recommend.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike, did you have a 

14 comment? Okay, yes, Chris.

15 MR. HOLSTEIN: Yes, this is Chris. I 

16 think this would be the appropriate point on the 

17 residential ballast being combined with commercial, 

18 we don’t necessarily think that’s a good 

19 combination, and I think that’s represented here --

20 I’m not sure which slide number it is, but a couple 

21 slides back, those would be combined, even though 

22 they’re listed as different classes, they use the 

23 same formula to calculate the efficiency BLE-min

24 number. Yes, slide 28.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob, go ahead.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

77

1 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, just to comment on the 

2 commercial/residential. As you know, we’ve been 

3 working with the Department of Energy and Navigant 

4 for some years now on these various rulemakings, and 

5 I think initially a residential ballast was one that 

6 was considered to not have power factor correction, 

7 and we are seeing in more and more sectors now that 

8 some level of power factor correction is required in 

9 residential ballasts, and therefore the efficiency 

10 savings that residential ballasts gained by not 

11 having power factor correction in the past is 

12 disappearing. And so for this reason, we’re 

13 reevaluating our position on residential being 

14 lumped with commercial, because in many cases 

15 residential ballasts now are being required to have 

16 power factor levels comparable to commercial.

17 MS. McDONALD: And what kind of 

18 requirements are you talking about for residential 

19 ballasts?

20 MR. ERHARDT: I need some help here, but 

21 wasn’t the California Energy Commission starting to 

22 require -- Charlie, do you remember? We’ll have to 

23 come up in the written comments. I think Navigant 

24 asked me specifically this question, and at the 

25 time, when a residential ballast was defined as 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

78

1 something having on the order of point five or point 

2 six power factor, then it’s not such a matter to 

3 meet class B. But when you want to meet point eight 

4 or -- I’m sorry, point nine or point nine-nine power 

5 factor, now the added losses from getting a class B, 

6 I felt, become significant. So we can look at this 

7 and address it further in written comments.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Ali, would you restate your 

9 question, the one you just asked Bob?

10 MS. McDONALD: Oh, he had said that 

11 residential ballasts were subject to more 

12 requirements that would require higher power factor, 

13 so I just asked what those requirements were.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks. Cheryl, do 

15 you have a comment here? Wait a second, Bob wants 

16 to follow on.

17 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, Energy Star is an area 

18 where it is now requiring higher power factor.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, thanks. Cheryl.

20 MS. ENGLISH: On the residential, I’m very 

21 concerned about that being incorporated in the same 

22 category, because the residential parts do have to 

23 have the FCC class B requirements. So we’re now 

24 moving residential from a point where it was exempt, 

25 to a product that’s actually going to be more 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

79

1 expensive than a commercial product because of the 

2 added interference filtration required for FCC. 

3 We’re looking at ballast cost increasing, for 

4 residential products, by as much as 50 percent with 

5 that component being the major part of residential 

6 fixtures. So, I think that there is energy savings 

7 opportunities, as we’ve talked about in our 

8 manufacturing input on the residential, but I don’t 

9 think that it needs to be at the same degree as a 

10 commercial type of product.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Jeff.

12 MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon. In citing the 

13 Navigant’s data, three out of the four samples that 

14 were tested in the residential category fell short, 

15 and as you start going below the 50 watts, none of 

16 the samples met the category. And residential 

17 fixtures being very low watt solutions.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: It looks like you’re 

19 referring to the slide that Chris put up there on 

20 the screen, is that right?

21 MR. PLASKON: Yes, correct.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Just wanted to 

23 confirm that. Okay. Anything from -- no? Okay. 

24 Andrew.

25 MR. DeLASKI: So in general, we support 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

80

1 the product classes the Department has proposed. We 

2 think they’ve done an excellent job, frankly, in 

3 collaboration with NEMA from going down -- going 

4 from 70-odd product classes, I think early in this 

5 rulemaking, down to five. And I think that 

6 simplification is extraordinarily valuable, both for 

7 the market, it makes it a lot easier to understand, 

8 for all segments of the market. It also makes 

9 compliance and enforcement much more doable and 

10 encourages the Department to stick with the product 

11 classes designations as have been developed through 

12 the rulemaking.

13 I do want to come back, just to come back 

14 to comment box number one. We support the exemption 

15 for EMI that -- we support the coverage the 

16 Department has proposed in this rulemaking. We 

17 think the coverage really drives a lot of the 

18 savings in this rulemaking, the extension of 

19 coverage to T8s and T5 ballasts, to residential 

20 ballasts, to low temperature ballasts, this is 

21 what’s driving the potential benefits in this 

22 docket, and really support and applaud the 

23 Department for extending coverage in those ways.

24 We’re also comfortable with the exemptions 

25 for dimming ballasts and for EMI sensitive 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

81

1 applications. 

2 One suggestion, one comment is whenever we 

3 see this kind of exemption, and the thing that sort 

4 of sparks in our mind is concern about things being 

5 sold in other applications. I think the 

6 Department’s right that odds of an EMI-sensitive 

7 ballast being sold in other applications, I think,

8 are relatively small. But one addition may be to 

9 include within the rule -- right now, as proposed it 

10 limits it to products that are designed and labeled 

11 for use in EMI sensitive applications. An 

12 additional descriptor that might be added that I 

13 think has been used sometimes in the past, is 

14 designed, labeled, and marketed -- so how they’re 

15 being marketed by the manufacturer. So I think that 

16 may be an additional way to ensure that a loophole 

17 doesn’t open up.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Bob.

19 MR. ERHARDT: When I hear the term 

20 marketed, I think about our distribution channels 

21 and I’m not sure I know how manufacturers are going 

22 to be able to control the marketing through 

23 distributors to the proper market.

24 MR. DeLASKI: Just to respond, Bob. I 

25 understand that concern. I don’t think you can 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

82

1 control your distribution, and I think the standards 

2 are enforced vis-à-vis manufacturers. So in my 

3 vision of this is what a manufacturer does to market 

4 their products, since it is the manufacturer who is 

5 the responsible party. So I understand you can’t 

6 control what a distributor is doing, but you can 

7 control what Philips does.

8 MR. BROOKMAN: Ali, did you put issue four 

9 and five up there yet?

10 MS. McDONALD: I did. Sorry, I had paged 

11 back when they had a question. But this is similar, 

12 we had already talked about the residential ballast.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s push them up there on 

14 the screen to be systematic about this. Mike.

15 MR. McGARAGHAN: Mike McGaraghan. 

16 Question for Bob, and actually it might help, can 

17 you go back to that slide again?

18 MS. McDONALD: Sure.

19 MR. McGARAGHAN: So, Bob, if you’re 

20 talking about potentially dividing product classes 

21 for higher input power, I’m assuming that would 

22 apply just to product class one and two? So we’d 

23 end up with something like seven product classes?

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob?

25 MR. ERHARDT: Well, that’s where I ran 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

83

1 across my difficulty. I haven’t spent much time 

2 with developing formulas for the last three, but the 

3 first two were the ones where there was clearly a 

4 bit of a discontinuity around 50 watts or so that 

5 made it difficult for one formula to accommodate the 

6 whole range.

7 MR. McGARAGHAN: Thanks. And another 

8 question, and you can tell me if this is not the 

9 best time for it, but about the product class five, 

10 you’re defining it as eight foot, high output lamps 

11 in cold temperature outdoor signs. From the NOPR 

12 it’s not entirely clear whether the cold temperature 

13 is a key factor in the designation of that product 

14 class. DOE cites a number of other factors that 

15 justify a product class for signs. It didn’t seem 

16 like the temperature was actually one of those, so 

17 it may come up later in the presentation, I don’t 

18 know, but I wondered if DOE could speak to whether 

19 that term is really an essential part of the title 

20 of that product class. 

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Is that the differentiating 

22 characteristic?

23 MS. McDONALD: That was taken from the way 

24 that the exemption was originally outlined. There’s 

25 actually a temperature specified in the Code of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

84

1 Federal Regulations. It looks like Chris wanted to 

2 comment on that.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Chris, go ahead.

4 MR. HOLSTEIN: Yes, this is Chris. The 

5 cold temperature does have an effect on the 

6 efficiency requires our open circuit voltage to go 

7 to fire the lamps in that application, so it’s one 

8 of many things that would separate a sign ballast 

9 application from a standard ballast application, but 

10 it does have an effect in the way the ballast is 

11 engineered and the way it operates the lamps.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike, keep going.

13 MR. McGARAGHAN: So the reason I bring it 

14 up is -- and I don’t have it in front of me, but I 

15 noticed in the past that even just standard 

16 commercial ballast, four foot ballasts, even some of 

17 the NEMA premium products, I believe are rated down 

18 to some very low temperatures, and I don’t have them 

19 off the top of my head, maybe negative 20, so my 

20 question is if that affects efficiency, why do we 

21 see that characteristic in even the most efficient 

22 products on the market?

23 MR. HOLSTEIN: This is Chris again, and I 

24 might have to bounce this to an electrical engineer, 

25 but the thing about a box sign that holds multiple 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

85

1 linear fluorescent lamps, the ballast sits at the 

2 bottom. It has to strike over a much longer 

3 distance of wiring to strike the lamp, whereas a 

4 typical NEMA premium ballast does not have that. 

5 So you’re looking at much longer strike distances 

6 which require much higher opening current voltage to 

7 do that. They are different in the way they’re 

8 engineered and the way they operate. You couldn’t 

9 take a standard, say a four foot ballast, and put it 

10 in those signs. It wouldn’t strike the lamps. I 

11 don’t know if they would even flicker. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie Stephens.

13 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. Then I 

14 guess I would agree with Mike that the temperature 

15 really isn’t much of an issue. I mean I just 

16 literally a month ago installed a NEMA premium 

17 ballast in a couple of fixtures in my own garage 

18 that were rated to minus 20. Just a four foot, two 

19 lamp ballast that I didn’t -- I didn’t order it up 

20 to start down to minus 20. We don’t have those 

21 kinds of temperatures, but if it does affect the 

22 efficiency adversely, I guess I’m wondering why my 

23 four foot standard, off-the-shelf electronic ballast 

24 for two T8s has that feature built in.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Chris, go ahead. And then 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

86

1 I’ll get to you, Jeff.

2 MR. HOLSTEIN: Yeah, once again, I might 

3 bounce it to an electrical engineer. There’s a big 

4 difference between two feet and 20 feet, that’s the 

5 difference in the fixture in your garage. You’re 

6 wiring about this far versus a wire from me to you.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Jeff, follow on.

8 MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon. Certainly 

9 support what Chris is saying with the striking 

10 distance, the open circuit voltage, adding to the 

11 efficiency losses. But also for outdoor 

12 applications, many of us design to higher transient 

13 ratings for protection of the ballast in outdoor 

14 applications, above and beyond just a ballast rated 

15 for indoor applications, with the negative 20 as the 

16 starting. There are other factors, other than just 

17 the open circuit voltage that add to efficiency 

18 losses.

19 MR. STEPHENS: Yes, I guess I’m -- but I’m 

20 still not getting anybody to address the temperature 

21 thing. Does the temperature matter? Does it affect 

22 the efficiency or not? That’s the big deal here.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Please find the microphone. 

24 Thank you, Joe.

25 MR. PARISELLA: Joe Parisella. The 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

87

1 difference is in your ballast in your garage, if you 

2 remote mounted that, then it wouldn’t start. So the 

3 distance that it has to maintain that open circuit 

4 voltage is the difference.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew deLaski to follow 

6 on.

7 MR. DeLASKI: Then we need to find a way 

8 to define the product in a way that captures what 

9 you’re describing as opposed to temperature, because 

10 the temperature is not distinguishing the product.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah, I want to go back to 

12 Ali. You said that the cold temperature came from 

13 the CFR. Are there other distinguishing 

14 characteristics that would expand this brief 

15 description?

16 MS. McDONALD: I mean the other thing that 

17 I mentioned was designed for use in outdoor signs, 

18 but certainly I think accurately describing the 

19 products such that we can differentiate it, if there 

20 is specific language that manufacturers or advocates 

21 would suggest to make sure that the product is 

22 defined, we’d be open to suggestions.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Bob.

24 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, I guess two comments. 

25 One is that yeah, I think outdoor ballasts have a 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

88

1 different weather rating and perhaps this can be --

2 MS. McDONALD: I think they require 

3 moisture seals as well.

4 MR. ERHARDT: Right. And also the 

5 difference, I think, that might be seen over here, 

6 the question of why a four foot ballast is rated for 

7 minus 20. One of the things or differentiators here 

8 is instant start versus programmed start. If you’re 

9 talking about an instant start ballast, it’s not as 

10 affected by the wiring distances, somewhat, but when 

11 you’re talking about a programmed start ballast, 

12 these often have lamps in series and they have what 

13 are called starting aid capacitors that help to put 

14 most of the voltage across one lamp or another. 

15 These systems are very sensitive to parasitic 

16 capacitances which is what you have when you have 

17 long lead lengths, so if you’re talking about a 

18 series programmed start ballast, with long lead 

19 lengths, it’s going to be more susceptible to 

20 parasitics than other types of ballasts.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. This gentleman. 

22 Your name, please.

23 MR. THOMAS: Hi. Ed Thomas. I just 

24 wanted to follow up on Chris’ comment about striking 

25 20 feet of glass versus striking two to four feet of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

89

1 glass. When you’re at the extremely cold 

2 temperature, the physics of the lamp involved 

3 increases the striking voltage as the temperature 

4 goes down because the mobility of the gases within 

5 the lamp. So in that aspect, more energy is 

6 required to strike at a cold temperature with a 

7 longer lamp. So logically it would follow, the 

8 longer the lamp, the colder the temperature, the 

9 harder the system is to start.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Mike.

11 MR. McGARAGHAN: So thanks for all that 

12 clarification. I would just encourage DOE to think 

13 about the definition of that product class and 

14 whether there are better identifiers. The way it 

15 reads right now a ballast that isn’t designed for 

16 real low temperatures might be exempt from 

17 standards.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. I think we’re at a 

19 natural breaking point now. I’m going to suggest we 

20 take a break. It’s 10:45. For 15 minutes. We’ll 

21 resume at 11. Probably we’ll keep going ‘til say 

22 12:15 or 12:30 before we break for lunch. We’ve 

23 covered a lot of ground already. This has been a 

24 good, very productive session this morning. 

25 Please wear your badges in the building, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

90

1 visible here in Forrestal. There are rest rooms at 

2 both ends of the hall. If you’re going to go to the 

3 coffee shop on the ground floor, go quickly. 

4 They’re not very efficient down there, and we’ll see 

5 you back here to start at 11.

6 (Whereupon, the meeting was recessed for a 

7 20 minute period.)

8 MR. BROOKMAN: We’ll start with Matt 

9 Walker.

10 Engineering Analysis

11 MR. WALKER: Hi everybody. My name is 

12 Matthew Walker. I’m with Navigant. Let’s go ahead 

13 and get started with the engineering analysis. In 

14 the engineering analysis we put together cost and 

15 efficiency data for each of the product classes and 

16 the representative ballast types within those 

17 product classes to create this information and pass 

18 it downstream to life cycle costs and national 

19 impacts analyses.

20 A look at the methodology. DOE begins by 

21 choosing product classes to be directly analyzed, 

22 which it calls representative product classes. Then 

23 within these representative product classes, DOE 

24 also selects what we call a representative ballast 

25 type to generate more characteristic information of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

91

1 all the types of ballasts included in our product 

2 class. 

3 Next, DOE will move to define baseline 

4 models for each representative ballast type, and 

5 then moves to develop efficiency levels or ELs, 

6 manufacturer’s selling prices, or MSPs, to span the 

7 range of efficiencies on the baseline up to the 

8 maximum technologically feasible that was analyzed. 

9 And then finally, DOE scales the efficiency levels 

10 to product classes that weren’t directly analyzed.

11 This slide shows the representative 

12 product classes and ballast types selected for the 

13 NOPR. DOE based these selections primarily on 

14 shipment volume and the desire to analyze the major 

15 lamp types operated with that product class. These 

16 representative ballast types are the same as the 

17 representative product classes that were analyzed in 

18 the preliminary analysis. You can refer back to 

19 that.

20 So in total, DOE analyzed ten 

21 representative ballast types. For the instant start 

22 and rapid start product class, there were four of 

23 these representative ballast types, the two and four 

24 lamp, four foot medium bi-pin, a two lamp medium bi25 pin residential, and a two lamp eight foot slimline. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

92

1 Then in the programmed start product 

2 class, there are also four representative ballast 

3 types, the two and four lamp four foot medium bi-pin 

4 ballast and the two lamp T5 standard output, and the 

5 T5 high output lamp ballast. 

6 And then the eight foot high output 

7 instant start and rapid start product class, there 

8 was just one representative ballast type, the 

9 ballast to operate two lamp eight foot high output 

10 lamps.

11 And then finally, for the sign ballast 

12 product class, DOE analyzed ballast that operate a 

13 maximum of four eightfoot T12 high output lamps.

14 We’ll move on to a brief discussion of 

15 what a baseline model is. The baseline model will 

16 typically just meet the existing energy conservation 

17 standards if there are any, or will represent the 

18 most common lowest efficiency ballast for that 

19 particular type. So in some cases, DOE would select 

20 more than one baseline, two baselines, to consider 

21 life cycle cost changes relative to ballasts that 

22 operate different lamp diameters. So, for example, 

23 in the two lamp four-foot medium bi-pin commercial 

24 instant start/rapid start group, DOE analyzed both a 

25 T12 electronic and a T8 electronic baseline.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

93

1 Moving on to the selection of efficiency 

2 levels. As we mentioned earlier, DOE is proposing 

3 to set standards using an equation that relates the 

4 measured total lamp arc power to ballast efficiency. 

5 So the process sort of began with DOE plotting

6 multiple manufacturers’ high and standard efficiency 

7 product offerings and beginning experimenting with 

8 different regression equations. And DOE found that 

9 the logarithmic relationship fit the trend between 

10 efficiency and power the best. So DOE designed 

11 these logarithmic equations to align with certain 

12 natural divisions in BLE to include the standard 

13 versus high efficiency product lines, ballasts that 

14 operate different lamp diameters and other 

15 divisions.

16 The next two slides will show the 

17 efficiency level equations for the instant start and 

18 rapid start product class and the programmed start 

19 product class. 

20 We’ve already heard a little bit of 

21 comment on the test data, so this is the data that 

22 DOE came up with through its testing. You can see 

23 colored points on the plots, they denote the 

24 representative units for the different ballast 

25 types. For example, the red squares are the two 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

94

1 lamp four-foot medium bi-pin commercial ballasts. 

2 The green triangles are eight foot slimline 

3 ballasts. So these would be the ballasts that DOE 

4 used to represent the cost and efficiency of 

5 particular levels for particular types of ballasts.

6 So then in addition to the test points, 

7 you can see the three efficiency level equations 

8 developed for this product class. EL1 will just 

9 allow the baseline efficiency four-foot T8 ballast, 

10 thereby eliminating the four-foot T12 varieties. 

11 Then when you go to EL2, it would require more 

12 efficient four foot medium bi-pin ballasts and is 

13 just met by the least efficient eight foot T8

14 slimline, so EL2 will eliminate the eight foot T12 

15 slimline ballast.

16 And then finally we move to efficiency 

17 level 3, which represents the max tech EL for this 

18 product class and was met only by the most efficient 

19 ballast that DOE tested in its analysis.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Mike, go ahead.

21 MR. McGARAGHAN: Mike McGaraghan. Did you 

22 say what the gray diamonds are?

23 MR. WALKER: I did not. The gray diamonds 

24 are the other ballasts tested by DOE, so there are a 

25 variety both within the representative ballast types 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

95

1 as well as one and three lamp ballast, low and high 

2 ballast factor. We just called out the certain 

3 points as being the ones that were used to represent 

4 the cost efficiency of a particular level.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew deLaski.

6 MR. DeLASKI: So in this -- so you’re 

7 showing -- basically you’re casting that you’ve got, 

8 based on this plot, quite a variety of products that 

9 are meeting EL3 at various power levels. You said 

10 just the most efficient, but this is quite a number 

11 of dots above that line.

12 MR. WALKER: That’s true. I mean the 

13 intention was to allow a wide range of products to 

14 meet that most efficient level with the high and low 

15 ballast factors, and then this represents testing of 

16 many manufacturers, so there are examples of more 

17 than one manufacturer ballast of a particular type 

18 that would meet the level.

19 MR. DeLASKI: Okay. Thanks.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes.

21 MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon. Were the gray 

22 data points the retested data using the new metric, 

23 with the lamp arc power?

24 MR. WALKER: Every data point on this plot 

25 and in the other is based on the lamp-based ballast 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

96

1 luminous efficiency, so the testing was redone for 

2 the NOPR stage in this analysis.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: I just want to clarify. So 

4 that’s the new test procedure?

5 MR. WALKER: That’s right. That’s the 

6 final rule as recently published.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

8 MR. ERHARDT: Are these data points 

9 corrected for 99 percent confidence factor?

10 MR. WALKER: That’s a good question. I 

11 was going to hit on that in a slide coming up, but I 

12 can go ahead and preview that. This is the average 

13 of either -- the average of all the samples tested 

14 by DOE. It’s just the sample mean. So later on, 

15 DOE takes these efficiency levels that it developed 

16 based on average values and reduces that efficiency 

17 level equation to account for testing variations, 

18 which includes the compliance equation as well as 

19 lab to lab.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Tina.

21 DR. KAARSBERG: Bob, is this the same 

22 class that you all plotted for similar or have any 

23 similarity?

24 MR. ERHARDT: Unfortunately, I don’t have 

25 power for my computer so I can’t pull up all my 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

97

1 information.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: We’ve got a power strip 

3 here, Bob.

4 MR. ERHARDT: Oh, there is?

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah, if we can just extend 

6 that thing, you can power it up and while you’re 

7 doing so --

8 DR. KAARSBERG: I thought it was, but I 

9 wanted to verify it. (Comments off mic.) It is? 

10 Okay. This is the same product. Navigant tells me 

11 it is the same product class. On your slide 33.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: I’m interested in seeing if 

13 we can understand what any kind of discontinuity 

14 we’re getting with these data reviews are.

