UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

**PUBLIC MEETING**

ON

**FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLAST ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARD**  **S NOTICE OF PROPOSED RULEMAKING** 

U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 Room 8 E

- 089

Tuesday May 10, 201 1

**Chair:**

Tina Kaarsberg D epartment of E nergy

**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’u i po Curry ICF International 1725 Eye Street NW Suite 1000 Washington, DC 20008

Andrew deLaski A ppliance S tandards A wareness P roject 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 30012Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 3

Bob Erhar d t 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 Lo w enberger American Council for an Energy

- Efficient Economy 529 14 th St. NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20045

Joanna Mauer Appliance Standards Awareness Project 529 14 th St. NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20045

Mike McGaraghan Energy Solutions 1810 Harrison Street Oakland, CA 94812

Robert Nachtrieb L utron Electronics 7200 Sutler Road Coopersburg, PA 18036

- 1299

Justin Neumann N ational E lectrical M anufacturers A ssociation 1300 North 17 th St., Suite 1752 Rosslyn, VA 22209

Joe Parisella Osram Sylvania 54 Cherry Hill Drive Danvers, MA 01923Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 4 Jeff rey Plaskon GE Lighting 1975 Noble Road Cleveland, OH 44112

Tom Poehlman Universal Lighting Technologies 1430 West Triana Highway Madison, A L 35756

Timothy Rasinski N ational I nstitute of S tandards and T echnology 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 20006Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 5

Matthew Walker Navigant Consulting 1801 K St. NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20006

Erin Poto c ki 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 Hus a in Navigant Consulting 1801 K St. NW, Suite 50 0 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 Washing t on, 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 20006Executive 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 5 th Ave, Suite 810 Portland, OR 97204

Grant Williams Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 902 Battelle Boulevard PO Box 999 Richland, WA 99353Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 7

**AGENDA**

**ITEM PAGE** 

Welcome, John Cymbalsky 8

Introductions 10

Agenda Review , Doug Brookman 1 2

Welcome, Tina Kaarsberg 15

Introduction, Overview and Statute Ali McDonald 18

Opening Statements 22

Market and Technology Assessment Ali McDonald 66

Engineering Analysis Matt hew 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 1 97

LCC Subgroup An a lyses Bob Lingard 219

Utility Impact Analysis Bob Lingard 221

Employment Impact Analysis Bob Lingard 223Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 8 Environmental Assessment Bob Lingard 231

Final Proposed Standard Tina Kaarsberg 233

Final Comments 236

Closing Remarks 242Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 9

P R O C E E D I N G S 1 2 MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s take our seats and 3

get started. Good morning everybody, and w elcome

. 4

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

on Energy Conservation Standards Notice of Proposed 6

Rulemaking for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts

. Today is 7

Tues day, May 10 th , here in the Forrestal B uilding , 8

Washington, DC. Welcome. G lad you could make it

. 9

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

remarks from John Cymbalsky. 11

**WELCOME** 12

MR. CYMBALSKY: Thanks, Doug. Welcome 13

everybody to the Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts public 14

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

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

through the slides today. We have an estimated 17

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

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

one year in buildings, residential and commercial 20

buildings. So I think this is a very significant 21

rule and I thank everybody for coming and paying 22

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

big energy savings rules. 24

I would also like to introduce Tina 25

Ka arsberg, who is the newest member of the appliance 26

standards program. She’s taking over most of the 27Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 10 lighting rules from Linda Graves who retired in 1

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

impressive to me, because physics in high school is 3

what scared me out of becoming an engineer. So I 4 slid down to an economist/statistician rung on the 5

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

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

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

one anoth er arguing whether or not Kyoto would 9

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

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

welcome everybody here and have a good meeting. I 12

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

very prod uctive, and everybody shares their views on 14

what we present today. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. It’s our 16

tradition to do introductions around the room. If 17

you’ d say your name and your organizational 18

affiliation . It also gives you a chance to test 19

your ab ility to turn this mic on and off. The 20

little green light needs to be illuminated. Your 21

name and organizational affiliation. 22

23

**Introductions** 24

MR. HOLSTEIN: Chris Holstein with the 25

Universal Lighting Technologies. 26Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 11 MR. NACHTRIEB: Robert Nachtrieb w ith 1

L utron Electronics

. 2

MR. NEUMANN: Justin Neumann with the 3

National Electrical Manufacturers Association. 4

MS. ANDERSON: Susan Anderson, Osram 5

Sylvania. 6

MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English, Acuity 7

Brands. 8

MS. JENSEN: Kate Jensen, Steptoe & 9

Johnson. We represent Acuity Brands. 10

MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon, GE Lighting. 11

MR. ERHAR D T: Bob Erhar d t, Philips 12

Lighting Electronics. 13

MR. COOK: Keith Cook, Philips Lighting. 14

MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman, Northwest Power 15

and Conservation Council. 16

MR. McGARAGH AN: Mike McGaraghan with 17

Energy Solutions, but here representing the 18

California investor

- run utilities including Pacific 19

Gas and Electric Company, Southern California 20

Edison, SoCal Gas Company and San Diego Gas and 21

Electric. 22

MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo, Earth Justice. 23

MR. STEPHENS: Jeremy Stephens with the 24

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 12 MR. DeLASKI: Andrew DeLaski, Appliance 1

Standards Awareness Project. 2

MS. KOHL: Betsy Kohl, Department of 3

Energy, General Counsel’s Office. 4

MR. CYMBALSKY: John Cymbalsky, DOE 5

Appliance Standards. 6

DR. KAARSBERG: Tina Kaarsberg, DOE 7

Appliance Standards. Are you all going to come up 8

to the mic? Oh, you have one. 9

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

Gupta, Navigant Consulting. 11

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

MR. WALKER: Matthew Walker, Navigant. 13

MS. POTOCKI: Erin Potocki, Navigant. 14

MS. McDONALD: Ali McDonald, Navigant. 15

MR. WILLIAMS: Grant Williams, Pacific 16

Northwest National Labs. 17

MR. LINGARD: Bob Lingard, Pacific 18

Northwest Nati onal Labs, and I’ll also introduce our 19

colleague Dr. Natasha Collins, who will be attending 20

electronically. 21

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

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

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

who re gistered. (Recorded those who were clear.) 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 13 MR. PARISELLA: Joe Parise lla, Osram 1

Sylvania. 2

MR. THOMAS: Ed Thomas, GE Lighting. 3

MR. POEHLMAN: Tom Poehlman, Universal 4

Lighting Technologies. 5

MS. LO W ENBERGER: Amanda Lo w enberger, 6

American Council for an Energy

- Efficient Economy. 7

MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer, Appliance 8

Standards Awareness Project. 9

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Northwest 10

Energy Efficiency Alliance. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. W elcome again 12

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

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

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

Solutions in Baltimore. 16

**Agenda Review** 17

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

brief agenda review , and then we will proceed with 19

the content

. This is still providing a little bit 20

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

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

the Federal Register notice , photocopy

-- colorful 23

photocopy of the PowerPoint slides that will be the 24

basis for pre sentation and the bulk of the comment 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 14 today. I mmediately following this agenda review, in 1

fact, the agenda that you have is slightly

-- 2

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

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

referenced in the agend a. Tina is going to provide 5

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

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

opening remarks . Anybody that wishes to do so can 8

make brief summary statements. We understand NEMA 9

has quite a few Powe rPoint slides they want to lay 10

out first thing this morning to provide context for 11

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

point. 13

F ollowing that we’ ll launch into the more 14

detailed content: market and technology assessment, 15

and S creening Ana lysis , f ollow ed by Engineering 16

Analysis . We’ll take a break mid

- morning , round 17

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

Mark

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

Analysis , Shipments and National Impacts Analysis

. 20

We’ll take a lunch mi d

- day. 21

And t hen continuing on, Manufacturer 22

Impact A nalysis , Utility Impact, Employment Impact, 23

Environmental Assessment and Regulatory Impact 24

Analysis. Break Mid

- afternoon, and then comments on 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 15 proposed standard and then closing remarks at about 1

2:45 o r so this afternoon. 2

There’s yet another opportunity at the end 3

of the day for issues that have n’t been covered 4

sufficiently, issues that anybody wishes to raise 5

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

opportunity for you then

. 7

Comments, q uestions about the agenda? 8

Then I’d ask for your consideration, you 9

see, what I think is common courtes y over here. 10

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

for the record

. You don’t need to say your 12

organizational affiliation unless it’s stuc k as a 13

part of your mantra. B ut please say your name each 14

time you speak. 15

I’m going to be q u eu ing individuals by 16

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

are in the queue

. I’ve also found it’s useful for 18

the Department to have follow

- on comments. 19

S ometimes th e back and forth is very useful for 20

them. 21

Please keep the focus here. T urn your 22

cell phones on silent mode, please limit the sidebar 23

conversations. I f you can remember to turn your 24

mics on. These now work well, so your sideba r 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 16 conversation will come in over the amplification 1

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

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

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

the day goes on

. 5

So q uestions and comments before we launch 6

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

Kaarsberg , from the Dep a rtment of Energy

. 8

**Welcome** 9

DR . KAARSBERG: Hello. For the record and 10

the webinarians, this is Tina Kaarsberg, and I 11

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

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

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

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

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

pioneering the first ever remote speaker via 17

webinar, should be interesting, and would like to 18

know what you think of that. And webinar 19

participants other than the speaker woul d be asking 20

questions by posting them, and as those questions 21

come in we would perhaps pause at an appropriate 22

time to go over those questions as well. 23

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

members , only since February, so my learning curve 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 17 is stil l very steep and so please bear with me if I 1

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

this public meeting , we invite your comments. We 3

present and seek your input on all of our analysis 4

and our results. We want to discuss issues both 5

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

and hopefully final, steps in our rulemaking. 7

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

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

you count, instead of taking

-- you know, normally

- 10

- oh, yeah, comm ents

-- okay. Normally we might 11

take statements at this point, but actually what 12

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

background slides and then I think at slide 14 we 14

would take the longer comments , including anyone who 15

has PowerPoints. 16

Okay. One more reminder

- next slide 17

please

-- the issue about

-- okay, this is just

-- 18

the issue box is familiar. These are all quest ions/ 19

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

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

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

and we

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

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

so you know, if you wonder why they’re not 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 18 sequential. And finally, we actually have 1

deliberately repeated a couple issue s -- just to 2

explain. 3

Finally, this is the sort of canonical 4

slide. Remember to submit written comments. The 5

different ways, and also the deadline of Friday, 6

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

since this is probably going to be the seco nd or 8

third time you hear this

-- what John said about all 9

the quads we saved and how significant this ruling 10

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

over ten years that the cost savings will be at 12

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

scenarios. 14

So this is pretty important and we’re very 15

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

turn it back over to Doug. 17

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

through these remaining slides through slide 14? 19

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

Ali is the Navigant lead on this effort. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Please introduce yourself, 22

Ali. 23

**Overview, Statute and Context** 24

MS. McDONALD: Good morning. My name is 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 19 Ali McDonald. I’m just going to give you a brief 1

overview before we open the floor for some more 2

detailed comments. 3

So , minimum efficiency standards for 4

fluorescent ballasts were first established by the 5

National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments of 6

1988. In addition, these amendments directed DOE to 7

review those sta ndards twice. The first review was 8

completed with the publication of the 2000 ballast 9

rule, and this rulemaking constitutes the second 10

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

2011 as required by the consent decree. 12

This rulemaking started i n January 2008 13

with the publication of a framework document. At 14

the framework document public meeting, DOE received 15

several comments on potential drawbacks of the 16

existing active mode test procedure. For example, 17

stakeholders commented that ballast effic acy factor 18

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

therefore could not be used to directly compare 20

ballasts of different types. In addition, the use 21

of photometric measurements resulted in significant 22

measurement variation. Stakeholders were c oncerned 23

that the existing procedure would not be sufficient 24

to delineate between electronic ballasts that were 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 20 currently on the market. 1

Therefore, DOE initiated a test procedure 2

rulemaking in addition to the standards rulemaking. 3

The final rule for the active mode test procedure 4

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

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

new metric, ballast luminous efficiency, or BLE. 7

BLE is the ratio of measured lamp arc power to 8

ballast input power. The final rule requires the 9

ballast to be operating a lamp when measurements are 10

taken, and does not c orrelate BLE to any other 11

metric. Therefore, the NOPR for this rulemaking 12

sets standards in terms of ballast luminous 13

efficiency. 14

So, as I mentioned, the framework document 15

was published in January 2008. A little over two 16

years later, the preliminary analysis followed with 17

the publication of a notice announcing the 18

availability of the technical support document. 19

About a month ago, DOE published a Notice 20

of Proposed Rulemaking, or NOPR, which proposed 21

energ y conservation sta ndards for the ballasts 22

i ncluded in coverage. The final rule is scheduled 23

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

required three years after publication in the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 21 Federal Register

. 1

When setting standards, EPCA directs DOE 2

to consider seven factors. These factors are 3

summarized on this slide, along with the analysis 4

that is conducted to evaluate each factor. For 5

example, to quantify the total projected energy 6

savings, DOE conducts a national impact analysis, 7

which calculates national energy savings and the net 8

presen t value of those savings. 9

After considering these seven factors, DOE 10

is proposing trial standard level three. DOE has 11

proposed standards using an equation of the form 12

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

ballast is required to meet depen ds on the measured 14

lamp arc power it operates. The greater the 15

measured lamp arc power, the higher the standard. 16

This slide shows the corresponding 17

equations for each covered ballast type. The total 18

lamp arc power is measured according to the method 19

specified in the active mode test procedure. The 20

arc power varies according to various 21

characteristics, such as ballast factor, number of 22

lamps operated, and type of lamp operated. 23

So on this slide we provided a few 24

examples of the standard levels vario us ballasts are 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 22 required to meet. This table specifies 1

characteristics of the ballasts analyzed, the 2

measured lamp arc power, and the corresponding 3

standard. Four

- lamp ballasts are required to meet a 4

higher standard than two

- lamp ballasts because 5

operati ng additional lamps increases the measured 6

lamp arc power. Similarly, ballasts that operate T5 7

high output lamps are required to meet a higher 8

standard than ballasts that operate T5 standard 9

output lamps, because high output lamps have higher 10

wattages tha n standard lamps. 11

The standard level DOE is proposing offers 12

several benefits to the nation. The proposed 13

standard level represents an average efficiency 14

improvement of about 12 percent compared to the 15

baseline model. DOE forecasts potential energy 16

sav ings to be between 3.7 and 6.3 quads. These 17

energy savings have a net present value of between 18

eight and eleven billion dollars, at a seven percent 19

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

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

discussi ng these calculated benefits in greater 22

detail later today. 23

So at this time, we invite comments on our 24

approach to establish efficiency standards using an 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 23 equation dependent on measured lamp arc power, and 1

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

welcome any other opening remarks at this time. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: This is the place for 4

opening remarks. Justin. 5

**Openi ng Statements**  6

MR. NEUMANN: Before we get into what 7

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

question for the Department. As written comments 9

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

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

intend to reply to public comments, given usually 12

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

different rulemakings, a year , gap between that time 14

frame? 15

MR. BROOKMAN: John Cymbalsky. 16

DR. KAARSBERG: John should answer that. 17

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

a day. No, let’s see

-- we will respond to the 19

comments. We will work very hard and diligent ly to 20

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

everybody’s comments. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Justin. 23

MR. NEUMANN: And that’s a hard set 24

deadline for you guys? I realize it’s

-- 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 24 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yeah. So I don’t want to 1

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

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

meet the deadline. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 5

MR. ERHAR D T: I guess another way of 6

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

comments, but are you prepared to adjust your 8

rulemaking ba sed on the comments? 9

MR. BROOKMAN: So I know that NEMA has 10

prepared a bunch of PowerPoint slides, and maybe 11

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

provides something of an overview, and Chris tells 13

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

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

comments after that. John Cymbalsky? 16

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

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

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

the comment pe riod to submit their comments. I’m 20

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

guess in this instance, since we all have

-- we 22

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

comments could be submitted tomorrow, you know, that 24

would be great. Honestly, the sooner the better for 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 25 everybody in this situation. Thank you. 1

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

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

MR. HOLSTEIN: This is Chris Holstein. 4

I’m with Universal Lighting Technologies, b ut 5

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

thanking the Department of Energy for allowing us to 7

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

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

with Navigant and DOE as we work through this 10

pro cess for the rulemaking and the deadline of June 11

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

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

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

comments for when the presentation’s over for the 15

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

presentation. 17

Basically, over the past several months, 18

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

gathered their NEMA premium data, which for us, 20

these are our highest efficiency product lines, and 21

we really wanted to look at our sample size and 22

compare these to the BLE

- min that was proposed by 23

the DOE. And today

-- and we’ll go through some of 24

this

-- the data, 88 percent of our h ighest 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 26 efficiency products fail the BLE

- min standard. And 1

of that subse t, 95 percent of those are our highest 2

volume, instant start, programmed start product 3

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

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

market. So we talk about availability in the market 6

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

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

The way we see this is as the rule stands 9

today, if implemented, it would cause a catastrophic 10

ballast shortage in the market. 11

This is a plot line

-- the red line 12

represent s the BLE

- min calculation. The plots

-- 13

the individual plots are the manufacturers’ data. 14

This is four foot medium bi

- pin start. As you can 15

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

NEMA premium products. These are not representative 17

of the h undreds of other products we have below 18

this. These are our highest efficiency, highest 19

volume products in the marketplace. And you can see 20

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

BLE number. 22

On our four foot medium bi

- pin programmed 23

start s , we have 49 of the 52 samples fail the BLE

24

min number. As we start to move into some of the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 27 other classifications, you’ll see less data points 1

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

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

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

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

eight of eight fail the BLE

- min . And then with our 6

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

all of these pass the BLE

- min number. 8

As we looked at th at we wanted to try to 9

understand where the BLE

- min calculation came from 10

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

your test sample data set, and we tried to 12

understand how the BLE

- min was calculated. And some 13

things that we saw, some variations that we saw 14

would suggest that there were some manufacturing 15

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

examples. 17

But one thing would be, we looked at 18

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

ones that were greater than five percent variation 20

in between printed and tested. And in your sample 21

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

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

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

percent. So we, as manufacturers, we went and did 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 28 the same thing. We took our NEMA premium products 1

and we verified our printed data versus test data, 2

and we all understand there’s manufacturing 3

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

1.5 percent variance, and that actually matches u p 5

fairly well with what is listed in the ballast test 6

method. So that starts to have us question your 7

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

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

because we don’t know the products or who

-- they’re 10

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

gives us a question. 12

And then also, we looked at your measured 13

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

Those should match fairly closely, and in your 15

sample set, you have a number, 16 samples ou t of 16

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

match your calculated BLE percent. And I just give 18

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

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

variances

-- 72 to 80, 69 to 77, 70 to 78, an d 72 to 21

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

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

those should be at least in a significant digit 24

matching, so that once again had us question the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 29 sample set. 1

Statistically speaking, on the five 2

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

especially in some of these sub

- product 4

classifications to develop a standard from. And 5

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

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

the BLE

- min and the calculation number. 8

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

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

bring some extreme limited availability in the 11

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

of your own set

-- sample size, cla ssification, the 13

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

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

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

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

national rule. 18

These are your own data plotted. I 19

believe you have these in your presentation as well 20

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

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

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

efficiency, and where some of th ese products may 24

have come from and make sure we’re all on the same 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 30 page, but I’ll just

-- yes, sir. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob, go ahead. 2

MR. ERHAR D T: Come back one slide? No, no 3

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

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

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

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

certified to 82

. 11, I SO certified test labs to 8

82

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

what labs they used. Are they certified test labs 10

or did somebody do this in an academic environment 11

that does not have the same rigor with calibrations 12

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

little bothersome, that you’re generating rulemaking 14

on test points that we can’t dupl icate with our 15

product. 16

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

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

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

you have one product that passes to develop the 20

rule. ... 60 or 16, r e s i, only one produ ct passed. 21

T5 standard output, one product passed. 22

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

Department data? 24

MR. HOLSTEIN: This is the Department’s 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 31 data, the Appendix 5C which is available on the DOE 1

website in that published data. 2

MR. DeLASKI: An d just for clarification, 3

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

necessarily all “premium” quote, unquote, certified 5

premium , this was not an attempt to characterize the 6

population. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Ali. 8

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

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

identified as premium products. 11

MR. DeLASKI: Right. So they could argue 12

because the NEMA data you’re showing premium 13

products. 14

MR. HOLSTEIN: Right. 15

MR. DeLASKI: Whereas this was a 16

characteriza tion of the

-- more of a spread. Okay. 17

Just wanted to clarify that. Thanks. 18

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

proceed though. 20

MR. HOLSTEIN: T5HO, one product passed. 21

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

samples that failed. 23

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

about what drives the market a little bit, and then 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 32 how some products may have been looked at that have 1

a higher efficiency level that quite possibly 2

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

speak abou t is that we believe that what the market 4

dictates, we are currently developing in our highest 5

practical efficiency with our NEMA premium products. 6

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

direction for a number of years, and we

-- and we’re 8

talk ing basically about the volume of the can, which 9

is how much compone n try, technology, and efficiency 10

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

DOE and Navigant to understand is the industry is 12

driving more and more to smaller and smaller case 13

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

we call an N

- can, which is, as you can see, and I’m 15

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

consider our A

- can and this is an N

- can. You can 17

see that the product is beginning to become smaller. 18

A nd this is being driven by drive from consumers 19

looking for like zero plenum applications. They 20

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

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

And from a manufacturing standpoint, the reduction 23

to an N

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

15 percent reduction in steel used in the product 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 33 itself, as well as more denser product shipping and 1

logistics, so moving to smaller cans is saving in 2

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

environment ally friendly from where we have been. 4

We do have some products that are in the 5

market, some of the full line manufacturers that are 6

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

Some of these products have a fairly high efficiency 8

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

understand is this is where the consumers are going. 10

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

sustainable from a fixture perspective, or from a 12

consumer demand perspective. 13

We believe that the new efficiency leve ls 14

could quite possibly cause the fixture manufacturers 15

and the ballast manufacturers to retool, which would 16

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

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

millions of dollars per fixture manufacturer to do 19

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

moving to smaller and smaller can sizes, and smaller 21

and smaller fixtures to go into smaller and smaller 22

plenum spaces. Moving the opposite direction is 23

kind of counter

- intuitive from where the market has 24

been going. We would like for the DOE and Navigant 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 34 to understand that this is a consumer