15 DR. KAARSBERG: I was just curious, you 

16 know.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Do you want to have a 

18 moment to review that while we’re -- or have you 

19 pretty much got it? Bob?

20 MR. ERHARDT: I think I have it.

21 MR. McGARAGHAN: Doug, I have a quick 

22 question in the interim, if that’s all right?

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Mike.

24 MR. McGARAGHAN: We talked before about 

25 the data set that NEMA has and whether or not you’ll 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

98

1 be able to -- or when you’ll be able to submit it, 

2 but I want to clarify the presentation that Chris 

3 gave this morning, that’s already been submitted to 

4 DOE and is it all right if DOE posts that, and is it 

5 DOE’s intention to post that? 

6 DR. KAARSBERG: As I said, I’m still new 

7 here, but I will investigate whether we can post 

8 that sooner than later. Normally it would be part 

9 of the transcript and record and all that, you would 

10 have to go through checks and take several days, but 

11 I’ll investigate to the extent we might be able to 

12 post that sooner than later.

13 MR. McGARAGHAN: I appreciate that.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob, you got something 

15 there? Get close to the microphone.

16 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, I don’t have the same 

17 scale but it appears -- it’s pretty close. Although 

18 my comment is that our NEMA data shows at 50 watts 

19 nothing higher than 91 percent, and you’re showing 

20 as high as 94, so this is where we have some issues 

21 to resolve.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, Cheryl.

23 MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English. I just also 

24 want to caution when we look at a lot of this data 

25 and we start setting these EL levels, there’s an 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

99

1 assumption that every dot on there can be applied 

2 equally to the same luminaires, and that may not 

3 necessarily be the case. So there’s certain 

4 ballasts there that may have some specific utility 

5 to a particular type of product and may not work for 

6 others.

7 MR. WALKER: Cheryl, are there some 

8 fixture types that could not handle a very efficient 

9 ballast, for example, an EL3 ballast?

10 MS. ENGLISH: The efficiency is not really 

11 the driver, quite honestly, it’s that case size that 

12 tends to be really critical issue, so we may want to 

13 try to take this data -- I know that -- I don’t 

14 believe that the NEMA data has it down to that level 

15 of detail at this time, but that will certainly be a 

16 critical element in looking at whether or not it can 

17 be incorporated into certain products.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

19 MR. ERHARDT: Yes, as a matter of fact, 

20 this is a good time to ask the question. Did 

21 Navigant evaluate any products in the larger can 

22 size?

23 MR. WALKER: Well, let’s see, I guess -- I 

24 think most of our data is what you would call the 

25 larger can size. It’s not -- we did not test as 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

100

1 many of the N-can.

2 MR. ERHARDT: Okay. But A-can or F-can or 

3 what’s the -- F- or A-?

4 MR. WALKER: I probably would want to 

5 confirm to be sure, but I’m seeing nods that it’s 

6 probably the F size.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: So restate it, Matt -- what 

8 you mostly tested.

9 MR. WALKER: I think we mostly tested the 

10 largest can size.

11 MR. ERHARDT: Oh, oh, oh. Then this makes 

12 sense because we don’t sell that size any more.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: So what you’re selling now. 

14 Identify those two can sizes.

15 MR. WALKER: Well, I might want to 

16 reclarify -- I’m not sure that I want to say that we 

17 tested the largest ballast size. We recently 

18 purchased some of these ballasts in late 2010, so if 

19 only the A and Ns were available, I would imagine it 

20 was one of the two. I know for a fact that we 

21 tested very few N-cans. So it would lead me to 

22 believe that we tested mostly A-cans.

23 MR. ERHARDT: I guess my question is, are 

24 any of these data points that then correspond very 

25 well to our data because we did show F-can data 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

101

1 approaching 93, 94 percent efficiency. If those are 

2 F-can data, then all of the comments that we made 

3 about you can associate a two to six percent 

4 luminaire efficiency drop by going to that can, 

5 those would apply.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Chris.

7 MR. HOLSTEIN: Yeah, this is Chris. Just 

8 to clarify, the F-can is available in the market. 

9 Full on ballast manufacturers do sell it. So if you 

10 purchased a sampling of distribution, then there’s a 

11 good chance you could have F-can and A-can data.

12 MR. ERHARDT: I’m sorry, I didn’t mean we 

13 don’t sell them, I mean we only sell one percent of 

14 our market is F-can, and if you’re basing -- this is 

15 in principle a replacement product for older 

16 designs, and yes, you can make a more efficient 

17 product and sometimes even a cheaper product by 

18 going into the bigger can, but it has a lot of costs 

19 on the luminaire side and it has detrimental effects 

20 on luminaire efficiency.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks, Bob. 

22 Charlie Stephens.

23 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. As I 

24 recall, when we were looking at the NEMA data 

25 earlier, there was no N-can data, or if there was, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

102

1 it wasn’t identified as such.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Justin or Jeff? Jeff.

3 MR. PLASKON: Yeah, Jeff Plaskon. Most of 

4 our data was in the N-can.

5 MR. STEPHENS: Well, okay, I’m thinking 

6 about where we actually -- I think there was only 

7 one slide where it was identified as what the can 

8 was and there was As on the left, and standard on 

9 the right, and nothing that was labeled N. So if 

10 you did do any N testing, then we can’t identify it 

11 in the data you submitted.

12 MR. PLASKON: Correct, but in the instant 

13 start data set that we submitted, a majority of that 

14 data was our N style can.

15 MR. STEPHENS: So does that mean --

16 MR. ERHARDT: Said in another way, the 

17 NEMA data is a mixture of A and N, but no F.

18 MR. STEPHENS: Okay. So what we saw with 

19 the plots against the standard curves had some N in 

20 it, but you couldn’t identify it.

21 MR. COOK: Yeah, the one chart you’re 

22 referring to was just trying to make the point that 

23 the large can improved efficiency, that’s all it was 

24 trying to do. It was not exemplary of all the data 

25 that they had taken. It was just to make the one 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

103

1 point.

2 MR. STEPHENS: So just involved in that 

3 chart, because there were these cans that were 

4 labeled standard over those.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: So the response?

6 MR. ERHARDT: Old standard.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: So the response to the 

8 question is F? Susan, use the microphone.

9 MS. ANDERSON: Susan Anderson. If it’s 

10 labeled “standard” on slide 26, that’s the F-can. 

11 That was the largest can that Chris showed you. And 

12 it’s what we traditionally use for T12 and was the 

13 original can size for T8.

14 MR. McGARAGHAN: Right, so Susan or Bob, 

15 do you market today NEMA premium ballasts in F-cans?

16 MS. ANDERSON: No, our volume is all in 

17 the A and now going to the N.

18 MR. McGARAGHAN: So NEMA doesn’t have an 

19 F-can that’s labeled a NEMA premium?

20 MS. ANDERSON: No.

21 MR. ERHARDT: No, this is --

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Chris is ready, go ahead.

23 MR. HOLSTEIN: I was going to say -- this 

24 is Chris -- we don’t have -- “we” saying universal, 

25 not NEMA, universal -- there is no NEMA premium 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

104

1 products in an F-can.

2 MR. McGARAGHAN: So they just evolved from 

3 that? If that’s the case, then, and the Department 

4 was testing NEMA premium products, then that’s not 

5 driving the data that you’re seeing before us, 

6 because they were looking at NEMA premium products. 

7 So if they’re buying NEMA premium products, you 

8 weren’t buying F cans, you were buying the smaller 

9 cans, not the smallest, but the smaller.

10 MR. WALKER: Likely correct.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob, go ahead.

12 MR. ERHARDT: An F-can with a 92 or a 93 

13 percent efficiency would certainly qualify for NEMA 

14 premium, and I don’t know, but I would not be 

15 surprised if our marketing department wasn’t selling 

16 them as NEMA premium. The point we’re making is our 

17 new, in our case, our Optanium product line is in 

18 the smaller cans. The F-can, labeled the standard 

19 can, was the standard for maybe 50 years, that’s why 

20 it’s called the standard can. It was, up until 1998 

21 or so, it was the dominant can. Starting, certainly 

22 around -- by 2000, there was a big push already to 

23 the smaller cans, the A and then the N. So if 

24 you’re -- by now today, I’d say because our 

25 customers, luminaire manufacturers, have been able 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

105

1 to realize efficiencies by going to a smaller can, 

2 any of our newer product lines, mainly our Optanium, 

3 are going to be in the A and N-cans.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Keith.

5 MR. COOK: I guess now I’m confused. I 

6 thought that the DOE data represented a broad range 

7 of products, not just NEMA premium.

8 MR. HOLSTEIN: That is correct, Keith, 

9 from the least efficient available to the top, which 

10 would be the NEMA premium. So I think the earlier 

11 statement that the NEMA premiums were probably A12 cans would make sense.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. Joanna.

14 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. Is the NEMA 

15 data the actual tested values, or is it the tested 

16 values lowered by point eight percent?

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

18 MR. ERHARDT: It is the mean -- each data 

19 point is a mean of four or five ballasts adjusted 

20 for 99 percent confidence level by point eight 

21 percent.

22 MS. MAUER: And then the DOE data is a 

23 sample means?

24 MR. WALKER: That is correct. 

25 MR. ERHARDT: Not adjusted.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

106

1 MR. WALKER: Not adjusted.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: So that accounts for the 

3 difference.

4 MR. ERHARDT: Some differences, yes.

5 MR. WALKER: That accounts for 0.8 

6 percent, to be specific.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: That’s exactly what I 

8 meant. Okay. So I think we’ve exhausted this one. 

9 Keep that going. Oh, no, we haven’t. Mike.

10 MR. McGARAGHAN: Sorry. Question for 

11 Susan or maybe others. I wondered if you could 

12 expand a little bit on the trade-off between the 

13 extra efficiency and can size, the efficiency of the 

14 ballast. Are you aware -- have there been studies 

15 that are working on demonstrating that effect or, 

16 you know, if we went out and tried to find the most 

17 efficient fixtures out there, are we not going to 

18 find any that are housing the larger of those two, 

19 the A-can?

20 MR. BROOKMAN: I see Susan, go ahead.

21 MS. ANDERSON: I’m going to refer the 

22 question to Cheryl because Cheryl actually talked 

23 with her luminaire engineers.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Cheryl.

25 MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English. There are 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

107

1 no studies. Reality is this is a market dynamic of 

2 reducing costs, that’s what’s driven the smaller 

3 cans. To be able to do a smaller housing, 

4 especially with the demand on green building and 

5 reducing material in the fixture, so that’s what’s 

6 driven the smaller can size. Now the optical 

7 benefit from that is, for instance, these fixtures 

8 up here, they have a reflector shaped around that. 

9 There’s a channel in there that has the ballast, so 

10 the more shallow we can make that channel, the less 

11 obstruction we have on the lamp light output. 

12 For my company, there are many products 

13 where we no longer offer the product with an F-can. 

14 So I think it would be hard to go out and start 

15 looking at photometric data and making those 

16 comparisons. I actually had to go in to archives of 

17 test data that was decades old to do that kind of 

18 comparison. There are a few products that may still 

19 use that F-can, but not many of them. I couldn’t 

20 even name them off the top of my head. 

21 Andrew had made a point earlier about the 

22 efficiency and for those products that install the 

23 ballast inside the housing, and I had to think that 

24 I don’t know of any of my products that don’t 

25 install the ballast inside the housing. I did not 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

108

1 want to come in here and make a comment that you 

2 could get that two to six percent increase on every 

3 fixture because I haven’t done enough data studies 

4 to know that, but I can’t think of any fixture 

5 designs where the smaller housing would not have a 

6 positive impact on the optical characteristics. The 

7 only case would be if you were doing cheap optical 

8 design and just took an existing housing, put the 

9 smaller ballast in it without redesigning the 

10 fixture. You do have to redesign the fixture for 

11 it.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike

13 MR. McGARAGHAN: Mike again. So my 

14 question was really focused in on the difference 

15 between the A and the N-can, and is the two to six 

16 percent estimate based on the difference between A 

17 and N? And where did the two to six percent come 

18 from?

19 MS. ENGLISH: The two to six is from F to 

20 A, and what I did was I looked at our largest volume 

21 types of products, like troffers and fluorescent 

22 industrial, linear industrial, and compared the 

23 products that we sold five years ago with an F-can 

24 to the new products that we sell today in terms of 

25 the photometric efficiency. I have not done any 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

109

1 analysis between A- and N-can.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay, Matt.

3 MR. WALKER: This is a similar slide 

4 depicting the programmed start product class. 

5 Again, the colored dots are the representative 

6 units, and the gray dots are other ballasts that we 

7 tested. EL1 would eliminate the least efficient two 

8 and four lamp medium bi-pin ballasts, but does not 

9 affect the T-5 ballast. And when you move to EL2, 

10 it requires slightly more efficient four foot medium 

11 bi-pin ballasts, and eliminates the least efficient 

12 T5. And then EL3 requires the most efficient 

13 programmed start ballasts that are commercially 

14 available, based on DOE’s testing.

15 Like we were saying before, the points on 

16 this plot are the average of the samples tested, and 

17 we had received comments in the preliminary analysis 

18 that we should consider measurement variation in the 

19 engineering analysis and standard setting, so we’ll 

20 move into a discussion of that.

21 I guess before I get into the measurement 

22 variation, we have a little more background on the 

23 testing. DOE did test multiple manufacturers’ 

24 ballasts, multiple product lines. It sought to test 

25 the full range of efficiency according to 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

110

1 information available in catalogs and the highest 

2 efficiency ballast available in catalogs and as 

3 listed in the California Energy Commission database. 

4 So then for the representative ballast types 

5 analyzed, DOE tested five samples of each model. 

6 All five of these samples were tested at the same 

7 laboratory and then the efficiency level equation 

8 was initially developed based on these average 

9 tested BLE values.

10 Then, after creating this efficiency level 

11 based on the average tested values, the BLE equation 

12 was adjusted downwards based on an analysis of 

13 measurement variation, which came out to a 0.8 

14 percent reduction, to take into account lab to lab 

15 variation and the compliance equation that 

16 manufacturers are required to follow.

17 So the next two slides go into those two 

18 components of the merit variation analysis.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob?

20 MR. ERHARDT: I was just going to -- if 

21 he’s going to go into it, I’ll hold my question.

22 MR. WALKER: So this first slide looks at 

23 the lab to lab variation. Different laboratories 

24 will have different personnel, different equipment, 

25 slightly different environmental factors, and all of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

111

1 these differences can lead to slight changes in the 

2 test results from lab to lab. DOE conducted its 

3 primary testing at Intertek, but compared a subset 

4 of the results through testing at the Lighting 

5 Research Center. In addition, DOE submitted four 

6 ballast models to two additional test facilities for 

7 additional data comparison, and DOE found that on 

8 average, the lab to lab variation was about 0.6 

9 percent.

10 We’ll move on to the second component.

11 MR. HOLSTEIN: This is Chris. When that 

12 chart is that just one product in particular, or is 

13 that like a mean -- when you say two lamp four foot, 

14 is that the mean of all, or is that -- did you say 

15 here’s one product, here’s the variance.

16 MR. WALKER: It’s just one product per 

17 ballast type. So there were four model numbers 

18 submitted, three samples of each for the purposes of 

19 this comparison.

20 MR. HOLSTEIN: Sorry, this is Chris again. 

21 And these are all -- everybody was testing off the 

22 new BLE method?

23 MR. WALKER: That's correct.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: You said three samples of 

25 each?
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

112

1 MR. WALKER: Right. So for the data 

2 that’s depicted on the bar graph on this slide, 

3 there are four ballast models, three samples of 

4 each, submitted to four separate laboratories. And 

5 the sample averages are reported as the four 

6 separate bars on the plot.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Sample averages. Okay. 

8 Keith.

9 MR. COOK: Keith Cook with Philips. I 

10 guess I’ve got a question if it makes sense to take 

11 an average variation as opposed to an absolute. I 

12 mean, this is real test variation, and if a lab is 

13 seeing those kinds of numbers, that’s what they’re 

14 going to have to be making judgments against, not an 

15 average number.

16 MR. WALKER: So you’re suggesting the 

17 worst case scenario be used?

18 MR. COOK: I think so. I think that’s 

19 what you’ve got to live with. How do you adjust to 

20 an average number? I don’t know how to do that.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Bob.

22 MR. ERHARDT: I would think that you 

23 should be doing some kind of three sigma variation 

24 analysis between the labs. I mean, if they’re all 

25 testing the same products, look at the variation 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

113

1 between each unit, between each lab, and then take 

2 that variation and look at a three sigma. Also 

3 three samples is not a very statistically large 

4 sample size for looking for this kind of variation. 

5 And if you plug into the formula that we’ve 

6 recognized to get the confidence level, that three 

7 samples, you’re going to need a margin of another 

8 two percent, probably in order to have a 99 percent 

9 confidence level that you’ve got true mean.

10 MR. WALKER: Okay. 

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on 

12 these?

13 MS. GUPTA: This is Mimi Gupta. So, Bob, 

14 I don’t think that this lab to lab variation data 

15 was used to develop the confidence interval 

16 reduction of point two percent, that Matthew 

17 discussed before. 

18 MR. WALKER: It’s coming on the next 

19 slide. The point two.

20 MS. GUPTA: Yeah, just to clarify that.

21 MR. ERHARDT: You said you’re coming up 

22 with a point six percent adjustment factor. Now if 

23 that’s across the board, I see one ballast -- one 

24 set of ballasts there that has a three percent 

25 difference between labs, and on a sample size of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

114

1 three, if this is just the mean, I’m sure a three 

2 sigma value is going to be much higher than even the 

3 three percent and the point six percent or so -- or 

4 the one percent you’re showing here.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Ali, you had your hand up?

6 MS. McDONALD: Sorry, maybe Matthew can 

7 elaborate, but the point six percent reduction was 

8 actually based on a larger sample size than this, 

9 and we put -- we chose to show this graph because we 

10 did test -- we did test for ballast models at four 

11 different labs, but Matthew can provide more detail 

12 about how that point six, what that sample size was.

13 MR. ERHARDT: This is something that’s 

14 very frustrating. When we’ve had conversations with 

15 you, you’ve told us about all this very large sample 

16 size and statistically significant numbers and 

17 number of labs, nothing’s been published. Nothing 

18 that we can review. And we have some concerns. We 

19 have some concerns that maybe you’re cherry-picking 

20 the best lab or, you know, you’ve put this up as an 

21 example, and this contradicts your claim. So you’re 

22 not inspiring a lot of confidence in us that you’ve 

23 made your adjustment factors the right way when you 

24 put up on the slide here a three percent variance 

25 and say you used this to come up with a point six 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

115

1 adjustment factor.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Matt, you want to say more 

3 about how you arrived at that adjustment factor?

4 MR. WALKER: I can say a little more but I 

5 don’t think it’s going to resolve Bob’s issue. To 

6 create the 0.6 percent, it was a comparison of the 

7 Intertek average, so that’s of five samples, 

8 compared to five samples that the Lighting Research 

9 Center, and this was done for -- I’m not certain of 

10 the number, but many more than the four examples 

11 here. And so this point six percent is the average 

12 difference between those two laboratories when 

13 you’re comparing a particular model.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

15 MR. ERHARDT: Is LRC accredited to test 

16 8211?

17 MR. WALKER: I’m not certain about 8211.

18 MR. ERHARDT: It’s a rather involved 

19 process. We’ve worked with LRC and I’m not 

20 convinced they are accredited.

21 MR. WALKER: Okay. 

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Please. Use the 

23 microphone.

24 MR. THOMAS: Ed Thomas. Just to be sure, 

25 I think the standard that we should be referring to 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

116

1 is ISO 17025, which is a definition of laboratory 

2 performance and accreditation for test equipment and 

3 test engineers using that equipment. That’s the 

4 kind of policies that we should be testing to here.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Mike.

6 MR. McGARAGHAN: Mike McGaraghan. Can DOE 

7 publish the more details about the testing that was 

8 done and let us know the complete list of testing 

9 facilities and --

10 MS. GUPTA: Yeah, this is Mimi Gupta. I 

11 think right now all we have is the Intertek test 

12 results on the web, but we can publish the full --

13 all of the test laboratory results that we’ve 

14 gathered, very quickly.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So we’re going to 

16 keep pushing ahead here.

17 MR. WALKER: So then the second element 

18 variation is the manufacturing variation from lot to 

19 lot. Every ballast that leaves the factory is not 

20 going to operate exactly the same, so to take some 

21 of that into account, DOE purchased ballasts for its 

22 representative ballast types on two separate dates. 

23 I purchased three samples early 2009, followed by 

24 two more in late 2010. By purchasing at separate 

25 times, the sample average BLE and standard deviation 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

117

1 are more representative of the full population. So 

2 then to indicate compliance, manufacturers are 

3 required to use an equation that is designed to take 

4 into account any variation within the sample set. 

5 So this variation could be due to differences in the 

6 samples themselves, the lot to lot variation, as 

7 well as any changes from test to test within a lab.

8 So then in that case, DOE found that the 

9 reported value, using this compliance equation was 

10 on average 0.2 percent less than the sample average. 

11 So DOE added this 0.2 percent number to the 0.6 

12 number for lab to lab variation, to come up with its 

13 overall 0.8 percent measurement variation adjustment 

14 factor.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Robert.

16 MR. NACHTRIEB: Robert Nachtrieb, Lutron 

17 Electronics. I think the first time we started 

18 working with Mimi was back when we were hoping to 

19 get a fully all-electronic method of determining 

20 ballast efficiency, and one of the things that we 

21 did at that time was a so-called gauge R&R, which is 

22 a way to analyze sources of variation in 

23 measurements. Does a variation come because two 

24 products are different? Does a variation come 

25 because two people performing the measurement are 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

118

1 doing it differently? Is there variation in the 

2 same person performing the same measurement on the 

3 same piece of equipment over and over again? And it 

4 allocates the variance amongst different possible 

5 sources. So one suggestion, we might already have 

6 enough data to perform the gauge R&R analysis of the 

7 data, and it’s a recognized technique, how to 

8 reconcile differences amongst measurements. Gauge 

9 R&R. Thank you.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. 

11 MR. WALKER: So we’ll move on to an 

12 example of some of the representative units. For 

13 the two lamp, four foot medium bi-pin instant 

14 start/rapid start commercial ballast type. This 

15 table shows that the average tested BLE in the 

16 second to right-most column, as well as the minimum 

17 BLE requirement for that particular representative 

18 unit -- and these were the colored shapes on the 

19 plots earlier -- and then this minimum BLE 

20 requirement does include the 0.8 percent reduction 

21 for measurement variation.