- driven factor. 1

The other

-- yes. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Cheryl. 3

MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English. Just to add 4

on to the consumer considerations is as we design 5

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

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

generally seeing about a two to six percent increase 8

in the fixture photometric efficiency with the 9

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

current propo sal it’s going to require us to go back 11

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

all of our fixtures to make them less efficient. 13

Also the point about the shallow plenum, 14

it gets directly to the sustainability of building 15

construction, green bui lding construction, so we’re 16

now looking at having to make buildings taller in 17

order to accommodate a larger plenum space. 18

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

I can understand. What about a smaller can enables 20

you, as a fixture manufacturer,

-- 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew deLaski, go ahead 22

Cheryl. 23

MR. DeLASKI:

-- to make

-- to get that 24

five or six percent. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 35 MS. ENGLISH: It provides better optical 1

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

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

sma ller and smaller ballast can, we can redirect the 4

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

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

that ballast housing. 7

MS. ANDERSON: Remember that the ballast 8

is usually on the underneath side of the reflector. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Susan, find a microphone. 10

MS. ANDERSON: Susan Anderson. Remember 11

that the ballast is normally on the under side of 12

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

is, the less of an obstruction it becomes for 14

allowing light to get out of the fixture. 15

MR. DeLASKI: Right, for those fixtures 16

where that’s the design. 17

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

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

consumer demand, because then it gives them easier 20

access to the ballast in the event they need to 21

replace it, or they upgrade the fixture either 22

because of ballast failure or a renovation. 23

MR. DeLASKI: Okay. Thanks for that 24

explanation. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 36 MR. BROOKMAN: Chris, keep going. 1

MR. HOLSTEIN: Yes. The other issue would 2

be the difference between the

-- what we call 3

universal voltage or multivolt versus dedicated 4

voltage. Dedicated voltage inherently has the 5

ability to be more efficient, but once again, 6

consumer demand dictates the universal voltage 7

product over ded icated. It is a reduction in 8

inventory, a reduction in logistics. It is across 9

the entire supply chain, from manufacturer to 10

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

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

reevaluate multivolt or univ ersal voltage, and look 13

back at a dedicated voltage product to be able to 14

meet some of these efficiency standards. And once 15

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

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

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

Just as a graphical example of the can 19

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

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

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

chart, is the standard can which is the large 23

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

some standard products that have high efficiency 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 37 numbers, 93 percent, 92 percent. They are much 1

larger, able for us to make the product more 2

efficient and fit inside of the space dimensions. 3

The red line represents the market size 4

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

three products on the left hands side represent 80 6

percent

- plus of the total ballast market in the 7

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

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

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

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

manufacturer in this room has invested in the 12

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

moving towards that can siz e. 14

The other issue we wanted to point out was 15

this system approach, in terms of energy efficiency, 16

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

to point out that energy saving lamps control 18

fixture design flexibility

-- these all create 19

better sys tem efficiencies than what you would 20

derive from just a ballast. The high efficien cy 21

products, they are optimized for use today with all 22

the energy saving lamps, and these will produce a 23

greater input power savings than what we are looking 24

at for this DOE rule. 80 percent of our sales are 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 38 NEMA premium products in the industry today, so 1

consumers are already buying efficient products. 2

We do think that DOE needs to take this 3

into consideration for the payback analysis and 4

determination, that these are hig h efficien cy 5

products, and not magnetic ballast s in the market. 6

As an example, this chart/table shows low 7

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

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

on the left

- hand side, 32 to 25 watt, and p ercent 10

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

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

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

the standard lamp used in this analysis was a 32 14

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

that the ballast used was a magnetic ballast as a 16

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

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

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

purchased. The majority of applications today are 20

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

are not uncommon to be specified by lighting 22

specifiers, contractors, ESCOs. 23

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

input savings of one percent. One watt. Not one 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 39 percent, one watt. And as you can see, we can save 1

much greater than that in the system efficiency side 2

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

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

opportunity for one watt, where the industry is 5

already saving five to ten watts on their ow n, 6

without anybody telling them to. That’s where 7

consumers are going. 8

We believe that the ruling will have a 9

negative impact on industry and the nation. 10

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

on energy efficient products, LED controls. I f this 12

ruling would go through, it would pull efforts away 13

from those technologies back to standard products. 14

These standard products which are already efficient, 15

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

that’s interesting in the Federal Registe r document 17

is that DOE and Navigant recognize that these, which 18

are today benefi cial products, they have a higher 19

premium in the market, the document states that you 20

all believe that these prices will compress to our 21

commodity level prices. By doing that, it reduces 22

our profits and it reduces our ability to invest our 23

R&D efforts in soli d state lighting, in controls, in 24

the areas where you’ll see greater efficiency 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 40 levels. This is not a good resource spend for the 1

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

of our products. 3

I think the Federal Register document 4

states that the y understand that these things will 5

happen, but they actually state

-- and I’ll have the 6

page number on the written response

-- that they 7

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

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

at your anal ysis and understand that we’re already 10

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

already gone for efficiency gains. This would be a 12

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

an industry. 14

This kind of reiterates what I said 15

earlier ab out LED lighting, next generation 16

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

efforts. Once again, this ruling would cost 18

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

Once again, an e nergy saving lamp realize s 20

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

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

the analysis indicates. Once again, controls, 23

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

more installations are requiring controls and 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 41 controllability, and obviously a fixt ure that’s 1

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

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

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

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

major manufacturer in the lighting indus try will be 6

displaying probably 90 percent

- plus LED. That is 7

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

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

definitely be a drawback to that direction, and I 10

think the Department of Energy would agree that’s 11

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

efficiency levels really rely. 13

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

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

formula and we have

-- we’re trying to come up with 16

some proposals or formulas that would allow a 17

passing of our NEMA premium products, and once 18

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

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

to

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

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

limited availability, that there is no disruption in 23

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

the industry to redesign. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 42 This chart kind of isn’t our chart and I 1

think Bob

-- if

-- Bob, you want to speak to this 2

before I show the graph? 3

MR. ERHAR D T: Well, you know the graph

-- 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Get the microphone on. 5

MR. ERHARDT: Basically, what we did was 6

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

manufacturer, two manufacturers, three manufacturers 8

and then compared against the lowest efficiency 9

level, again of our highest efficiency products. 10

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

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

the hundred or so points just call out instant start 13

and programmed start repres ent four to five ballasts 14

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

went into this dataset. 16

And you can see for the

-- each column 17

then compares with the DOE 1.32 times the natural 18

log of the power times

-- plus 88 plus .11. We came 19

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

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

show a comparison of how many manufacturers can meet 22

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

proposal, at least two manufacturers are able to 24

meet the level. And we would like the Department of 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 43 Energy to consider this to be an absolute minimum, 1

that one product out there

-- every product

-- every 2

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

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

component c ommonality, not all products across the 5

line are going to be optimized as well. 6

When the DOE goes and takes just the one 7

optimized product from each manufacturer, it’s 8

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

simple task to make all products as efficient as 10

that one that they picked from that one manufacturer 11

and ask the whole industry to comply to. 12

So this is why, when we worked out our 13

proposal, we looked at the premium offerings. These 14

are the top product offerings from the industry, 15

fro m the four major manufacturers, and in principle, 16

if only two manufacturers meet you’re maybe 17

eliminating half of the market in that area; if 18

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

end it was realistic to expect some redesign. There 20

were some outliers at the low end that actually one 21

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

We apologize that this data wasn’t available 23

earlier, but we are getting our

-- we’re getting our 24

tests redone with the new format, this is with the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 44 BLE format, and this is

-- this was just being 1

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

presenting it here. 3

DR. KAARSBERG: Did you look at other 4

formulas, like a power la w fit or anything

-- 5

because it looked

-- I mean this is all sort of 6

flashing by, bu t it looked like the DOE standard was 7

not really fitting your data, especially at the low 8

end, that it was dropping off. 9

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

Bob. 11

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

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

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

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

the DOE form. 16

DR. KAARSBERG: Okay. 17

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

with the presentation. 19

MR. HOLSTEIN: Basically, we just have two 20

slides that show the same plot that we showed 21

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

I think the key thing for people to understand as 23

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

are above the proposed green line, is that these are 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 45 our NEMA premium products. These are the most 1

efficient products in the industry today. These 2

don’t represent the

-- in our organization, speaking 3

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

multiplies out with the other manufacturers. So 5

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

there are some products that need to be redesigned, 7

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

line from a, I guess from an energy efficient 9

standpoint, and a market drive standpoint. 10

And that’s just an example on the four 11

foot medium bi

- pin instant start, and then a four 12

foot medium bi

- pin programmed start . We have not 13

had the opportunity yet to get into the other 14

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

are new. We are retesting products. I t takes time, 16

so we do not have everything else completed yet. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: So obviously a lot of work 18

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

this point. Andrew deLaski. 20

MR. DeLASKI: So this is a tremendous 21

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

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

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

terms of format how you

-- 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 46 MR. BROOKMAN: Hang on for just one 1

se cond. We want to confirm

-- I want to confirm for 2

the record that your PowerPoint slides will be 3

available to the Department of Energy? Justin will 4

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

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

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

meeting in terms of

-- because I’ve got a number of 8

questions about the slides I can pull back up. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: I think that NEMA

-- and 10

this presentation raises a bunch of important 11

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

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

proceed and

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

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

you want to start off. 16

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

general point, that one of th e key issues here is 18

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

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

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

Department. The Department is showing results that 22

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

of NEMA premium products that were in the sample met 24

the standard proposed. And what Bob’s and what the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 47 NEMA team is showing is that their testing doesn’t 1

corroborate that. Is that a fair characterization? 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob says yes. 3

MR. DeLASKI: So it strikes me that this 4

issue of the testing is really a critical issue. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Bob. 6

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

when I spoke with Navigant, they indicated that 8

their test results included a point eight percent 9

confidence factor for 99 percent confidence of true 10

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

including a point eight confidence factor. But that 12

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

submit. What we showed you is our t est data, our 14

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

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

-- so basically all the numbers

-- we took a mean of 17

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

by the point eight percent for a 99 percent 19

confidence level of true mean. We were told 20

Navigant did the same thing with coming up with the 21

levels, so in principle that should have been 22

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

showed you, is that the vast majority of the 24

products d o not meet. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 48 MR. DeLASKI: So what I’m struck by, 1

though, is

-- 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Hang on one second. It 3

looks like Navigant wants to respond to Bob’s 4

characterization. 5

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

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

points. We adjusted the efficiency levels down, so 8

the test data in the appendix represents actual 9

measured test data, but after fitting a curve to 10

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

eight percent. 12

MR. ERHARDT: Correct. So ou r point eight 13

percent adjusted data should meet that curve is what 14

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

eight percent, should meet that curve. 16

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

mean we -- your test data when

-- in developing that 18

poin t eight percent, the intent was that if you 19

tested five samples, took the average and then 20

applied the compliance equation, it would meet the 21

standard, so that’s what you’re asking

-- 22

MR. ERHARDT: Which is the point eight 23

percent. 24

MS. GUPTA: Okay. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 49 MR. BROOKMAN: And so I think on this, I 1

think any discontinuity in this calculation could 2

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

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

with you. You want to continue? 5

MR. DeLASKI: Right. So w hat I was struck 6

by is that in the formulation which Bob presented, 7

which is that I think in the slide that was 8

presented towards the end, the eye test

-- 9

MR. BROOKMAN: The eye chart? 10

MR. DeLASKI: The eye chart, the principle 11

that you were functionin g under in developing that 12

eye chart proposal was a similar principle, which is 13

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

that a couple of products can meet within each 15

class. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Most of the products. The 17

great majority of the product s, correct? 18

MR. ERHARDT: Well, we were saying at 19

least two, and preferably three or four manufacturer 20

would meet with their highest quality, highest 21

efficiency product. 22

MR. DeLASKI: I can understand that each 23

of the four largest manufacturers woul d like their 24

existing products to meet, but it may not be the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 50 case that that will be

-- 1

MR. ERHARDT: And what we found was that 2

the manufacturers were pretty close, the data 3

between the manufacturers was much closer than the 4

difference between the manufacturer s’ data and the 5

DOE requirement in many cases. So if you

-- when 6

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

you can see where we showed compliance level by just 8

one manufacturer, two manufacturers, or three 9

manufacturers, or if the lowe st efficiency product 10

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

out. 12

MR. DeLASKI: So

-- now when we looked at 13

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

products that were compliant in each of the classes. 15

I know your data shows somet hing differently, but 16

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

are appropriate as proposed, based on the data that 18

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

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

it, okay. 21

The other questi on I had for NEMA, or my 22

second question is, the testing. So the testing 23

that you’ve conducted over the past six months

-- 24

the final test method came out May 4 th , or end of 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 51 April

-- so the test method you conducted over the 1

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

MR. ERHARDT: The BLE test procedure. 3

Formerly called the BRE test procedure. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: The new one. 5

MR. ERHARDT: The jointly developed test 6

procedure between Navigant and

-- 7

MR. BROOKMAN: The newest one, yes. 8

MR. ERHARDT:

-- industry that we felt so 9

good about collaborating. 10

MR. DeLASKI: So this is testing conducted 11

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

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

conducted and how it was brought together? Is th is 14

manufacturer testing in your labs and accumulated by 15

NEMA? 16

MR. ERHARDT: Yes. 17

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

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

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

share in terms of the data? 21

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

- 22

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

that we just submitted the data even without masking 24

the

-- because it’s going to be public domain data 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 52 anyway, so we weren’t so concerned about masking 1

manu facturers. We are submitting the same

-- we 2

will be submitting the same data to the Federal 3

Trade Commission. 4

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

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

be made available to the Department when you file 7

y our comments or

-- I guess the advocates would like 8

to see it in advance. 9

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

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

was expecting

-- 12

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

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

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So can you commence 15

that discussion because there are many parties in 16

the room that would like to

-- 17

MR. HOLSTEIN: Not at this moment, but 18

yes, tomorrow or Thursday, yes. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 20

MR. ER HARDT: It was my perception that we 21

had the intention of releasing this data. 22

MR. DeLASKI: So I would just encourage 23

you if having data associated with model numbers 24

would be extremely valuable to be able to

-- 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 53 MR. ERHARDT: No, we don’t have it by 1

model number. We have it by power level. 2

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

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

they would very much appreciate you having that 5

consultation and getting back to them quickly. That 6

would be helpful to t hem. Andrew. 7

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

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

you need model numbers. 10

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

think having enough information, whether it be 12

manufacturer or model number, suc h that we can cross 13

reference it with the tested data that we have would 14

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

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

difference, and hopefully account for that, if 17

necessary. 18

MR. NEUMANN: This is Just in Neumann 19

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

this back from NEMA, given the job security the 21

Department of Energy is providing me, we will be 22

working on the metal halide comments for Monday 23

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

be having this discussion until some time later next 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 54 week, because many of this room

-- and Light Fair is 1

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

many in this room are working on the metal halide 3

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

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

requesting, the data. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. That’s reality

- based 7

stuff. I wanted to

-- I just consulted with Tina, 8

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

wondering if the contractor/consul tant team has 10

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

this point you are feeling like you understood what 12

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

Okay. 14

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

lot of content there. Additional com ments or 16

questions, opening remarks, perh a ps in response to 17

the NEMA presentation, and oth er opening remarks. 18

Tom Eckman

. 19

MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckma n. Northwest Power 20

and Conservation Council. Question for NEMA is 21

whether you tested non

- premium products a s well, so 22

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

baseline level products and non

- premium products. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Chris? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 55 MR. HOLSTEIN: For this analysis we tested 1

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

know that these would be the products

-- anything 3

below these products are going to fail the BLE

- min 4

number. Testing them would be

-- would not be good 5

for the timing we had for this meeting. 6

MR. ECKMANN: The economics and the 7

savings are based on differentials between baseline 8

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

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

comparable offset at the lower end efficiencies. So 11

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

difference in all the test results across the array 13

of efficien cies, rather than just at the top end. 14

Because that just tells us where the line might be 15

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

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

one of the double

- Es in the room to answer that 18

question. 19

MR. ERHARDT: I guess I understand your 20

question. Your question is if we similarly found 21

that the low end measured by Navigant was actually 22

lower, then we would still have the same 23

differential and the same payback

-- 24

MR. ECKMANN: Right. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 56 MR. ERHARDT:

-- if we adopted the new 1

levels. We can take this under advisement, but 2

these tests, they are time consuming. We have 3

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

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

testing product for one require ment or another, so 6

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

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

least a two or three week lead time. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: That was Bob speaking. As 10

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

you were presenting, Chris, that the NEMA premium 12

products were 80 percent of the products in the 13

market, something like that? 14

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

data, manufacturers’ report , and they have a 16

statistical organization that provides data , 80 17

percent of our products sold today are NEMA premium 18

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

portion, yeah. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie Stephens. 21

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. I just 22

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

unfortunate t o arrive at less than two months before 24

DOE has to publish this stuff without understanding 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 57 what the differences mean, or why there are 1

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

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

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

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

issue or something else. 6

I also didn’t see any N

- can data up there, 7

only A

- and standard. It would have been helpful to 8

have some N

- can data, since that seems to be a p oint 9

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

So it’s really hard to understand, quite 11

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

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

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

meantim e to shed a little light on this would be 15

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

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

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

in the end. 19

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

enough material here across a cross section to 21

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

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

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

where to begin with it. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 58 MR. BROOKMAN: Mimi Gupta. 1

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

wanted to confirm. Did the NEMA test data include 3

any N

- can ballasts? 4

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

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

our data did include N

- can data for a majority of 7

the test sa mples, test results that we submitted. 8

I’d also like to make a comment about the

-- we’re 9

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

company is a larger mismatch of the dataset between 11

efficiency levels at the lower power end versus the 12

high powe r end. So of particular concern for our 13

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

shape of that curve as the slope continues down on 15

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

in the low power range that met the minimum DOE 17

requirement

. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: John Stephens. 19

MS. GUPTA: Can I please? 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Mimi. 21

MS. GUPTA: If NEMA has a recommendation 22

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

suggest that they put it in their written comments. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Y ou want a confirmation 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 59 and/or elaboration? 1

MS. GUPTA: It sounds like they’re 2

suggesting that the natural logarithmic form is not 3

the correct form, right. 4

DR. KAARSBERG: They actually had a

-- 5

their counter proposal was exactly the same form 6

with just different constant factor s

. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Right. So that was Tina 8

Kaarsberg. Bob explained that he built off your 9

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

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

two constants in the formula, and if you increase 12

the natural log constant and decrease the additive 13

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

and that went a long way to fitting data. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: So

-- okay, Charlie 16

Stephens. 17

MR. STEPHENS: Just a

-- Charlie Stephens. 18

Just a point of clarification. You were speaking 19

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

efficiency range, right? 21

MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon. Correct. 22

MR. STEPHENS: Okay. Thanks. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Jeff, good job with your 24

name. I like that. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 60 MR. PLASKON: Thank you very much. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew deLaski. 2

MR. DeLASKI: So when you came up with 3

your equation, were you limiting it to the small 4

cans, or they call it an A

- can, is that the

-- 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob? Yeah, Chris. 6

MR. HOLSTEI N: Chris. The dataset wasn’t 7

limited to N

- can. It was

-- we looked at our 8

premium products, different manufacturer, different 9

power levels have different products and different 10

can sizes. They’re either A

- or N

- . I don’t 11

actually for a fact, there are no NEMA premium 12

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

dataset, depending on manufacturer, depending on 14

power level, it would either be an A

- can or an N

15

can. 16

MR. DeLASKI: So when you came up

-- an d A 17

can is the smaller of the two? 18

MR. HOLSTEIN: The N

- can is the smaller. 19

MR. DeLASKI: The N

- can is smaller? 20

MR. HOLSTEIN: Yes. 21

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

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

concept of an equation where you could have two 24

products meeting, wa s it that you wanted two N

- can 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 61 products? 1

MR. ERHARDT: Two premium products. 2

Products from two manufacturers. 3

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

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

you not set a constraint? 6

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

spreadsheet that I was working on. 8

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

and find a microphone. 10

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

MR. BROOKMAN: Find a microphone. Thank 12

you for saying your name. 13

MR. PARISELLA: J oe Parisella. One of the 14

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

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

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

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

their own data was showi ng that they didn’t meet 19

their proposed standard. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Mike. 21

MR. McGARAGHAN: Mike McGaraghan. I agree 22

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

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

hear from DOE if they can ta lk a little bit about 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 62 how they did their testing, or Navigant. But in the 1

meantime, I just wanted to say that the California 2

utilities are very supportive of the standard levels 3

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

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

looked at the different utilities of the products, 6

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

for example, one

- lamp ballast with low ballast 8

factor, and one

- lamp ballast with a medium ballast 9

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

what portion of the products tested would meet the 11

new levels, and found that in

-- we haven’t done an 12

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

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

at every one of the specific utilities that we 15

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

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

met that level, including those with low ballast 18

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

point, but what we saw is, for example , two

- lamp 20

instant start low ballast factor, there were two 21

tested products that looked like they met the 22

standard level. Four

- lamp, there were also two, in 23

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

level. So that gets a question back to you, but

-- 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 63 MR. BROOKMAN: Mike, when you say utility, 1

you mean common usage by that word? 2

MR. McGARAGHAN: Yes, so when I say 3

utility I mean a specific application, particular 4

ballast factor designed for a particular number of 5

lamps, yes. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay . That’s what I 7

thought. 8

MR. McGARAGHAN: And just another point. 9

We appreciate that there are other lighting 10

technologies that will be introduced and other 11

design strategies to save energy , and considerable 12

amounts of energy and that LEDs will have a growing 13

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

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

amount of savings on the table. There are still 16

shipments forecasted in the tens of millions for the 17

small product classes and the hundreds of m illions 18

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

believe this is a really important effort that DOE 20

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

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

performing products within each of those u tilities. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 24

MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, industry would like to 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 64 point out that industry already has realized the 1

energy savings that this report is claiming. When 2

you are claiming a baseline of an electromagnetic 3

product against a high level electronic, the fact 4

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

are already attaining with 80 percent of the product 6

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

of savings that you’re broadcasting to the world 8

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

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

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

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

already done as industry without any help. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: But in your premium 14

products

. 15

MR. ERHARDT: Yes. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Again, use the 17

microphone. 18

MR. ERHARDT: And just one more thing. 19

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

will give marginal savings that is going to totally 21

disrupt this industry. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: I thought you made that 23

point well in your presentation. 24

MR. PARISELLA: I wanted to elaborate 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 65 again