22 So this slide summarizes the efficiency 

23 level equations for all the representative product 

24 classes. Again, you can see the form of the 

25 equation as a coefficient, times natural log of lamp 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

119

1 arc power, plus a constant value. All of the 

2 product classes have three efficiency levels except 

3 for the sign product class, which only has one. 

4 So then here, in issue seven, DOE is 

5 requesting comment on the efficiency levels 

6 considered for fluorescent ballasts, as well as the 

7 form of the equations, testing process, and its 

8 analysis of measurement variation. We already hit 

9 on that a little bit.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: You see the request for 

11 comment. Bob.

12 MR. ERHARDT: I think most of our comments 

13 so far have been on the appropriateness of the 

14 efficiency levels. We do question the methodology 

15 that was used to come up with them and we have 

16 proposed alternatives, or are proposing 

17 alternatives.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Charlie Stephens.

19 MR. STEPHENS: I’ll just make one comment 

20 as a more disinterested observer, but, you know, if 

21 the best we can do here is two sigma, to say nothing 

22 of three, I’m not sure anybody in the room has 

23 earned the right to put a decimal point on their 

24 efficiencies. So unless we get some of this 

25 straightened out, I really have no idea what to 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

120

1 recommend, and I like the idea of trying to get at 

2 the source of the error, if we possibly can, because 

3 otherwise, those of us who are trying to understand 

4 what the right thing to do here is, we have nothing 

5 to work with right now. And so I’m a bit at a loss. 

6 I hope DOE and the manufacturers can figure out some 

7 way to get some data on the table to make something 

8 rational out of this in the next 30 days.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

10 MR. ERHARDT: Would a gauge R&R analysis 

11 of our test results and our labs help you? Can DOE 

12 do the same?

13 MR. WALKER: I mean that’s something we 

14 can look into. The gauge R&R terminology is new to 

15 me, but I am familiar with some of the different 

16 ways to look at measurement variation.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comment on this? 

18 Charlie Stephens.

19 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. All I 

20 really want is apples and apples. I want to be able 

21 to know that what I’m looking at is apples and 

22 apples, and what the standard deviation is on what

23 I’m looking at, and how well I can rely on what I’m 

24 seeing. That’s it.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. We’re going to keep 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

121

1 moving on.

2 MR. WALKER: So now we’ll move on to the 

3 max tech discussion. DOE is required to consider 

4 the maximum technologically feasible and 

5 economically justified efficiency level. DOE has 

6 determined that the highest efficiency levels looked 

7 at in this analysis, in the NOPR analysis, are 

8 technologically feasible for a sufficient diversity 

9 of products, including several ballast factors, 

10 number of lamps per ballast, types of lamps 

11 operated. Again, this is based on the test data 

12 that DOE collected.

13 However, DOE is still considering whether 

14 an efficiency level higher than that analyzed in the 

15 NOPR is technologically feasible and discusses the 

16 possibility of this in advanced technology scenario, 

17 an Appendix of the TSD. 

18 So then this plot here shows what that 

19 advance technology scenario efficiency level could 

20 look like. The methodology here was that the 

21 efficiency level was designed to pass through the 

22 absolute most efficient ballast that was tested. So 

23 you can see that in the green and blue circle on the 

24 right side of that dotted line. DOE then tried to 

25 increase the efficiency of other ballast types 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

122

1 through component substitution in an independent 

2 laboratory, but was unable to do so, so far, so 

3 instead for ballast types that did not have an 

4 option at that highest advanced technology scenario 

5 efficiency level, DOE had to model a ballast, 

6 approximating what its efficiency should be. So 

7 that’s the red square and the orange circle -- those 

8 are not actual test points, those would be the model 

9 points for this advance technology scenario.

10 And so issue eight, DOE requests comment 

11 on the max tech efficiency level and whether it is 

12 technologically feasible for a full array of 

13 products. It also seeks comments on the design 

14 options and costs for achieving a level even higher 

15 than this. I realize that we’ve talked about 

16 perhaps even the level that’s being shown here is 

17 perhaps not feasible, based on a different data set, 

18 but if there’s any additional comments on this 

19 topic, this would be a good time for that.

20 Okay. So after developing the efficiency 

21 levels and the representative units for each of the 

22 representative ballast types, DOE began the process 

23 of developing price data. It developed the prices 

24 for its analysis using four different sources. They 

25 used tear-down data, distributor list prices, retail 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

123

1 prices from online distributors, as well as some 

2 aggregated manufacturer’s supply prices.

3 In developing the final price, DOE gave 

4 preference to its tear-down results, then the 

5 distributor list prices, and then supplemented with 

6 retail price scaling where necessary. And then for 

7 the aggregated manufacturer’s supply prices, DOE 

8 used this to verify accuracy and to identify the 

9 possible range of prices that should be -- that we 

10 should expect to see from the other data sources.

11 So the table on this slide gives an 

12 example of the manufacturer’s selling prices for the 

13 two lamp, four-foot medium bi-pin instant start and 

14 rapid start commercial representative ballast type. 

15 Similar to the results from the preliminary 

16 analysis, the T12 baseline is a little bit more 

17 expensive than the T8 baseline, but the EL2 and EL3 

18 do follow the trend of increasing price with 

19 increased efficiency.

20 And so issue six, DOE does request comment 

21 on the methods to calculate the manufacturer’s 

22 selling prices as well as the prices themselves.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Comments on the methods 

24 used to calculate manufacturer’s selling prices? 

25 Tom Eckman.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

124

1 MR. ECKMAN: It stated in the Federal 

2 Register that DOE was unable to get the markup for 

3 residential ballast going through home improvement 

4 or retail distribution channels. And were you using 

5 -- end up using OEM markups, is that correct?

6 MR. WALKER: I think I’ll defer to 

7 colleague at PNNL.

8 MR. LINGARD: This is an instance -- Bob 

9 Lingard with PNNL -- we’ll touch on that in the next 

10 section.

11 MR. ECKMAN: Okay. 

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Keith?

13 MR. COOK: I hate to go back, but this is 

14 bugging me to death on that technologically --

15 maximum technologically feasible. What you’re 

16 essentially saying there is 95 percent of today’s 

17 products do not meet that requirement, and 50 

18 percent of the products that do meet it would have 

19 to be thrown out because of the fact that you’re 

20 using an average number to come up with your data 

21 points. And so by drawing the line through the 

22 middle of those data points, half the population no 

23 longer meets the requirement. So now you’d have to 

24 go through, in order to meet those requirements, 

25 you’re going to have to sort out half of your 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

125

1 manufacturing population and throw them away. I 

2 don’t see how that’s doable.

3 MR. WALKER: Are you referring to the 

4 advanced technology scenario line here?

5 MR. COOK: Correct.

6 MR. WALKER: Yeah, I think I would agree 

7 that the line was designed to target those 

8 particular, most efficient ballasts tested, but 

9 again, we would apply the measurement variation 

10 reduction, even to a line like this, such that --

11 with the idea being that all ballasts within that 

12 sample set would -- or within the whole distribution 

13 of that particular model would meet the level.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert van Buskirk from 

15 DOE.

16 MR. van BUSKIRK: Yeah, and just to --

17 clarification that the maximum technologically 

18 feasible level is a level that’s required by 

19 statute, which is technologically feasible even 

20 though it may not be economic in any sense. So the 

21 maximum technologically feasible is defining an 

22 upper bound that is not necessarily economic, and 

23 economic considerations are not taken into account 

24 on technological feasibility.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: On that one, yes. Okay. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

126

1 So additional comments here?

2 MR. WALKER: Well, we’re into the final 

3 engineering slide. Because DOE didn’t analyze the 

4 eight foot high output programmed start ballast 

5 directly, it needed to scale the efficiency levels 

6 for a related product class, so DOE analyzed its 

7 four foot medium bi-pin test data, looking at the 

8 instant start and programmed start data points, and 

9 found an average ratio between the instant start and 

10 programmed start ballast limit of sufficiency. So 

11 DOE found that on average the programmed start 

12 ballast were two percent less efficient than the 

13 instant start, and it applied this reduction to the 

14 eight foot high output efficiency levels. Okay. 

15 That brings us to the end of the 

16 engineering and this slide gives an overview of the 

17 trial standard levels considered in the NOPR. But 

18 there are three trial standard levels, the TSL is a 

19 combination of ELs used for analyzing the impact of 

20 standards. The setup for this rulemaking is fairly 

21 straightforward. For TSL-1, a trial standard above 

22 level 1; EL-1, or efficiency level one is used for 

23 all product classes. Then for trial standard level 

24 two, efficiency level two is used for all product 

25 classes except for the sign product ballast class 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

127

1 which only had one efficiency level. And then 

2 finally, TSL-3 used EL-3 for all product classes 

3 except for the sign ballast. And this TSL 

4 represented the maximum technologically analyzed. 

5 Okay. 

6 MR. BROOKMAN: I’m going to suggest we 

7 break for lunch now. It’s a little earlier than I 

8 had thought we would, but I think everybody could 

9 use a break at this point, and it’s now almost noon. 

10 Let’s return at one o’clock. 

11 For those of you that are not familiar 

12 with the Forrestal Building, not only do you need to 

13 wear your badge, but to go to the big cafeteria, 

14 there’s a Subway sandwich shop down on the ground 

15 floor near the coffee shop. To go to the big 

16 cafeteria, you need to go down to the ground floor 

17 and walk underneath about 100 yards in that 

18 direction from the elevator bank, and then up the 

19 escalators to the cafeteria. Maybe anybody who’s 

20 not familiar with the trek can all go en masse, and 

21 then we’ll resume at one o’clock. You know where 

22 the rest rooms are. And one other thing, Natasha, 

23 you’re listening in on the line, let’s test right 

24 now whether your audio comes in appropriately, and 

25 the rest of you can leave and go to lunch. Okay? 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

128

1 Tina.

2 DR. KAARSBERG: One other logistics 

3 comment, since it’s an absolutely gorgeous day 

4 outside, I would encourage you if you go to the 

5 ground floor place, there is sort of an inner 

6 courtyard where you don’t have to go through 

7 security again, where you can sit outside if you 

8 would like. I would recommend it as a place if you 

9 like the great outdoors.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: And I forgot one thing. As 

11 you -- you will have to clear back through security 

12 -- you already have a badge, but you’ll have to 

13 clear back through security when you come back. 

14 This room will be locked, so you can leave your 

15 stuff here. You might need an ID to get back in. 

16 Sometimes they do that, sometimes they don’t. From 

17 the cafeteria, from the big cafeteria. So at least 

18 bring an ID with you, otherwise you can leave your 

19 stuff, and we’ll resume here at one. 

20 And Natasha, why don’t you dial in now and 

21 try and talk with us.

22 (Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the meeting in 

23 the above captioned matter was adjourned for lunch 

24 recess, to reconvene at 1:00 p.m.)

25
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

129

1 AFTERNOON SESSION

2 1:03 p.m.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Say your organizational 

4 title, Robert.

5 Technical Discussion

6 MR. van BUSKIRK: I’m Robert van Buskirk. 

7 I’m a senior technical analyst with the standards 

8 program. I would like to sort of have a little bit 

9 of a technical discussion to see to what extent some 

10 of the concerns that were brought up earlier in the 

11 meeting have technical solutions. So some of the 

12 concerns, of course, are policy concerns, some of 

13 them are just consequences of how we’re formulating 

14 the analysis and the standards levels. 

15 So I took some of the data out of the 

16 presentation and did a brief plot that I think 

17 highlights one of the -- how some of the concerns 

18 may be due to a technical formulation issue. So 

19 what you see on the screen is you see a subsample of 

20 some of the NEMA data, which is showing the BLE -- I 

21 believe it’s the BLE levels as a function of the 

22 power on the horizontal axis. And right now, 

23 through the rulemaking, we’ve used a log fit to 

24 express the relationship between the efficiency 

25 metric and the power level.

26 So what you see on that log fit is if you 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

130

1 compare it to some of the NEMA data, the level as 

2 expressed by the log fit appears rather stringent 

3 for the low power levels, and less stringent for the 

4 high power levels. And so the question is, is there 

5 a different functional form? 

6 So I was one of the technical analysts in 

7 the transformer’s rulemaking, and to some extent, a 

8 ballast is a very small transformer. The scaling 

9 relationship for losses in a transformer is a one --

10 is a minus one-quarter power log. So, I took the 

11 data from the presentation and I did a power log fit

12 on the losses, so a one over efficiency minus one. 

13 And that is the central curve there. And you’ll 

14 notice that that central curve matches at the high 

15 power levels the DOE log curve, and it matches at 

16 the low power levels the log curve presented by NEMA 

17 in the presentation. For that subsample of data 

18 points, you see it’s -- that this particular 

19 formulation of the power laws tracing the lower end 

20 of the subsample. I took out the point eight 

21 adjustment, okay, so this is just sort of the raw 

22 data.

23 And to some extent, if the shape fits the 

24 points better, right, then this might mitigate some 

25 of the concerns about a particular curve knocking a 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

131

1 bunch of ballasts out of the market. So I want to 

2 toss that out, maybe people have some comments on 

3 the reasonability and the -- any concerns they might 

4 have about changing the detailed shape of the 

5 efficiency power relationship. Do people have 

6 comments on that?

7 (Question off mic)

8 MR. van BUSKIRK: This particular one is a 

9 minus .28 power in the losses, where losses are one 

10 over efficiency minus one.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: We can write the equation 

12 on the point board if you’d like here.

13 MR. van BUSKIRK: Yeah, I can actually 

14 switch this to a different sheet, and you can see, 

15 this is the data that was pasted out of the 

16 presentation. This is a plot of the losses versus 

17 power on the log-log plot. And the green dots are 

18 what’s on the previous thing, so you see that when 

19 we took several -- three of the manufacturers, one 

20 was a .22 power, the other was a .25, and another 

21 was a .39, I guess. The .39 was influenced by a 

22 couple of those high loss, very low power points.

23 And so all that’s sort of roughly in the 

24 power loss slope of the typical transformer point, 

25 minus .25.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

132

1 MR. BROOKMAN: So the first question I 

2 have is are you following what he’s doing here? 

3 You’re following what he’s doing. Okay. 

4 MR. NACHTRIEB: What are the R-squares?

5 MR. BROOKMAN: What are the R-squares, the 

6 question from -- from Robert.

7 MR. van BUSKIRK: Well, let’s see if we 

8 can do an R-squared right here. .82.

9 MR. NACHTRIEB: And that data was Navigant 

10 data?

11 MR. van BUSKIRK: So by the nods, I’m 

12 getting a sense that --

13 MR. ERHARDT: Just for clarification, when 

14 you showed the three curves, the one in the middle 

15 is your new one? Is that --

16 MR. van BUSKIRK: Yes.

17 MR. ERHARDT: I think that does fit much 

18 better than --

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert, why don’t you just 

20 give us a moment. Maybe off the record you’d like 

21 to consult with each other a little bit or something 

22 over there. We don’t want -- not me, the Department 

23 doesn’t want to pinch you here, they would like to 

24 get as much clarity surrounding -- so if you’re able 

25 to comment, then let’s have comments, but I don’t 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

133

1 want to pin you into a corner. Robert, please use 

2 the microphone.

3 MR. NACHTRIEB: Robert Nachtrieb, Lutron 

4 Electronics. So essentially what is being done is 

5 to regress losses as a function of power, you would 

6 expect as power goes up, losses would go up, and 

7 you’ve inverted that to plot efficiency versus 

8 power, and of course it fits quite nicely. It seems 

9 reasonable.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Let’s 

11 hear -- I’d like to hear from some other -- yes, 

12 Jeff first.

13 MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon, GE. I think 

14 individual companies, since we haven’t discussed it 

15 as a NEMA group, but we would support that type of 

16 function because it fits the data very nicely.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

18 MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt. From what I 

19 see, the curve fits much better. I would like to 

20 take some time to go away and compare it with how 

21 that results in how many manufacturers can meet each 

22 level, but it does look promising.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thank you for 

24 that. Other comments at this point. Okay. Do you 

25 have other things to present, Robert?
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

134

1 MR. van BUSKIRK: I think the follow up 

2 questions are great. We’re currently discussing a 

3 proposal by the Department, right, so in making any 

4 modifications between a proposal and a final rule, 

5 the Department, through the public process wants to 

6 make sure all the technical issues are aired 

7 properly. So what’s going to -- one of the issues 

8 as one is making mathematical adjustments to the 

9 levels is how to interpolate the analysis, so what 

10 has happened is DOE in the proposed rule has 

11 presented an analysis that has values for particular 

12 curves at particular levels. Do the people 

13 assembled think it’s reasonable to do a mathematical 

14 linear interpolation between those levels, between 

15 the existing values as a way of calculating the 

16 impacts of these finer adjustments of the equations, 

17 or would there be proposals as for how to take the 

18 existing analysis and adapt it to these mathematical 

19 type adjustments?

20 MR. BROOKMAN: So you accomplish the 

21 different levels?

22 MR. van BUSKIRK: So that as -- so what’s 

23 -- sort of going back to this curve, for example. 

24 So you’ll notice that the middle curve, while it 

25 fits the points, it’s close to one level at the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

135

1 bottom end, and it’s close to another level at the 

2 top end. It may not be feasible to calculate in a 

3 very short amount of time the cost implications at 

4 every single power level for -- along that entire 

5 curve. So the one natural technique to do a sort of 

6 weighted average. If the bottom end of the curve is 

7 near one level, you take the cost benefit values 

8 that are from the level that’s closest to that. 

9 Then at the upper end of the curve, you take the 

10 cost benefit values that the -- corresponding to the 

11 higher level as a way of coming up with the 

12 mathematical interpolation of the new curve as a 

13 function of the levels that were calculated.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert.

15 MR. NACHTRIEB: Robert Nachtrieb, Lutron 

16 Electronics. If the underlying function is smooth, 

17 then of course linear interpolation should be fine. 

18 But I think we would need time to study the 

19 underlying points, the assumptions of the analysis. 

20 Those have to be correct before interpolation would 

21 be acceptable.

22 MR. van BUSKIRK: So I think --

23 MR. ERHARDT: Just as a comment --

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

25 MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt, Philips 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

136

1 Electronics. Just as a general comment, when I was 

2 trying to fit the natural log curve, when I got the 

3 bottom and the top to fit, I did find some 

4 discrepancy in the middle, and this new curve would 

5 help reduce that discrepancy, so the new curve does 

6 look much more promising to me.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks for that. I 

8 think -- well, let’s hear from one other -- Joe --

9 one other representative from industry, and then 

10 Charlie, if you --

11 MR. PARISELLA: Joe Parisella. Yeah, I 

12 like that curve. I think the one thing that we need 

13 to consider is the tolerances that, for the absolute 

14 values that you have. So in other words, if we have 

15 a design tolerance in the range of two percent, I 

16 think that’s pretty reasonable, and a measurement 

17 analysis tolerance of another one percent, then we 

18 have to factor that in. In other words, if we’re 

19 going to have a ruling that’s 92 percent, then we’re 

20 going to have to -- that’s going to have to be our 

21 mean or our average of our data, and you’re going to 

22 have a point and a half up and -- above and below, 

23 so our products are going to have to be designed 

24 approximately one and a half percent above that 

25 number, so we have to -- I think that curve looks 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

137

1 pretty representative, I think, seeing the absolute 

2 value that we still have to make sure that we have 

3 correct.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie Stephens.

5 MR. STEVENS: Charlie Stephens. Robert’s 

6 work seems to answer the question that came up this 

7 morning, or the suggestion that came up this morning 

8 about dividing the thing into two or three pieces, 

9 whatever, in order to get the slope right, or get 

10 the curve right. And this can perhaps do it in one 

11 move, which is encouraging. But I still have major 

12 problems with the data that we’re trying to fit the 

13 curves to, potentially. I still have -- I see major 

14 variation in the test data comparing what the 

15 manufacturers have provided and what DOE determined 

16 through its testing, and analysis regimen. I don’t 

17 know if they were testing the same product. I’m 

18 pretty sure they weren’t all testing the very same 

19 box that you would do in a round robin situation. 

20 So I don’t know how much variation I see is product 

21 variation, or how much is lab and measurement 

22 variation. And I’m hearing that there are variations 

23 that are larger than the differences in the standard 

24 in some cases, up there in the upper end of that 

25 curve that we’re arguing about. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

138

1 So I’m still concerned that we’re all 

2 using data that is comparable when we fit a curve to 

3 it. And so I -- I don’t think I’ve seen data yet 

4 that I would be comfortable fitting a curve to. 

5 Everybody could fit their own curve to their own 

6 data, and that’s very nice, but I doubt they’ll come 

7 out the same. And then I’m still concerned about 

8 whether I’ve got product variation or measurement 

9 variation, you know, lab to lab. I still have some 

10 concerns about the train wreck that could occur down 

11 the road with compliance and enforcement under these 

12 circumstances, frankly.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, Tina.

14 DR. KAARSBERG: Just a hypothetical. 

15 Would a possible solution or way to increase 

16 everyone’s confidence in the data be to develop some 

17 kind of agreed-upon set of data in which everyone 

18 understands the reasons for the variations? Is that 

19 the kind of thing that might resolve these issues? 

20 Or is there something -- is there some other way 

21 forward in terms of making everyone more comfortable 

22 about the data?

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

24 MR. ERHARDT: Well, one thing that we’ve 

25 been frustrated with is that we have not had all of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

139

1 the Navigant data. We’ve had only a selection of 

2 it. We have not had the data as a function -- in 

3 the presentation today there was some evidence that 

4 there was considerable variance in the DOE lab to 

5 lab measurement, and taking an average of the 

6 measurements from the lab, we don’t feel is valid. 

7 We think you should be taking a three sigma type 

8 approach, a statistical evaluation of it, because 

9 we’ve been, right from the start -- the reason we 

10 went to BLE to begin with was because we’ve been 

11 arguing from the start how difficult -- you know, 

12 when we’re -- the curve that I presented for the 

13 instant start was virtually identical at the high 

14 power end, and was only off by three percent at the 

15 lowest power, and when you have measurement 

16 accuracies -- measurement accuracies are going to be 

17 on the order of two percent. So the amount that 

18 we’re different is almost getting into the noise 

19 level of your measurement. So that’s why 

20 understanding the variation in test measurement 

21 procedure and the confidence level on that is very 

22 important because -- the data we put up was what we 

23 measure on our product and what we would be 

24 submitting to the FTC, and if we don’t comply, we 

25 can’t submit to the FTC and we cannot sell that 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

140

1 product. So that’s why we have a concern. This is 

2 what’s testing in our labs, and to this standard, 

3 and our product didn’t meet. 

4 And we just don’t have enough data from 

5 the Navigant side to understand how they came up 

6 with, you know, point six, when there’s a three 

7 percent lab to lab variance in one of their 

8 examples. So maybe if we saw the raw data, maybe if 

9 we met again with Navigant we could maybe try to 

10 call together a meeting with some of our technical 

11 people in Rosslyn or DC, maybe if we sat down and 

12 reviewed data together, maybe that would help us 

13 come to some conclusion.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: I appreciate your going 

15 toward what the potential solution is, certainly the 

16 time is running short, and I was wondering if anyone 

17 else could address Tina’s pathway, which is how we 

18 get data that you all are comfortable with. Because 

19 you’re going to submit the data that was the 

20 underpinning of your presentation this morning, 

21 correct? You said that. So that will be new data 

22 coming forward, and that can then be compared? Or -

23 - Mimi, I’m looking at you.

24 MS. GUPTA: Yes, this is Mimi Gupta. I 

25 mean, as I mentioned before, we will put up all of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

141

1 the other lab test data on the web for you as soon 

2 as possible, and I think us all working from a 

3 common data set, through you having our other lab 

4 data and us having your data, is a path towards 

5 Tina’s goal.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So I feel like we 

7 made some small progress on that one. Charlie, go 

8 ahead.

9 MR. STEPHENS: Just one further 

10 observation. I’m going from memory here, but it 

11 seems like we tried to get some other metric, BLE is 

12 what we’ve landed on, that was going to reduce the 

13 measurement variation that we were getting with BEF, 

14 and I’m not convinced at this point, based on what 

15 I’m seeing, that we’ve done that. We’re still 

16 almost where we were with BEF. Maybe plus or minus 

17 one and a half instead of plus or minus two, but I 

18 don’t think we’ve gotten very far in getting better 

19 rating accuracy here. I’m not sure without getting 

20 testing on the same product with enough labs to see 

21 what we have, you can really resolve it, and I’m not 

22 convinced at this point that DOE has enough time to 

23 get this done. But just my observation.

24 MR. van BUSKIRK: So I think I’ll -- well, 

25 maybe Charlie we need to discuss a little bit during 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

142

1 a break, but this time issue, it sounds with 

2 everything going on here, potentially could be a 

3 huge hurdle we’re facing.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Do you have something in 

5 mind to offer?

6 MR. van BUSKIRK: Possibly. I’d like to 

7 talk with Charlie and Andrew during a break and 

8 discuss before saying it here.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Tina.

10 DR. KAARSBERG: I will also explore the --

11 getting Robert’s slides, is that all right to 

12 include those earlier than we normally would in the 

13 transcript, available to everyone?

14 MR. van BUSKIRK: Yes, we can post this 

15 graphs.

16 DR. KAARSBERG: Okay. So I also will try 

17 to expedite posting Robert’s slides or presentation 

18 as well, just as -- it’ll be with the NEMA slides.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. And so, Robert, 

20 thank you. That was very useful, that analysis, and 

21 I was wondering if there was any other thoughts you 

22 have about how the various issues that have been 

23 laid out here can be addressed.

24 MR. van BUSKIRK: I guess to help 

25 structure the comments so that they can feed 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

143

1 efficiently into the analysis. I see that we 

2 discussed about three issues. One is the details of 

3 the curves. We seem to -- I saw lots of heads 

4 nodding on that one. 

5 The second one that clarification would be 

6 useful for is as we do technical adjustments, the 

7 proper method for interpolating and averaging, doing 

8 weighted average of existing results in order to 

9 come up with the interpolated results. 

10 And then I think the larger issue is how 

11 to deal with the uncertainty and variability of the 

12 test results. And that involves sort of what 

13 statistical measures to consider, what sample sizes 

14 are appropriate? To what degree can the measurement 

15 variation be diminished through averaging? And how 

16 to take into consideration the variability when both 

17 the levels are set and we’re estimating the 

18 certified efficiency levels for the product.

19 I think all those are good and interesting 

20 technical issues. If we get some clarity on that, I 

21 think that will help move the process forward.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: And so, Mimi, just one 

23 second, Bob. Would you say it again what you’re 

24 going to post as soon as you can do it, so to -- for 

25 everybody to look at?
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

144

1 MS. GUPTA: So right now, all of our 

2 Intertek test data is up on the web. We will be 

3 posting the LRC data as well as whatever data that 

4 we were able to get from manufacturer tests on 

5 selected ballasts.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Bob.

7 MR. ERHARDT: Just to get us a little bit 

8 of a head start, could you maybe write the formula 

9 of that curve that you had up there so we could work 

10 with that a little bit.

11 MR. van BUSKIRK: (complies)

12 MR. BROOKMAN: What’s “a”?

13 MR. van BUSKIRK: It’s that constant. So 

14 it’s a power log relationship. This is the losses 

15 equation effectively: one over efficiency minus one. 

16 Equal to a power log in the power of the ballast.

17 MR. ERHARDT: Right. Okay. But to get 

18 the actual limit that we need to meet BLE, what is 

19 “a”?

20 MR. van BUSKIRK: You’re going to actually 

21 force me to do some math.

22 MR. ERHARDT: Oh, I thought you had it 

23 because you plotted something.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: For the folks on the web, 

25 use the mic.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

145

1 MR. ERHARDT: I thought you had it because 

2 you plotted something, I thought you already had 

3 constants for your plot.

4 MR. van BUSKIRK: In some equations in 

5 Excel. So the --

6 MR. ERHARDT: Oh, I see, you did a fit to 

7 the curve --

8 MR. van BUSKIRK: Yes, we did a curve fit 

9 to effectively the losses. The losses are one over 

10 efficiency minus one, and then the curve fit was the 

11 power log curve fit right out of Excel, so that gave 

12 us the coefficient and the power log. The details 

13 of exactly what the coefficients are and what the 

14 power exponent is, is an empirical exercise. The 

15 little -- the tiny amount of empirics we did with 

16 the data from the presentation from this morning, 

17 gave “b” being approximately one-quarter, so it’s a 

18 negative exponent power log that the losses, the 

19 relative losses of the ballast are approximately 

20 proportional to the minus one-quarter power of the 

21 power rating of the ballast.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks for doing that. 

23 Bob? Okay. Comments on this, should there be any, 

24 and then we’ll proceed with the slides. Tom Eckman.

25 MR. ECKMAN: Yeah, I just want to make 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

146

1 sure that in the data comparisons that we know 

2 whether we’re dealing with the same ballast tested 

3 at two different labs or the same model ballast 

4 tested at two different labs, and what can it’s in, 

5 so that we know which kind of product we’re talking 

6 about, whether it’s a F, N, or A, so that the data 

7 bases actually contain enough parameter information 

8 so that outsiders can look at that and characterize 

9 the data set.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: You want to know the 

11 specifics surrounding -- you want to know the 

12 characterization of each of those data points?

13 MR. ECKMAN: Right. Here’s a test. What 

14 was the model number. Are there two labs that 

15 tested that same product, so some characterization 

16 that this is the same product that two labs tested 

17 it, round robin type, or this is multiple labs 

18 testing different products, but the same model 

19 number.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Do you all have that level 

21 of --

22 MS. GUPTA: Yeah. I’m not certain whether 

23 we’ll be able to give the model number of the 

24 ballast that we tested, but we will be able to tell 

25 you, this is one unit that we tested at this lab. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

147

1 That same unit was tested at another lab.

2 MR. ECKMAN: A unique identifier so I know 

3 I’m looking at the same ballast. It may not -- I 

4 don’t even know the manufacturer model number, but 

5 it’s the same ballast.

6 MS. GUPTA: And in terms of the can size, 

7 it will take us more time to cross reference what 

8 the can sizes were for all of our different 

9 ballasts, so in the interest of getting data out 

10 there quicker, maybe we’ll do one round of just 

11 letting you see our round robin testing as much as 

12 it was, two labs most of the time. And then we’ll 

13 go forth and try to get the can size information out 

14 there.

15 MR. ECKMAN: And will NEMA’s data be 

16 comparable in terms of parameters that we can look 

17 at?

18 MR. BROOKMAN: That’s an interesting 

19 question. Who can answer that? Bob, thank you.

20 MR. ERHARDT: Well, we definitely --

21 sorry, Bob Erhardt. We didn’t do any round robin 

22 testing. This was each manufacturer’s lab. What 

23 our lab can do, though, is we have done confidence 

24 level and verification of our lab. We can give you 

25 our own evaluation of our lab and other NEMA 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

148

1 manufacturers maybe can do the same. I mean we can 

2 do a -- we do -- we do an analysis of our own lab 

3 for ISO certification, and we can supply that data.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: And so you’re speaking for 

5 your company?

6 MR. ERHARDT: For my company.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: The other companies can do 

8 that as well? Jeff.

9 MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon. Our company 

10 would certainly be able to do the same thing in 

11 terms of providing the identification of the 

12 products along with the test measurements.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other -- Cheryl.

14 MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English. Mimi, just 

15 following up on yours, I wonder if you could take 

16 your data -- I’m assuming it’s -- well, it’s not 

17 data that you’ve gotten through your non-disclosure. 

18 You went out and purchased products, but perhaps you 

19 could take each manufacturers data back to that 

20 original manufacturer so that they could at least 

21 cross reference, and then maybe do something under 

22 the NDA to identify any gaps on the same models, 

23 assuming the same models have been tested.

24 MS. GUPTA: That would be great. Yeah.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Well, we had good --
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

149

1 I’m looking at other manufacturers. That general 

2 regime, that’ll work for you, I’m hoping? I’m 

3 getting nods. I’m getting yes from Chris and 

4 Robert.

5 MR. NACHTRIEB: Rob Nachtrieb, yes.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. We’re establishing a 

7 record here. Okay. So good, that was helpful. We 

8 gained some ground in that segment. Charlie 

9 Stephens.

10 MR. STEPHENS: I have one more question 

11 about what I heard earlier, and I heard that we 

12 can’t test, in general, the power in and the power 

13 out with a lamp load better than plus or minus one 

14 percent, is that pretty much true?

15 MR. BROOKMAN: This is Bob again, Bob 

16 Erhardt.

17 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, generally a power 

18 measurement with some of the best equipment is on 

19 the order of one-half to one percent accuracy. 

20 Probably one-half percent on the input and one 

21 percent on the output, and when you do a ratio of 

22 those two, you’re going to see something -- some 

23 tolerance greater than one percent, generally.

24 MR. STEPHENS: And is that due --

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Rob -- Robert.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

150

1 MR. NACHTRIEB: Yeah, I would agree that 

2 the measurement of input power and the measurement 

3 of output power could be around one percent, however 

4 the ratio -- those two measurements are correlated, 

5 very tightly correlated, so the ratio isn’t worse 

6 than the individual, it’s actually better than the 

7 individuals. Even though temperature changes can 

8 affect the mercury vapor pressure and therefore 

9 affect the arc voltage for a given current, 

10 therefore affect the arc power, the input power is 

11 going to go up too, and the ratio should be pretty 

12 robust.

13 MR. STEPHENS: So the lamp stability is a 

14 little bit of an issue here --

15 MR. NACHTRIEB: Actually, not.

16 MR. STEPHENS: No?

17 MR. NACHTRIEB: Less of an issue, because 

18 you’re measuring the input power and the lamp power 

19 simultaneously. Lamp stability is less of an issue.

20 MR. STEPHENS: Oh, okay. So measurement -

21 - the instrument measurement? I’m just looking for 

22 what the source of variation is there, why the 

23 tolerances aren’t closer, but maybe it’s 

24 instrumentation.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Rob.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

151

1 MR. NACHTRIEB: Rob Nachtrieb. I mean the 

2 sources of variation, you can have measurement 

3 variation is one source, and we’re doing two 

4 measurements, okay. The -- you can have sample to 

5 sample variation, and then I mean traditionally the 

6 way -- operator, if the procedure is, in principle, 

7 not well designed, then the operator, how they 

8 perform the test can have an effect on the 

9 measurement. If the procedure is well defined, then 

10 the largest source of variation is from one sample 

11 to the next. That’s sort of the characteristic of a 

12 robust methodology for measuring things, is that you 

13 can use the measurement to pick up differences from 

14 one sample to the other.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Joe, go ahead.

16 MR. PARISELLA: Yeah, I just wanted to 

17 make it clear too that you also have a tolerance 

18 variation in components, so manufacturing tolerance. 

19 So you have a lot of components that are used in one 

20 ballast, and then you have some different components 

21 that are used a month later, and some different 

22 components used a month later, so that’s typically 

23 about two percent as well, on top of that.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. I saw 

25 both Bob and Jeff, whichever of you --
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

152

1 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, I just wanted to 

2 clarify a little bit the discrepancy in the 

3 statements between Rob Nachtrieb and myself. Yes, 

4 this methodology, one reason we take this 

5 methodology is to eliminate any dependency on lamp 

6 variation load tolerance. That is cancelled by 

7 doing a ratio. There are two meter tolerances, your 

8 equipment itself has accuracy. Your input 

9 measurement has an accuracy on the order of a half 

10 of a percent. Your output has a measurement 

11 accuracy on the order of one percent. I don’t know 

12 why you would assume that those accuracies would 

13 track, but because you’re using different pieces of 

14 equipment at the same time for the input and the 

15 output, you have two accuracies you are concerned 

16 with, and when you ratio them, they somewhat are 

17 additive, so you have something greater than one 

18 percent overall variation possible with an 

19 efficiency measurement.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Jeff, did you want to add 

21 in here?

22 MR. PLASKON: I just wanted to comment 

23 that the differences between -- we need to recognize 

24 that the differences between the Navigant data and 

25 the NEMA data are of course are different samples 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

153

1 that we tested, so we should expect that there’s 

2 variation there. But the most important point is 

3 that through our round robin testing that we did 

4 with the Lighting Research Center, we showed a 

5 significant improvement between the previous BEF 

6 method to ballast efficiency and BLE is much more 

7 consistent and much more tighter tolerance. So I 

8 don’t think -- NEMA has adopted the new method of 

9 measurement and part of our EL2 standard and they’re 

10 very supportive of using that method of measurement.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. That’s helpful. 

12 Thank you. Good. We gained ground on that one. So 

13 now, we’re going to proceed. We’re going to go on 

14 to the next slides in the presentation, and I think 

15 we’re going to hear from Bob?

16 MR. LINGARD: Yes.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: And also Grant Williams is 

18 also a presenter, and also Natasha, we hope you’re 

19 with us on line. Are you with us?

20 MS. COLLINS: Yes, I am with you.

21 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. And we can hear 

22 you fine, so you can chime in as you feel that you 

23 would want to.

24 MS. COLLINS: I will.

25 Markups Determination and Energy Use 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

154

1 Characterization

2 Life Cycle Cost and Payback Analyses

3 MR. LINGARD: My name’s Bob Lingard with 

4 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Thanks for 

5 the introduction. Natasha, unfortunately, wasn’t 

6 able to travel here this week but is joining us from 

7 the ether, and Natasha was the lead modeler on this 

8 rulemaking, and our colleague Grant Williams has 

9 graciously offered to join us here in Washington. 

10 So we may have a little bit of a tag-team approach 

11 with Natasha chiming in on some detailed questions.

12 But those of you who have attended recent 

13 rulemaking meetings may have noticed a more 

14 streamlined approach to the way that the meetings 

15 are run, particularly not representing pages and 

16 pages of results tables. So I wanted to set your 

17 expectation today that Grant and I and Natasha will 

18 be talking about sort of the high level features of 

19 what we saw in the NOPR analyses and we would refer 

20 to the NOPR text and to the TSD for the detailed 

21 results tables. 

22 So out of respect for your time or anybody 

23 who may have a flight this afternoon, that’s how 

24 we’ll proceed.

25 I’m going to talk briefly about two inputs 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

155

1 to the life cycle cost and payback analysis called 

2 the markups determination and the energy use 

3 characterization. Don’t have any major departures 

4 to report from what we did for the preliminary 

5 analysis. The energy use calculation was fairly 

6 straightforward. Annual energy use is, of course, a 

7 function of system input power and annual operating 

8 hours. There is obviously a lot of discussion 

9 around the engineering which feeds into this, 

10 however, as far as updating our calculation here, we 

11 simply updated to be sure we were using the most 

12 recent DOE energy survey data, as well as updating 

13 that with the most recent census data.

14 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert.

15 MR. NACHTRIEB: Rob Nachtrieb. Is it the 

16 2001 lighting market characterization that’s the 

17 most recent?

18 MR. LINGARD: I believe I would need to 

19 check the TSD for that. Grant can check on that for 

20 me, or Natasha can. It’s in the process of being 

21 updated too, I believe.

22 MR. NACHTRIEB: Robert Nachtrieb, by the 

23 way, I’m a big fan of the lighting market 

24 characterization.

25 MR. LINGARD: Thanks, Mimi, for the update 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

156

1 on that. That’s the latest and the greatest. So as 

2 a result, the annual operating -- average annual 

3 operating hours we’re using changed slightly from 

4 the prelim, based on some of the updated, 

5 particularly updated census data and are listed for 

6 the different sectors here.

7 I will go on to markups, unless there are 

8 any questions or comments on that. I think markups 

9 analysis is a little more interesting to talk about. 

10 DOE received I think, general support for our 

11 approach on how we calculate or derive markups from 

12 publicly available company financial data. However 

13 a big question that came up during the preliminary 

14 analysis was how do these square up against real 

15 world markups? And based on suggestions from the 

16 preliminary analysis meeting, we actually made 

17 contact with the National Association of Electrical 

18 Distributors and were able to speak, telephone 

19 interviews, with a couple of representative 

20 electrical wholesalers and distributors. Again, 

21 this is sort of the area of business sensitive 

22 information and no business sensitive data was 

23 passed back and forth, however, in our conversations 

24 with two representative electrical wholesalers, they 

25 affirmed for us that these calculated markups are, I 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

157

1 think, to paraphrase from them, consistent with 

2 their actual markups for ballasts. 

3 Another issue that came up in the 

4 preliminary analysis was what about a distribution 

5 channel for residential ballasts which we hadn’t 

6 generated markups for residential ballasts. And for 

7 the NOPR what we did was create a home improvement 

8 retailer markup channel. Again, to retain our 

9 method for generating markups, we wanted to deal 

10 with publicly traded companies with publicly 

11 available financial data. And the two big players 

12 in home improvement retail that you might expect, 

13 not in order of preference or significance, would be 

14 Home Depot and Lowe’s. We were able to get their 

15 financial data through 2009. 

16 We contacted both of them to ask them the 

17 same questions that we had with the electrical 

18 wholesalers, and they cited that for reasons of 

19 confidentiality and business sensitive information, 

20 they didn’t want to speak about their actual 

21 markups. So made an attempt, but wasn’t able to 

22 confirm what those markups -- get their confirmation 

23 of our calculated markups. 

24 So I guess what I can report to you today 

25 is that electrical wholesalers did confirm our 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

158

1 calculated markups. So this is a summary of the 

2 latest markups that’s consistent with what you’ll 

3 find in the documentation as well. Those are the 

4 big pieces of news to report on markup.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Just pause right there and 

6 see if there are comments on what you see on slide 

7 54. Yes, Chris.

8 MR. HOLSTEIN: Yes, this is Chris. Can 

9 you just briefly explain the incremental column. Do 

10 I read that as understanding that you believe that 

11 would be the incremental that they would be willing 

12 to pay for a higher efficient product?

13 MR. LINGARD: The incremental -- we apply 

14 the incremental markup to the price increment 

15 between the baseline and the efficiency -- and the 

16 efficiency level product. Baseline markup applied 

17 to the baseline ballast, that incremental applied to 

18 the price increment between the price baseline and 

19 the next most efficient ballast, or the EL in 

20 question.

21 MR. HOLSTEIN: The next most efficient, 

22 not the BLE-min?

23 MR. LINGARD: Applied to each efficiency 

24 level within a product class.

25 MR. HOLSTEIN: I guess I’m trying to 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

159

1 understand -- because I look at, let’s just say OEM

2 fixture manufacturer baseline is 1.5, then I read 

3 that as they’re willing to pay an incremental 

4 premium of .17 to move up an efficiency level. I 

5 don’t necessarily know if that would be correct.

6 MR. LINGARD: This is where I could 

7 probably use help from my economist friend here.

8 MR. WILLIAMS: Hi, this is Grant Williams. 

9 Do you mind repeating the question?

10 MR. HOLSTEIN: I was trying to understand 

11 the relationship between the baseline incremental 

12 column in the chart. Is it truly saying that if a 

13 baseline ballast today that somebody’s purchasing is 

14 X, that if that ballast went away and they went to a 

15 higher efficient product that they’re willing to pay 

16 more for it? Is that what your assumption is in 

17 this chart?

18 MR. WILLIAMS: Well, what we do here is we 

19 apply the baseline markup to the baseline model. So 

20 hypothetically, if we call that efficiency level 

21 zero -- this is Grant Williams by the way -- then we 

22 could say that, let’s say it has a markup of --

23 MR. HOLSTEIN: Let me get over here so I 

24 can see this.

25 MR. WILLIAMS: So say it has a 1.5 markup, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

160

1 then the baseline model, if it was $100, it becomes 

2 $150. And let’s say the next best model, we’ll call 

3 it efficiency level one, would be the difference 

4 between those two prices, so the newly adjusted 

5 baseline and the models that we’re looking at, 

6 increased by 1.17. Does that answer your question?