-- this is Joe Parisella

-- I want to 1

elaborate on the disruption of the industry. I 2

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

availability . Right now is pretty long lead times 4

in electronic components, and as you go higher in 5

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

have in the electronic components that we put in our 7

products, and as we limit those choices then the 8

product lead times are going to get longer and the 9

availability of products is going to drop 10

dramatically, and I wanted to point that out as 11

well. 12

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

think

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

question. 15

MS. GUPTA: Mimi Gupt a. I just wanted to 16

clarify the electromagnetic baseline issue. I think 17

actually most of the representative units that DOE 18

analyzed do not have an electromagnetic baseline, 19

only the sign ballast and the eight foot high output 20

ballast have electromagnetic baselines. DOE, on the 21

other representative units, does analyze two 22

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

electronic baseline . Just as a clarification. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Tim first, and then 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 66 back to Jeff. 1

MR. BALLO: Just a quick q uestion that 2

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

at Navigant or DOE can

-- if you all have any idea 4

for the basis for the

-- why there is such a 5

distinction in the test data? Any suggestions why 6

that might be? 7

MS. GUPTA: This is Mimi G upta. We have a 8

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

various sources of data coming up later in the 10

presentation. I think maybe that would be the best 11

place to talk about it. 12

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

we go in that directi on pretty quickly. Jeff. 14

MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon. Just a 15

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

products meeting at the low power level. If you 17

look at the NEMA data presented, at approximately 90 18

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

no manufacturers meeting instant start, programmed 20

start minimum requirements for BLE. We do see in 21

the subset data from Navigant, a few samples that 22

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

cases that would leave no ballast available i n the 24

market at certain power ranges with today’s 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 67 ballasts. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Are we finished with 2

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

let’s proceed then with the presentation material. 4

I think we left off with

-- 5

DR. KAARSBERG: A li again. 6

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

and technology assessment. 8

**Market and Technology Assessment** 9

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

about each analysis in more detail than we’ve 11

already been talking about it. So a fluorescent 12

lamp ballast is defined as the device which is used 13

to start and operate fluorescent lamps by providing 14

starting voltage and current and limiting the 15

current during no rmal operation. Several 16

fluorescent lamp ballasts are already subject to 17

energy conservation standards, and they’re 18

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

only T12 ballasts that operate four medium bi

- pin, 20

eight foot slimline , and eight foot high output 21

lamps are included in coverage. 22

As part of this rulemaking, DOE considered 23

expanding the scope of coverage to include 24

additional fluorescent lamp ballasts. When 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 68 expanding the scope, DOE considered three main 1

criteria: 2

**•** The first was the poten tial for a ballast to 3

demonstrate significant energy savings. 4

**•** As part of this criteria, DOE also considered 5

ballast types whose shipments may not 6

currently be high volume, but have the 7

potential to grow, such as in the case that 8

they become a substitute for a regulated 9

ballast. 10

**•** And finally, DOE considered whether improving 11

the efficiency of a certain ballast type was 12

both technolog ically feasible and 13

economically justified. 14

DOE concluded that several additional 15

ballast types met the criteria to be incl uded in the 16

scope of coverage. And this slide summarizes all of 17

the ballasts included in coverage, which were the 18

same ballasts that were considered in the 19

preliminary analysis. In general, DOE is extending 20

coverage to ballasts that operate additional la mp 21

types such as four

- foot T5 lamps, ballasts that 22

operate additional lamp diameters such as T8 four 23

foot medium bi

- pin lamps in addition to T12s ; and 24Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 69 ballasts that operate additional numbers of lamps. 1

Please note that DOE did not include 2

additional dimm ing ballasts in the proposed scope of 3

coverage. 4

So the previous public meeting and in 5

written comments, DOE received feedback that 6

magnetic ballasts are still required in applications 7

where electromagnetic interference is a concern. 8

Some of these applic ations include medical operating 9

rooms or rooms with life support systems, airport 10

control towers, facilities that use electronic test 11

equipment or radio communication devices, and 12

aircraft hangars or other buildings with 13

predominantly metal construction. 14

DOE conducted research and identified 15

several ways to reduce electromagnetic interference, 16

both internal and external to the ballast. However, 17

DOE was unable to confirm that EMI could be 18

sufficiently reduced or eliminated such that it 19

would not constitu te a safety concern in certain 20

applications. Therefore DOE designed an exemption 21

for T8 magnetic ballasts similar to previous 22

exemptions for replacement ballasts. DOE does not 23

believe that magnetic products will be used as 24

substitutes in current electron ic ballast 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 70 applications because of their higher cost and 1

increased weight. 2

So at this time we would like to invite 3

comment on our proposed sc ope of coverage, including 4

the exemptions designed for T8 magnetic ballasts. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Comments at th is point ? 6

Bob

. 7

MR. ERHARDT: NEMA supports the continuing 8

exemption for electromagnetic ballasts in EMI 9

sensitive locations. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: You’re speaking on behalf 11

of NEMA? 12

MR. ERHARDT: Yes. 13

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

comments on t he proposed scope of coverage , those 15

listed there on page 20 of your slides? No 16

additional comments? Jeff? 17

MR. PLASKON: NEMA did

-- Jeff Plaskon. 18

NEMA did identify a class that we believe should be 19

a subset of the data for residential ballasts. 20

Cons idering the products that were on the market 21

today, fell far short of the DOE proposal. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: So can you be more 23

specific? 24

MR. PLASKON: There was

-- I thought the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 71 residential was combined in the original proposal. 1

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

comment for right now. 3

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

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

specific, it might be helpful. Jeff. 6

MR. PLASKON: I originally thought the 7

residential was included in the instant start 8

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

little deeper here. 10

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

proceed. 12

MS. McDONALD: All right. DOE establishes 13

separate standards for different groups of products 14

called product classes. To do this, DOE considered 15

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

performance

- related feature that would require a 17

different standard level. Of these criteria, DOE 18

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

efficiency of a ballast was accompanie d by a 20

difference in consumer utility. 21

It was suggested by manufacturers that 22

there is a relationship between the total lamp arc 23

power operated by a ballast and its efficiency. 24

Therefore, DOE evaluated its test data and found 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 72 that those relationship was best characterized by 1

and equation relating BLE and the natural log of 2

measured lamp arc power. As shown earlier, DOE 3

proposed efficiency levels using these equations. 4

This relationship has several benefits for 5

determining product classes compared to D OE’s 6

approach in the preliminary analysis. It simplifies 7

the product class structure and the amount of 8

scaling required between product classes. It also 9

does not automatically require a separate product 10

class for factors that affect the total wattage 11

ope rated by a ballast, such as ballast factor and 12

number of lamps. 13

One of the factors DOE considered was 14

starting method. DOE found that both program med 15

start and rapid start ballasts have lower BLEs than 16

instant start ballasts, due to electric heating. 17

E ven though there is a difference in BLE, DOE did 18

not establish a separate product class for rapid 19

start ballasts, because rapid start and instant 20

start ballasts are commonly used as substitutes for 21

each other. However, occupancy sensors are almost 22

exclusi vely used in combination with programmed 23

start ballasts. For this reason, DOE believes 24

there’s unique utility associated with them. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 73 Because of this utility and the associated decrease 1

in BLE, DOE established a separate product class for 2

programmed start ballasts. 3

DOE also established a second product 4

class for ballasts that operate eight foot high 5

output lamps. When analyzing the test data, DOE 6

found that these ballasts did not follow the 7

expected power efficiency relationship. Compared to 8

slimline ballasts, DOE found that eight foot high 9

output ballasts exhibited lower BLEs, although they 10

operated higher lamp powers. DOE believes that this 11

difference may be driven by different topology or 12

circuit design compared to other ballast types. 13

Consumers use systems with different lumen 14

packages for different applications. For example, 15

high output lamps may be installed in certain high 16

ceiling or outdoor applications where large 17

quantities of light are needed. Therefore, DOE 18

believes that lumen package o ffers a unique utility, 19

and because of this utility and the associated 20

decrease in BLE exhibited in test data, DOE proposes 21

to establish a separate product class for ballasts 22

that operate eight foot high output lamps. 23

And lastly, we noted a similar pheno menon 24

for sign ballasts. Based on its test data, DOE 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 74 found that these products did not achieve the 1

expected BLE predicted by the power efficiency 2

relationship. Test data indicated these ballasts 3

were not as efficient as regular eight foot high 4

output bal lasts. DOE believes this is because sign 5

ballasts are often specified to operate multiple 6

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

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

not optimized for the operation of a particular lamp 9

combinat ion. Regular eight foot high output 10

ballasts cannot always serve as substitutes due to 11

the lack of moisture seals and more limited load 12

specifications, and for these reasons, DOE proposes 13

to establish a separate product class for sign 14

ballasts. 15

So the table on this slide summarizes the 16

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

like to note about it. Ballasts that operate 18

different lamp lengths, such as four foot medium bi

19

pin and eight foot slimline lamps, are now combined 20

in one prod uct class. Ballasts that operate 21

different lamp diameters are also combined. For 22

example, the programmed start product class includes 23

ballasts that operate both T5 and T8 lamps. And 24

last, there’s no longer a separate product class for 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 75 residential produc ts. All covered residential 1

ballasts are in the same product class as commercial 2

ones. 3

So DOE seeks comment on its approach to 4

establish efficiency standards using the equation 5

dependent on measured lamp arc power. We also 6

request comment on the produc t class structure, 7

especially the inclusion of several different 8

ballast types in the same product classes. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 10

MR. ERHARDT: One comment on the 11

appropriateness of the formula

- based. In general, I 12

think we support the formula base. On e thing I did 13

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

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

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

granularity at the higher power levels and still 17

accommodate the lower power levels. Wh at you end up 18

with is a

-- actually, where your main products are, 19

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

suggest breaking the power ranges into two or more 21

levels to get the formulas to fit better. 22

MS. McDONALD: Okay. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Are there 24

comments on the product classes? This is a new 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 76 structure, I guess, on slide 28. Yes, Mimi. 1

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

a suggestion on the break point? 3

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

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

watt range, somewhere like that. Maybe under 50 6

watts, for instance. Somewhere in that range it 7

seemed to

-- it was very hard to get the products 8

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

some watts of range between the data and the 10

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

range, I would recommend. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Mike, did you have a 13

comment? Okay, yes, Chris. 14

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

think this would be the appropriate point on the 16

residential ballast being combined with commercial, 17

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

combination, and I think that’s represented here

-- 19

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

slides back, those would be combined, even though 21

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

same formula to calculate the efficiency BLE

- min 23

number. Yes, slide 28. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob, go ahead. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 77 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, j ust to comment on the 1

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

working with the Department of Energy and Navigant 3

for some years now on these various rulemakings, and 4

I think initially a residential ballast was one that 5

was considered to not have p ower factor correction, 6

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

some level of power factor correction is required in 8

residential ballasts, and therefore the efficiency 9

savings that residential ballasts gained by not 10

having power factor correcti on in the past is 11

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

reevaluating our position on residential being 13

lumped with commercial, because in many cases 14

residential ballasts now are being required to have 15

power factor levels comparable to commercial. 16

MS. McDONALD: And what kind of 17

requirements are you talking about for residential 18

ballasts? 19

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

wasn’t the California Energy Commission starting to 21

require

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

come up in the w ritten comments. I think Navigant 23

asked me specifically this question, and at the 24

time, when a residential ballast was defined as 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 78 something having on the order of point five or point 1

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

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

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

- nine power 4

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

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

and address it further in written comments. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Ali, wo uld you restate your 8

question, the one you just asked Bob? 9

MS. McDONALD: Oh, he had said that 10

residential ballasts were subject to more 11

requirements that would require higher power factor, 12

so I just asked what those requirements were. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: O kay. Thanks. Cheryl, do 14

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

to follow on. 16

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

where it is now requiring higher power factor. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, thanks. Cheryl. 19

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

concerned about that being incorporated in the same 21

category, because the residential parts do have to 22

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

moving residential from a point where it was exempt, 24

to a product that’s actually going to be more 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 79 expensive than a commercial product because of the 1

added interference filtration required for FCC. 2

We’re looking at ballast cost increasing, for 3

residential products, by as much as 50 percent with 4

that component being the major part of residential 5

f ixtures. So, I think that there is energy savings 6

opportunities, as we’ve talked about in our 7

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

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

commercial type of product. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Je ff. 11

MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon. In citing the 12

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

were tested in the residential category fell short, 14

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

the samples met the category. And residential 16

fixtu res being very low watt solutions. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: It looks like you’re 18

referring to the slide that Chris put up there on 19

the screen, is that right? 20

MR. PLASKON: Yes, correct. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Just wanted to 22

confirm that. Okay. Anything from

- - no? Okay. 23

Andrew. 24

MR. DeLASKI: So in general, we support 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 80 the product classes the Department has proposed. We 1

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

collaboration with NEMA from going down

-- going 3

from 70

- odd product classes, I think earl y in this 4

rulemaking, down to five. And I think that 5

simplification is extraordinarily valuable, both for 6

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

for all segments of the market. It also makes 8

compliance and enforcement much more doable and 9

en courage s the Department to stick with the product 10

classes designations as have been developed through 11

the rulemaking. 12

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

to comment box number one. We support the exemption 14

for EMI that

-- we support the coverage t he 15

Department has proposed in this rulemaking. We 16

think the coverage really drives a lot of the 17

savings in this rulemaking, the extension of 18

coverage to T8s and T5 ballasts, to residential 19

ballasts, to low temperature ballasts, this is 20

what’s driving the potential benefits in this 21

docket, and really support and applaud the 22

Department for extending coverage in those ways. 23

We’re also comfortable with the exemptions 24

for dimming ballasts and for EMI sensitive 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 81 applications. 1

One suggestion, one comment is whenever we 2

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

of sparks in our mind is concern about things being 4

sold in other applications. I think the 5

Department’s right that odds of an EMI

- sensitive 6

ballast being sold in other applications, I think, 7

are relatively small. But one addition may be to 8

include within the rule

-- right now, as proposed it 9

limits it to products that are designed and labeled 10

for use in EMI sensitive applications. An 11

additional descriptor that might be added that I 12

think ha s been used sometimes in the past, is 13

designed, labeled, and marketed

-- so how they’re 14

being marketed by the manufacturer. So I think that 15

may be an additional way to ensure that a loophole 16

doesn’t open up. 17

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

MR. ERHARDT: When I hear the term 19

marketed, I think about our distribution channels 20

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

to be able to control the marketing through 22

distributors to the proper market. 23

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

und erstand that concern. I don’t think you can 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 82 control your distribution, and I think the standards 1

are enforced vis

- à

- vis manufacturers. So in my 2

vision of this is what a manufacturer does to market 3

their products, since it is the manufacturer who is 4

the r esponsible party. So I understand you can’t 5

control what a distributor is doing, but you can 6

control what Philips does. 7

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

and five up there yet? 9

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

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

we had already talked about the residential ballast. 12

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

the screen to be systematic about this. Mike. 14

MR. McGARAGHAN: Mike McGaraghan. 15

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

you go back to that slide again? 17

MS. McDONALD: Sure. 18

MR. McGARAGHAN: So, Bob, if you’re 19

talking about potentially dividing product classes 20

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

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

end up with something like seven product classes? 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob? 24

MR. ERHARDT: Well, that’s where I ran 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 83 across my difficulty. I haven’t spent much time 1

with developing formulas for the last three, but the 2

first two were the ones where there was clearly a 3

bit of a discontinuity around 50 watts or so that 4

made it difficult for one formula to accommodate the 5

whole range. 6

MR. McGARAGHAN: Thanks. And another 7

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

best time for it, but about the product class fiv e, 9

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

in cold temperature outdoor signs. From the NOPR 11

it’s not entirely clear whether the cold temperature 12

is a key factor in the designation of that product 13

class. DOE cites a number of other factors tha t 14

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

like the temperature was actually one of those, so 16

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

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

that term is really an essential part of the title 19

of that product class. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Is that the differentiating 21

characteristic? 22

MS. McDONALD: That was taken from the way 23

that the exemption was originally outlined. There’s 24

actually a temperature specified in the Code of 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 84 Federal Regulations. It looks like Chris wanted to 1

comment on that. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Chris, go ahead. 3

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

cold temperature does have an effect on the 5

efficiency requires our open circuit voltage to go 6

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

of many things that would separate a sign ballast 8

application from a standard ballast application, but 9

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

engineered and the way it operates the lamps. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Mike, keep going. 12

MR. McGARA GHAN: So the reason I bring it 13

up is

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

noticed in the past that even just standard 15

commercial ballast, four foot ballasts, even some of 16

the NEMA premium products, I believe are rated down 17

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

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

question is if that affects efficiency, why do we 20

see that characteristic in even the most efficient 21

products on the market? 22

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

might ha ve to bounce this to an electrical engineer, 24

but the thing about a box sign that holds multiple 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 85 linear fluorescent lamps, the ballast sits at the 1

bottom. It has to strike over a much longer 2

distance of wiring to strike the lamp, whereas a 3

typical NEMA pre mium ballast does not have that. 4

So you’re looking at much longer strike distances 5

which require much higher opening current voltage to 6

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

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

take a standard, sa y a four foot ballast, and put it 9

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

don’t know if they would even flicker. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie Stephens. 12

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. Then I 13

guess I would agree with Mike that the temperature 14

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

literally a month ago installed a NEMA premium 16

ballast in a couple of fixtures in my own garage 17

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

lamp ballast that I didn’t

-- I didn’t order it up 19

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

kinds of temperatures, but if it does affect the 21

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

four foot standard, off

- the

- shelf electronic ballast 23

for two T8s has that feature built in. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Chris, go ahe ad. And then 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 86 I’ll get to you, Jeff. 1

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

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

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

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

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

MR. BROOKMAN: Jeff, follow on. 7

MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon. Certainly 8

support what Chris is saying with the striking 9

distance, the open circuit voltage, adding to the 10

efficiency losses. But also for outdoor 11

applications, many of us design to higher transient 12

ratings for protection of the ballast in outdoor 13

applications, above and beyond just a ballast rated 14

for indoor applications, with the negative 20 as the 15

starting. There are other factors, other than just 16

the open ci rcuit voltage that add to efficiency 17

losses. 18

MR. STEPHENS: Yes, I guess I’m

-- but I’m 19

still not getting anybody to address the temperature 20

thing. Does the temperature matter? Does it affect 21

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

MR. BROO KMAN: Please find the microphone. 23

Thank you, Joe. 24

MR. PARISELLA: Joe Parisella. The 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 87 difference is in your ballast in your garage, if you 1

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

distance that it has to maintain that open circuit 3

voltage i s the difference. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew deLaski to follow 5

on. 6

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

to define the product in a way that captures what 8

you’re describing as opposed to temperature, because 9

the temperature is not distinguishing the prod uct. 10

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

Ali. You said that the cold temperature came from 12

the CFR. Are there other distinguishing 13

characteristics that would expand this brief 14

description? 15

MS. McDONALD: I mean the other thing that 16

I mentioned was designed for use in outdoor signs, 17

but certainly I think accurately describing the 18

products such that we can differentiate it, if there 19

is specific language that manufacturers or advocates 20

would suggest to make sure that the product is 21

defined, we’d be open to suggestions. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Bob. 23

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

One is that yeah, I think outdoor ballasts have a 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 88 different weather rating and perhaps this can be

-- 1

MS. McDONALD: I think they require 2

moisture seals as w ell. 3

MR. ERHARDT: Right. And also the 4

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

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

minus 20. One of the things or differentiators here 7

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

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

affected by the wiring distances, somewhat, but when 10

you’re talking about a programmed start ballast, 11

these often have lamps in series and they have what 12

are called starting aid capacitors that help to pu t 13

most of the voltage across one lamp or another. 14

These systems are very sensitive to parasitic 15

capacitances which is what you have when you have 16

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

series programmed start ballast, with long lead 18

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

parasitics than other types of ballasts. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. This gentleman. 21

Your name, please. 22

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

wanted to follow up on Chris’ comment about striking 24

20 feet of glass versus s triking two to four feet of 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 89 glass. When you’re at the extremely cold 1

temperature, the physics of the lamp involved 2

increases the striking voltage as the temperature 3

goes down because the mobility of the gases within 4

the lamp. So in that aspect, more ener gy is 5

required to strike at a cold temperature with a 6

longer lamp. So logically it would follow, the 7

longer the lamp, the colder the temperature, the 8

harder the system is to start. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Mike. 10

MR. McGARAGHAN: So thanks for all th at 11

clarification. I would just encourage DOE to think 12

about the definition of that product class and 13

whether there are better identifiers. The way it 14

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

real low temperatures might be exempt from 16

standards. 17

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

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

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

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

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

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

good, very productive session this morning. 24

Please wear your badges in the building, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 90 visible here in Forrestal. There are rest rooms at 1

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

coffee shop on the gro und floor, go quickly. 3

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

you back here to start at 11. 5

(Whereupon, the meeting was recessed for a 6

20 minute period.) 7

MR. BROOKMAN: We’ll start with Matt 8

Walker. 9

**Engineering Analysis** 10

MR. WALKER: Hi everybody. My name is 11

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

and get started with the engineering analysis. In 13

the engineering analysis we put together cost and 14

efficiency data for each of the product classes and 15

the representative ballast types within those 16

product classes to create this information and pass 17

it downstream to life cycle costs and national 18

impacts analyses. 19

A look at the methodology. DOE begins by 20

choosing product classes to be directly analyzed, 21

which it calls representat ive product classes. Then 22

within these representative product classes, DOE 23

also selects what we call a representative ballast 24

type to generate more characteristic information of 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 91 all the types of ballasts included in our product 1

class. 2

Next, DOE will m ove to define baseline 3

models for each representative ballast type, and 4

then moves to develop efficiency levels or ELs, 5

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

range of efficiencies on the baseline up to the 7

maximum technologically feasible tha t was analyzed. 8

And then finally, DOE scales the efficiency levels 9

to product classes that weren’t directly analyzed. 10

This slide shows the representative 11

product classes and ballast types selected for the 12

NOPR. DOE based these selections primarily on 13

s hipment volume and the desire to analyze the major 14

lamp types operated with that product class. These 15

representative ballast types are the same as the 16

representative product classes that were analyzed in 17

the preliminary analysis. You can refer back to 18

th at. 19

So in total, DOE analyzed ten 20

representative ballast types. For the instant start 21

and rapid start product class, there were four of 22

these representative ballast types, the two and four 23

lamp, four foot medium bi

- pin, a two lamp medium bi

24

pin resident ial, and a two lamp eight foot slimline. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 92 Then in the programmed start product 1

class, there are also four representative ballast 2

types, the two and four lamp four foot medium bi

- pin 3

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

T5 high output lam p ballast. 5

And then the eight foot high output 6

instant start and rapid start product class, there 7

was just one representative ballast type, the 8

ballast to operate two lamp eight foot high output 9

lamps. 10

And then finally, for the sign ballast 11

product c lass, DOE analyzed ballast that operate a 12

maximum of four eightfoot T12 high output lamps. 13

We’ll move on to a brief discussion of 14

what a baseline model is. The baseline model will 15

typically just meet the existing energy conservation 16

standards if there a re any, or will represent the 17

most common lowest efficiency ballast for that 18

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

more than one baseline, two baselines, to consider 20

life cycle cost changes relative to ballasts that 21

operate different lamp di ameters. So, for example, 22

in the two lamp four

- foot medium bi

- pin commercial 23

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

T12 electronic and a T8 electronic baseline

. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 93 Moving on to the selection of efficiency 1

levels. As we mentioned earlier, DOE is proposing 2

to set standards using an equation that relates the 3

measured total lamp arc power to ballast efficiency. 4

So the process sort of began with DOE plotting 5

multiple manufacturers’ high and standard efficiency 6

product offerings and beg inning expe rimenting with 7

different regression equations. And DOE found that 8

the logarithmic relationship fit the trend between 9

efficiency and power the best. So DOE designed 10

these logarithmic equations to align with certain 11

natural divisions in BLE to include the standard 12

versus high efficiency product lines, ballasts that 13

operate different lamp diameters and other 14

divisions. 15

The next two slides will show the 16

efficiency level equations for the instant start and 17

rapid start product class and the programmed start 18

p roduct class. 19

We’ve already heard a little bit of 20

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

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

colored points on the plots, they denote the 23

representative units for the different ballast 24

types. For example, the red squares are the two 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 94 lamp four

- foot medium bi

- pin commercial ballasts. 1

The green triangles are eight foot slimline 2

ballasts. So these would be the ballasts that DOE 3

used to represent the cost and efficiency of 4

particular levels for pa rticular types of ballasts. 5

So then in addition to the test points, 6

you can see the three efficiency level equations 7

developed for this product class. EL1 will just 8

allow the baseline efficiency four

- foot T8 ballast, 9

thereby eliminating the four

- foot T1 2 varieties. 10

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

efficient four foot medium bi

- pin ballasts and is 12

just met by the least efficient eight foot T8 13

slimline, so EL2 will eliminate the eight foot T12 14

slimline ballast. 15

And then finally we move to efficiency 16

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

product class and was met only by the most efficient 18

ballast that DOE tested in its analysis. 19

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

MR. McGARAGHAN: Mike McGaraghan. Did you 21

say what the gr ay diamonds are? 22

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

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

variety both within the representative ballast types 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 95 as well as one and three lamp ballast, low and high 1

ballast factor. We just called out the certain 2

points as being the ones that were used to represent 3

the cost efficiency of a particular level. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew deLaski. 5

MR. DeLASKI: So in this

-- so you’re 6

showing

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

based on this plot, qu ite a variety of products that 8

are meeting EL3 at various power levels. You said 9

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

of dots above that line. 11

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

intention was to allow a wide range of products to 13

meet t hat most efficient level with the high and low 14

ballast factors, and then this represents testing of 15

many manufacturers, so there are examples of more 16

than one manufacturer ballast of a particular type 17

that would meet the level. 18

MR. DeLASKI: Okay. Thank s. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 20

MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon. Were the gray 21

data points the retested data using the new metric, 22

with the lamp arc power? 23

MR. WALKER: Every data point on this plot 24

and in the other is based on the lamp

- based ballast 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 96 luminous eff iciency , so the testing was redone for 1

the NOPR stage in this analysis. 2

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

that’s the new test procedure? 4

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

final rule as recently published. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 7

MR. ERHAR DT: Are these data points 8

corrected for 99 percent confidence factor? 9

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

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

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

of either

-- the average of all the sa mples tested 13

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

DOE takes these efficiency levels that it developed 15

based on average values and reduces that efficiency 16

level equation to account for testing variations, 17

which includes the compliance equation as well as 18

lab to lab. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Tina. 20

DR. KAARSBERG: Bob, is this the same 21

class that you all plotted for similar or have any 22

similarity? 23

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

power for my computer so I can’t pull up all my 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 97 information. 1

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

here, Bob. 3

MR. ERHARDT: Oh, there is? 4

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

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

doing so

-- 7

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

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

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

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

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

we can understand what any kind of discontinuity 13

we’re getting with these data reviews are. 14

DR. KAARSBERG: I was just curious, you 15

know. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Do you want to have a 17

moment to review that while we’re

-- or have you 18

pretty much got it? Bob? 19

MR. ERHARDT: I think I have it. 20

MR. McGARAGHAN: Doug, I have a quick 21

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

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Mike. 23

MR. McGARAGHAN: We talked before about 24

the data set that NEMA has and whether or not you’ll 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 98 be able to

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

but I want to clarify the presentation that Chris 2

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

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

DOE’s intention to post that? 5

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

here, but I will investigate whether we can post 7

that sooner than later. No rmally it would be part 8

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

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

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

post that sooner than later. 12

MR. McGARAGHAN: I appreciate that. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob, you got something 14

there? Get close to the microphone. 15

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

scale but it appears

-- it’s pretty close. Although 17

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

nothing higher than 91 percent, and y ou’re showing 19

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

to resolve. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, Cheryl. 22

MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English. I just also 23

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

and we start setting these EL levels, there’s an 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 99 assumption that every dot on there can be applied 1

equally to the same luminaires, and that may not 2

necessarily be the case. So there’s certain 3

ballasts there that may have some specific utility 4

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

othe rs. 6

MR. WALKER: Cheryl, are there some 7

fixture types that could not handle a very efficient 8

ballast, for example, an EL3 ballast? 9

MS. ENGLISH: The efficiency is not really 10

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

tends to be really critic al issue, so we may want to 12

try to take this data

-- I know that

-- I don’t 13

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

of detail at this time, but that will certainly be a 15

critical element in looking at whether or not it can 16

be incorporated into certain products. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 18

MR. ERHARDT: Yes, as a matter of fact, 19

this is a good time to ask the question. Did 20

Navigant evaluate any products in the larger can 21

size? 22

MR. WALKER: Well, let’s see, I guess

-- I 23

think most of our data is wh at you would call the 24

larger can size. It’s not

-- we did not test as 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 100 many of the N

- can. 1

MR. ERHARDT: Okay. But A

- can or F

- can or 2

what’s the

-- F

- or A

- ? 3

MR. WALKER: I probably would want to 4

confirm to be sure, but I’m seeing nods that it’s 5

probabl y the F size. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: So restate it, Matt

-- what 7

you mostly tested. 8

MR. WALKER: I think we mostly tested the 9

largest can size. 10

MR. ERHARDT: Oh, oh, oh. Then this makes 11

sense because we don’t sell that size any more. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: So wha t you’re selling now. 13

Identify those two can sizes. 14

MR. WALKER: Well, I might want to 15

reclarify

-- I’m not sure that I want to say that we 16

tested the largest ballast size. We recently 17

purchased some of these ballasts in late 2010, so if 18

only the A and Ns were available, I would imagine it 19

was one of the two. I know for a fact that we 20

tested very few N

- cans. So it would lead me to 21

believe that we tested mostly A

- cans. 22

MR. ERHARDT: I guess my question is, are 23

any of these data points that then corre spond very 24

well to our data because we did show F

- can data 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 101 approaching 93, 94 percent efficiency. If those are 1

F

- can data, then all of the comments that we made 2

about you can associate a two to six percent 3

luminaire efficiency drop by going to that can, 4

t hose would apply. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Chris. 6

MR. HOLSTEIN: Yeah, this is Chris. Just 7

to clarify, the F

- can is available in the market. 8

Full on ballast manufacturers do sell it. So if you 9

purchased a sampling of distribution, then there’s a 10

good chance y ou could have F

- can and A

- can data. 11

MR. ERHARDT: I’m sorry, I didn’t mean we 12

don’t sell them, I mean we only sell one percent of 13

our market is F

- can, and if you’re basing

-- this is 14

in principle a replacement product for older 15

designs, and yes, you can make a more efficient 16

product and sometimes even a cheaper product by 17

going into the bigger can, but it has a lot of costs 18

on the luminaire side and it has detrimental effects 19

on luminaire efficiency. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks, Bob. 21

Charlie Stephens. 22

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. As I 23

recall, when we were looking at the NEMA data 24

earlier, there was no N

- can data, or if there was, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 102 it wasn’t identified as such. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Justin or Jeff? Jeff. 2

MR. PLASKON: Yeah, Jeff Plaskon. Most of 3

ou r data was in the N

- can. 4

MR. STEPHENS: Well, okay, I’m thinking 5

about where we actually

-- I think there was only 6

one slide where it was identified as what the can 7

was and there was As on the left, and standard on 8

the right, and nothing that was labeled N. So if 9

you did do any N testing, then we can’t identify it 10

in the data you submitted. 11

MR. PLASKON: Correct, but in the instant 12

start data set that we submitted, a majority of that 13

data was our N style can. 14

MR. STEPHENS: So does that mean

-- 15

MR. ERHARDT: Said in another way, the 16

NEMA data is a mixture of A and N, but no F. 17

MR. STEPHENS: Okay. So what we saw with 18

the plots against the standard curves had some N in 19

it, but you couldn’t identify it. 20

MR. COOK: Yeah, the one chart you’re 21

refer ring to was just trying to make the point that 22

the large can improved efficiency, that’s all it was 23

trying to do. It was not exemplary of all the data 24

that they had taken. It was just to make the one 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 103 point. 1

MR. STEPHENS: So just involved in that 2

chart , because there were these cans that were 3

labeled standard over those. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: So the response? 5

MR. ERHARDT: Old standard. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: So the response to the 7

question is F? Susan, use the microphone. 8

MS. ANDERSON: Susan Anderson. If i t’s 9

labeled “standard” on slide 26, that’s the F

- can. 10

That was the largest can that Chris showed you. And 11

it’s what we traditionally use for T12 and was the 12

original can size for T8

. 13

MR. McGARAGHAN: Right, so Susan or Bob, 14

do you market today NEMA pre mium ballasts in F

- cans? 15

MS. ANDERSON: No, our volume is all in 16

the A and now going to the N. 17

MR. McGARAGHAN: So NEMA doesn’t have an 18

F

- can that’s labeled a NEMA premium? 19

MS. ANDERSON: No. 20

MR. ERHARDT: No, this is

-- 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Chris is r eady, go ahead. 22

MR. HOLSTEIN: I was going to say

-- this 23

is Chris

-- we don’t have

-- “we” saying universal, 24

not NEMA, universal

-- there is no NEMA premium 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 104 products in an F

- can. 1

MR. McGARAGHAN: So they just evolved from 2

that? If that’s the case, th en, and the Department 3

was testing NEMA premium products, then that’s not 4

driving the data that you’re seeing before us, 5

because they were looking at NEMA premium products. 6

So if they’re buying NEMA premium products, you 7

weren’t buying F cans, you were bu ying the smaller 8

cans, not the smallest, but the smaller. 9

MR. WALKER: Likely correct. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob, go ahead. 11

MR. ERHARDT: An F

- can with a 92 or a 93 12

percent efficiency would certainly qualify for NEMA 13

premium, and I don’t know, but I would n ot be 14

surprised if our marketing department wasn’t selling 15

them as NEMA premium. The point we’re making is our 16

new, in our case, our Optanium product line is in 17

the smaller cans. The F

- can, labeled the standard 18

can, was the standard for maybe 50 years, that’s why 19

it’s called the standard can. It was, up until 1998 20

or so, it was the dominant can. Starting, certainly 21

around

-- by 2000, there was a big push already to 22

the smaller cans, t he A and then the N. So if 23

you’re

-- by now today, I’d say because our 24

customers, luminaire manufacturers, have been able 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 105 to realize efficiencies by going to a smaller can, 1

any of our newer product lines, mainly our Optanium, 2

are going to be in the A and N

- cans. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Keith. 4

MR. COOK: I guess now I’m confused. I 5

thought that the DOE data represented a broad range 6

of products, not just NEMA premium. 7

MR. HOLSTEIN: That is correct, Keith, 8

from the least efficient available to the top, which 9

would be the NEMA premium. So I think the earlier 10

statement that the NEMA premiums were probably A

11

cans would make sense. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. Joanna. 13

MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. Is the NEMA 14

data the actual tested values, or is it the tested 15

va lues lowered by point eight percent? 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 17

MR. ERHARDT: It is the mean

-- each data 18

point is a mean of four or five ballasts adjusted 19

for 99 percent confidence level by point eight 20

percent. 21

MS. MAUER: And then the DOE data is a 22

sample means? 23

MR. WALKER: That is correct. 24

MR. ERHARDT: Not adjusted. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 106 MR. WALKER: Not adjusted. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: So that accounts for the 2

difference. 3

MR. ERHARDT: Some differences, yes. 4

MR. WALKER: That accounts for 0.8 5

percent, to be specific. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: That’s exactly what I 7

meant. Okay. So I think we’ve exhausted this one. 8

Keep that going. Oh, no, we haven’t. Mike. 9

MR. McGARAGHAN: Sorry. Question for 10

Susan or maybe others. I wondered if you could 11

expand a little bit on the trad e - off between the 12

extra efficiency and can size, the efficiency of the 13

ballast. Are you aware

-- have there been studies 14

that are working on demonstrating that effect or, 15

you know, if we went out and tried to find the most 16

efficient fixtures out there, ar e we not going to 17

find any that are housing the larger of those two, 18

the A

- can? 19

MR. BROOKMAN: I see Susan, go ahead. 20

MS. ANDERSON: I’m going to refer the 21

question to Cheryl because Cheryl actually talked 22

with her luminaire engineers. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Cheryl. 24

MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English. There are 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 107 no studies. Reality is this is a market dynamic of 1

reducing costs, that’s what’s driven the smaller 2

cans. To be able to do a smaller housing, 3

especially with the demand on green building and 4

reducing ma terial in the fixture, so that’s what’s 5

driven the smaller can size. Now the optical 6

benefit from that is, for instance, these fixtures 7

up here, they have a reflector shaped around that. 8

There’s a channel in there that has the ballast, so 9

the more shallo w we can make that channel, the less 10

obstruction we have on the lamp light output. 11

For my company, there are many products 12

where we no longer offer the product with an F

- can. 13

So I think it would be hard to go out and start 14

looking at photometric data and making those 15

comparisons. I actually had to go in to archives of 16

test data that was decades old to do that kind of 17

comparison. There are a few products that may still 18

use that F

- can, but not many of them. I couldn’t 19

even name them off the top of my head. 20

Andrew had made a point earlier about the 21

efficiency and for those products that install the 22

ballast inside the housing, and I had to think that 23

I don’t know of any of my products that don’t 24

install the ballast inside the housing. I did not 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 108 want to come in here and make a comment that you 1

could get that two to six percent increase on every 2

fixture because I haven’t done enough data studies 3

to know that, but I can’t think of any fixture 4

designs where the smaller housing would not have a 5

positive i mpact on the optical characteristics. The 6

only case would be if you were doing cheap optical 7

design and just took an existing housing, put the 8

smaller ballast in it without redesigning the 9

fixture. You do have to redesign the fixture for 10

it. 11

MR. BROOKM AN: Mike 12

MR. McGARAGHAN: Mike again. So my 13

question was really focused in on the difference 14

between the A and the N

- can, and is the two to six 15

percent estimate based on the difference between A 16

and N? And where did the two to six percent come 17

from? 18

MS. ENGLISH: The two to six is from F to 19

A, and what I did was I looked at our largest volume 20

types of products, like troffers and fluorescent 21

industrial, linear industrial, and compared the 22

products that we sold five years ago with an F

- can 23

to the new p roducts that we sell today in terms of 24

the photometric efficiency. I have not done any 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 109 analysis between A

- and N

- can. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay, Matt. 2

MR. WALKER: This is a similar slide 3

depicting the programmed start product class. 4

Again, the colored dots are the representative 5

units, and the gray dots are other ballasts that we 6

tested. EL1 would eliminate the least efficient two 7

and four lamp medium bi

- pin ballasts, but does not 8

affect the T

- 5 ballast. And when you move to EL2, 9

it requires slightly more efficient four foot medium 10

bi

- pin ballasts, and eliminates the least efficient 11

T5. And then EL3 requires the most efficient 12

programmed start ballasts that are commercially 13

available, based on DOE’s testing. 14

Like we were saying before, the points on 15

this plot are the average of the samples tested, and 16

we had received comments in the preliminary analysis 17

that we should consider measurement variation in the 18

engineering analysis and standard setting, so we’ll 19

move into a discussion of that. 20

I guess before I get into the measurement 21

variation, we have a little more background on the 22

testing. DOE did test multiple manufacturers’ 23

ballasts, multiple product lines. It sought to test 24

the full range of efficiency according to 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 110 information available i n catalogs and the highest 1

efficiency ballast available i n catalogs and as 2

listed in the California Energy Commission database. 3

So then for the representative ballast types 4

analyzed, DOE tested five samples of each model. 5

All five of these samples were tested at the same 6

laboratory and then the efficiency level equation 7

was initially developed based on these average 8

tested BLE values. 9

Then, after creating this efficiency level 10

based on the average tested values, the BLE equation 11

was adjusted downwards based on an analysis of 12

measurement variation, which came out to a 0.8 13

percent reduction, to take into account lab to lab 14

variation and the compliance equation that 15

manufacturers are required to follow. 16

So the next two slides go into those two 17

components of the merit variation analysis. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob? 19

MR. ERHARDT: I was just going to

-- if 20

he’s going to go into it, I’ll hold my question. 21

MR. WALKER: So this first slide looks at 22

the lab to lab variation. Different laboratories 23

will have diffe rent personnel, different equipment, 24

slightly different environmental factors, and all of 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 111 these differences can lead to slight changes in the 1

test results from lab to lab. DOE conducted its 2

primary testing at Intertek, but compared a subset 3

of the results through testing at the Lighting 4

Research Center. In addition, DOE submitted four 5

ballast models to two additional test facilities for 6

additional data comparison, and DOE found that on 7

average, the lab to lab variation was about 0.6 8

percent. 9

We’ll move on to the second component. 10

MR. HOLSTEIN: This is Chris. When that 11

chart is that just one product in particular, or is 12

that like a mean

-- when you say two lamp four foot, 13

is that the mean of all, or is that

-- did you say 14

here’s one product, here’s the variance. 15

MR. WALKER: It’s just one product per 16

ballast type. So there were four model numbers 17

submitted, three samples of each for the purposes of 18

this comparison. 19

MR. HOLSTEIN: Sorry, this is Chris again. 20

And these are all

-- everybody was te sting off the 21

new BLE method? 22

MR. WALKER: That's correct. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: You said three samples of 24

each? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 112 MR. WALKER: Right. So for the data 1

that’s depicted on the bar graph on this slide, 2

there are four ballast models, three samples of 3

each, submi tted to four separate laboratories. And 4

the sample averages are reported as the four 5

separate bars on the plot. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Sample averages. Okay. 7

Keith. 8

MR. COOK: Keith Cook with Philips. I 9

guess I’ve got a question if it makes sense to take 10

a n average variation as opposed to an absolute. I 11

mean, this is real test variation, and if a lab is 12

seeing those kinds of numbers, that’s what they’re 13

going to have to be making judgments against, not an 14

average number. 15

MR. WALKER: So you’re suggesting the 16

worst case scenario be used? 17

MR. COOK: I think so. I think that’s 18

what you’ve got to live with. How do you adjust to 19

an average number? I don’t know how to do that. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Bob. 21

MR. ERHARDT: I would think that you 22

should be do ing some kind of three sigma variation 23

analysis between the labs. I mean, if they’re all 24

testing the same products, look at the variation 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 113 between each unit, between each lab, and then take 1

that variation and look at a three sigma. Also 2

three samples is n ot a very statistically large 3

sample size for looking for this kind of variation. 4

And if you plug into the formula that we’ve 5

recognized to get the confidence level, that three 6

samples, you’re going to need a margin of another 7

two percent, probably in ord er to have a 99 percent 8

confidence level that you’ve got true mean. 9

MR. WALKER: Okay. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments on 11

these? 12

MS. GUPTA: This is Mimi Gupta. So, Bob, 13

I don’t think that this lab to lab variation data 14

was used to develop the confidence interval 15

reduction of point two percent, that Matthew 16

discussed before. 17

MR. WALKER: It’s coming on the next 18

slide. The point two. 19

MS. GUPTA: Yeah, just to clarify that. 20

MR. ERHARDT: You said you’re coming up 21

with a point six percent adjustment factor. Now if 22

that’s across the board, I see one ballast

-- one 23

set of ballasts there that has a three percent 24

difference between labs, and on a sample size of 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 114 three, if this is just the mean, I’m sure a three 1

sigma value is going to be much h igher than even the 2

three percent and the point six percent or so

-- or 3

the one percent you’re showing here. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Ali, you had your hand up? 5