7 MR. BROOKMAN: 1.17 or .17?

8 MR. WILLIAMS: Well, by a factor of 1.17, 

9 so it increases 17 percent.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Charlie Stephens.

11 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. I’ve 

12 been doing this long enough, I can explain it in a 

13 way that I think you’ll understand. What they’re 

14 doing is, the distributor or OEM, or whoever it is 

15 the markup you’re computing, has certain basic costs 

16 that are -- that their markup covers. The 

17 incremental efficiency in the ballast doesn’t -- you 

18 don’t have an increment of salesmen’s time, for 

19 instance, out on the road to sell, just because you 

20 changed the efficiency of the ballast, but you do 

21 have an increment in the cost of the ballast itself 

22 that you want to mark up. So there’s much more to 

23 mark up or associated with the markup of any 

24 ballast, regardless of what its efficiency is, than 

25 there is just because the ballast is a little bit 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

161

1 more efficient. So you see less of a markup on --

2 because all you’re marking up, literally, is the 

3 price increment of the ballast itself, and you’re 

4 not covering all those fixed costs and overhead 

5 costs twice.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Chris.

7 MR. HOLSTEIN: Yes, Chris. I fully 

8 understand that. I’m just trying to understand if 

9 this was the incremental they used to calculate net 

10 present value in industry, NPV, because I believe 

11 that if the baseline ballast goes away, then your 

12 incremental will be compressed down to the prices of 

13 the baseline ballast. So you basically are -- that 

14 incremental goes away once the baseline ballast is 

15 gone, commodity pressures, consumer pressures will 

16 push that down.

17 I agree, like take the electrical 

18 wholesaler, it makes a lot of sense. Like that one, 

19 they’re less sensitive, or they’re more sensitive, 

20 they’ll take a very small increase. I think that 

21 some of these don’t quite make sense -- the 

22 relationship between like an OEM or distribution 

23 channel --

24 MR. BROOKMAN: By the way, that’s the kind 

25 of commentary DOE wants to receive. Please go right 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

162

1 ahead.

2 MR. CARMICHAEL: Yes, this is Rob 

3 Carmichael with Navigant. In terms of whether it 

4 goes into the INPV calculation, so the answer is no, 

5 that’s a separate analysis. This is looking at the 

6 distribution chain, so trying to come down to an end 

7 user price. I’ll leave it to Grant to discuss the 

8 difference -- the distinction between the baseline 

9 and incremental, but in terms of INPV calculation 

10 and that compression you’re talking about, that’s in 

11 our markup analyses, our markup scenarios that are 

12 in the MIA. We’ll get to those later.

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other comments on 

14 the -- the Department would like your comments on 

15 these values in addition to the pathways that are 

16 suggested here, if you’re comfortable with that. 

17 Tom Eckman.

18 MR. ECKMAN: In the residential market 

19 channel, were replacement ballasts versus ballasts 

20 in built into OEM fixtures separately -- was there a 

21 differential --

22 MR. WILLIAMS: No, separate scenario for 

23 those.

24 MR. ECKMAN: Because at least from the 

25 retail standpoint, priced quite differently.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

163

1 MR. WILLIAMS: Again, using -- we did 

2 recognize that most ballasts in that channel would 

3 be sold installed in fixtures, but didn’t have the 

4 means to tease that detail out of the high level 

5 financial data from SEC.

6 MR. ECKMAN: The online data, if you 

7 purchase a ballast alone, costs twice as much as a 

8 fixture, so replacement ballasts in that channel

9 seem to be more expensive than buying a new fixture.

10 MR. LINGARD: We would certainly welcome 

11 some input and some comment on the resulting 

12 installed costs, you know, a function of the MSP and 

13 the markups.

14 MR. ECKMAN: Just go to Lowe’s or Home 

15 Depot on line and price the fixture versus the 

16 ballast that would go in that fixture, and the 

17 margins are quite different.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Other comments 

19 on this markup analysis chart? We’re going to keep 

20 going.

21 MR. LINGARD: With that, I’ll introduce my 

22 colleague, Grant Williams.

23 Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

24 MR. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon. I’m Grant 

25 Williams. So like my colleague said, we’re going 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

164

1 to keep it at kind of a high level and then go down 

2 in the detail and the weeds as questions and 

3 comments dictate. So I’ll be talking about the Life 

4 Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis, and then 

5 we’ll move on from there for the Shipments and 

6 National Impact Analysis. 

7 So for the life cycle cost analysis, we 

8 evaluate the economic impacts of potential energy 

9 conservation standard from an individual consumer 

10 perspective, and we express total costs in 2009 

11 dollars. At this stage in the rulemaking, we 

12 primarily focused on revising our analysis and our 

13 economic projections in response to the comments

14 that we received in the pre-NOPR stage. For 

15 example, early ballast replacement due to 

16 renovations and retrofits, investigating the 

17 relationship between ballast lifetimes and 

18 efficiency, and analyzing input power for our 

19 calculations.

20 We continue to assume that the life event 

21 which prompts the purchase of a new or replacement 

22 ballast influences the cost effectiveness of the 

23 consumer’s purchase decision, and we also find that 

24 the relationship between the increased selling price 

25 and the increased energy efficiency is a predominant 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

165

1 influence on the life cycle and payback period 

2 results. This includes using total cost variables 

3 with a single point, and operating costs with that 

4 probability distribution. For example, state sales 

5 tax.

6 So for example here, at the bottom of the 

7 slide, we show that operating hours, for example, 

8 vary between sectors; sales tax can vary between 

9 states; disposal costs can vary according to 

10 consumer preference and secondary, and regardless of 

11 this, we still find that the strongest predictor of 

12 life cycle cost is the relationship between the 

13 increased selling price and the energy efficiency.

14 There are some exceptions where LCC was 

15 not strongly positive for the trial level three --

16 this is for example, for the T8s, and for product 

17 class one, product class three. 

18 Are there any questions? 

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

20 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, you went through it 

21 very quickly. On your exceptions, you’re saying T 

22 electronics compared to T8 baseline electronic were 

23 negative, and that seems to me where we’re having 

24 the most heartburn here. Can you give us some more 

25 detail on that?
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

166

1 MR. WILLIAMS: Before I go into the 

2 details, I’d like to ask if Natasha can chime in on 

3 that. I think she has the --

4 MR. LINGARD: This is Bob Lingard with 

5 PNNL as well. The product class one in question 

6 there, T8 residential, you may recall there was a --

7 the efficiency level which had a higher system 

8 wattage and a higher light output than the baseline 

9 has created this sort of outlier situation where, 

10 comparing apples to apples, the more efficient 

11 ballast would always have a higher system power than 

12 the baseline. So you couldn’t get a payback in that 

13 situation.

14 When the system input power was normalized 

15 between the baseline and the efficiency level, this 

16 negative result went away.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Bob.

18 MR. ERHARDT: But we can find in the 

19 detail analysis all of the payback periods?

20 MR. WILLIAMS: That’s right.

21 MR. ERHARDT: So when you do compare these 

22 levels that we’re having some discussion about, it 

23 will be in electronic versus an electronic?

24 MR. WILLIAMS: Correct, an electronic 

25 versus an electronic. Yeah, please feel free to 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

167

1 look at the TSD.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: And did you ask about PC3 

3 also? Same?

4 MR. WILLIAMS: This was a similar 

5 situation where the, I believe the -- I believe the 

6 system input power was identical on the baseline, 

7 and the efficiency level systems.

8 MR. LINGARD: Natasha, do you have any 

9 comment?

10 MS. COLLINS: I think you are describing 

11 the situation correctly.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Charlie Stephens.

13 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. I don’t 

14 want to dwell on this too long, I’ll focus some 

15 comments on the residential sector about which I 

16 probably know more than the others, but I’m not sure 

17 the scenarios we’re looking at in residential are 

18 entirely correct. I think when you look at lighting 

19 and power and that sort of thing in a residential 

20 setting where these things are used, light output is 

21 really irrelevant to most households. They’re 

22 putting these fixtures in certain rooms in the house 

23 and where you need enough light, but beyond that, 

24 there’s a lot of places, like my utility room that’s 

25 eight foot by eight foot that’s grossly overlit, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

168

1 because one lamp was just too little and I can tell 

2 you that two T8s is more than I need, but I’ve got 

3 no choice at one and a half lamps in between, 

4 really, that’s easy. And I think that’s the case in 

5 most residences I’ve audited. And in the garage, 

6 you know, you need to be able to see what you’re 

7 doing and nobody’s paying attention to light levels. 

8 So I think focusing on that in the analysis is not 

9 useful or relevant. 

10 The other thing is, I don’t think you’re 

11 going to see a whole lot of replacement ballasts in 

12 the residential market at all. I mean at 789 hours 

13 a year, unless these ballasts are somehow lasting 

14 less than 15 years, it’s going to be 20 and 30 years 

15 or more in some cases, before anybody has to do 

16 anything with the ballast, and by that time, you 

17 know, somebody would have remodeled, and the 

18 fixture, you go to Home Depot or Lowe’s or wherever, 

19 and you’ll get another fixture because it’s cheaper 

20 than buying a replacement ballast. And so I think 

21 in that market I really think you need to look at 

22 your analysis there and make sure that what you’re 

23 analyzing actually is represented by reality in the 

24 marketplace.

25 MR. WILLIAMS: So it sounds sort of like a 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

169

1 two part comment. To the first part, in the -- we 

2 assume that the consumer will try to equivalently 

3 light a situation that moves from a zero efficiency 

4 product to a higher level one. In most cases 

5 they’re going to try to keep the lighting 

6 equivalent, and we modeled that by keeping it within 

7 ten percent. Are you suggesting that we relax that 

8 assumption or --

9 MR. STEPHENS: I’m suggesting that no one 

10 in the residential market really pays any attention 

11 to that. If they have a two lamp fixture there now, 

12 they’re going to put a two lamp fixture of whatever 

13 kind, back, and it probably, in many cases, will 

14 overlight the space, but, you know, that’s the way 

15 it is.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead Bob.

17 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, I can make a comment 

18 on this -- we call it the Resi ballast market, and 

19 that is that your lowest level baseline in 

20 electromagnetic might be running as low as a point 

21 six ballast factor and hence it’s low input power, 

22 and the reason it can do that is it’s putting heat 

23 on the filaments. When you go to an instant start 

24 electronic, there is -- you cannot run an instant 

25 start lamp down at that same point six ballast 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

170

1 factor, in fact you can’t really get below .75, so 

2 you’re limited on how low of an input power you can 

3 have on an instant start ballast, and I believe 

4 that’s what’s leading to your issue with your more 

5 efficient product having a higher input power, 

6 because you just can’t run as low of a lamp power 

7 when you have an instant start ballast. Yes, you’re 

8 running more efficient, you’ve got a lot more light. 

9 I’ve got a pair in my garage right now that lights 

10 it up real good, but a lot of people just have this 

11 over their shop bench or utility room and the old 

12 point six ballast factor electromagnetic was 

13 sufficient for them.

14 MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. Thanks.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Did you finish with this 

16 slide?

17 MR. WILLIAMS: I think so.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Cheryl.

19 MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English. I would 

20 just say on this slide, once we’ve got the data 

21 where we can aggregate it and segment based on can 

22 size, if we find that the recommended levels for 

23 this rule are going to eliminate those A and N type 

24 of cans and go back to the larger size cans, we 

25 absolutely have to build in the cost of fixture 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

171

1 redesign, engineering time, incremental 

2 transportation costs, and those are very real costs 

3 if we have to redesign a product.

4 MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. I’m going to move 

5 on.

6 Shipments Analysis

7 MR. WILLIAMS: So the next stage is the 

8 Shipments Analysis, and the LCC analysis combined, 

9 the two really large inputs for our National Impact 

10 Analysis, which gives us our final answers. So we 

11 developed a base case shipment forecast for each 

12 ballast to model how the market would change in 

13 response to a proposed standard. To do this we 

14 follow a three step process. We use historical 

15 shipment data from 1990 to 2005 from the US Census 

16 Bureau, and we combine those with our lifetime 

17 assumptions. And to do that, using the lifetime 

18 assumptions, we built an installed stock and we took 

19 that installed stock, combined it with ballast 

20 growth rates, replacement and failure events, 

21 technology penetration, market trends, and we used 

22 that to build up shipment projections over the 

23 analysis period. 

24 We did not have detailed historical 

25 ballast shipment data, so what we did is we 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

172

1 developed a general assumed market share based on 

2 the shipments of four foot T8 MBPs and manufacturer 

3 interviews. 

4 While it’s not on the slide, this led to a 

5 rate average share of 69 percent at the baseline 

6 efficiency level and the remaining 31 percent we 

7 distributed across the higher levels. We’d like to 

8 have more detailed shipment data in order to further 

9 -- excuse me, in order to constrain this assumption 

10 a little bit. We think it definitely influences the 

11 impact of the rule when we have a base case that has 

12 atypical market distribution, so our base case 

13 doesn’t accurately reflect the actual situation when 

14 you see the net present values aren’t going to be 

15 something that everyone’s going to agree with.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie Stephens.

17 MR. STEPHENS: Could you clarify --

18 Charlie Stephens here. Could you clarify you’re 

19 applying this to the historic shipments to establish 

20 the stock, or this is the future you’re talking 

21 about?

22 MR. WILLIAMS: So -- I take our historic 

23 shipments, if we had better data, or we had some 

24 kind of an analysis that told us what our market 

25 share should be at a certain point in time, as we 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

173

1 move forward that -- those shares play out in a 

2 continuing role. So what I’m suggesting is, what 

3 I’m asking for, I guess, is if there’s any kind of 

4 data that anyone could submit, I would say, okay, 

5 the distribution of ballasts in a particular class 

6 across efficiency levels look like this at a 

7 particular point. We could use that to calibrate 

8 our model so as we move forward it would be more 

9 accurate to what’s actually going on in the market 

10 place. Did that answer your question?

11 MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, pretty much. We all 

12 know that there’s been as shift going on, but 

13 there’s still substantial numbers of pretty 

14 inefficient systems out there that, for whatever 

15 reason aren’t there. They’re part of your historic 

16 and your installed stock, and of course -- I know 

17 what you’re trying to establish, and I have to say, 

18 after looking at what you’ve done, you’ve done a 

19 remarkable job of smoothing things out since the 

20 last time I saw this, so it definitely has improved, 

21 I think, from what I saw last time, and I will say 

22 that. And I sympathize with your inability to get 

23 data.

24 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Robert.

25 MR. NACHTRIEB: Robert Nachtrieb, Lutron. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

174

1 I think I remember seeing earlier in the day that 

2 the economic impact and the net present value is 

3 carried out for a very long time, like 30 years. 

4 Right?

5 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

6 MR. NACHTRIEB: Okay. So over such a long 

7 timeframe, any analysis has to account for shifts in 

8 the market. Have you accounted for certain market 

9 segments shifting to LEDs in favor of fluorescent?

10 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, we have. So we 

11 account for market trends, so migration from T12s to 

12 T8s for example. So in some cases where T12 fails, 

13 the consumer will replace it with a T8, and so we 

14 try to account for inter, intra, interproduct class 

15 shifting. Further, we also do a -- when we reach 

16 the present value calculations, in the NIA model, we 

17 take a look at the existing technology versus the 

18 emerging technology situation, and in the existing 

19 technology we assume low LED penetration, comparing 

20 to the emerging technology where we say that the 

21 penetration levels reach about 40 percent, or 

22 between 40 and 50 over the analysis period by 2045.

23 When I get to NIA, you’ll see there’s a 

24 market difference in those results.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Tom Eckman.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

175

1 MR. ECKMAN: Would you repeat the market 

2 share of products that you identified in the base 

3 case that were currently meeting standard?

4 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. So based on our 

5 assumed market share that we -- we said that 69 

6 percent would be at the baseline level, and then the 

7 remaining 31 percent was distributed across the 

8 efficiency levels of greater than that. So -- I 

9 believe they are evenly distributed.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Somehow that doesn’t 

11 comport with Bob’s statement that 80 percent were 

12 meeting premium levels today.

13 MR. NACHTRIEB: This is Rob Nachtrieb. I 

14 think that’s the difference between the installed 

15 stock of products and the rate of shipments.

16 MR. WILLIAMS: That rate will vary over 

17 time, but when we establish our initial stock, that 

18 was the shares we came up with.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Are you using, on the 

20 forecast basis then, in terms of market penetration 

21 today, that is what’s going in today, that 80-20, or 

22 the 69-30?

23 MR. LINGARD: This is Bob Lingard with 

24 PNN. We based this breakdown, 69 versus 31 based on 

25 preliminary manufacturer interviews for this rule 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

176

1 where they were characterizing -- again, this is to 

2 put together a base case shipment scenario, absent a 

3 standard. We’re assuming that 69 percent of 

4 shipments would correspond with a baseline level of 

5 efficiency, 31 percent would be at the higher 

6 efficiency levels. Those numbers came from 

7 preliminary interviews for this rule and to your 

8 point, how does that square up with Bob’s comments 

9 earlier today about 80 percent of current shipments 

10 corresponding with NEMA premium, this is where I’d 

11 probably invite Ali’s comments on how NEMA premium 

12 squares up with some of our baseline products in our 

13 product classes.

14 MS. McDONALD: So actually a significant 

15 number of ballasts on the market are marketed as 

16 NEMA premium, and at some of our efficiency levels 

17 NEMA premium isn't just identified -- it’s not just 

18 the highest level, it might also include a level or 

19 two below, because a very large portion of 

20 manufacturers products are marketed as qualified for 

21 the NEMA premium levels.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Let me see if I understand 

23 that before we proceed. So what you’re saying is 

24 that some of the NEMA premium labeled products, 

25 marketed products, they are not consistent with some 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

177

1 of the standard level being proposed, one, two, or 

2 three. They’re less than that?

3 MS. McDONALD: I think what I’m saying is 

4 there is variation within NEMA premium.

5 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob, go ahead. Any light.

6 MR. ERHARDT: And that’s why I was careful 

7 with my wording when we did testing, it was not just 

8 at the minimum -- it was not of all NEMA premium 

9 products, it was our highest efficiency product 

10 lines. In our case, it’s our Optanium product. We 

11 did have our Centium -- and I can’t remember all the 

12 names -- Centium, thank you -- I think our Centiums 

13 were also qualifying for NEMA premium, but that is 

14 not the data we submitted for the spreadsheet that 

15 we did our analysis on. So, yes, it’s correct that 

16 NEMA premium, in many cases, did encompass two 

17 levels of products from a manufacturer, and there 

18 often was a third that was lower.

19 I can comment that things are moving very 

20 fast in the industry and we’ve been working with 

21 DOE, I don’t know, what is it, three years now --

22 I’m losing track. Some of the assumptions that were 

23 true three years ago are changing today, and we’re 

24 seeing much to our surprise, some of the projections 

25 given by the SSL people are true, and we’re also 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

178

1 finding that there’s a lot of activity. For 

2 instance, we are working quite a bit with California 

3 Energy Commission, California Utilities, CLTC, in 

4 developing a number of new rulemakings out there, 

5 where, in California, I think it’s the 2014 code, 

6 they’re going to require all ballasts to be 

7 controllable ballasts. And this was unheard of when 

8 we started this rulemaking. So a lot of things are 

9 changing. I don’t even know how we would go in and 

10 look at the impact analysis, but a lot of things are 

11 changing, the baselines, the market is moving to 

12 higher efficiencies on its own, and so I think we 

13 might be looking at that payback analysis.

14 MR. WILLIAMS: So just to finish my answer

15 to the gentleman’s question, I don’t know if it 

16 would trend exactly with it, but I would expect that 

17 they would -- the share of high efficiency product 

18 would be increasing. I’d have to look at the model 

19 to take a look for sure.

20 MS. COLLINS: This is Natasha Collins from 

21 PNNL. I just want to add a comment that we did 

22 model some substitution effect within the product 

23 classes for certain product classes as well. For 

24 instance, for T12, we did model that that would be 

25 substituted, even in event of no standard imposed. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

179

1 They would be substituted with T8.

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Other 

3 comments? Tom. Tom Eckman.

4 MR. ECKMAN: Yeah, I -- when we get to the 

5 manufacturer’s impact and the net present value 

6 impact of the standards, it’s always important to 

7 know whether the baseline is as advertised or 

8 actually we’re doing better or worse than that 

9 particular baseline, because we’re measuring an 

10 incremental improvement over today’s practices or 

11 sales, so I want to make sure that we’ve got that 

12 tied down, and those seem to be fairly differential 

13 numbers, like they were the reverse of one another.

14 MR. WILLIAMS: I agree that calibrating 

15 the baseline is very, very important. We’ll take a 

16 look.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Let’s keep going.

18 MR. WILLIAMS: So, what we did see in our 

19 model is given our assumptions and our data, we did 

20 predict that replacements would dominate over the 

21 analysis period. Now, looking at the graphs here, 

22 I’m not sure what the breakdown across sectors is, 

23 so it might be the case where replacements are 

24 still, like the gentleman said, very small in the 

25 residential sector. However, we see that overall 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

180

1 replacements dominate. If Natasha has the data 

2 available, it would be interesting to see, but I’m 

3 pretty confident that replacements that dominate are 

4 in fact the very large amounts of shipments in the 

5 industrial and commercial sectors.

6 MS. COLLINS: That is correct. We do have 

7 replacements dominate new construction and retrofits 

8 in all the sectors of the economy, in all 

9 residential, commercial, and industrial.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie Stephens.

11 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. A quick 

12 definitional question. When you categorize 

13 replacement versus new construction, where does 

14 major remodel of space fit? Is that new 

15 construction or is that remodel?

16 MR. WILLIAMS: Natasha?

17 MS. COLLINS: This is Natasha Collins. 

18 This is remodel. 

19 MR. STEPHENS: Okay. So new construction 

20 is strictly new buildings?

21 MR. WILLIAMS: Right. New construction 

22 strictly from building data from AEO.

23 MR. STEPHENS: Okay. Because I sometimes 

24 get confused in the writeup when you’re talking 

25 about a replacement ballast, it’s literally in an 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

181

1 existing building and it doesn’t -- it’s not a new 

2 fixture. Usually in major remodels it’s a new 

3 fixture with a new ballast, and that’s the same in 

4 new construction for a new building. Whereas a 

5 replacement ballast would be what I could consider a 

6 retrofit. A retrofit of a ballast. So I want to 

7 make sure we’re clear here about which category. 