MS. McDONALD: Sorry, maybe Matthew can 6

elaborate, but the point six percent reduction was 7

actually b ased on a larger sample size than this, 8

and we put

-- we chose to show this graph because we 9

did test

-- we did test for ballast models at four 10

different labs, but Matthew can provide more detail 11

about how that point six, what that sample size was. 12

MR. E RHARDT: This is something that’s 13

very frustrating. When we’ve had conversations with 14

you, you’ve told us about all this very large sample 15

size and statistically significant numbers and 16

number of labs, nothing’s been published. Nothing 17

that we can review . And we have some concerns. We 18

have some concerns that maybe you’re cherry

- picking 19

the best lab or, you know, you’ve put this up as an 20

example, and this contradicts your claim. So you’re 21

not inspiring a lot of confidence in us that you’ve 22

made your adj ustment factors the right way when you 23

put up on the slide here a three percent variance 24

and say you used this to come up with a point six 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 115 adjustment factor. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Matt, you want to say more 2

about how you arrived at that adjustment factor? 3

MR. WALKER: I can say a little more but I 4

don’t think it’s going to resolve Bob’s issue. To 5

create the 0.6 percent, it was a comparison of the 6

Intertek average, so that’s of five samples, 7

compared to five samples that the Lighting Research 8

Center, and this was done for

-- I’m not certain of 9

the number, but many more than the four examples 10

here. And so this point six percent is the average 11

difference between those two laboratories when 12

you’re comparing a particular model. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 14

MR. ERHARDT: Is LRC accredited to test 15

8211? 16

MR. WALKER: I’m not certain about 8211. 17

MR. ERHARDT: It’s a rather involved 18

process. We’ve worked with LRC and I’m not 19

convinced they are accredited. 20

MR. WALKER: Okay. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Please. Use the 22

microphone. 23

MR. THOMAS: Ed Thomas. Just to be sure, 24

I think the standard that we should be referring to 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 116 is ISO 17025, which is a definition of laboratory 1

performance and accreditation for test equipment and 2

test engineers using that equipment. That’s the 3

kind of policies that we should be testing to here. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Mike. 5

MR. McGARAGHAN: Mike McGaraghan. Can DOE 6

publish the more details about the testing that was 7

done and let us know the complete list of testing 8

facilities and

-- 9

MS. GUPTA: Yeah, this is Mimi Gupta. I 10

think right now all we have is the Intertek test 11

results on the web, but we can publish the full

-- 12

all of the test laboratory results that we’ve 13

gathered, very quickly. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So we’re going to 15

keep p ushing ahead here. 16

MR. WALKER: So then the second element 17

variation is the manufacturing variation from lot to 18

lot. Every ballast that leaves the factory is not 19

going to operate exactly the same, so to take some 20

of that into account, DOE purchased ball asts for its 21

representative ballast types on two separate dates. 22

I purchased three samples early 2009, followed by 23

two more in late 2010. By purchasing at separate 24

times, the sample average BLE and standard deviation 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 117 are more representative of the full p opulation. So 1

then to indicate compliance, manufacturers are 2

required to use an equation that is designed to take 3

into account any variation within the sample set. 4

So this variation could be due to differences in the 5

samples themselves, the lot to lot va riation, as 6

well as any changes from test to test within a lab. 7

So then in that case, DOE found that the 8

reported value, using this compliance equation was 9

on average 0.2 percent less than the sample average. 10

So DOE added this 0.2 percent number to the 0.6 11

number for lab to lab variation, to come up with its 12

overall 0.8 percent measurement variation adjustment 13

factor. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Robert. 15

MR. NACHTRIEB: Robert Nachtrieb, Lutron 16

Electronics. I think the first time we started 17

working with Mimi was back when we were hoping to 18

get a fully all

- electronic method of determining 19

ballast efficiency, and one of the things that we 20

did at that time was a so

- called gauge R&R, which is 21

a way to analyze sources of variation in 22

measurements. Does a variatio n come because two 23

products are different? Does a variation come 24

because two people performing the measurement are 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 118 doing it differently? Is there variation in the 1

same person performing the same measurement on the 2

same piece of equipment over and over ag ain? And it 3

allocates the variance amongst different possible 4

sources. So one suggestion, we might already have 5

enough data to perform the gauge R&R analysis of the 6

data, and it’s a recognized technique, how to 7

reconcile differences amongst measurements. Gauge 8

R&R. Thank you. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. 10

MR. WALKER: So we’ll move on to an 11

example of some of the representative units. For 12

the two lamp, four foot medium bi

- pin instant 13

start/rapid start commercial ballast type. This 14

table shows that the average tested BLE in the 15

second to right

- most column, as well as the minimum 16

BLE requirement for that particular representative 17

unit

-- and these were the colored shapes on the 18

plots earlier

-- and then this minimum BLE 19

requirement does include the 0.8 percent reduction 20

for measurement variation. 21

So this slide summarizes the efficiency 22

level equations for all the representative product 23

classes. Again, you can see the form of the 24

equation as a coefficient, times natural log of lamp 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 119 arc power, p lus a constant value. All of the 1

product classes have three efficiency levels except 2

for the sign product class, which only has one. 3

So then here, in issue seven, DOE is 4

requesting comment on the efficiency levels 5

considered for fluorescent ballasts, as well as the 6

form of the equations, testing process, and its 7

analysis of measurement variation. We already hit 8

on that a little bit. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: You see the request for 10

comment. Bob. 11

MR. ERHARDT: I think most of our comments 12

so far have been on the appropriateness of the 13

efficiency levels. We do question the methodology 14

that was used to come up with them and we have 15

proposed alternatives, or are proposing 16

alternatives. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Charlie Stephens. 18

MR. STEPHENS: I’ll just make one comment 19

as a more disinterested observer, but, you know, if 20

the best we can do here is two sigma, to say nothing 21

of three, I’m not sure anybody in the room has 22

earned the right to put a decimal point on their 23

efficiencies. So unless we get some of this 24

s traightened out, I really have no idea what to 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 120 recommend, and I like the idea of trying to get at 1

the source of the error, if we possibly can, because 2

otherwise, those of us who are trying to understand 3

what the right thing to do here is, we have nothing 4

t o work with right now. And so I’m a bit at a loss. 5

I hope DOE and the manufacturers can figure out some 6

way to get some data on the table to make something 7

rational out of this in the next 30 days. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 9

MR. ERHARDT: Would a gauge R&R analysis 10

of our test results and our labs help you? Can DOE 11

do the same? 12

MR. WALKER: I mean that’s something we 13

can look into. The gauge R&R terminology is new to 14

me, but I am familiar with some of the different 15

ways to look at measurement variation. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comment on this? 17

Charlie Stephens. 18

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. All I 19

really want is apples and apples. I want to be able 20

to know that what I’m looking at is apples and 21

apples, and what the standard deviation is on what 22

I’m looking at, and how well I can rely on what I’m 23

seeing. That’s it. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. We’re going to keep 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 121 moving on. 1

MR. WALKER: So now we’ll move on to the 2

max tech discussion. DOE is required to consider 3

the maximum technologically feasibl e and 4

economically justified efficiency level. DOE has 5

determined that the highest efficiency levels looked 6

at in this analysis, in the NOPR analysis, are 7

technologically feasible for a sufficient diversity 8

of products, including several ballast factors, 9

number of lamps per ballast, types of lamps 10

operated. Again, this is based on the test data 11

that DOE collected. 12

However, DOE is still considering whether 13

an efficiency level higher than that analyzed in the 14

NOPR is technologically feasible and discusses the 15

possibility of this in advanced technology scenario, 16

an Appendix of the TSD. 17

So then this plot here shows what that 18

advance technology scenario efficiency level could 19

look like. The methodology here was that the 20

efficiency level was designed to p ass through the 21

absolute most efficient ballast that was tested. So 22

you can see that in the green and blue circle on the 23

right side of that dotted line. DOE then tried to 24

increase the efficiency of other ballast types 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 122 through component substitution in an independent 1

laboratory, but was unable to do so, so far, so 2

instead for ballast types that did not have an 3

option at that highest advanced technology scenario 4

efficiency level, DOE had to model a ballast, 5

approximating what its efficiency should be. So 6

t hat’s the red square and the orange circle

-- those 7

are not actual test points, those would be the model 8

points for this advance technology scenario. 9

And so issue eight, DOE requests comment 10

on the max tech efficiency level and whether it is 11

technologica lly feasible for a full array of 12

products. It also seeks comments on the design 13

options and costs for achieving a level even higher 14

than this. I realize that we’ve talked about 15

perhaps even the level that’s being shown here is 16

perhaps not feasible, based on a different data set, 17

but if there’s any additional comments on this 18

topic, this would be a good time for that. 19

Okay. So after developing the efficiency 20

levels and the representative units for each of the 21

representative ballast types, DOE began the process 22

of developing price data. It developed the prices 23

for its analysis using four different sources. They 24

used t ear - down data, distributor list prices, retail 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 123 prices from online distributors, as well as some 1

aggregated manufacturer’s supply prices. 2

In developing the final price, DOE gave 3

preference to its tear

- down results, then the 4

distributor list prices, and th en supplemented with 5

retail price scaling where necessary. And then for 6

the aggregated manufacturer’s supply prices, DOE 7

used this to verify accuracy and to identify the 8

possible range of prices that should be

-- that we 9

should expect to see from the othe r data sources. 10

So the table on this slide gives an 11

example of the manufacturer’s selling prices for the 12

two lamp, four

- foot medium bi

- pin instant start and 13

rapid start commercial representative ballast type. 14

Similar to the results from the preliminary 15

analysis, the T12 baseline is a little bit more 16

expensive than the T8 baseline, but the EL2 and EL3 17

do follow the trend of increasing price with 18

increased efficiency. 19

And so issue six, DOE does request comment 20

on the methods to calculate the manufacturer ’s 21

selling prices as well as the prices themselves. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Comments on the methods 23

used to calculate manufacturer’s selling prices? 24

Tom Eckman. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 124 MR. ECKMAN: It stated in the Federal 1

Register that DOE was unable to get the markup for 2

residentia l ballast going through home improvement 3

or retail distribution channels. And were you using 4

-- end up using OEM markups, is that correct? 5

MR. WALKER: I think I’ll defer to 6

colleague at PNNL. 7

MR. LINGARD: This is an instance

-- Bob 8

Lingard with PNNL

-- we’ll touch on that in the next 9

section. 10

MR. ECKMAN: Okay. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Keith? 12

MR. COOK: I hate to go back, but this is 13

bugging me to death on that technologically

-- 14

maximum technologically feasible. What you’re 15

essentially saying there i s 95 percent of today’s 16

products do not meet that requirement, and 50 17

percent of the products that do meet it would have 18

to be thrown out because of the fact that you’re 19

using an average number to come up with your data 20

points. And so by drawing the line through the 21

middle of those data points, half the population no 22

longer meets the requirement. So now you’d have to 23

go through, in order to meet those requirements, 24

you’re going to have to sort out half of your 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 125 manufacturing population and throw them away. I 1

don’t see how that’s doable. 2

MR. WALKER: Are you referring to the 3

advanced technology scenario line here? 4

MR. COOK: Correct. 5

MR. WALKER: Yeah, I think I would agree 6

that the line was designed to target those 7

particular, most efficient ballasts tested, but 8

again, we would apply the measurement variation 9

reduction, even to a line like this, such that

-- 10

with the idea being that all ballasts within that 11

sample set would

-- or within the whole distribution 12

of that particular model would meet the le vel. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Robert van Buskirk from 14

DOE. 15

MR. van BUSKIRK: Yeah, and just to

-- 16

clarification that the maximum technologically 17

feasible level is a level that’s required by 18

statute, which is technologically feasible even 19

though it may not be eco nomic in any sense. So the 20

maximum technologically feasible is defining an 21

upper bound that is not necessarily economic, and 22

economic considerations are not taken into account 23

on technological feasibility. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: On that one, yes. Okay. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 126 So add itional comments here? 1

MR. WALKER: Well, we’re into the final 2

engineering slide. Because DOE didn’t analyze the 3

eight foot high output programmed start ballast 4

directly, it needed to scale the efficiency levels 5

for a related product class, so DOE analy zed its 6

four foot medium bi

- pin test data, looking at the 7

instant start and programmed start data points, and 8

found an average ratio between the instant start and 9

programmed start ballast limit of sufficiency. So 10

DOE found that on average the programmed s tart 11

ballast were two percent less efficient than the 12

instant start, and it applied this reduction to the 13

eight foot high output efficiency levels. Okay. 14

That brings us to the end of the 15

engineering and this slide gives an overview of the 16

trial standa rd levels considered in the NOPR. But 17

there are three trial standard levels, the TSL is a 18

combination of ELs used for analyzing the impact of 19

standards. The setup for this rulemaking is fairly 20

straightforward. For TSL

- 1, a trial standard above 21

level 1; EL

- 1, or efficiency level one is used for 22

all product classes. Then for trial standard level 23

two, efficiency level two is used for all product 24

classes except for the sign product ballast class 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 127 which only had one efficiency level. And then 1

finally, TSL

- 3 used EL

- 3 for all product classes 2

except for the sign ballast. And this TSL 3

represented the maximum technologically analyzed. 4

Okay. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: I’m going to suggest we 6

break for lunch now. It’s a little earlier than I 7

had thought we would, but I think everybody could 8

use a break at this point, and it’s now almost noon. 9

Let’s return at one o’clock. 10

For those of you that are not familiar 11

with the Forrestal Building, not only do you need to 12

wear your badge, but to go to the big cafeteria, 13

there’ s a Subway sandwich shop down on the ground 14

floor near the coffee shop. To go to the big 15

cafeteria, you need to go down to the ground floor 16

and walk underneath about 100 yards in that 17

direction from the elevator bank, and then up the 18

escalators to the caf eteria. Maybe anybody who’s 19

not familiar with the trek can all go en masse, and 20

then we’ll resume at one o’clock. You know where 21

the rest rooms are. And one other thing, Natasha, 22

you’re listening in on the line, let’s test right 23

now whether your audio c omes in appropriately, and 24

the rest of you can leave and go to lunch. Okay? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 128 Tina. 1

DR. KAARSBERG: One other logistics 2

comment, since it’s an absolutely gorgeous day 3

outside, I would encourage you if you go to the 4

ground floor place, there is sort of an inner 5

courtyard where you don’t have to go through 6

security again, where you can sit outside if you 7

would like. I would recommend it as a place if you 8

like the great outdoors. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: And I forgot one thing. As 10

you -- you will have to clear bac k through security 11

-- you already have a badge, but you’ll have to 12

clear back through security when you come back. 13

This room will be locked, so you can leave your 14

stuff here. You might need an ID to get back in. 15

Sometimes they do that, sometimes they do n’t. From 16

the cafeteria, from the big cafeteria. So at least 17

bring an ID with you, otherwise you can leave your 18

stuff, and we’ll resume here at one. 19

And Natasha, why don’t you dial in now and 20

try and talk with us. 21

(Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the mee t ing in 22

the above captioned matter was adjourned for lunch 23

recess , to reconvene at 1:00 p .m.) 24

25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 129 AFTERNOON SESSION 1

1:03 p.m. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Say your organizational 3

title, Robert. 4

**Technical Discussion** 5

MR. van BUSKIRK: I’m Robert van Buskirk. 6

I’m a senior technical analyst with the standards 7

program. I would like to sort of have a little bit 8

of a technical discussion to see to what extent some 9

of the concerns that were brought up earlier in the 10

meetin g have technical solutions. So some of the 11

concerns, of course, are policy concerns , some of 12

them are just consequences of how we’re formulating 13

the analysis and the standards levels. 14

So I took some of the data out of the 15

presentation and did a brief plot that I think 16

highlights one of the

-- how some of the concerns 17

may be due to a technical formulation issue. So 18

what you see on the screen is you see a subsample of 19

some of the NEMA data, which is showing the BLE

-- I 20

believe it’s the BLE levels as a function of the 21

power on the horizontal axis. And right now, 22

through the rulemaking, we’ve used a log fit to 23

express the relationship between the efficiency 24

metric and the power level. 25

So what you see on that log fit is if you 26Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 130 compare it to some of the NEMA data, the level as 1

expressed by the log fit appears rather stringent 2

for the low power levels, and less stringent for the 3

high power levels. And so the question is, is there 4

a different functional form? 5

So I was one of the technical analysts in 6

t he transformer’s rulemaking, and to some extent, a 7

ballast is a very small transformer. The scaling 8

relationship for losses in a transformer is a one

-- 9

is a minus one

- quarter power log. So, I took the 10

data from the presentation and I did a power log fit 11

on the losses, so a one over efficiency minus one. 12

And that is the central curve there. And you’ll 13

notice that that central curve matches at the high 14

power levels the DOE log curve, and it matches at 15

the low power levels the log curve presented by NEMA 16

in the presentation. For that subsample of data 17

points, you see it’s

-- that this particular 18

formulation of the power laws tracing the lower end 19

of the subsample. I took out the point eight 20

adjustment, okay, so this is just sort of the raw 21

data. 22

And to some extent, if the shape fits the 23

points better, right, then this might mitigate some 24

of the concerns about a particular curve knocking a 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 131 bunch of ballasts out of the market. So I want to 1

toss that out, maybe people have some comments on 2

the reasonabili ty and the

-- any concerns they might 3

have about changing the detailed shape of the 4

efficiency power relationship. Do people have 5

comments on that? 6

(Question off mic) 7

MR. van BUSKIRK: This particular one is a 8

minus .28 power in the losses, where loss es are one 9

over efficiency minus one. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: We can write the equation 11

on the point board if you’d like here. 12

MR. van BUSKIRK: Yeah, I can actually 13

switch this to a different sheet, and you can see, 14

this is the data that was pasted out of the 15

presentation. This is a plot of the losses versus 16

power on the log

- log plot. And the green dots are 17

what’s on the previous thing, so you see that when 18

we took several

-- three of the manufacturers, one 19

was a .22 power, the other was a .25, and another 20

wa s a .39, I guess. The .39 was influenced by a 21

couple of those high loss, very low power points. 22

And so all that’s sort of roughly in the 23

power loss slope of the typical transformer point, 24

minus .25. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 132 MR. BROOKMAN: So the first question I 1

have is are y ou following what he’s doing here? 2

You’re following what he’s doing. Okay. 3

MR. NACHTRIEB: What are the R

- squares? 4

MR. BROOKMAN: What are the R

- squares, the 5

question from

-- from Robert. 6

MR. van BUSKIRK: Well, let’s see if we 7

can do an R

- square d right here. .82. 8

MR. NACHTRIEB: And that data was Navigant 9

data? 10

MR. van BUSKIRK: So by the nods, I’m 11

getting a sense that

-- 12

MR. ERHARDT: Just for clarification, when 13

you showed the three curves, the one in the middle 14

is your new one? Is tha t

-- 15

MR. van BUSKIRK: Yes. 16

MR. ERHARDT: I think that does fit much 17

better than

-- 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Robert, why don’t you just 19

give us a moment. Maybe off the record you’d like 20

to consult with each other a little bit or something 21

over there. We don’ t want

-- not me, the Department 22

doesn’t want to pinch you here, they would like to 23

get as much clarity surrounding

-- so if you’re able 24

to comment, then let’s have comments, but I don’t 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 133 want to pin you into a corner. Robert, please use 1

the microphone. 2

MR. NACHTRIEB: Robert Nachtrieb, Lutron 3

Electronics. So essentially what is being done is 4

to regress losses as a function of power, you would 5

expect as power goes up, losses would go up, and 6

you’ve inverted that to plot efficiency versus 7

power, and of co urse it fits quite nicely. It seems 8

reasonable. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Let’s 10

hear

-- I’d like to hear from some other

-- yes, 11

Jeff first. 12

MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon, GE. I think 13

individual companies, since we haven’t discussed it 14

as a NEMA group, but we would support that type of 15

function because it fits the data very nicely. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 17

MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt. From what I 18

see, the curve fits much better. I would like to 19

take some time to go away and compare it with how 20

tha t results in how many manufacturers can meet each 21

level, but it does look promising. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thank you for 23

that. Other comments at this point. Okay. Do you 24

have other things to present, Robert? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 134 MR. van BUSKIRK: I think the follow up 1

questions are great. We’re currently discussing a 2

proposal by the Department, right, so in making any 3

modifications between a proposal and a final rule, 4

the Department, through the public process wants to 5

make sure all the technical issues are aired 6

p roperly. So what’s going to

-- one of the issues 7

as one is making mathematical adjustments to the 8

levels is how to interpolate the analysis, so what 9

has happened is DOE in the proposed rule has 10

presented an analysis that has values for particular 11

curves a t particular levels. Do the people 12

assembled think it’s reasonable to do a mathematical 13

linear interpolation between those levels, between 14

the existing values as a way of calculating the 15

impacts of these finer adjustments of the equations, 16

or would there be proposals as for how to take the 17

existing analysis and adapt it to these mathematical 18

type adjustments? 19

MR. BROOKMAN: So you accomplish the 20

different levels? 21

MR. van BUSKIRK: So that as

-- so what’s 22

-- sort of going back to this curve, for example

. 23

So you’ll notice that the middle curve, while it 24

fits the points, it’s close to one level at the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 135 bottom end, and it’s close to another level at the 1

top end. It may not be feasible to calculate in a 2

very short amount of time the cost implications at 3

eve ry single power level for

-- along that entire 4

curve. So the one natural technique to do a sort of 5

weighted average. If the bottom end of the curve is 6

near one level, you take the cost benefit values 7

that are from the level that’s closest to that. 8

Then at the upper end of the curve, you take the 9

cost benefit values that the

-- corresponding to the 10

higher level as a way of coming up with the 11

mathematical interpolation of the new curve as a 12

function of the levels that were calculated. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Robe rt. 14

MR. NACHTRIEB: Robert Nachtrieb, Lutron 15

Electronics. If the underlying function is smooth, 16

then of course linear interpolation should be fine. 17

But I think we would need time to study the 18

underlying points, the assumptions of the analysis. 19

Those h ave to be correct before interpolation would 20

be acceptable. 21

MR. van BUSKIRK: So I think

-- 22

MR. ERHARDT: Just as a comment

-- 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 24

MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt, Philips 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 136 Electronics. Just as a general comment, when I was 1

trying to fit the natural log curve, when I got the 2

bottom and the top to fit, I did find some 3

discrepancy in the middle, and this new curve would 4

help reduce that discrepancy, so the new curve does 5

look much more promising to me. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks for that . I 7

think

-- well, let’s hear from one other

-- Joe

-- 8

one other representative from industry, and then 9

Charlie, if you

-- 10

MR. PARISELLA: Joe Parisella. Yeah, I 11

like that curve. I think the one thing that we need 12

to consider is the tolerances that, f or the absolute 13

values that you have. So in other words, if we have 14

a design tolerance in the range of two percent, I 15

think that’s pretty reasonable, and a measurement 16

analysis tolerance of another one percent, then we 17

have to factor that in. In other wo rds, if we’re 18

going to have a ruling that’s 92 percent, then we’re 19

going to have to

-- that’s going to have to be our 20

mean or our average of our data, and you’re going to 21

have a point and a half up and

-- above and below, 22

so our products are going to have to be designed 23

approximately one and a half percent above that 24

number, so we have to

-- I think that curve looks 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 137 pretty representative, I think, seeing the absolute 1

value that we still have to make sure that we have 2

correct. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie Stephe ns. 4

MR. STEVENS: Charlie Stephens. Robert’s 5

work seems to answer the question that came up this 6

morning, or the suggestion that came up this morning 7

about dividing the thing into two or three pieces, 8

whatever, in order to get the slope right, or get 9

th e curve right. And this can perhaps do it in one 10

move, which is encouraging. But I still have major 11

problems with the data that we’re trying to fit the 12

curves to, potentially. I still have

-- I see major 13

variation in the test data comparing what the 14

man ufacturers have provided and what DOE determined 15

through its testing, and analysis regimen. I don’t 16

know if they were testing the same product. I’m 17

pretty sure they weren’t all testing the very same 18

box that you would do in a round robin situation. 19

So I don’t know how much variation I see is product 20

variation, or how much is lab and measurement 21

variation. And I’m hearing that there are variations 22

that are larger than the differences in the standard 23

in some cases, up there in the upper end of that 24

curve t hat we’re arguing about. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 138 So I’m still concerned that we’re all 1

using data that is comparable when we fit a curve to 2

it. And so I

-- I don’t think I’ve seen data yet 3

that I would be comfortable fitting a curve to. 4

Everybody could fit their own curve t o their own 5

data, and that’s very nice, but I doubt they’ll come 6

out the same. And then I’m still concerned about 7

whether I’ve got product variation or measurement 8

variation, you know, lab to lab. I still have some 9

concerns about the train wreck that cou ld occur down 10

the road with compliance and enforcement under these 11

circumstances, frankly. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, Tina. 13

DR. KAARSBERG: Just a hypothetical. 14

Would a possible solution or way to increase 15

everyone’s confidence in the data be to devel op some 16

kind of agreed

- upon set of data in which everyone 17

understands the reasons for the variations? Is that 18

the kind of thing that might resolve these issues? 19

Or is there something

-- is there some other way 20

forward in terms of making everyone more com fortable 21

about the data? 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 23

MR. ERHARDT: Well, one thing that we’ve 24

been frustrated with is that we have not had all of 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 139 the Navigant data. We’ve had only a selection of 1

it. We have not had the data as a function

-- in 2

the presentati on today there was some evidence that 3

there was considerable variance in the DOE lab to 4

lab measurement, and taking an average of the 5

measurements from the lab, we don’t feel is valid. 6

We think you should be taking a three sigma type 7

approach, a statisti cal evaluation of it, because 8

we’ve been, right from the start

-- the reason we 9

went to BLE to begin with was because we’ve been 10

arguing from the start how difficult

-- you know, 11

when we’re

-- the curve that I presented for the 12

instant start was virtually identical at the high 13

power end, and was only off by three percent at the 14

lowest power, and when you have measurement 15

accuracies

-- measurement accuracies are going to be 16

on the order of two percent. So the amount that 17

we’re different is almost getting in to the noise 18

level of your measurement. So that’s why 19

understanding the variation in test measurement 20

procedure and the confidence level on that is very 21

important because

-- the data we put up was what we 22

measure on our product and what we would be 23

submit ting to the FTC, and if we don’t comply, we 24

can’t submit to the FTC and we cannot sell that 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 140 product. So that’s why we have a concern. This is 1

what’s testing in our labs, and to this standard, 2

and our product didn’t meet. 3

And we just don’t have enough data from 4

the Navigant side to understand how they came up 5

with, you know, point six, when there’s a three 6

percent lab to lab variance in one of their 7

examples. So maybe if we saw the raw data, maybe if 8

we met again with Navigant we could maybe try to 9

ca ll together a meeting with some of our technical 10

people in Rosslyn or DC, maybe if we sat down and 11

reviewed data together, maybe that would help us 12

come to some conclusion. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: I appreciate your going 14

toward what the potential solution is, cer tainly the 15

time is running short, and I was wondering if anyone 16

else could address Tina’s pathway, which is how we 17

get data that you all are comfortable with. Because 18

you’re going to submit the data that was the 19

underpinning of your presentation this morn ing, 20

correct? You said that. So that will be new data 21

coming forward, and that can then be compared? Or

- 22

- Mimi, I’m looking at you. 23

MS. GUPTA: Yes, this is Mimi Gupta. I 24

mean, as I mentioned before, we will put up all of 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 141 the other lab test data on the web for you as soon 1

as possible, and I think us all working from a 2

common data set, through you having our other lab 3

data and us having your data, is a path towards 4

Tina’s goal. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So I feel like we 6

made some small progress on that one. Charlie, go 7

ahead. 8

MR. STEPHENS: Just one further 9

observation. I’m going from memory here, but it 10

seems like we tried to get some other metric, BLE is 11

what we’ve landed on, that was going to reduce the 12

measurement variation that we were getting with BEF, 13

and I’m not convinced at this point, based on what 14

I’m seeing, that we’ve done that. We’re still 15

almost where we were with BEF. Maybe plus or minus 16

one and a half instead of plus or minus two, but I 17

don’t think we’ve gotten very far in getting better 18

rating accuracy here. I’m not sure without getting 19

testing on the same product with enough labs to see 20

what we have, you can really resolve it, and I’m not 21

convinced at this point that DOE has enough time to 22

get this done. But just my observation. 23

MR. van BUSKIRK: So I think I’ll

-- well, 24

maybe Charlie we need to discuss a little bit during 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 142 a break, but this time issue, it sounds with 1

everything going on here, potentially could be a 2

huge hurdle we’re facing. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Do you have somethin g in 4

mind to offer? 5

MR. van BUSKIRK: Possibly. I’d like to 6

talk with Charlie and Andrew during a break and 7

discuss before saying it here. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Tina. 9

DR. KAARSBERG: I will also explore the

-- 10

getting Robert’s slides, is that all right to 11

include those earlier than we normally would in the 12

transcript, available to everyone? 13

MR. van BUSKIRK: Yes, we can post this 14

graphs. 15

DR. KAARSBERG: Okay. So I also will try 16

to expedite posting Robert’s slides or presentation 17

as well, just as

-- it’ ll be with the NEMA slides. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. And so, Robert, 19

thank you. That was very useful, that analysis, and 20

I was wondering if there was any other thoughts you 21

have about how the various issues that have been 22

laid out here can be addressed. 23

MR. van BUSKIRK: I guess to help 24

structure the comments so that they can feed 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 143 efficiently into the analysis. I see that we 1

discussed about three issues. One is the details of 2

the curves. We seem to

-- I saw lots of heads 3

nodding on that one. 4

The se cond one that clarification would be 5

useful for is as we do technical adjustments, the 6

proper method for interpolating and averaging, doing 7

weighted average of existing results in order to 8

come up with the interpolated results. 9

And then I think the lar ger issue is how 10

to deal with the uncertainty and variability of the 11

test results. And that involves sort of what 12

statistical measures to consider, what sample sizes 13

are appropriate? To what degree can the measurement 14

variation be diminished through aver aging? And how 15

to take into consideration the variability when both 16

the levels are set and we’re estimating the 17

certified efficiency levels for the product. 18

I think all those are good and interesting 19

technical issues. If we get some clarity on that, I 20

think that will help move the process forward. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: And so, Mimi, just one 22

second, Bob. Would you say it again what you’re 23

going to post as soon as you can do it, so to

-- for 24

everybody to look at? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 144 MS. GUPTA: So right now, all of our 1

Intert ek test data is up on the web. We will be 2

posting the LRC data as well as whatever data that 3

we were able to get from manufacturer tests on 4

selected ballasts. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Bob. 6

MR. ERHARDT: Just to get us a little bit 7

of a head start, could you maybe write the formula 8

of that curve that you had up there so we could work 9

with that a little bit. 10

MR. van BUSKIRK: (complies) 11

MR. BROOKMAN: What’s “a”? 12

MR. van BUSKIRK: It’s that constant. So 13

it’s a power log relationship. This is the los ses 14

equation effectively: one over efficiency minus one. 15

Equal to a power log in the power of the ballast. 16

MR. ERHARDT: Right. Okay. But to get 17

the actual limit that we need to meet BLE, what is 18

“a”? 19

MR. van BUSKIRK: You’re going to actually 20

force me to do some math. 21

MR. ERHARDT: Oh, I thought you had it 22

because you plotted something. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: For the folks on the web, 24

use the mic. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 145 MR. ERHARDT: I thought you had it because 1

you plotted something, I thought you already had 2

constants for your plot. 3

MR. van BUSKIRK: In some equations in 4

Excel. So the

-- 5

MR. ERHARDT: Oh, I see, you did a fit to 6

the curve

-- 7

MR. van BUSKIRK: Yes, we did a curve fit 8

to effectively the losses. The losses are one over 9

efficiency minus one, and then the curve fit was the 10

power log curve fit right out of Excel, so that gave 11

us the coefficient and the power log. The details 12

of exactly what the coefficients are and what the 13

power exponent is, is an empirical exercise. The 14

little

-- the tiny amount of e mpirics we did with 15

the data from the presentation from this morning, 16

gave “b” being approximately one

- quarter, so it’s a 17

negative exponent power log that the losses, the 18

relative losses of the ballast are approximately 19

proportional to the minus one

- quarte r power of the 20

power rating of the ballast. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks for doing that. 22

Bob? Okay. Comments on this, should there be any, 23

and then we’ll proceed with the slides. Tom Eckman. 24

MR. ECKMAN: Yeah, I just want to make 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 146 sure that in the data co mparisons that we know 1

whether we’re dealing with the same ballast tested 2

at two different labs or the same model ballast 3

tested at two different labs, and what can it’s in, 4

so that we know which kind of product we’re talking 5

about, whether it’s a F, N, or A, so that the data 6

bases actually contain enough parameter information 7

so that outsiders can look at that and characterize 8

the data set. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: You want to know the 10

specifics surrounding

-- you want to know the 11

characterization of each of those data points? 12

MR. ECKMAN: Right. Here’s a test. What 13

was the model number. Are there two labs that 14

tested that same product, so some characterization 15

that this is the same product that two labs tested 16

it, round robin type, or this is multiple labs 17

te sting different products, but the same model 18

number. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Do you all have that level 20

of

-- 21

MS. GUPTA: Yeah. I’m not certain whether 22

we’ll be able to give the model number of the 23

ballast that we tested, but we will be able to tell 24

you, this is one unit that we tested at this lab. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 147 That same unit was tested at another lab. 1

MR. ECKMAN: A unique identifier so I know 2

I’m looking at the same ballast. It may not

-- I 3

don’t even know the manufacturer model number, but 4

it’s the same ballast. 5

M S. GUPTA: And in terms of the can size, 6

it will take us more time to cross reference what 7

the can sizes were for all of our different 8

ballasts, so in the interest of getting data out 9

there quicker, maybe we’ll do one round of just 10

letting you see our roun d robin testing as much as 11

it was, two labs most of the time. And then we’ll 12

go forth and try to get the can size information out 13

there. 14

MR. ECKMAN: And will NEMA’s data be 15

comparable in terms of parameters that we can look 16

at? 17

MR. BROOKMAN: That’s an interesting 18

question. Who can answer that? Bob, thank you. 19

MR. ERHARDT: Well, we definitely

-- 20

sorry, Bob Erhardt. We didn’t do any round robin 21

testing. This was each manufacturer’s lab. What 22

our lab can do, though, is we have done confidence 23

le vel and verification of our lab. We can give you 24

our own evaluation of our lab and other NEMA 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 148 manufacturers maybe can do the same. I mean we can 1

do a

-- we do

-- we do an analysis of our own lab 2

for ISO certification, and we can supply that data. 3

MR. B ROOKMAN: And so you’re speaking for 4

your company? 5

MR. ERHARDT: For my company. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: The other companies can do 7

that as well? Jeff. 8

MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon. Our company 9

would certainly be able to do the same thing in 10

terms of providin g the identification of the 11

products along with the test measurements. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other

-- Cheryl. 13

MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English. Mimi, just 14

following up on yours, I wonder if you could take 15

your data

-- I’m assuming it’s

-- well, it’s not 16

d ata that you’ve gotten through your non

- disclosure. 17

You went out and purchased products, but perhaps you 18

could take each manufacturers data back to that 19

original manufacturer so that they could at least 20

cross reference, and then maybe do something under 21

t he NDA to identify any gaps on the same models, 22

assuming the same models have been tested. 23

MS. GUPTA: That would be great. Yeah. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Well, we had good

-- 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 149 I’m looking at other manufacturers. That general 1

regime, that’ll work for you , I’m hoping? I’m 2

getting nods. I’m getting yes from Chris and 3

Robert. 4

MR. NACHTRIEB: Rob Nachtrieb, yes. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. We’re establishing a 6

record here. Okay. So good, that was helpful. We 7

gained some ground in that segment. Charlie 8

Ste phens. 9

MR. STEPHENS: I have one more question 10

about what I heard earlier, and I heard that we 11

can’t test, in general, the power in and the power 12

out with a lamp load better than plus or minus one 13

percent, is that pretty much true? 14

MR. BROOKMAN: This is Bob again, Bob 15

Erhardt. 16

MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, generally a power 17

measurement with some of the best equipment is on 18

the order of one

- half to one percent accuracy. 19

Probably one

- half percent on the input and one 20

percent on the output, and when you do a rat io of 21

those two, you’re going to see something

-- some 22

tolerance greater than one percent, generally. 23

MR. STEPHENS: And is that due

-- 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Rob

-- Robert. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 150 MR. NACHTRIEB: Yeah, I would agree that 1

the measurement of input power and the meas urement 2

of output power could be around one percent, however 3

the ratio

-- those two measurements are correlated, 4

very tightly correlated, so the ratio isn’t worse 5

than the individual, it’s actually better than the 6

individuals. Even though temperature chan ges can 7

affect the mercury vapor pressure and therefore 8

affect the arc voltage for a given current, 9

therefore affect the arc power, the input power is 10

going to go up too, and the ratio should be pretty 11

robust. 12

MR. STEPHENS: So the lamp stability is a 13

little bit of an issue here

-- 14

MR. NACHTRIEB: Actually, not. 15

MR. STEPHENS: No? 16

MR. NACHTRIEB: Less of an issue, because 17

you’re measuring the input power an d the lamp power 18

simultaneously. Lamp stability is less of an issue. 19

MR. STEPHENS: Oh, o kay. So measurement

- 20

- the instrument measurement? I’m just looking for 21

what the source of variation is there, why the 22

tolerances aren’t closer, but maybe it’s 23

instrumentation. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Rob. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 151 MR. NACHTRIEB: Rob Nachtrieb. I mean the 1

sources of variation, you can have measurement 2

variation is one source, and we’re doing two 3

measurements, okay. The

-- you can have sample to 4

sample variation, and then I mean traditionally the 5

way -- operator, if the procedure is, in principle, 6

not well designed, then the operator, how they 7

perform the test can have an effect on the 8

measurement. If the procedure is well defined, then 9

the largest source of variation is from one sample 10

to the next. That’s sort of the characteristic of a 11

robust methodology for measu ring things, is that you 12

can use the measurement to pick up differences from 13

one sample to the other. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Joe, go ahead. 15

MR. PARISELLA: Yeah, I just wanted to 16

make it clear too that you also have a tolerance 17

variation in components, so manu facturing tolerance. 18

So you have a lot of components that are used in one 19

ballast, and then you have some different components 20

that are used a month later, and some different 21

components used a month later, so that’s typically 22

about two percent as well, on top of that. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. I saw 24

both Bob and Jeff, whichever of you

-- 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 152 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, I just wanted to 1

clarify a little bit the discrepancy in the 2

statements between Rob Nachtrieb and myself. Yes, 3

this methodology, one reaso n we take this 4

methodology is to eliminate any dependency on lamp 5

variation load tolerance. That is cancelled by 6

doing a ratio. There are two meter tolerances, your 7

equipment itself has accuracy. Your input 8

measurement has an accuracy on the order of a half 9

of a percent. Your output has a measurement 10

accuracy on the order of one percent. I don’t know 11

why you would assume that those accuracies would 12

track, but because you’re using different pieces of 13

equipment at the same time for the input and the 14

outp ut, you have two accuracies you are concerned 15

with, and when you ratio them, they somewhat are 16

additive, so you have something greater than one 17

percent overall variation possible with an 18

efficiency measurement. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Jeff, did you want to add 20

in here? 21

MR. PLASKON: I just wanted to comment 22

that the differences between

-- we need to recognize 23

that the differences between the Navigant data and 24

the NEMA data are of course are different samples 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 153 that we tested, so we should expect that there’s 1

varia tion there. But the most important point is 2

that through our round robin testing that we did 3

with the Lighting Research Center, we showed a 4

significant improvement between the previous BEF 5

method to ballast efficiency and BLE is much more 6

consistent and m uch more tighter tolerance. So I 7

don’t think

-- NEMA has adopted the new method of 8

measurement and part of our E L2 standard and they’re 9

very supportive of using that method of measurement. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. That’s helpful. 11

Thank you. Good. We gai ned ground on that one. So 12

now, we’re going to proceed. We’re going to go on 13

to the next slides in the presentation, and I think 14

we’re going to hear from Bob? 15

MR. LINGARD: Yes. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: And also Grant Williams is 17

also a presenter, and also Nat asha, we hope you’re 18

with us on line. Are you with us? 19

MS. COLLINS: Yes, I am with you. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. And we can hear 21

you fine, so you can chime in as you feel that you 22

would want to. 23

MS. COLLINS: I will. 24

**Markups Determination and Ene rgy Use**  25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 154 **Characterization** 1

**Life Cycle Cost and Payback Analyses** 2

MR. LINGARD: My name’s Bob Lingard with 3

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Thanks for 4

the introduction. Natasha, unfortunately, wasn’t 5

able to travel here this week but is joining us from 6

the ether, and Natasha was the lead modeler on this 7

rulemakin g, and our colleague Grant Williams has 8

graciously offered to join us here in Washington. 9

So we may have a little bit of a tag

- team approach 10

with Natasha chiming in on some detailed questions. 11

But those of you who have attended recent 12

rulemaking meeting s may have noticed a more 13

streamlined approach to the way that the meetings 14

are run, particularly not representing pages and 15

pages of results tables. So I wanted to set your 16

expectation today that Grant and I and Natasha will 17

be talking about sort of the high level features of 18

what we saw in the NOPR analyses and we would refer 19

to the NOPR text and to the TSD for the detailed 20

results tables. 21

So out of respect for your time or anybody 22

who may have a flight this afternoon, that’s how 23

we’ll proceed. 24

I’m going to talk briefly about two inputs 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 155 to the life cycle cost and payback analysis called 1

the markups determination and the energy use 2

characterization. Don’t have any major departures 3

to report from what we did for the preliminary 4

analysis. The energy use calculation was fairly 5

straightforward. Annual energy use is, of course, a 6

function of system input power and annual operating 7

hours. There is obviously a lot of discussion 8

around the engineering which feeds into this, 9

however, as far as updating our calculation here, we 10

simply updated to be sure we were using the most 11

recent DOE energy survey data, as well as updating 12

that with the most recent census data. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Robert. 14

MR. NACHTRIEB: Rob Nachtrieb. Is it the 15

2001 lighting market chara cterization that’s the 16

most recent? 17

MR. LINGARD: I believe I would need to 18

check the TSD for that. Grant can check on that for 19

me, or Natasha can. It’s in the process of being 20

updated too, I believe. 21

MR. NACHTRIEB: Robert Nachtrieb, by the 22

way, I’m a big fan of the lighting market 23

characterization. 24

MR. LINGARD: Thanks, Mimi, for the update 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 156 on that. That’s the latest and the greatest. So as 1

a result, the annual operating

-- average annual 2

operating hours we’re using changed slightly from 3

the pre lim, based on some of the updated, 4

particularly updated census data and are listed for 5

the different sectors here. 6

I will go on to markups, unless there are 7

any questions or comments on that. I think markups 8

analysis is a little more interesting to talk about. 9

DOE received I think, general support for our 10

approach on how we calculate or derive markups from 11

publicly available company financial data. However 12

a big question that came up during the preliminary 13

analysis was how do these square up against re al 14

world markups? And based on suggestions from the 15

preliminary analysis meeting, we actually made 16

contact with the National Association of Electrical 17

Distributors and were able to speak, telephone 18

interviews, with a couple of representative 19

electrical wh olesalers and distributors. Again, 20

this is sort of the area of business sensitive 21

information and no business sensitive data was 22

passed back and forth, however, in our conversations 23

with two representative electrical wholesalers, they 24

affirmed for us that these calculated markups are, I 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 157 think, to paraphrase from them, consistent with 1

their actual markups for ballasts. 2

Another issue that came up in the 3

preliminary analysis was what about a distribution 4

channel for residential ballasts which we hadn’t 5

ge nerated markups for residential ballasts. And for 6

the NOPR what we did was create a home improvement 7

retailer markup channel. Again, to retain our 8

method for generating markups, we wanted to deal 9

with publicly traded companies with publicly 10

available fin ancial data. And the two big players 11

in home improvement retail that you might expect, 12

not in order of preference or significance, would be 13

Home Depot and Lowe’s. We were able to get their 14

financial data through 2009. 15

We contacted both of them to ask them the 16

same questions that we had with the electrical 17

wholesalers, and they cited that for reasons of 18

confidentiality and business sensitive information, 19

they didn’t want to speak about their actual 20

markups. So made an attempt, but wasn’t able to 21

confi rm what those markups

-- get their confirmation 22

of our calculated markups. 23

So I guess what I can report to you today 24

is that electrical wholesalers did confirm our 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 158 calculated markups. So this is a summary of the 1

latest markups that’s consistent with w hat you’ll 2

find in the documentation as well. Those are the 3

big pieces of news to report on markup. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Just pause right there and 5

see if there are comments on what you see on slide 6

54. Yes, Chris. 7

MR. HOLSTEIN: Yes, this is Chris. Can 8

y ou just briefly explain the incremental column. Do 9

I read that as understanding that you believe that 10

would be the incremental that they would be willing 11

to pay for a higher efficient product? 12

MR. LINGARD: The incremental

-- we apply 13

the incremental ma rkup to the price increment 14

between the baseline and the efficiency

-- and the 15

efficiency level product. Baseline markup applied 16

to the baseline ballast, that incremental applied to 17

the price increment between the price baseline and 18

the next most efficien t ballast, or the EL in 19

question. 20

MR. HOLSTEIN: The next most efficient, 21

not the BLE

- min ? 22

MR. LINGARD: Applied to each efficiency 23

level within a product class. 24

MR. HOLSTEIN: I guess I’m trying to 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 159 understand