8 Because I would agree with you that there’s going to 

9 be very little new building construction going on 

10 over the prime horizon, but I would disagree with 

11 you if that included major remodel.

12 MS. COLLINS: We were trying to find the 

13 data that would support the comments that we have 

14 received during the preliminary stage of the 

15 analysis that pointed us in the direction of there 

16 are a lot of retrofits that are going on, but we 

17 were not able to locate that data. For instance, 

18 one of the DOE reports on the potential of solid 

19 state lighting uses 5% rate for retrofits.

20 When EIA made projections for AEO,

21 forecast the retrofit rates they were lower than 

22 that, that’s why we conservatively very low retrofit 

23 rates. And what it considered to be retrofits are 

24 the replacement prior to their failure. And those 

25 are not the ballasts that are installed in new 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

182

1 construction.

2 MR. WILLIAMS: Moving forward, I don’t 

3 think it would be a problem to explicitly break out 

4 the renovations and retrofits as far as the graphs 

5 are considered, if you think that would be helpful.

6 MS. COLLINS: Sure, we can do that.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie.

8 MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, this is Charlie 

9 Stephens. Yeah, you really need to be careful here 

10 because again, you’re trying to separate -- there 

11 are costs associated with retrofitting a ballast 

12 that are not the same as installing a new fixture, 

13 and in the field a major overhaul of a space, of a 

14 building, of an existing building, requires the same 

15 level of permitting, typically, that a new building 

16 requires, and sometimes in the data, like FW Dodge, 

17 and that sort of thing, it’s very difficult to tease 

18 out what it is you’re actually looking at there. I 

19 know, I’ve tried.

20 So, I think if -- I think you’ll be 

21 consistent and your analysis will be better if you 

22 lump everything that has to do with a fixture, a new 

23 fixture into new construction, and ballast 

24 replacement into something else.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

183

1 MR. WILLIAMS: Can I respond very quickly?

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Please, yes.

3 MR. WILLIAMS: I’d just like to note that 

4 I agree with you. However, in the life cycle cost 

5 model we did explicitly account for the difference 

6 in the price, in the cost data between renovation 

7 and retrofit. However, for the purposes of this 

8 graph, we summed those two together.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

10 MR. ERHARDT: I’m trying to understand 

11 these graphs. Are these cumulative shipments, or is 

12 this supposed to be yearly shipments?

13 MR. WILLIAMS: Yearly shipments. So the 

14 area under the curve would be the cumulative.

15 MR. ERHARDT: Okay. So you’re showing --

16 MR. WILLIAMS: Is that correct, Natasha? 

17 Am I misspeaking?

18 MS. COLLINS: That’s correct.

19 MR. ERHARDT: So you’re showing continued 

20 growth in shipments in fixed output ballasts through 

21 2044?

22 MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

23 MR. LINGARD: Bob, this is Bob Lingard 

24 with PNNL. I think that’s a function of having 

25 pulled these example graphs for the existing 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

184

1 technology scenario. These same graphs for the 

2 emerging technology scenario would have shown the 

3 decline you’d expect.

4 MR. ERHARDT: Oh, okay, so this is not --

5 this is total market, not including the share of 

6 this that’s going to be taken away by emerging 

7 technologies.

8 MR. LINGARD: Right, these are existing.

9 MR. ERHARDT: Because I was going to say 

10 everything that’s before us today says that emerging 

11 technologies are going to cause sales of fixed 

12 output to decline considerably in the future.

13 MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah, this does not include 

14 that, and also this is only for one product class.

15 MR. LINGARD: This is Bob Lingard, PNNL. 

16 Grant’s approaching some interesting shipment 

17 graphs.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah, I’m looking for a 

19 good place for us to take a break, so whenever you 

20 think in the next few slides, I hope.

21 MR. WILLIAMS: After this one.

22 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

23 MR. WILLIAMS: So, one of the last 

24 revisions we made was -- in the previous version of 

25 the model, sign ballasts accounted for a very large 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

185

1 portion and incorrectly. So we’ve adjusted our 

2 assumptions to say that sign ballasts do not grow 

3 the same way normal ballasts would. We typically 

4 modeled it following building space growth, and for 

5 example, that assumption doesn’t really hold. Just 

6 because if you had a bigger building wouldn’t 

7 necessarily mean you had more billboards or signs. 

8 And so we accounted for that.

9 MR. BROOKMAN: Well, let’s keep going for 

10 a little bit longer. Let’s go to the section, four 

11 or five more slides.

12 MR. WILLIAMS: So what we tried to do in 

13 our analysis is bound things between upper and lower 

14 bound, and we have the existing technology, and we 

15 have an emerging technology, and we have a market 

16 behavior which we combine with that, which is either 

17 a rollup or a shift. 

18 And so in an existing technology 

19 situation, we have -- here are graphs here. We see 

20 that they go very high. Whereas in an emerging 

21 technology case, you see they do not grow, in fact 

22 some are lower than when we started our analysis. 

23 So I think that was to your comment earlier.

24 MR. LINGARD: This is Bob Lingard with 

25 PNNL. And again, that emerging technology scenario, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

186

1 I believe, was based on a maximum penetration by SSL 

2 and the like, of just over 40 percent, if I’m not 

3 mistaken.

4 MR. WILLIAMS: Right, it’s a time series 

5 value, and it climbs as we approach the end of the 

6 analysis period.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

8 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, in our technology 

9 approach, though, we also include dimming and 

10 control systems, and you know, certainly by 2040, 

11 like I said, we’re working with California right 

12 now, that by 2040 their whole installed basis is 

13 going to be controllable ballasts. There won’t be 

14 any more fixed output ballasts on their -- their 

15 Title 24 to go in place for 2014 is requiring in all 

16 commercial installations, a controllable ballast.

17 MR. LINGARD: This is Bob Lingard with 

18 PNNL. While we’re here today, do any of you have 

19 any suggestions or insight on the boundaries we’ve 

20 established here? The emerging technology scenario 

21 forms up our lower boundary of shipments and 

22 potential energy savings. Any comments on how low 

23 do you go or how high do you go in terms of framing 

24 our shipments model?

25 MR. WILLIAMS: I would also like to add to 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

187

1 that, and make sure that we’ve actually applied that 

2 assumption to the correct product classes. So if 

3 you see a product that is not being affected, so for 

4 example, the four by four MBP instant start is less 

5 affected than some of the other ones.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Bob.

7 MR. ERHARDT: We supplied a sales 

8 projection graph the last time we made comments, and 

9 I have it here in front of me, and whether it’s 

10 going to zero or not, we’re showing roughly by 2040 

11 the fixed output market to be relatively 

12 insignificant, that it will be taken over by SSL and 

13 controllable ballasts by the 2040 timeframe. 

14 MR. BROOKMAN: When you say relatively 

15 insignificant, how big is that?

16 MR. ERHARDT: Well, I guess it’s five 

17 million ... so, you know, out to -- they’re going to 

18 be a significant part of the market? We’ve got them 

19 to a significant part of the market into the 2025 

20 timeframe, but if you’re going all the way out to 

21 2040, we don’t think there are going to be a lot of 

22 fixed output products being sold, except in very low 

23 end applications, probably.

24 MR. WILLIAMS: Do any of you think that 

25 the LED penetration rates would vary across product 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

188

1 classes?

2 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes.

3 MR. ERHARDT: Like I said, the initial 

4 penetrations, I just heard it, signs are the biggest 

5 takeoff right now. Outdoor is taking off 

6 surprisingly quickly because of maintenance costs. 

7 Freezer lights are taking off -- anywhere there’s 

8 low temperature, LEDs are doing very well, and 

9 anywhere that replacement costs. Now, it’s likely 

10 that in very cost-sensitive applications, the 

11 fluorescents will continue to have a market, but 

12 again, as we commented in our initial comments, some 

13 of the things we’re working on -- and we made -- I 

14 suggested, and we’re going to have a discussion 

15 within NEMA -- we may present some of the case 

16 studies being presented in California on controls 

17 scenarios that we are working on.

18 One of the points we’re trying to bring 

19 here is, we are working on energy savings. This is 

20 not a case where we want to stay in the dark ages 

21 and don’t want to change. We are working to save 

22 energy. We’re doing quite a bit in California. 

23 We’re doing it with ASHRAE standards and with Energy 

24 Star, and we are going after very large, significant 

25 energy savings. We’re trying to save 50 percent 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

189

1 energy in California. That’s why, when we come here 

2 and we’re finding our bread and butter product line 

3 totally threatened over a two percent energy 

4 savings, you know, it’s putting us into a bit of a 

5 panic, because we’re going after 20, 30, 40 50 

6 percent energy savings in other scenarios. And this 

7 is where we want to keep putting our energy. We’re 

8 going to -- this is a point we’re trying to bring 

9 across.

10 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Joanna.

11 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. Do you assume 

12 that a portion of the residential ballasts are going 

13 to the commercial sector, or that they’re all going 

14 to the residential sector?

15 MR. WILLIAMS: Are you asking are we 

16 seeing that a portion of the residential sales would 

17 be moving to the commercial sector?

18 MS. MAUER: No, I’m just trying to 

19 understand -- so it’s showing that in 2010 there are 

20 about 30 million shipments of residential ballasts. 

21 Are those 30 million going to the residential sector 

22 or a portion of those going to the commercial 

23 sector?

24 MR. WILLIAMS: These lines don’t 

25 distinguish between different sectors, and so unless 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

190

1 one of these ballasts is primarily a residential 

2 only ballast, which might be the case -- Bob?

3 MR. LINGARD: That's correct. If you flip 

4 back and forth between the existing, you’ll notice 

5 that in the middle for two by four, four foot MBP 

6 instant start/rapid start residential remains --

7 doesn’t change with the emerging technology.

8 MS. MAUER: Sorry, what I’m trying to ask 

9 is are residential ballasts, today, are they being 

10 used solely in the residential sector or are they 

11 also being used in the commercial sector?

12 MR. LINGARD: That’s the assumption for 

13 our model. Residential ballasts used solely within 

14 residential sector.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob.

16 MR. ERHARDT: The traditional 

17 specification for a residential ballast is a low 

18 power factor ballast, and it is not allowed to be 

19 used in commercial applications. Commercial 

20 applications require a point nine power factor or 

21 higher, and generally our product is .98 or higher 

22 even, and so the answer is no, you will not find a 

23 residential product being sold in the commercial 

24 sector.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Robert.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

191

1 MR. NACHTRIEB: This sort of model --

2 Robert Nachtrieb, Lutron. This sort of a model is, 

3 of course, a crystal ball and it’s -- the results 

4 are only as good as the assumptions that go into it, 

5 and so that’s why I think we’re spending so much 

6 time understanding the assumptions. My company 

7 doesn’t make lamps, but my company makes controls 

8 that have to use lamps and the Energy Independence 

9 and Security Act as recently introducing a dramatic 

10 shift in the light source market. And so I 

11 developed, for my own company, a model very similar 

12 to this, going out to a similar time scale, how the 

13 regulatory change would impact the shift from 

14 incandescents to perhaps halogen, to compact 

15 fluorescents, to LEDs as the price of LEDs comes 

16 down based on elasticities calibrated with 

17 historical data and so forth. And assuming a 

18 certain number of medium screw-based sockets, and so 

19 forth.

20 One thing that I see missing from your 

21 model is the impact of future regulation.

22 MR. WILLIAMS: Well, we’d love to see that 

23 data if you’re willing to share it.

24 MR. NACHTRIEB: I’d love to share it.

25 MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah, we have not -- we 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

192

1 haven’t tried to guess any kind of future 

2 regulation, other than the standard that DOE is 

3 currently considering.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie.

5 MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, this is Charlie 

6 Stephens. I was just running some numbers. You’ve 

7 got 30 million shipment there for that residential 

8 line, starting in 2010. I don’t doubt that there 

9 are that many ballasts being shipped, but I doubt 

10 that they’re all going into houses. Or, I mean if 

11 I’ve run -- if I do the housing starts, even during 

12 the bubble, that tells me that there’s got to be 

13 something like a dozen or more of these things going 

14 into each house, or being retrofit into the house, 

15 and into the least retrofitted rooms in any house. 

16 And so I’m having some problems making those numbers 

17 add up if those things aren’t going into some 

18 commercial buildings, you know, some low end 

19 remodeled, you know, kind of small office, class B 

20 and class C office space or something that’s just 

21 being remodeled by the guy who bought it or 

22 something. 

23 I mean there’s got to be -- what that 

24 implies is that there’s a lot more hours, probably, 

25 on some of those ballasts than the 789 hours that 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

193

1 you’re putting on the residential ballast, because I 

2 can’t figure out, given the housing starts and 

3 remodels and retrofits, how you can bury that many 

4 fixtures a year in the residential market. So if 

5 you would, I think you really need to take a look at 

6 where those things are going and some adjustments on 

7 the annual hours may be appropriate, not necessarily 

8 up to the level where the other commercial ballasts 

9 are, but higher.

10 MR. WILLIAMS: That’s a great comment. 

11 Would you have any suggestion where we could find 

12 any data to calibrate?

13 MR. STEPHENS: Well, some of the same 

14 places I used, just look at housing starts and 

15 sometimes there’s some good lighting survey data out 

16 there. We’re not quite done with ours yet. I will 

17 be, unfortunately, too late for this rulemaking by 

18 the time we get ours, but there’s some data out 

19 there and what kinds of fixtures you find, and what 

20 kinds of new homes. And I think you can get that 

21 data fairly easily.

22 And just to give you a check about how 

23 many you can account for in the residential market, 

24 and then say, well, the rest of them must be going 

25 somewhere else, and then maybe come up with an 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

194

1 estimate for the low end of the commercial market 

2 that might be eight hours a day or ten hours a day 

3 of lighting, five days a week kind of thing, not the 

4 more elevated hours that you’d see when you average 

5 across grocery stores and office buildings and all 

6 that, something like that.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Tom Eckman.

8 MR. ECKMAN: Yeah, I think if you look at 

9 the 2002 lighting study --

10 MR. BROOKMAN: You’re not on.

11 MR. ECKMAN: Light’s on. Okay. If you 

12 look at the 2002 lighting study plus the studies 

13 that have been done in California, New England, and 

14 the northwest, you can get a pretty good idea how 

15 many linear fluorescents are in the system, or circ 

16 lines that are taking some sort of ballast, so you 

17 can get an average lifetime, get some idea what the 

18 stock turnover ought to be plus new construction, 

19 and see if it gets anywhere close to that number. I 

20 agree with Charlie, I think we’re a bit shy of that 

21 number when you do those calculations.

22 MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you. 

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s do the next few 

24 slides and then we’ll take a break.

25 (Comment off mic.)
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

195

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Well, let’s take a 

2 poll. I guess anybody that really needs to take a 

3 bathroom break can leave if they need to, do you 

4 want to keep going or do you want to take a ten 

5 minute break? Keep going? Most of the folks in the 

6 room are nodding their head to keep going, so okay, 

7 we’re about to do that. Okay. We’ll keep going.

8 National Impact Analysis

9 MR. WILLIAMS: Great, that brings us to 

10 the National Impact Analysis. So as I mentioned 

11 previously, we bind our results between the existing 

12 tech, emerging tech, and the shift and the roll up. 

13 And so the existing tech -- let’s see -- excuse me. 

14 The existing technology shift will provide us with 

15 our upper bound for our energy savings, and our net 

16 present values; and the emerging tech will provide 

17 us with the lower bound.

18 So the NIA takes a look at the cumulative 

19 national energy savings, and this all takes input 

20 from the LCC and the shipments model. What we found 

21 is that if we can get the upper bound and the lower 

22 bound, we can kind of constrain and take a look at 

23 what’s going on. And so what we see here is the 

24 national energy savings increase from the standards 

25 case, and I’d just like to preempt some comments.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

196

1 So in the existing technology shift, what 

2 we’ll see is -- we take a look at this energy 

3 savings curve here -- I just wanted to address the 

4 peakedness of this line. So what we consider is a 

5 site to source ratio which is a multiplier for 

6 converting site energy consumption to source energy 

7 consumption, and we get that value -- well, in the 

8 preliminary analysis from AEO, but we use that data 

9 again in the NOPR, and we submit that through the 

10 National Energy Modeling System, NEMS, and we get --

11 if you control for the site to source ratio, this 

12 line looks a lot smoother, but as we see the 

13 National Energy Modeling System predicts that it 

14 will vary slightly. And then the reason it’s 

15 straight and curved after -- very linear after 2035 

16 is that’s as far as the model goes and we stop 

17 speculating, we kept the rate constant.

18 So what we see here is that as you expect, 

19 the national energy savings increases with the 

20 efficiency of the installed stock, and net present 

21 value rises and then falls.

22 I don’t have a lot of talking points here 

23 except to answer questions.

24 MR. LINGARD: This is Bob with PNNL. 

25 These few slides illustrate our outer bounds 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

197

1 scenarios as you saw. With shipments taking a hit 

2 in the emerging technology scenario, so too does our 

3 estimate of national energy savings, and NPV, and 

4 the respective values are presented on each slide.

5 MR. WILLIAMS: Right. If you take a look 

6 -- this is Grant -- if you take look at the graph on 

7 the left, you can compare this, which is our lower 

8 bound, to our upper bound. Similarly, for net 

9 present value of seven percent. So the emerging 

10 technology has an enormous impact.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Questions on these? 

12 Comments on the upper bound and the lower bound, 

13 really? All right. I see none, go on.

14 MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. That ends my 

15 section, thank you.

16 Manufacturer Impact Analysis

17 MS. POTOCKI: Hi. My name is Erin Potocki from 

18 Navigant, and I apologize for my voice being 

19 strained today. I’m here to talk about the 

20 manufacturer impact analysis, or the MIA. The main 

21 purpose of the MIA is to assess the impact of 

22 standards on manufacturers of florescent lamp 

23 ballasts. The second purpose is to identify and 

24 estimate the impacts on manufacturer subgroups. The 

25 upcoming slides of the MIA presentation discuss the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

198

1 impacts of standards on the small business 

2 manufacturer subgroup. 

3 The final portion of the MIA involves a 

4 discussion of direct employment, manufacturing 

5 capacity, and other federal regulations that impact 

6 the same manufacturers around the compliance date 

7 for this rulemaking. 

8 The main tool DOE uses to evaluate the 

9 impact of standards on manufacturers is a discounted 

10 cash flow model known as the Government Regulatory 

11 Impact Model, or GRIM. The major output from the 

12 cash flow model is industry net present value, or 

13 INPV, a metric used to represent the quantitative 

14 impacts of new or amended standards on the 

15 manufacturers of the covered product.

16 For the MIA, DOE also conducts interviews 

17 with manufacturers to refine the inputs to the cash 

18 flow model and to understand the qualitative impacts 

19 of standards. 

20 Now the picture shows the basic structure 

21 of the MIA process in three phases. In the first 

22 phase, which occurs during the preliminary analysis 

23 period, DOE uses all available public information, 

24 such as manufacturers’ annual reports, to develop 

25 profiles of the covered industry.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

199

1 Phase two and phase three are the two 

2 phases that DOE conducted as part of the NOPR MIA 

3 for fluorescent lamp ballasts. DOE develops the 

4 cash flow spreadsheets that are used to estimate 

5 industry impacts. DOE also develops interview 

6 guides that are used to tailor the inputs to the 

7 cash flow models. 

8 In phase three, DOE conducts interviews 

9 with manufacturers and uses the information to 

10 further develop the subanalysis and to finalize the 

11 inputs to the GRIM.

12 Now switching from process to content. 

13 This slide presents the key issues we’ve learned 

14 from manufacturers concerning this rulemaking, and 

15 many of these were addressed earlier during NEMA’s 

16 presentation. 

17 • First, manufacturers are concerned about 

18 profitability impacts. Currently, many 

19 manufacturers offer two tiers of products, with 

20 the higher efficiency tier commanding a premium 

21 over the baseline tier. But they worry that 

22 standards would eliminate the baseline tier and 

23 market pressure would reduce the margins on the 

24 once premium tier products. We addressed this 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

200

1 concern with our markup scenarios which I will 

2 address in the next slide

3 • Second, manufacturers are hesitant to invest in 

4 the necessary resources to increase the 

5 efficiency of their fluorescent lamp ballasts 

6 because they believe that the future of 

7 efficiency gains in the lighting industry is in 

8 solid state lighting and controls. Higher 

9 prices for fluorescent lamp ballasts may even 

10 hasten this switch to these emerging 

11 technologies. As such, manufacturers do not 

12 want to invest heavily in what they see as a 

13 shrinking market. This concern is addressed by 

14 the emerging technologies scenario which we 

15 just went over.

16 • And on a related note, manufacturers believe 

17 that new and amended standards for fluorescent 

18 lamp ballasts have a high opportunity cost. By 

19 forcing resources toward upgrading existing 

20 product lines, manufacturers will have to 

21 divert resources away from new product 

22 development and emerging technologies.

23 • Next, manufacturers are very concerned about 

24 the overall regulatory burden affecting the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

201

1 industry. The lighting industry faces several 

2 recently amended or soon to be amended federal 

3 energy conservation standards, and several 

4 international regulations and other safety 

5 regulations.

6 • Lastly, during interviews, manufacturers 

7 expressed concern that an ongoing component 

8 shortage impacting all electronics would limit 

9 the industry’s ability to receive high 

10 efficiency components necessary to meet 

11 proposed standard levels. 

12 This slide presents an overview of the 

13 scenarios DOE ran for the MIA. As discussed in the 

14 NIA presentation, DOE analyzed two technology 

15 scenarios and two shipment scenarios. Adding to 

16 these, DOE analyzes two profitability scenarios in 

17 the MIA. In total, then, this yields eight 

18 potential sets of results. 

19 Presented on this slide are the two that 

20 bounded the potential impacts on industry value. 

21 The combination of scenarios with the lowest impacts 

22 is the preservation of operating profit markup, 

23 existing technologies, and shift shipment scenarios. 

24 Under the preservation of operating profit 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

202

1 scenario, DOE applies a markup at each TSL that 

2 results in the same operating profit in absolute 

3 dollar value, both before and after standards. 