-- because I look at, let’s just say OEM 1

fixture manufacturer baseline is 1.5, then I read 2

that as they’re willing to pay an incremental 3

premium of .17 to move up an efficiency level. I 4

don’t necessarily know if that would be correct. 5

MR. LINGARD: This is where I could 6

probably use help from my economist friend here. 7

MR. WILLIAMS: Hi, this is Grant Williams. 8

Do you mind repeating the question? 9

MR. HOLSTEIN: I was trying to understand 10

the relationship between the baseline incremental 11

column in the chart. Is it truly saying that if a 12

ba seline ballast today that somebody’s purchasing is 13

X, that if that ballast went away and they went to a 14

higher efficient product that they’re willing to pay 15

more for it? Is that what your assumption is in 16

this chart? 17

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, what we do here is we 18

apply the baseline markup to the baseline model. So 19

hypothetically, if we call that efficiency level 20

zero -- this is Grant Williams by the way

-- then we 21

could say that, let’s say it has a markup of

-- 22

MR. HOLSTEIN: Let me get over here so I 23

ca n see this. 24

MR. WILLIAMS: So say it has a 1.5 markup, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 160 then the baseline model, if it was $100, it becomes 1

$150. And let’s say the next best model, we’ll call 2

it efficiency level one, would be the difference 3

between those two prices, so the newly adjust ed 4

baseline and the models that we’re looking at, 5

increased by 1.17. Does that answer your question? 6

MR. BROOKMAN: 1.17 or .17? 7

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, by a factor of 1.17, 8

so it increases 17 percent. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Charlie Stephens. 10

MR. STEP HENS: Charlie Stephens. I’ve 11

been doing this long enough, I can explain it in a 12

way that I think you’ll understand. What they’re 13

doing is, the distributor or OEM, or whoever it is 14

the markup you’re computing, has certain basic costs 15

that are

-- that the ir markup covers. The 16

incremental efficiency in the ballast doesn’t

-- you 17

don’t have an increment of salesmen’s time, for 18

instance, out on the road to sell, just because you 19

changed the efficiency of the ballast, but you do 20

have an increment in the cost of the ballast itself 21

that you want to mark up. So there’s much more to 22

mark up or associated with the markup of any 23

ballast, regardless of what its efficiency is, than 24

there is just because the ballast is a little bit 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 161 more efficient. So you see less of a markup on

-- 1

because all you’re marking up, literally, is the 2

price increment of the ballast itself, and you’re 3

not covering all those fixed costs and overhead 4

costs twice. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Chris. 6

MR. HOLSTEIN: Yes, Chris. I fully 7

understand that. I’m just trying to understand if 8

this was the incremental they used to calculate net 9

present value in industry, NPV, because I believe 10

that if the baseline ballast goes away, then your 11

incremental will be compressed down to the prices of 12

the baseline balla st. So you basically are

-- that 13

incremental goes away once the baseline ballast is 14

gone, commodity pressures, consumer pressures will 15

push that down. 16

I agree, like take the electrical 17

wholesaler, it makes a lot of sense. Like that one, 18

they’re less sensitive, or they’re more sensitive, 19

they’ll take a very small increase. I think that 20

some of these don’t quite make sense

-- the 21

relationship between lik e an OEM or distribution 22

channel

-- 23

MR. BROOKMAN: By the way, that’s the kind 24

of commentary DOE wants to receive. Please go right 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 162 ahead. 1

MR. CARMICHAEL: Yes, this is Rob 2

Carmichael with Navigant. In terms of whether it 3

goes into the INPV calculati on, so the answer is no, 4

that’s a separate analysis. This is looking at the 5

distribution chain, so trying to come down to an end 6

user price. I’ll leave it to Grant to discuss the 7

difference

-- the distinction between the baseline 8

and incremental, but in terms of INPV calculation 9

and that compression you’re talking about, that’s in 10

our markup analyses, our markup scenarios that are 11

in the MIA. We’ll get to those later. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other comments on 13

the

-- the Department would like your comment s on 14

these values in addition to the pathways that are 15

suggested here, if you’re comfortable with that. 16

Tom Eckman. 17

MR. ECKMAN: In the residential market 18

channel, were replacement ballasts versus ballasts 19

in built into OEM fixtures separately

-- was th ere a 20

differential

-- 21

MR. WILLIAMS: No, separate scenario for 22

those. 23

MR. ECKMAN: Because at least from the 24

retail standpoint, priced quite differently. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 163 MR. WILLIAMS: Again, using

-- we did 1

recognize that most ballasts in that channel would 2

be sold installed in fixtures, but didn’t have the 3

means to tease that detail out of the high level 4

financial data from SEC. 5

MR. ECKMAN: The online data, if you 6

purchase a ballast alone, costs twice as much as a 7

fixture, so replacement ballasts in that channel 8

seem to be more expensive than buying a new fixture. 9

MR. LINGARD: We would certainly welcome 10

some input and some comment on the resulting 11

installed costs, you know, a function of the MSP and 12

the markups. 13

MR. ECKMAN: Just go to Lowe’s or Home 14

Depot o n line and price the fixture versus the 15

ballast that would go in that fixture, and the 16

margins are quite different. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Other comments 18

on this markup analysis chart? We’re going to keep 19

going. 20

MR. LINGARD: With that, I’ll intro duce my 21

colleague, Grant Williams. 22

**Life Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses** 23

MR. WILLIAMS: Good afternoon. I’m Grant 24

Williams. So like my colleague said, we’re going 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 164 to keep it at kind of a high level and then go down 1

in the detail and the weeds as questions and 2

comments dictate. So I’ll be talking about the Life 3

Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analys i s , and then 4

we’ll move on from there for the Shipments and 5

National Impact Analysis. 6

So for the life cycle cost analysis, we 7

evaluate the economic i mpacts of potential energy 8

conservation standard from an individual consumer 9

perspective, and we express total costs in 2009 10

dollars. At this stage in the rulemaking, we 11

primarily focused on revising our analysis and our 12

economic projections in response t o the comments 13

that we received in the pre

- NOPR stage. For 14

example, early ballast replacement due to 15

renovations and retrofits, investigating the 16

relationship between ballast lifetimes and 17

efficiency, and analyzing input power for our 18

calculations. 19

We c ontinue to assume that the life event 20

which prompts the purchase of a new or replacement 21

ballast influences the cost effectiveness of the 22

consumer’s purchase decision, and we also find that 23

the relationship between the increased selling price 24

and the incre ased energy efficiency is a predominant 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 165 influence on the life cycle and payback period 1

results. This includes using total cost variables 2

with a single point, and operating costs with that 3

probability distribution. For example, state sales 4

tax. 5

So for e xample here, at the bottom of the 6

slide, we show that operating hours, for example, 7

vary between sectors; sales tax can vary between 8

states; disposal costs can vary according to 9

consumer preference and secondary, and regardless of 10

this, we still find that the strongest predictor of 11

life cycle cost is the relationship between the 12

increased selling price and the energy efficiency. 13

There are some exceptions where LCC was 14

not strongly positive for the trial level three

-- 15

this is for example, for the T8s , and for product 16

class one, product class three. 17

Are there any questions? 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 19

MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, you went through it 20

very quickly. On your exceptions, you’re saying T 21

electronics compared to T8 baseline electronic were 22

negative, and that seems to me where we’re having 23

the most heartburn here. Can you give us some more 24

detail on that? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 166 MR. WILLIAMS: Before I go into the 1

details, I’d like to ask if Natasha can chime in on 2

that. I think she has the

-- 3

MR. LINGARD: This is Bob Lin gard with 4

PNNL as well. The product class one in question 5

there, T8 residential, you may recall there was a

-- 6

the efficiency level which had a higher system 7

wattage and a higher light output than the baseline 8

has created this sort of outlier situation wh ere, 9

comparing apples to apples, the more efficient 10

ballast would always have a higher system power than 11

the baseline. So you couldn’t get a payback in that 12

situation. 13

When the system input power was normalized 14

between the baseline and the efficiency le vel, this 15

negative result went away. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Bob. 17

MR. ERHARDT: But we can find in the 18

detail analysis all of the payback periods? 19

MR. WILLIAMS: That’s right. 20

MR. ERHARDT: So when you do compare these 21

levels that we’re having some discussion about, it 22

will be in electronic versus an electronic? 23

MR. WILLIAMS: Correct, an electronic 24

versus an electronic. Yeah, please feel free to 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 167 look at the TSD. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: And did you ask about PC3 2

also? Same? 3

MR. WILLIAMS: This wa s a similar 4

situation where the, I believe the

-- I believe the 5

system input power was identical on the baseline, 6

and the efficiency level systems. 7

MR. LINGARD: Natasha, do you have any 8

comment? 9

MS. COLLINS: I think you are describing 10

the situation c orrectly. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Charlie Stephens. 12

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. I don’t 13

want to dwell on this too long, I’ll focus some 14

comments on the residential sector about which I 15

probably know more than the others, but I’m not sure 16

the scenar ios we’re looking at in residential are 17

entirely correct. I think when you look at lighting 18

and power and that sort of thing in a residential 19

setting where these things are used, light output is 20

really irrelevant to most households. They’re 21

putting these fixtures in certain rooms in the house 22

and where you need enough light, but beyond that, 23

there’s a lot of places, like my utility room that’s 24

eight foot by eight foot that’s grossly overlit, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 168 because one lamp was just too little and I can tell 1

you that two T8 s is more than I need, but I’ve got 2

no choice at one and a half lamps in between, 3

really, that’s easy. And I think that’s the case in 4

most residences I’ve audited. And in the garage, 5

you know, you need to be able to see what you’re 6

doing and nobody’s paying attention to light levels. 7

So I think focusing on that in the analysis is not 8

useful or relevant. 9

The other thing is, I don’t think you’re 10

going to see a whole lot of replacement ballasts in 11

the residential market at all. I mean at 789 hours 12

a year, unless these ballasts are somehow lasting 13

less than 15 years, it’s going to be 20 and 30 years 14

or more in some cases, before anybody has to do 15

anything with the ballast, and by that time, you 16

know, somebody would have remodeled, and the 17

fixture, you go to Home Depot or Lowe’s or wherever, 18

and you’ll get another fixture because it’s cheaper 19

than buying a replacement ballast. And so I think 20

in that market I really think you need to look at 21

your analysis there and make sure that what you’re 22

analyzing a ctually is represented by reality in the 23

marketplace. 24

MR. WILLIAMS: So it sounds sort of like a 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 169 two part comment. To the first part, in the

-- we 1

assume that the consumer will try to equivalently 2

light a situation that moves from a zero efficiency 3

prod uct to a higher level one. In most cases 4

they’re going to try to keep the lighting 5

equivalent, and we modeled that by keeping it within 6

ten percent. Are you suggesting that we relax that 7

assumption or

-- 8

MR. STEPHENS: I’m suggesting that no one 9

in the residential market really pays any attention 10

to that. If they have a two lamp fixture there now, 11

they’re going to put a two lamp fixture of whatever 12

kind, back, and it probably, in many cases, will 13

overlight the space, but, you know, that’s the way 14

it is

. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead Bob. 16

MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, I can make a comment 17

on this

-- we call it the Resi ballast market, and 18

that is that your lowest level baseline in 19

electromagnetic might be running as low as a point 20

six ballast factor and hence it’s l ow input power, 21

and the reason it can do that is it’s putting heat 22

on the filaments. When you go to an instant start 23

electronic, there is

-- you cannot run an instant 24

start lamp down at that same point six ballast 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 170 factor, in fact you can’t really get belo w .75, so 1

you’re limited on how low of an input power you can 2

have on an instant start ballast, and I believe 3

that’s what’s leading to your issue with your more 4

efficient product having a higher input power, 5

because you just can’t run as low of a lamp powe r 6

when you have an instant start ballast. Yes, you’re 7

running more efficient, you’ve got a lot more light. 8

I’ve got a pair in my garage right now that lights 9

it up real good, but a lot of people just have this 10

over their shop bench or utility room and t he old 11

point six ballast factor electromagnetic was 12

sufficient for them. 13

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. Thanks. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Did you finish with this 15

slide? 16

MR. WILLIAMS: I think so. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Cheryl. 18

MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English. I would 19

ju st say on this slide, once we’ve got the data 20

where we can aggregate it and segment based on can 21

size, if we find that the recommended levels for 22

this rule are going to eliminate those A and N type 23

of cans and go back to the larger size cans, we 24

absolutel y have to build in the cost of fixture 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 171 redesign, engineering time, incremental 1

transportation costs, and those are very real costs 2

if we have to redesign a product. 3

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. I’m going to move 4

on. 5

**Shipments Analysis** 6

MR. WILLIAMS: So the ne xt stage is the 7

Shipments Analysis, and the LCC analysis combined, 8

the two really large inputs for our National Impact 9

Analysis, which gives us our final answers. So we 10

developed a base case shipment forecast for each 11

ballast to model how the market would change in 12

response to a proposed standard. To do this we 13

follow a three step process. We use historical 14

shipment data from 1990 to 2005 from the US Census 15

Bureau, and we combine those with our lifetime 16

assumptions. And to do that, using the lifetime 17

as sumptions, we built an installed stock and we took 18

that installed stock, combined it with ballast 19

growth rates, replacement and failure events, 20

technology penetration, market trends, and we used 21

that to build up shipment projections over the 22

analysis perio d. 23

We did not have detailed historical 24

ballast shipment data, so what we did is we 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 172 developed a general assumed market share based on 1

the shipments of four foot T8 MBPs and manufacturer 2

interviews. 3

While it’s not on the slide, this led to a 4

rate aver age share of 69 percent at the baseline 5

efficiency level and the remaining 31 percent we 6

distributed across the higher levels. We’d like to 7

have more detailed shipment data in order to further 8

-- excuse me, in order to constrain this assumption 9

a little b it. We think it definitely influences the 10

impact of the rule when we have a base case that has 11

atypical market distribution, so our base case 12

doesn’t accurately reflect the actual situation when 13

you see the net present values aren’t going to be 14

something that everyone’s going to agree with. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie Stephens. 16

MR. STEPHENS: Could you clarify

-- 17

Charlie Stephens here. Could you clarify you’re 18

applying this to the historic shipments to establish 19

the stock, or this is the future you’re talking 20

about? 21

MR. WILLIAMS: So

-- I take our historic 22

shipments, if we had better data, or we had some 23

kind of an analysis that told us what our market 24

share should be at a certain point in time, as we 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 173 move forward that

-- those shares play out in a 1

co ntinuing role. So what I’m suggesting is, what 2

I’m asking for, I guess, is if there’s any kind of 3

data that anyone could submit, I would say, okay, 4

the distribution of ballasts in a particular class 5

across efficiency levels look like this at a 6

particular point. We could use that to calibrate 7

our model so as we move forward it would be more 8

accurate to what’s actually going on in the market 9

place. Did that answer your question? 10

MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, pretty much. We all 11

know that there’s been as shift go ing on, but 12

there’s still substantial numbers of pretty 13

inefficient systems out there that, for whatever 14

reason aren’t there. They’re part of your historic 15

and your installed stock, and of course

-- I know 16

what you’re trying to establish, and I have to say, 17

after looking at what you’ve done, you’ve done a 18

remarkable job of smoothing things out since the 19

last time I saw this, so it definitely has improved, 20

I think, from what I saw last time, and I will say 21

that. And I sympathize with your inability to ge t 22

data. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Robert. 24

MR. NACHTRIEB: Robert Nachtrieb, Lutron. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 174 I think I remember seeing earlier in the day that 1

the economic impact and the net present value is 2

carried out for a very long time, like 30 years. 3

Right? 4

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. 5

MR. NACHTRIEB: Okay. So over such a long 6

timeframe, any analysis has to account for shifts in 7

the market. Have you accounted for certain market 8

segments shifting to LEDs in favor of fluorescent? 9

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, we have. So we 10

account for ma rket trends, so migration from T12s to 11

T8s for example. So in some cases where T12 fails, 12

the consumer will replace it with a T8 , and so we 13

try to account for inter, intra, interproduct class 14

shifting. Further, we also do a

-- when we reach 15

the present v alue calculations, in the NIA model, we 16

take a look at the existing technology versus the 17

emerging technology situation, and in the existing 18

technology we assume low LED penetration, comparing 19

to the emerging technology where we say that the 20

penetration le vels reach about 40 percent, or 21

between 40 and 50 over the analysis period by 2045. 22

When I get to NIA, you’ll see there’s a 23

market difference in those results. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Tom Eckman. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 175 MR. ECKMAN: Would you repeat the market 1

share of products that you identified in the base 2

case that were currently meeting standard? 3

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. So based on our 4

assumed market share that we

-- we said that 69 5

percent would be at the baseline level, and then the 6

remaining 31 percent was distributed acr oss the 7

efficiency levels of greater than that. So

-- I 8

believe they are evenly distributed. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Somehow that doesn’t 10

comport with Bob’s statement that 80 percent were 11

meeting premium levels today. 12

MR. NACHTRIEB: This is Rob Nachtrieb. I 13

think that’s the difference between the installed 14

stock of products and the rate of shipments. 15

MR. WILLIAMS: That rate will vary over 16

time, but when we establish our initial stock, that 17

was the shares we came up with. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Are you using, on the 19

forecast basis then, in terms of market penetration 20

today, that is what’s going in today, that 80

- 20, or 21

the 69

- 30? 22

MR. LINGARD: This is Bob Lingard with 23

PNN. We based this breakdown, 69 versus 31 based on 24

preliminary manufacturer interviews for th is rule 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 176 where they were characterizing

-- again, this is to 1

put together a base case shipment scenario, absent a 2

standard. We’re assuming that 69 percent of 3

shipments would correspond with a baseline level of 4

efficiency, 31 percent would be at the higher 5

efficiency levels. Those numbers came from 6

preliminary interviews for this rule and to your 7

point, how does that square up with Bob’s comments 8

earlier today about 80 percent of current shipments 9

corresponding with NEMA premium, this is where I’d 10

probably invite Ali’s comments on how NEMA premium 11

squares up with some of our baseline products in our 12

product classes. 13

MS. McDONALD: So actually a significant 14

number of ballasts on the market are marketed as 15

NEMA premium, and at some of our efficiency levels 16

N EMA premium isn't just identified

-- it’s not just 17

the highest level, it might also include a level or 18

two below, because a very large portion of 19

manufacturers products are marketed as qualified for 20

the NEMA premium levels. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Let me see if I understand 22

that before we proceed. So what you’re saying is 23

that some of the NEMA premium labeled products, 24

marketed products, they are not consistent with some 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 177 of the standard level being proposed, one, two, or 1

three. They’re less than that? 2

MS. McDO NALD: I think what I’m saying is 3

there is variation within NEMA premium. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob, go ahead. Any light. 5

MR. ERHARDT: And that’s why I was careful 6

with my wording when we did testing, it was not just 7

at the minimum

-- it was not of all NEMA premium 8

products, it was our highest efficiency product 9

lines. In our case, it’s our Optanium product. We 10

did have our Centium

-- and I can’t remember all the 11

names -- Centium, thank you

-- I think our Centiums 12

were also qualifying for NEMA premium, but that is 13

not the data we submitted for the spreadsheet that 14

we did our analysis on. So, yes, it’s correct that 15

NEMA premium, in many cases, did encompass two 16

levels of products from a manufacturer, and there 17

often was a third that was lower. 18

I can comme nt that things are moving very 19

fast in the industry and we’ve been working with 20

DOE, I don’t know, what is it, three years now

-- 21

I’m losing track. Some of the assumptions that were 22

true three years ago are changing today, and we’re 23

seeing much to our sur prise, some of the projections 24

given by the SSL people are true, and we’re also 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 178 finding that there’s a lot of activity. For 1

instance, we are working quite a bit with California 2

Energy Commission, California Utilities, CLTC, in 3

developing a number of new r ulemakings out there, 4

where, in California, I think it’s the 2014 code, 5

they’re going to require all ballasts to be 6

controllable ballasts. And this was unheard of when 7

we started this rulemaking. So a lot of things are 8

changing. I don’t even know how we would go in and 9

look at the impact analysis, but a lot of things are 10

changing, the baselines, the market is moving to 11

higher efficiencies on its own, and so I think we 12

might be looking at that payback analysis. 13

MR. WILLIAMS: So just to finish my answer 14

to the gentleman’s question, I don’t know if it 15

would trend exactly with it, but I would expect that 16

they would

-- the share of high efficiency product 17

would be increasing. I’d have to look at the model 18

to take a look for sure. 19

MS. COLLINS: This is Na tasha Collins from 20

PNNL. I just want to add a comment that we did 21

model some substitution effect within the product 22

classes for certain product classes as well. For 23

instance, for T12 , we did model that that would be 24

substituted, even in event of no stan dard imposed. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 179 They would be substituted with T8

. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Other 2

comments? Tom. Tom Eckman. 3

MR. ECKMAN: Yeah, I

-- when we get to the 4

manufacturer’s impact and the net present value 5

impact of the standards, it’s always impor tant to 6

know whether the baseline is as advertised or 7

actually we’re doing better or worse than that 8

particular baseline, because we’re measuring an 9

incremental improvement over today’s practices or 10

sales, so I want to make sure that we’ve got that 11

tied do wn, and those seem to be fairly differential 12

numbers, like they were the reverse of one another. 13

MR. WILLIAMS: I agree that calibrating 14

the baseline is very, very important. We’ll take a 15

look. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Let’s keep going. 17

MR. WILLIAMS: So, what we did see in our 18

model is given our assumptions and our data, we did 19

predict that replacements would dominate over the 20

analysis period. Now, looking at the graphs here, 21

I’m not sure what the breakdown across sectors is, 22

so it migh t be the case where replacements are 23

still, like the gentleman said, very small in the 24

residential sector. However, we see that overall 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 180 replacements dominate. If Natasha has the data 1

available, it would be interesting to see, but I’m 2

pretty confident tha t replacements that dominate are 3

in fact the very large amounts of shipments in the 4

industrial and commercial sectors. 5

MS. COLLINS: That is correct. We do have 6

replacements dominate new construction and retrofits 7

in all the sectors of the economy, in a ll 8

residential, commercial, and industrial. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie Stephens. 10