4 Manufacturers’ capital base increases as a result of 

5 the investments required to meet the standards, but 

6 manufacturers don’t earn additional profit from 

7 these investments.

8 Under the existing technologies scenario, 

9 base case shipments of fluorescent lamp ballasts are 

10 not impacted by any emerging technologies that could 

11 potentially penetrate the market over the analysis 

12 period. 

13 Under the shift shipment scenario, all 

14 base case consumer purchases are affected by the 

15 standard, regardless of whether their base case 

16 efficiency is below the standard as consumers may 

17 seek to shift to a higher efficiency level.

18 The combination of scenarios with the 

19 highest impact is the two tier markup, emerging 

20 technologies, and roll up shipment scenarios.

21 Under the two tier markup, DOE modeled the 

22 situation in which portfolio reduction squeezes the 

23 margin of higher efficiency products as they become 

24 lower relative efficiency tier products.

25 Under the emerging technologies scenario, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

203

1 fluorescent lamp ballasts lose market share to 

2 emerging technologies such as LEDs over the analysis 

3 period.

4 Under the roll up shipment scenario, no 

5 consumer purchases beyond those that do not meet the 

6 new standard level are affected by the standard, so 

7 premium pricing tiers are not continually 

8 maintained.

9 The scenario combinations described in the 

10 previous slide yield the INPV impacts shown here. 

11 At TSL-3, the level proposed in the NOPR, DOE 

12 estimates impacts ranging from negative 7.7 percent 

13 of industry value to negative 34.7 percent of 

14 industry value. These negative impacts are due to 

15 the higher product costs which cannot be fully 

16 passed on to consumers and the product and capital 

17 conversion costs that would result from needing to 

18 upgrade the majority of product lines at TSL-3.

19 Now switching over to our subgroup 

20 analysis. One of the statutory criteria DOE is 

21 required to --

22 MR. ERHARDT: Excuse me. Can you -- I’m 

23 trying to understand that last slide. Are you 

24 saying this is going to cost the industry $300 

25 million dollars?
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

204

1 MS. POTOCKI: The value of the industry 

2 would decline by up to $300 million dollars in the 

3 lower bound, yes.

4 MR. ERHARDT: Okay. So you understand our 

5 concerns.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Bob.

7 MS. POTOCKI: Back to the small business 

8 impacts. For fluorescent lamp ballasts, the Small 

9 Business Administration sets a limit of 750 total 

10 employees or less to be considered a small business 

11 manufacturer. DOE used all publicly available 

12 information to identify potential small business 

13 manufacturers. DOE also purchased independent 

14 reports and directly contacted potential small 

15 business manufacturers to determine if they meet the 

16 SBA’s definition of a small business.

17 While we found several small 

18 manufacturers, production is almost exclusively 

19 abroad, resulting in minimal capital exposure. 

20 These small manufacturers are able to compete 

21 despite the dominance of the four large 

22 manufacturers in the industry in large part due to 

23 the fragmented nature of the fixture industry. 

24 Additionally, small manufacturers typically offer a

25 variety of lighting products and do not focus 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

205

1 exclusively on fluorescent lamp ballasts. 

2 To show how small business manufacturer 

3 could be disproportionately impacted, DOE looked at 

4 the impact of the required conversion costs on both 

5 large and small business manufacturers by examining 

6 the products offerings of both large and small 

7 manufacturers. DOE’s research suggests that small 

8 manufacturers will be more negatively impacted by 

9 standards than large manufacturers because they lack 

10 the scale to afford the large product development, 

11 testing, and certification requirements required for 

12 certain standard levels. 

13 To mitigate impacts, DOE believes that 

14 manufacturers will likely reduce the number of 

15 product lines offered, especially in the short term, 

16 to keep required conversion costs within manageable 

17 limits.

18 And at this time, DOE requests comments on 

19 the methodology and inputs used for the MIA.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert.

21 MR. NACHTRIEB: Rob Nachtrieb, Neutron. 

22 So I have two comments, and I’ll take them in 

23 reverse order. First is the impact on small 

24 manufacturers. I think that the impact of this 

25 regulation on small manufacturers would be 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

206

1 negligible because I don’t think that there are many 

2 small manufacturers who are willing to compete with 

3 large lamp companies in a commodities market. They 

4 have all the disadvantages against them. So where 

5 the small manufacturers are going to concentrate and 

6 in areas where there is potential for growth and 

7 potential for high margins, in other words, the 

8 emerging lighting sectors. So this fluorescent 

9 rulemaking, I don’t think, should have a big impact 

10 on small manufacturers except to shift the market 

11 even quicker towards the emerging light sources. 

12 That’s my first comment.

13 Second comment has to do with the scenario 

14 that you considered for eliminating a product 

15 category and therefore squeezing margins. When you 

16 eliminate a product category, essentially you leave 

17 the manufacturers with no choice but to compete on 

18 the basis of price and by definition, that is a 

19 commodity. And so it will squeeze the margins. 

20 But the scenario that you did not consider 

21 was alluded to by Bob earlier, which is that 

22 manufacturers won’t rest without an ability to 

23 distinguish and will start to promote dimming 

24 ballasts quite heavily, and that will be the new 

25 basis on which to compete, and there will be a shift 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

207

1 in the market from fixed light output to dimming 

2 ballasts which aren’t regulated. Thank you.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Bob.

4 MR. ERHARDT: Just one comment on that. 

5 While the commodities market maybe does not have a 

6 strong presence with small manufacturers, some of 

7 the discussions we’ve had in NEMA are that for sign 

8 ballasts there are a number of boutique ballast 

9 shops, and we don’t even know how to contact them or 

10 we hope that you have, because we have seen no 

11 representation from them. So if you’re talking 

12 about some of the smaller sign ballast 

13 manufacturers, they could be completely blindsided 

14 by this and if you’re going to ask them to go from 

15 electromagnetic design to an electronic one, I think 

16 they’re just going to have to source that from 

17 somewhere else, they won’t be able to produce that 

18 by themselves.

19 I don’t know what direction the industry

20 will take if you suddenly outlaw our largest product 

21 lines right now. It’s going to be -- there’s going 

22 to be -- I will say there’s going to be quite a bit 

23 of upheaval in the marketplace, a lot of 

24 uncertainty, and it’s not clear where the industry 

25 is going to go.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

208

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Andrew deLaski.

2 MR. DeLASKI: Just a couple of comments on 

3 this and I, having been involved in a number of 

4 these dockets over a lot of years, I think that the 

5 dynamic that we see is, you know, you’ve had a 

6 standard that creates, as alluded to, tremendous 

7 pressure to find methods to distinguish products. 

8 There’s incredible, powerful market drivers behind 

9 that so-called shift scenario.

10 The discussion of the dimming ballast that 

11 Bob and Rob have, I think is a case in point and as 

12 is the discussion of LED technology in general, that 

13 the standard will assuredly drive manufacturers to 

14 develop new products that help them to maintain high 

15 margins. And there’ll be incredible innovations 

16 along those lines. Exactly what it is over a 30 

17 year analysis period, we can’t predict.

18 I have a few points, Bob, so -- the 

19 dimming ballast is certainly one of those, LEDs, and 

20 I think that the manufacturers, you know, they look 

21 for multiple planes on which to compete, not just 

22 the plane of the ballast efficiency. So it’s not 

23 just about efficiency, it’s about the multiple 

24 planes around which they offer amenity and value to 

25 their customers. So I think the shift scenario is 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

209

1 the one that we have seen in multiple dockets to be 

2 the one that is the more likely.

3 The other point -- this is again a point 

4 that has come up in multiple dockets -- is that 

5 these are not just manufacturers of ballasts. My 

6 understanding, and this is a question for the 

7 Department, is that you’ve drawn a box around the 

8 ballast business, so that loss in value that you 

9 estimate is the loss in the value of the ballast 

10 business. Is that a correct --

11 MS. POTOCKI: Correct. It is -- we’re 

12 looking at the value of the ballast industry, not of 

13 a particular manufacturer who, to your point, may 

14 make LEDs.

15 MR. DeLASKI: Right. So to the extent 

16 that a standard drives manufacturers or drives the 

17 market towards other products that these same 

18 manufacturers make perhaps at a higher margin --

19 MS. POTOCKI: In this analysis we don’t 

20 assume that standards drive products more quickly. 

21 We assume that it’s a base case issue, and so those 

22 emerging technologies are being purchased regardless 

23 of standards.

24 MR. DeLASKI: All right. So then in the 

25 shift scenario -- in the shift scenario, the market 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

210

1 is moving -- your -- the market is moving towards 

2 more efficient technologies, but there’s no 

3 variation depending on whether or not there’s a 

4 standard?

5 MR. CARMICHAEL: This is Rob Carmichael of 

6 Navigant. So two separate issues. The shift 

7 scenario that you’re discussing is what -- which --

8 consumers that are already above the baseline, how 

9 do they react? It’s not about a shift to a 

10 different emerging technology. So that issue is 

11 taken up in the two base case scenarios that Grant 

12 and Bob spoke about earlier, the emerging 

13 technologies versus the existing technologies. So 

14 in the emerging technologies base case scenario, we 

15 assume that LEDs will penetrate what would have been 

16 lacking those technologies, would have been a normal 

17 course for fixed output ballasts. So we take that 

18 into account in the base case, so there’s a lower 

19 base case value because we’re only looking at the 

20 ballast to your box issue, you know, where do we 

21 draw that box, and that’s something that we’ve 

22 obviously talked about at many of these rulemakings.

23 But what we’re trying to do with utilizing 

24 the existing technologies and the emerging 

25 technologies base case scenarios, is set up a bound 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

211

1 of where the ballast market could be, just those 

2 shipments.

3 MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. That helps, thanks.

4 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, I’d like to make some 

5 comments here. Number one, when you talk about 

6 losing our differentiation or products, that’s what 

7 would occur if you took our proposal that eliminates 

8 everything except our best products. You’re not

9 doing that. You’re proposing something that 

10 eliminates even our best products. That leaves us 

11 with this $300 million dollar shortfall and guess 

12 what, that $300 million dollar shortfall is going to 

13 keep us from investing in these new technologies. 

14 That’s the point we’ve been trying to make. It’s 

15 not going to be that suddenly because these are 

16 going to be so expensive because we’ve spent all 

17 this money redesigning these products that we’re 

18 suddenly going to be selling things that we make 

19 more money with; it’s that we’re going to have to 

20 spend all this money redesigning these products, and 

21 we won’t have the new technologies to make more 

22 money with.

23 If you let us keep our high performance 

24 product lines and just eliminate everything 

25 underneath it, then you’re going to get rid of our 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

212

1 product differentiation, you’re going to force us 

2 into this situation where yes, we are going to start 

3 naming -- we’re going to get our product 

4 differentiation from solid state lighting and 

5 controls and otherwise. But if we have to spend 

6 this $300 million dollars that you’re showing just 

7 to keep ourselves in the market, that’s not going to 

8 be the output. 

9 And that’s what we’re concerned about. 

10 That’s exactly what we’re talking about. We’re 

11 working on many initiatives. As a matter of fact, 

12 I’ve had to skip meetings on net zero energy 

13 buildings discussions for California -- we’ve put 

14 that on hold so that we can deal with this 

15 rulemaking. Now there’s an example of work we would 

16 rather be doing, than this business of trying to

17 save two percent. We’re trying to protect our 

18 market. 

19 For my company, this product line is about 

20 45 percent of our sales. This is -- we can’t ignore 

21 this. We can’t say, oh, we’re just going to stop 

22 selling that, because we’ll be out of business. We 

23 won’t have any money, we’re going to close our 

24 factories and so we have to put the resources into 

25 this. And it’s going to come from somewhere else. 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

213

1 And it’s already having effect. I should be working 

2 on some stuff for California right now, but for the

3 next month, this is all I’m going to work on.

4 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie Stephens.

5 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. Before I 

6 render any judgments about what you’ve done, I want 

7 to talk about something you didn’t talk about. I 

8 have some questions. I read page 2136 in the NOPR 

9 about four times, and I still can’t understand how 

10 you did your analysis and how you assigned costs to 

11 the manufacturers for these various scenarios. And 

12 what I want to do is I want to tell you what I think 

13 I understand, and I want you to tell me where I blew 

14 it. Okay. 

15 MS. POTOCKI: What section of the NOPR is 

16 page 2136?

17 MR. STEPHENS: This is a product and 

18 capital conversion cost. So if I read this 

19 correctly, you kind of went through the SKU list, if 

20 you will, for the manufacturer and when you found 

21 one that didn’t meet the candidate standard level, 

22 depending on which one you’re analyzing, you 

23 assigned engineering development and testing cost to 

24 that, because elsewhere you described the fact that 

25 most manufacturers agreed that the capital costs of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

214

1 upgrading production volumes was not large compared 

2 to the engineering and development and testing 

3 costs. 

4 So I’m looking at this, and so for each 

5 SKU that did not meet the candidate standard level, 

6 you assigned cost to that.

7 MS. POTOCKI: Correct.

8 MR. STEPHENS: Okay. So -- and so when I 

9 add those all up I get a sum for a manufacturer’s 

10 product line at that candidate standard level. I’m 

11 trying to understand why, if you’re a manufacturer, 

12 you would take a product that is at the bottom of 

13 the line and you’d invest money to redesign the 

14 product and test it and develop it to bring it up to 

15 the candidate standard level, when you already make 

16 one that meets the candidate standard level?

17 MS. POTOCKI: I can understand that point.

18 MR. STEPHENS: So am I correct and that’s 

19 how you did it? You looked at the SKUs, 

20 essentially, and assigned engineering and 

21 development and testing cost to each one that didn’t 

22 meet this candidate standard level in order to get 

23 it up to the candidate standard level?

24 MS. POTOCKI: Correct. When we analyzed 

25 conversion costs, we assume that manufacturers want 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

215

1 to kind of maintain the same product offerings in 

2 the standards case as in the base case. We 

3 understand that to your point they may choose a 

4 different path and just focus on the products that 

5 already meet the potential standard levels, but it’s 

6 not immediately clear that perhaps that lower 

7 efficiency product may exist for a particular reason 

8 and they would need to design a product of that 

9 particular type.

10 MR. STEPHENS: Okay, I --

11 MS. POTOCKI: To Bob’s -- can you respond 

12 to that?

13 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, you can’t expect us to 

14 have incomplete product lines. Our customers 

15 require us to have a full product line. You can’t 

16 just say, oh, I’m going to sell two lamp ballasts 

17 and three lamp ballasts, and go buy your four lamp 

18 ballasts from somebody else. You don’t have 

19 customers -- our customers buy a complete suite of 

20 products and they bid on a complete suite of 

21 products and they look for suppliers that can offer 

22 a complete product line. We have -- especially in 

23 this commodity market, this is the bread and butter 

24 market. We have to offer a complete product line.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Jeff.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

216

1 MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon. I’ll add that 

2 typically the manufacturers’ premium product lines 

3 with the higher efficiencies also incorporate other 

4 features, such as strike control, UL type CC, 

5 thermal foldback, several other features that also 

6 add cost. So that may not be applicable to the OEM 

7 channel, the fixture channel for every opportunity. 

8 So though the manufacturer may have a higher grade 

9 product, it would still require us to have an OEM 

10 type product that strips out with the retrofit type 

11 features. So therefore, we would need to redesign.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie.

13 MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, I guess that’s not my 

14 understanding of how they did this. I wasn’t -- I 

15 assume that every manufacturer would want to make at 

16 least one product that met the standard across the 

17 product line. It’s also my understanding that in 

18 many product lines, they make a product already that 

19 meets the standard. Is that not true?

20 MS. POTOCKI: I think Rob may have --

21 MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, I agree that there 

22 are some product lines that don’t, but --

23 MR. ERHARDT: Five percent of our 

24 products. 

25 MR. STEPHENS: Okay. I’m not talking 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

217

1 about the absolute numbers here, I’m talking about 

2 methodology. So what I’m trying to get at here is 

3 the methodology of taking every SKU, even if it’s 

4 one of say three ballasts that are designed for a 

5 particular application --

6 MS. POTOCKI: To simplify, we did 

7 differentiate slightly between SKUs which may just 

8 have slight variations and then general models.

9 MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, I understand that.

10 MR. CARMICHAEL: So, Rob Carmichael, 

11 Navigant. So I think getting at your question is 

12 the fact that yes, they may have a product that 

13 maybe it’s the two foot, or four foot two lamp core 

14 product that meets the standard, but there’s all 

15 these variations off of that one line that they 

16 don’t have products necessarily, so they have to 

17 redesign to bring those up to that next level. And 

18 that’s where we’re counting those conversion costs 

19 per model, if you will. Does that make any more 

20 sense?

21 MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, I’m just trying to 

22 understand if you are -- it sounded to me when I 

23 read this that you were just taking any ballast, any 

24 ballast that didn’t meet whatever the candidate 

25 standard level was, that you would assign R&D and 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

218

1 testing cost to it.

2 MR. CARMICHAEL: Maybe that could be 

3 clearer. Point taken. But no, it’s not every 

4 single possible SKU. There are some costs -- you do 

5 have to -- there are some changes you’d have to 

6 make, we heard from manufacturers for the product 

7 lines, so you have to certify them with UL, for 

8 instance, and there are costs associated with those. 

9 But it’s not that there’s -- every single different 

10 SKU has a specific cost.

11 MS. GUPTA: Yeah, this is Mimi Gupta. I 

12 think the key point here is that MIA does account 

13 for products that we believe meet the standard level 

14 already. So if there’s a two lamp four foot medium 

15 bi-pin normal ballast factor ballast that meets the 

16 proposed standard levels, there aren’t product 

17 conversion costs assigned to that particular 

18 ballast, but maybe that manufacturer does not sell a 

19 one lamp version, in which case product conversion 

20 costs are assigned to that ballast type.

21 MR. STEPHENS: Okay. If that’s what 

22 you’re doing then I’m pretty comfortable with the 

23 methodology, but that’s not how it reads in the 

24 NOPR.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional comments 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

219

1 on this? Go ahead.

2 MS. POTOCKI: On to the LCC.

3 LCC Subgroup Analysis

4 MR. LINGARD: This is Bob Lingard, PNNL. 

5 I admire your stamina. Here we are, okay, just 

6 shortly after three. I’m going to speak about 

7 several of the NOPR analyses that are downstream 

8 from the National Impact Analysis, and the results 

9 are a function of those energy savings and economic 

10 savings we see from the National Impact Analysis. 

11 The LCC subgroup analysis is very similar 

12 to the main LCC analysis except we’ve identified 

13 several potentially adversely affected subgroups and 

14 we look to the 2009 lamps rules and inspiration for 

15 potentially affected subgroups, as we’re sharing 

16 lighting systems here. These included low income 

17 consumers, institutions of religious worship, and 

18 institutions that serve low income populations such 

19 as non-profits.

20 As Grant discussed in the main LCC 

21 results, the life cycle cost savings were quite 

22 robust at TSL-3, and as you might expect, when we 

23 varied some of the inputs in the main LCC analysis, 

24 we saw that those positive LCC savings were 

25 typically preserved, and that was also the case in 

26 the LCC subgroup analysis. 

27 For low income consumers we took a look at 

28 the residential energy consumption survey and 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

220

1 extracted electricity rates from that data, which, 

2 based on that data, we found we’re fractionally --

3 very fractionally higher than that paid by the 

4 average population. And as a result that small 

5 difference in electricity price did not have a 

6 negative impact on our LCC results, so we did not 

7 see a negative impact for that group.

8 For institutions of religious worship, we 

9 modified the operating hours from the average that 

10 we would expect to see in the commercial sector, so 

11 instead of approximately 3900 hours, we modeled 

12 approximately 2200 hours, and even with this 

13 reduced operating schedule, the LCC savings for the 

14 commercial ballast designs were preserved.

15 Finally, for non-profits, institutions 

16 serving low income populations, we varied the 

17 interest rate in this case, used an interest rate of 

18 10.7 percent, which was based on the scenario used 

19 in the lamps rule to model one of these non-profits, 

20 not having access -- perhaps not having access to 

21 credit and other resources that larger organizations 

22 would, and would be facing a higher interest rate, 

23 in this case, 10.7 percent. Even with that input 

24 varied, the LCC savings were preserved.

25 So to sum it up, as we did it in the main 

26 LCC analysis, in our variability study, we varied 

27 inputs here, but the results of the subgroup 

28 analysis were consistent with the main LCC analysis 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

221

1 with no negative impacts to report.

2 Utility Impact Analysis

3 The Utility Impact Analysis -- this one is 

4 pretty intuitive. With increased efficiency in our 

5 affected products, you would expect to see a reduced 

6 electricity demand. This is using the National 

7 Energy Modeling System, the BT version. This is the 

8 kind of model that AEO uses in their energy 

9 projections. Using this model, based on the energy 

10 savings calculated in the National Impact Analysis, 

11 these are the estimated reductions in electric 

12 generating capacity we saw for the different trial 

13 standard levels, ranging here from TSL-1 to 3, and 

14 these generation reductions in turn, feed other 

15 downstream analysis as I’ll touch on. Again, 

16 nothing dramatic to report here.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Tom Eckman.

18 MR. ECKMAN: One more time into the fray. 

19 Did you happen to monetize how much savings there 

20 would be by avoiding this generation?

21 MR. LINGARD: I’ll defer to my ethereal 

22 colleague, Natasha Collins.

23 MR. ECKMAN: Forty-seven gigawatts is lots 

24 of generating costs.

25 MS. COLLINS: Yes, this is Natasha 

26 Collins. This has not been monetized. This is just 

27 physical values. We did monetize the quantities of 

28 CO2 avoided, but not this.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

222

1 MR. ECKMAN: I would recommend that that 

2 be done. Those are national benefits that we don’t 

3 have to pay for if they pass through.

4 MS. KAARSBERG: Could I ask a quick 

5 clarification?

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Tina, yes.

7 MS. KAARSBERG: You mean like you want us 

8 to put in the dollars per kilowatt, some kind of 

9 average dollars per kilowatt for this time period --

10 MR. ECKMAN: Yeah, I mean, just the cost 

11 of operation, thousand dollars --

12 MS. KAARSBERG: Right, right. Okay. 

13 MR. BROOKMAN: Did you hear that on the 

14 record? Capital cost of generation.

15 MR. ECKMAN: At least -- well, we’re 

16 paying for the fuel cost as we use these kilowatt

17 hours, but --

18 MS. KAARSBERG: As well, yes.

19 MR. ECKMAN: As well -- capital and fuel, 

20 life cycle cost of these things, some of which are 

21 recovered in rates which are captured in life cycle 

22 cost savings, but these are marginal costs, and 

23 rates are average costs, most of the country, so 

24 we’re not really capturing a portion of the cost 

25 that’s being paid for here.

26 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you.

27 MR. LINGARD: Did I have any other comment 

28 from Natasha or Grant? I know they’ve worked with 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

223

1 these analyses for other rulemaking. Okay. 

2 MS. COLLINS: No comment.

3 Employment Impact Analysis

4 MR. LINGARD: The employment analysis 

5 looks at the indirect effects on national employment 

6 that higher efficiency products will have. This 

7 uses the IMSET, Model of the IMSET, IMpact of Sector 

8 Energy Technologies model, looking at essentially 

9 product costs and energy, and modeling the economic 

10 impacts of how, for example, monetary savings might 

11 be spent elsewhere in the economy. I quickly get 

12 over my head in the details of this model, but I do 

13 have my colleague, Grant Williams, here if we have 

14 any questions.

15 MR. ERHARDT: This may be for my personal 

16 edification, but I’m a little curious in the 

17 methodology behind this in terms of how more savings 

18 contributes to jobs. It’s been described to me by 

19 others before -- by consumers saving money, they’re 

20 going to go to Chili’s more frequently, so Chili is 

21 going to hire more John Doe’s to be waiters. I’m 

22 curious how we come to this assumption, because it 

23 seems very round about. And maybe that’s been 

24 explained to me wrong in the past, so that’s why I’m 

25 asking as well.

26 MR. WILLIAMS: This is Grant Williams. 

27 Yeah, IMSET model takes a look at the savings in 

28 terms of energy savings and also differences in 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

224

1 installed costs between the products and it makes 

2 some assumptions about where that money could go, so 

3 exactly what you’re saying. I don’t have the 

4 specifics of it in front of me, but if you’d like to 

5 file a comment, I’ll be happy to provide you the 

6 answer. It’s a pretty complicated model.

7 DR. KAARSBERG: Grant, if I could get a 

8 clarification. Isn't it true that the sort of 

9 input-output matrix, input-output data for the IMSET

10 model is not -- comes not from a bunch of 

11 assumptions, but from actual measurements, or data 

12 of how jobs flow with the economy? That was my 

13 understanding.

14 MR. WILLIAMS: Right, but the model takes 

15 inputs from both the National Impacts Analysis and 

16 also takes some inputs from a few other data 

17 sources. I don’t have those in front of me right 

18 now, but like I said, I’d be happy to answer in 

19 detail in a comment.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Bob.

21 MR. ERHARDT: Does it also take into 

22 account the manufacturer impact? If you’re taking 

23 $300 million dollars from us, it might lose a few 

24 jobs.

25 MR. BROOKMAN: You want to answer that?

26 MS. COLLINS: Natasha Collins. I think 

27 that this is in addition to manufacturer impact.

28 MR. WILLIAMS: This is net.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

225

1 MR. BROOKMAN: Tom Eckman, yes. 

2 MR. ECKMAN: To shed a little light on it. 

3 If we go back to the prior slide. Every analysis 

4 I’ve seen says that investments in electric 

5 generation sector produces fewer jobs for dollar 

6 investment than any other sector of the economy 

7 except for defense. Because it’s capital intensive, 

8 it’s not job intensive. Build a lot of plant, a lot 

9 of wire, but not a lot of jobs. And so if we don’t 

10 invest in these plants, instead invest in saving 

11 energy which gives the consumer more discretionary 

12 income, wherever they spend it, we’re going to have 

13 more jobs in the economy than spending it on 

14 generation. That’s the simple principle.

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Robert. 

16 Okay. Andrew.

17 MR. DeLASKI: I’m okay. That was cogent.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, other than -- yes, 

19 Cheryl.

20 MS. ENGLISH: I just have a question. So 

21 how many jobs were created from the previous 

22 fluorescent ballast rulemaking?

23 MS. COLLINS: This is Natasha Collins. I 

24 don’t have that number available right now, but I 

25 don’t know it was part of the required analysis at 

26 the time.

27 MS. ENGLISH: So I’ll just go on record. 

28 We did not feel the increase of those jobs.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

226

1 MR. DeLASKI: Cheryl, ACEEE and .. did a 

2 report --

3 MS. COLLINS: I certainly wouldn’t say 

4 that. 

5 MR. DeLASKI: ... and we did attempt to look 

6 at the history of the US appliance industry program, 

7 and you make a good point, that any one individual 

8 standard may have a relatively small impact on US 

9 employment. But the fact that the US economy is 

10 much more efficient today because of a whole host of 

11 standards that DOE has established, I think it’s --

12 there’s the IMSET model, there’s many input-output 

13 models as time references, that demonstrates that by 

14 being more efficient -- all because I think Bob 

15 describes, for all the efforts that the lighting 

16 industry has made to make it more efficient, does 

17 create employment in the economy at large over time, 

18 not just any individual action, but being more 

19 efficient moves investment out of power plants and 

20 fuel, away from coal mining and building power 

21 plants and into lighting retrofits and into doing 

22 things that actually create more employment. It’s 

23 pretty well established through lots of different 

24 models.

25 MS. ENGLISH: This is Cheryl. Does the 

26 study that you’re referencing look at the jobs by 

27 sector, specifically what the impact on 

28 manufacturers are with these regulations?
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

227

1 MR. DeLASKI: This is an input-output 

2 model of the US economy, so not a --

3 MS. ENGLISH: So there are a whole lot of 

4 variables in that.

5 MR. DeLASKI: Absolutely. ... model, the 

6 impact on acuity --

7 MS. ENGLISH: To say that’s directly as a 

8 function of --

9 MR. DeLASKI: No, this is not trying to --

10 this is not manufacture impacts, this is economy11 wide impacts.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Tina, you had a comment?

13 DR. KAARSBERG: Just a little tidbit. I 

14 actually worked with the IMSET model quite a bit in 

15 the past, in previous lives, and my memory is that 

16 it’s more than 100 different energy sectors are -- I 

17 mean not energy, more than 100 different sectors, 

18 period.

19 MR. BROOKMAN: Employment sectors.

20 DR. KAARSBERG: Yeah, employment sectors. 

21 You know everything from fast food joints and 

22 whatever, window washing, it has everything in 

23 there, and I think it might be possible -- I don’t 

24 see why it wouldn’t be possible, based on my 

25 understanding, to look at specific sectors and ups 

26 and downs, if the data -- if there’s enough data.

27 And then to get back to the question 

28 about, you know, what does it do in terms of showing 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

228

1 job losses. You feed it -- I view these models as a 

2 way to translate -- you guys feel free to interrupt 

3 me if I’m wrong -- but I view them as a way to 

4 translate your energy savings and your cost savings 

5 into job and employment numbers by sector. That’s 

6 basically what this thing does, and the factors that 

7 you use to make these changes are all based on 

8 actual measured data. They get updated, I don’t 

9 know, maybe once every seven or eight years. So 

10 it’s not really a model, it’s really a conversion 

11 calculator.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: I see Grant wants to add on 

13 there.

14 MR. WILLIAMS: I’ve never seen the 

15 incredulous looks about these job numbers. I’d just 

16 like to ask for some comments, if there’s a way we 

17 can present this information perhaps more granularly 

18 or -- that would -- maybe you guys could appreciate, 

19 or would be more --

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie.

21 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. If I’m 

22 not mistaken, the model doesn’t attempt to reflect 

23 reality in terms of where the jobs are created 

24 either, otherwise it would have to take into account 

25 the last 20 years of jobs being off-shored to 

26 various places. So I’m not sure the model 

27 distinguishes where those jobs were created. So I 

28 don’t think you can just look at your own reality 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

229

1 and try to derive it out of the model. Some of 

2 these jobs, quite frankly, are created in China. 

3 But I think if you do an honest job of it, 

4 you can look at your own economy and trace what jobs 

5 are created back into our own economy, like energy 

6 efficiency, which many jobs cannot be off-shored.

7 MR. DeLASKI: Just for the record, I don’t 

8 believe it’s a model of the world economy. I 

9 believe it’s a model of the US economy, so --

10 MR. NEUMANN: But am I understanding 

11 correctly that --

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Justin, go ahead.

13 MR. NEUMANN: -- DOE standards are sending 

14 jobs to China? Was that just said?

15 MR. STEPHENS: I’m saying that if the jobs 

16 aren’t showing up in your own factory, they might 

17 not have anything to do with DOE’s standards.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So I think we’re 

19 finished with employment analysis. Let’s move on to 

20 environmental analysis.

21 Environmental Impact Analysis

22 MR. LINGARD: To wrap up our discussion of 

23 the NOPR analyses, Environmental Impact Analyses. 

24 In its original form we started off with estimates 

25 of emission reductions and in recent rulemakings 

26 we’re now monetizing the benefits of these emission 

27 reductions. What you see here on this slide are the 

28 air pollutant emission reductions based -- resulting 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

230

1 from reduced energy demand for the trial standard 

2 levels. What the NOPR text and the TSD go into more 

3 detail is assigning monetary benefits to these 

4 emission reductions and combining these with the 

5 traditional NIA results.

6 That would include the central cost of 

7 carbon values which have flowed out of an 

8 interagency working group that is indeed a process 

9 in progress, as well as dollar values for nitrogen 

10 oxides. Again, this is based on the National Energy 

11 Modeling System, the NEMS model. 

12 But again, the basic message here is as 

13 you would expect with reduced energy demand, with 

14 reduced electrical generation you’ll see reduced air 

15 pollutant emissions. And I’m sure Natasha would be 

16 happy to elaborate if anybody has questions.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: Robert.

18 MR. NACHTRIEB: Rob Nachtrieb. I still 

19 have to say that’s not a lot of CO2 reduction. We 

20 emit trillions of metric tons a year now, right? 

21 Okay. So this is over -- over 30 years this is not 

22 a lot of reduction, I’ll just point out.

23 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 

24 MS. COLLINS: That point is well taken, 

25 and some of those reductions are more difficult to 

26 explain than others because this model is complex, 

27 and sometimes it’s not coal generation that’s 

28 reduced which has most CO2 emissions, but other 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

231

1 types of generation are reduced. That’s what we 

2 have this time wasn’t a lot of coal generation that 

3 was reduced. It’s hard to explain why the model 

4 does what it does. It’s very complex, but the 

5 potential for coal reduction is still big.

6 MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie.

7 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. I just 

8 observe that I agree that 14 million metric tons is 

9 not very much, but 120 million metric tons is 

10 actually quite a lot, compared to the total. I mean 

11 for one technology shift.

12 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Let’s do that last 

13 slide.

14 MR. WILLIAMS: At this point, I think I 

15 turn over the floor to Tina Kaarsberg. Tina.

16 DR. KAARSBERG: I’ll bring my prop.

17 MR. BROOKMAN: And following this last 

18 slide that shows a proposed energy conservation 

19 standards at TSL-3, is an opportunity for anybody 

20 that wishes to do so to make closing remarks.

21 Proposed Standard

22 DR. KAARSBERG: Okay. Well, I guess the 

23 fact that I’m up here means that we’re just about 

24 done with our presentation. As Doug just said, 

25 we’re quite eager to get more if you have more. But 

26 this slide here is just once again showing the 

27 equation and all the different characteristics of 

28 the various product classes, and this kind of sums 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

232

1 it up. This is the work product that everyone 

2 worked on.

3 We are going to be talking with you about 

4 this. We are very, very -- very, very anxious to 

5 get the NEMA data that you have put together to date 

6 and also anything that you would be able to put 

7 together between now and when it is conceivable that 

8 we can be able to use it.

9 For our part, there’s three things I 

10 believe we promised to get you up on the web site as 

11 soon as possible. I believe, but I’m not positive 

12 that all of these items will be going up on our DOE 

13 website, but there is a possibility that some or all 

14 of it will go up on the regulations.gov site that 

15 has the docket. And I tried it out the other day, 

16 and I found out that there’s some certain tricks you 

17 need to know in order to be able to navigate 

18 effectively. And so I brought this nifty handout. 

19 I only made ten copies, but if any of you are 

20 interested in learning some tips on how to navigate 

21 our docket page, let me know. 

22 But I will be sending you an e-mail to all 

23 the people who are on the list that went around --

24 and if for some reason you do not appear on the 

25 list, or there’s other people that you want, let me 

26 or Brenda or both of us know. If you already get 

27 the Lighting Blast, you’ll also get the e-mail of 

28 the URL. We hope to do this, really, in the next 24 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

233

1 hours. So it’ll be -- we’re going to put up, 

2 especially for some of our advocacy folks wanted to 

3 see the NEMA presentation, we’re going to put that 

4 up. We’re going to put up Robert van Buskirk’s 

5 slide with the equation and showing the slides --

6 showing all the NEMA data. And then finally we’re 

7 going to put up all of the test data in addition to 

8 the Appendix C5 data --

9 MR. BROOKMAN: LRC.

10 DR. KAARSBERG: Yeah, we’re going to put 

11 that all up, and we’re going to try as much as 

12 possible to make it user friendly, just click here 

13 and boom, here it is, but since we also want to get 

14 it out there as quickly as possible, it may not be 

15 quite so user friendly.

16 Okay. Other points. I do like this slide 

17 because it shows you some of how this initial factor 

18 is very similar for a number of these. But I 

19 believe that Robert’s proposed thing has only one 

20 factor that gets fit, and I think that may or may --

21 no? Which other one? A gets fit? I thought -- oh, 

22 A and B. Okay. I thought B was something that we 

23 just set and then NEMA -- okay. I’ll believe that, 

24 whatever.

25 But, anyway, finally, this is our reminder 

26 about all the different ways you can communicate

27 with us, especially you, NEMA, you can always just 

28 e-mail us, or say hi, or, you know, I’ll come over 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

234

1 personally and pick up, bring my little USB drive 

2 over to get the data. We’re very, very interested 

3 in this. 

4 I want to remind you that the deadline for 

5 comments is on a Friday, and since it is a Friday, 

6 the team asked me to ask you to please, please, 

7 please, please get it in by five o’clock. 

8 Let’s see -- any other items. Okay. I 

9 think that’s it for us, but I just again would like 

10 to thank you.

11 MR. BROOKMAN: We’ll take final comments.

12 DR. KAARSBERG: And we will be working 

13 with you. So anyway, any final comments before you 

14 head for the hills. 

15 MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Jeff.

16 Final Comments

17 MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon, speaking on 

18 behalf of GE. I have two comments and one question 

19 that weren’t covered by the issues that I wanted to 

20 raise. Number one, the programmed start readings 

21 were purely based upon, you can see in the data, on 

22 technology of filament cut out technology, and that 

23 assumes that you can have filament cut out 

24 technology in all the wattage ranges, when in fact, 

25 there are ballasts that operate below ANSI levels 

26 for T8 and T12 lamps and below IEC levels that 

27 require full filament heating to maintain lamp life.

28 Given that, and those are still in the 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

235

1 intent of saving energy for the nation, I would 

2 request that -- ask the DOE to consider that those 

3 be included in the same category as dimming ballasts 

4 that require full filament heating and therefore 

5 cannot meet the efficiency standards that were 

6 given. Point number one.

7 Point number two. I found it not clear on 

8 the lamp that should be used in the testing of a 

9 ballast. I believe we’re on an assumption of what 

10 are the primary lamps that can be used for testing, 

11 but I don’t think it spells out specifically the 

12 lamp that could be used. And of course, as the load 

13 adjusts on the ballast, the efficiency can adjust 

14 too. So if the load of the lamp, reduced wattage 

15 lamp is used, the efficiency cannot be as good as a 

16 higher wattage lamp. For example, an F-32, you 

17 could use an F-40 T8 lamp, because it is rated to 

18 rate the ballast. So I think the DOE should 

19 consider that and clarify that rule.

20 The third point is a question for the DOE 

21 and Navigant, and that is the intent, as with this, 

22 we will all be required to publish BLE numbers, I 

23 assume, for each one of our ballasts. It is unclear 

24 so far whether that should be directly correlated 

25 back to the system watts in the ballast factor of 

26 that ballast. There’s a separate test for 

27 photometry to do that, separate test results. The 

28 question to the DOE is will there be transfer 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

236

1 functions that correlate back from that BLE back to 

2 a system watts number, and back to -- from that lamp 

3 arc current back to a ballast factor. Otherwise, 

4 those numbers may stay the same and we may be 

5 publishing just new numbers on BLE that may not be 

6 quite relevant to someone that’s trying to calculate 

7 energy savings for a particular retrofit based on 

8 the lumens and the system watts.

9 MS. GUPTA: This is Mimi Gupta. Just to

10 get a bit of a clarification on that conversion 

11 factor that you’re talking, from BLE back to ballast 

12 factor and input power. Are you talking about for 

13 the purposes of your catalogs and marketing?

14 MR. PLASKON: That's correct.

15 MS. GUPTA: Is -- I guess we would request 

16 comment on whether you think that would be helpful 

17 for DOE to do that. I don’t think it’s required for 

18 the actual compliance for these products.

19 MR. PLASKON: At this point, it’s a 

20 question, so I think -- for you and Navigant, but 

21 it’s not connected in your intent today. I think 

22 we’ll provide comments through NEMA on that before 

23 we comment.

24 MS. GUPTA: And then with regard to the 

25 lamps that require full filament heating, are those 

26 lamps marketed as such?

27 MR. PLASKON: Not lamps, but ballasts. So 

28 ballasts that operate below minimum levels of ANSI 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

237

1 currents of the lamps. For example, the minimum of 

2 a F32 T8 lamp today is 155 milliamps. If you 

3 operate below that it requires full filament heating 

4 to comply with ANSI. Therefore, we would not be 

5 able to meet the BLE requirements for ballasts below 

6 that, although those ballasts do offer energy 

7 savings below what any ballast operating above that 

8 level could offer. These exist in both T5 and T8 

9 systems.

10 MS. GUPTA: Are those thresholds in a 

11 particular ANSI standard?

12 MR. PLASKON: Correct.

13 MS. GUPTA: And which one?

14 MR. THOMAS: I think it’s -- Ed Thomas --

15 I think it’s the C78.81.

16 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you for that. 

17 Bob.

18 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, quick comment on that, 

19 and in particular interest we talked about the 

20 residential ballasts and this is exactly what you 

21 ran up against with the residential ballast. If you 

22 wanted to have an electronic instant start, you had 

23 to have higher power. If you can run at a -- if 

24 you’re putting filament heating on it, you can run 

25 at a lower power, but with filament heating you 

26 won’t meet the efficiency spec. So there’s a Catch27 22 for you.

28 Just in general, contrary to appearances, 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

238

1 I am appreciative of the opportunity to discuss with 

2 the DOE and I am pleased to see the proposal for 

3 possibly a new formula in coming up with a proposal 

4 that we can both agree on, and I look forward to 

5 working with you over the next couple weeks to try 

6 to come together on a solution.

7 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you very much. Final 

8 comments?

9 MS. GUPTA: Doug, could I just ask one 

10 more question?

11 MR. BROOKMAN: Sure.

12 MS. GUPTA: And I didn’t get a chance to 

13 ask this before, but in regard to the N -- what is 

14 it -- the N-can, F-can, and the A-can -- I don’t 

15 remember seeing this in the NEMA presentation, but 

16 in your written comments if you could please provide 

17 what you would estimate the efficiency difference 

18 between the A-can and the N-can ballasts would be, 

19 that would be very helpful.

20 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So with that -- yes, 

21 Mike.

22 MR. McGARAGHAN: Mike McGaraghan with 

23 California Utilities. Just wanted to echo Bob’s 

24 comments that we appreciate the analysis that’s been 

25 done and the opportunity to come and comment on it. 

26 Overall, thought it was a very strong analysis and 

27 also appreciate NEMA bringing the presentation and 

28 the test data. Clearly we would not be supportive 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

239

1 of a standard that actually cuts out as many 

2 products from the market as NEMA’s data showed. But 

3 based on the testing results that DOE got, we’re 

4 very supportive of the standard levels that have 

5 been proposed, despite the fact that there are, you 

6 know, much greater efficiency gains to be had from 

7 controls and LEDs. Those are emerging technologies 

8 and they are not minimum efficiency standards, so

9 they’re not across the board. So I don’t think we 

10 have the luxury, necessarily, to pick and choose our 

11 energy savings opportunities at this point. I think 

12 that we need to pursue all of them and I think that 

13 going from baseline generic electronic ballasts to 

14 high efficiency ballasts across the country as a 

15 minimum performance standard is a huge opportunity, 

16 not just a watt or two, and we encourage DOE to stay 

17 that course. So thanks very much for having us.

18 MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Final comments? 

19 So then from my part I’ll just thank you all. I 

20 thought we had a really solid exchange here today. 

21 People were quite direct, which is always 

22 appreciated. I always appreciate and the Department 

23 always appreciates the insight they gain from this, 

24 lots of flexibility in the mix as well. My thanks, 

25 and I’ll turn it back to Tina for her final thanks.

26 DR. KAARSBERG: Okay. Well, I guess I 

27 want to give you final thanks, and I agree, we’ve 

28 got a lot of work to do. Everyone get a lot of 
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

240

1 sleep tonight, maybe your last chance. No, 

2 seriously, we really appreciate everyone. We 

3 appreciate your comments. We appreciate your 

4 appreciation, and most of all we appreciate what you 

5 will be doing in the next two weeks. Thank you very 

6 much.

7 (Whereupon, at 3:36 p.m., the meeting in 

8 the above captioned matter was adjourned.) 

9

10

11

REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the attached proceedings 

before:

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

In the Matter of:

 

FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLAST

ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS

NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING

 Were held as herein appears and that this is the 

original transcript thereof for the file of the 

Department, Commission, Board, Administrative Law 

Judge or the Agency.

Further, I am neither counsel for or related to 

any party to the above proceedings.
Executive Court Reporters

(301) 565-0064

241

Wendy Greene 

 Official Reporter

Dated: May 13, 2011