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. A quick 11

definitional question. When you categorize 12

replacement versus new construction, where does 13

major remodel of space fit? Is that new 14

construction or is that remodel? 15

MR. WILLIAMS: Natasha? 16

MS. COLLINS: This is Natasha Collins. 17

This is remodel. 18

MR. STEPHENS: Okay. So new construction 19

is strictly new buildings? 20

MR. WILLIAMS: Right. New construction 21

strictly from building data from AEO. 22

MR. STEPHENS: Okay. Because I sometimes 23

get confused in the writeup when you’re talking 24

about a replacement ballast, it’s literally in an 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 181 existing building and it doesn’t

-- it’s not a new 1

fixture. Usually in major remodels it’s a new 2

fixture with a new ballast, and that’s the same in 3

new construction for a new building. Whereas a 4

replacement ballast would be what I could consider a 5

retrofit. A retrofit of a ballast. So I want to 6

make sure we’re clear here about which category. 7

Beca use I would agree with you that there’s going to 8

be very little new building construction going on 9

over the prime horizon, but I would disagree with 10

you if that included major remodel. 11

MS. COLLINS: We were trying to find the 12

data that would support the comments that we have 13

received during the preliminary stage of the 14

analysis that pointed us in the direction of there 15

are a lot of retrofits that are going on, but we 16

were not able to locate that data. For instance, 17

one of the DOE reports on the potential of solid 18

state lighting uses 5% rate for retrofits

. 19

When EIA made projections for AEO, 20

forecast the retrofit rates they were lower than 21

that, that’s why we conservatively very low retrofit 22

rates. And what it considered to be retrofits are 23

the replaceme nt prior to their failure. And those 24

are not the ballasts that are installed in new 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 182 construction. 1

MR. WILLIAMS: Moving forward, I don’t 2

think it would be a problem to explicitly break out 3

the renovations and retrofits as far as the graphs 4

are considere d, if you think that would be helpful. 5

MS. COLLINS: Sure, we can do that. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie. 7

MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, this is Charlie 8

Stephens. Yeah, you really need to be careful here 9

because again, you’re trying to separate

-- there 10

are costs as sociated with retrofitting a ballast 11

that are not the same as installing a new fixture, 12

and in the field a major overhaul of a space, of a 13

building, of an existing building, requires the same 14

level of permitting, typically, that a new building 15

requires, an d sometimes in the data, like FW Dodge, 16

and that sort of thing, it’s very difficult to tease 17

out what it is you’re actually looking at there. I 18

know, I’ve tried. 19

So, I think if

-- I think you’ll be 20

consistent and your analysis will be better if you 21

lump everything that has to do with a fixture, a new 22

fixture into new construction, and ballast 23

replacement into something else. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 183 MR. WILLIAMS: Can I respond very quickly? 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Please, yes. 2

MR. WILLIAMS: I’d just like to note that 3

I agree with you. However, in the life cycle cost 4

model we did explicitly account for the difference 5

in the price, in the cost data between renovation 6

and retrofit. However, for the purposes of this 7

graph, we summed those two together. 8

MR. BR OOKMAN: Bob. 9

MR. ERHARDT: I’m trying to understand 10

these graphs. Are these cumulative shipments, or is 11

this supposed to be yearly shipments? 12

MR. WILLIAMS: Yearly shipments. So the 13

area under the curve would be the cumulative. 14

MR. ERHARDT: Okay. So you’re showing

-- 15

MR. WILLIAMS: Is that correct, Natasha? 16

Am I misspeaking? 17

MS. COLLINS: That’s correct. 18

MR. ERHARDT: So you’re showing continued 19

growth in shipments in fixed output ballasts through 20

2044? 21

MR. WILLIAMS: Yes. 22

MR. LINGARD: Bob, this is Bob Lingard 23

with PNNL. I think that’s a function of having 24

pulled these example graphs for the existing 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 184 technology scenario. These same graphs for the 1

emerging technology scenario would have shown the 2

decline you’d expect. 3

MR . ERHARDT: Oh, okay, so this is not

-- 4

this is total market, not including the share of 5

this that’s going to be taken away by emerging 6

technologies. 7

MR. LINGARD: Right, these are existing. 8

MR. ERHARDT: Because I was going to say 9

everything that’s be fore us today says that emerging 10

technologies are going to cause sales of fixed 11

output to decline considerably in the future. 12

MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah, this does not include 13

that, and also this is only for one product class. 14

MR. LINGARD: This is Bob Lingar d, PNNL. 15

Grant’s approaching some interesting shipment 16

graphs. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah, I’m looking for a 18

good place for us to take a break, so whenever you 19

think in the next few slides, I hope. 20

MR. WILLIAMS: After this one. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 22

MR . WILLIAMS: So, one of the last 23

revisions we made was

-- in the previous version of 24

the model, sign ballasts accounted for a very large 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 185 portion and incorrectly. So we’ve adjusted our 1

assumptions to say that sign ballasts do not grow 2

the same way normal b allasts would. We typically 3

modeled it following building space growth , and for 4

example, that assumption doesn’t really hold. Just 5

because if you had a bigger building wouldn’t 6

necessarily mean you had more billboards or signs. 7

And so we accounted for t hat. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Well, let’s keep going for 9

a little bit longer. Let’s go to the section, four 10

or five more slides. 11

MR. WILLIAMS: So what we tried to do in 12

our analysis is bound things between upper and lower 13

bound, and we have the existing techno logy, and we 14

have an emerging technology, and we have a market 15

behavior which we combine with that, which is either 16

a rollup or a shift. 17

And so in an existing technology 18

situation, we have

-- here are graphs here. We see 19

that they go very high. Where as in an emerging 20

technology case, you see they do not grow, in fact 21

some are lower than when we started our analysis. 22

So I think that was to your comment earlier. 23

MR. LINGARD: This is Bob Lingard with 24

PNNL. And again, that emerging technology scenari o, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 186 I believe, was based on a maximum penetration by SSL 1

and the like, of just over 40 percent, if I’m not 2

mistaken. 3

MR. WILLIAMS: Right, it’s a time series 4

value, and it climbs as we approach the end of the 5

analysis period. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 7

MR. E RHARDT: Yeah, in our technology 8

approach, though, we also include dimming and 9

control systems, and you know, certainly by 2040, 10

like I said, we’re working with California right 11

now, that by 2040 their whole installed basis is 12

going to be controllable ball asts. There won’t be 13

any more fixed output ballasts on their

-- their 14

Title 24 to go in place for 2014 is requiring in all 15

commercial installations, a controllable ballast. 16

MR. LINGARD: This is Bob Lingard with 17

PNNL. While we’re here today, do any of you have 18

any suggestions or insight on the boundaries we’ve 19

established here? The emerging technology scenario 20

forms up our lower boundary of shipments and 21

potential energy savings. Any comments on how low 22

do you go or how high do you go in terms of fram ing 23

our shipments model? 24

MR. WILLIAMS: I would also like to add to 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 187 that, and make sure that we’ve actually applied that 1

assumption to the correct product classes. So if 2

you see a product that is not being affected, so for 3

example, the four by four MBP instant start is less 4

affected than some of the other ones. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Bob. 6

MR. ERHARDT: We supplied a sales 7

projection graph the last time we made comments, and 8

I have it here in front of me, and whether it’s 9

going to zero or not, we’re showing roughly by 2040 10

the fixed output market to be relatively 11

insignificant, that it will be taken over by SSL and 12

controllable ballasts by the 2040 timeframe. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: When you say relatively 14

insignificant, how big is that? 15

MR. ERHARDT: W ell, I guess it’s five 16

million ... so, you know, out to

-- they’re going to 17

be a significant part of the market? We’ve got them 18

to a significant part of the market into the 2025 19

timeframe, but if you’re going all the way out to 20

2040, we don’t think there ar e going to be a lot of 21

fixed output products being sold, except in very low 22

end applications, probably. 23

MR. WILLIAMS: Do any of you think that 24

the LED penetration rates would vary across product 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 188 classes? 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 2

MR. ERHARDT: Like I said , the initial 3

penetrations, I just heard it, signs are the biggest 4

takeoff right now. Outdoor is taking off 5

surprisingly quickly because of maintenance costs. 6

Freezer lights are taking off

-- anywhere there’s 7

low temperature, LEDs are doing very well, an d 8

anywhere that replacement costs. Now, it’s likely 9

that in very cost

- sensitive applications, the 10

fluorescents will continue to have a market, but 11

again, as we commented in our initial comments, some 12

of the things we’re working on

-- and we made

-- I 13

sugg ested, and we’re going to have a discussion 14

within NEMA

-- we may present some of the case 15

studies being presented in California on controls 16

scenarios that we are working on. 17

One of the points we’re trying to bring 18

here is, we are working on energy savin gs. This is 19

not a case where we want to stay in the dark ages 20

and don’t want to change. We are working to save 21

energy. We’re doing quite a bit in California. 22

We’re doing it with ASHRAE standards and with Energy 23

Star, and we are going after very large, significant 24

energy savings. We’re trying to save 50 percent 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 189 energy in California. That’s why, when we come here 1

and we’re finding our bread and butter product line 2

totally threatened over a two percent energy 3

savings, you know, it’s putting us into a bit of a 4

panic, because we’re going after 20, 30, 40 50 5

percent energy savings in other scenarios. And this 6

is where we want to keep putting our energy. We’re 7

going to

-- this is a point we’re trying to bring 8

across. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Joan na. 10

MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. Do you assume 11

that a portion of the residential ballasts are going 12

to the commercial sector, or that they’re all going 13

to the residential sector? 14

MR. WILLIAMS: Are you asking are we 15

seeing that a portion of the residential sales would 16

be moving to the commercial sector? 17

MS. MAUER: No, I’m just trying to 18

understand

-- so it’s showing that in 2010 there are 19

about 30 million shipments of residential ballasts. 20

Are those 30 million going to the residential sector 21

or a portion of those going to the commercial 22

sector? 23

MR. WILLIAMS: These lines don’t 24

distinguish between different sectors, and so unless 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 190 one of these ballasts is primarily a residential 1

only ballast, which might be the case

-- Bob? 2

MR. LINGARD: Tha t's correct. If you flip 3

back and forth between the existing, you’ll notice 4

that in the middle for two by four, four foot MBP 5

instant start/rapid start residential remains

-- 6

doesn’t change with the emerging technology. 7

MS. MAUER: Sorry, what I’m tryin g to ask 8

is are residential ballasts, today, are they being 9

used solely in the residential sector or are they 10

also being used in the commercial sector? 11

MR. LINGARD: That’s the assumption for 12

our model. Residential ballasts used solely within 13

residenti al sector

. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 15

MR. ERHARDT: The traditional 16

specification for a residential ballast is a low 17

power factor ballast, and it is not allowed to be 18

used in commercial applications. Commercial 19

applications require a point nine power factor or 20

higher, and generally our product is .98 or higher 21

even, and so the answer is no, you will not find a 22

residential product being sold in the commercial 23

sector. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Robert. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 191 MR. NACHTRIEB: This sort of model

-- 1

Robert Nachtrieb, Lutron . This sort of a model is, 2

of course, a crystal ball and it’s

-- the results 3

are only as good as the assumptions that go into it, 4

and so that’s why I think we’re spending so much 5

time understanding the assumptions. My company 6

doesn’t make lamps, but my c ompany makes controls 7

that have to use lamps and the Energy Independence 8

and Security Act as recently introducing a dramatic 9

shift in the light source market. And so I 10

developed, for my own company, a model very similar 11

to this, going out to a similar tim e scale, how the 12

regulatory change would impact the shift from 13

incandescents to perhaps halogen, to compact 14

fluorescents, to LEDs as the price of LEDs comes 15

down based on elasticities calibrated with 16

historical data and so forth. And assuming a 17

certain nu mber of medium screw

- based sockets, and so 18

forth. 19

One thing that I see missing from your 20

model is the impact of future regulation. 21

MR. WILLIAMS: Well, we’d love to see that 22

data if you’re willing to share it. 23

MR. NACHTRIEB: I’d love to share it. 24

MR. WILLIAMS: Yeah, we have not

-- we 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 192 haven’t tried to guess any kind of future 1

regulation, other than the standard that DOE is 2

currently considering. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie. 4

MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, this is Charlie 5

Stephens. I was just running some numb ers. You’ve 6

got 30 million shipment there for that residential 7

line, starting in 2010. I don’t doubt that there 8

are that many ballasts being shipped, but I doubt 9

that they’re all going into houses. Or, I mean if 10

I’ve run

-- if I do the housing starts, e ven during 11

the bubble, that tells me that there’s got to be 12

something like a dozen or more of these things going 13

into each house, or being retrofit into the house, 14

and into the least retrofitted rooms in any house. 15

And so I’m having some problems making t hose numbers 16

add up if those things aren’t going into some 17

commercial buildings, you know, some low end 18

remodeled, you know, kind of small office, class B 19

and class C office space or something that’s just 20

being remodeled by the guy who bought it or 21

somethi ng. 22

I mean there’s got to be

-- what that 23

implies is that there’s a lot more hours, probably, 24

on some of those ballasts than the 789 hours that 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 193 you’re putting on the residential ballast, because I 1

can’t figure out, given the housing starts and 2

remodels and retrofits, how you can bury that many 3

fixtures a year in the residential market. So if 4

you would, I think you really need to take a look at 5

where those things are going and some adjustments on 6

the annual hours may be appropriate, not necessarily 7

up t o the level where the other commercial ballasts 8

are, but higher. 9

MR. WILLIAMS: That’s a great comment. 10

Would you have any suggestion where we could find 11

any data to calibrate? 12

MR. STEPHENS: Well, some of the same 13

places I used, just look at housing starts and 14

sometimes there’s some good lighting survey data out 15

there. We’re not quite done with ours yet. I will 16

be, unfortunately, too late for this rulemaking by 17

the time we get ours, but there’s some data out 18

there and what kinds of fixtures you find , and what 19

kinds of new homes. And I think you can get that 20

data fairly easily. 21

And just to give you a check about how 22

many you can account for in the residential market, 23

and then say, well, the rest of them must be going 24

somewhere else, and then maybe come up with an 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 194 estimate for the low end of the commercial market 1

that might be eight hours a day or ten hours a day 2

of lighting, five days a week kind of thing, not the 3

more elevated hours that you’d see when you average 4

across grocery stores and office b uildings and all 5

that, something like that. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Tom Eckman. 7

MR. ECKMAN: Yeah, I think if you look at 8

the 2002 lighting study

-- 9

MR. BROOKMAN: You’re not on. 10

MR. ECKMAN: Light’s on. Okay. If you 11

look at the 2002 lighting study plus the studies 12

that have been done in California, New England, and 13

the northwest, you can get a pretty good idea how 14

many linear fluorescents are in the system, or circ 15

lines that are taking some sort of ballast, so you 16

can get an average lifetime, get some i dea what the 17

stock turnover ought to be plus new construction, 18

and see if it gets anywhere close to that number. I 19

agree with Charlie, I think we’re a bit shy of that 20

number when you do those calculations. 21

MR. WILLIAMS: Okay. Thank you. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s do the next few 23

slides and then we’ll take a break. 24

(Comment off mic.) 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 195 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Well, let’s take a 1

poll. I guess anybody that really needs to take a 2

bathroom break can leave if they need to, do you 3

want to keep going or do you want to take a ten 4

minute break? Keep going? Most of the folks in the 5

room are nodding their head to keep going, so okay, 6

we’re about to do that. Okay. We’ll keep going. 7

**National Impact Analysis** 8

MR. WILLIAMS: Great, that brings us to 9

the National Impact Analysis . So as I mentioned 10

previously, we bind our results between the existing 11

tech, emerging tech, and the shift and the roll up

. 12

And so the existing tech

-- let’s see

-- excuse me. 13

The existing technology shift will provide us with 14

o ur upper bound for our energy savings, and our net 15

present values; and the emerging tech will provide 16

us with the lower bound. 17

So the NIA takes a look at the cumulative 18

national energy savings, and this all takes input 19

from the LCC and the shipments mode l. What we found 20

is that if we can get the upper bound and the lower 21

bound, we can kind of constrain and take a look at 22

what’s going on. And so what we see here is the 23

national energy savings increase from the standards 24

case, and I’d just like to preempt some comments. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 196 So in the existing technology shift, what 1

we’ll see is

-- we take a look at this energy 2

savings curve here

-- I just wanted to address the 3

peakedness of this line. So what we consider is a 4

site to source ratio which is a multiplier for 5

c onverting site energy consumption to source energy 6

consumption, and we get that value

-- well, in the 7

preliminary analysis from AEO, but we use that data 8

again in the NOPR, and we submit that through the 9

National Energy Modeling System, NEMS, and we get

-- 10

if you control for the site to source ratio, this 11

line looks a lot smoother, but as we see the 12

National Energy Modeling System predicts that it 13

will vary slightly. And then the reason it’s 14

straight and curved after

-- very linear after 2035 15

is that’s as far as the model goes and we stop 16

speculating, we kept the rate constant. 17

So what we see here is that as you expect, 18

the national energy savings increases with the 19

efficiency of the installed stock, and net present 20

value rises and then falls. 21

I don’t h ave a lot of talking points here 22

except to answer questions. 23

MR. LINGARD: This is Bob with PNNL. 24

These few slides illustrate our outer bounds 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 197 scenarios as you saw. With shipments taking a hit 1

in the emerging technology scenario, so too does our 2

estima te of national energy savings, and NPV, and 3

the respective values are presented on each slide. 4

MR. WILLIAMS: Right. If you take a look 5

-- this is Grant

-- if you take look at the graph on 6

the left, you can compare this, which is our lower 7

bound, to our upper bound. Similarly, for net 8

present value of seven percent. So the emerging 9

technology has an enormous impact. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Questions on these? 11

Comments on the upper bound and the lower bound, 12

really? All right. I see none, go on. 13

MR. WILLI AMS: Okay. That ends my 14

section, thank you. 15

**Manufacturer Impact Analysis** 16

MS. POTOCKI: Hi. My name is Erin Potocki from 17

Navigant, and I apologize for my voice being 18

strained today. I’m here to talk about the 19

manufacturer impact analysis, or the MIA. The main 20

purpose of the MIA is to assess the impact of 21

standards on manufacturers of florescent lamp 22

ballasts. The second purpose is to identify and 23

estimate the impacts on manufacturer subgroups. The 24

upcoming slides of the MIA presentation discuss the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 198 i mpacts of standards on the small business 1

manufacturer subgroup. 2

The final portion of the MIA involves a 3

discussion of direct employment, manufacturing 4

capacity, and other federal regulations that impact 5

the same manufacturers around the compliance dat e 6

for this rulemaking. 7

The main tool DOE uses to evaluate the 8

impact of standards on manufacturers is a discounted 9

cash flow model known as the Government Regulatory 10

Impact Model, or GRIM. The major output from the 11

cash flow model is industry net pres ent value, or 12

INPV, a metric used to represent the quantitative 13

impacts of new or amended standards on the 14

manufacturers of the covered product. 15

For the MIA, DOE also conducts interviews 16

with manufacturers to refine the inputs to the cash 17

flow model and to understand the qualitative impacts 18

of standards. 19

Now the picture shows the basic structure 20

of the MIA process in three phases. In the first 21

phase, which occurs during the preliminary analysis 22

period, DOE uses all available public information, 23

such as manufacturers’ annual reports, to develop 24

profiles of the covered industry. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 199 Phase two and phase three are the two 1

phases that DOE conducted as part of the NOPR MIA 2

for fluorescent lamp ballasts. DOE develops the 3

cash flow spreadsheets that are used t o estimate 4

industry impacts. DOE also develops interview 5

guides that are used to tailor the inputs to the 6

cash flow models. 7

In phase three, DOE conducts interviews 8

with manufacturers and uses the information to 9

further develop the subanalysis and to f inalize the 10

inputs to the GRIM. 11

Now switching from process to content. 12

This slide presents the key issues we’ve learned 13

from manufacturers concerning this rulemaking, and 14

many of these were addressed earlier during NEMA’s 15

presentation. 16

**•** First, manufacturers are concerned about 17

profitability impacts. Currently, many 18

manufacturers offer two tiers of products, with 19

the higher efficiency tier commanding a premium 20

over the baseline tier. But they worry that 21

standards would eliminate the base line tier and 22

market pressure would reduce the margins on the 23

once premium tier products. We addressed this 24Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 200 concern with our markup scenarios which I will 1

address in the next slide 2

**•** Second, manufacturers are hesitant to invest in 3

the necessary resources to increase the 4

efficiency of their fluorescent lamp ballasts 5

because they believe that the future of 6

efficiency gains in the lighting industry is in 7

solid state lighting and controls. Higher 8

prices for fluorescent lamp ballasts may even 9

hasten this switch to these emerging 10

technologies. As such, manufacturers do not 11

want to invest heavily in what they see as a 12

shrinking market. This concern is addressed by 13

the emerging technologies scenario which we 14

just went over. 15

**•** And on a related note, manufacturers bel ieve 16

that new and amended standards for fluorescent 17

lamp ballasts have a high opportunity cost. By 18

forcing resources toward upgrading existing 19

product lines, manufacturers will have to 20

divert resources away from new product 21

development and emerging techno logies. 22

**•** Next, manufacturers are very concerned about 23

the overall regulatory burden affecting the 24Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 201 industry. The lighting industry faces several 1

recently amended or soon to be amended federal 2

energy conservation standards, and several 3

international regulati ons and other safety 4

regulations. 5

**•** Lastly, during interviews, manufacturers 6

expressed concern that an ongoing component 7

shortage impacting all electronics would limit 8

the industry’s ability to receive high 9

efficiency components necessary to meet 10

proposed st andard levels. 11

This slide presents an overview of the 12

scenarios DOE ran for the MIA. As discussed in the 13

NIA presentation, DOE analyzed two technology 14

scenarios and two shipment scenarios. Adding to 15

these, DOE analyzes two profitability scenarios in 16

the MIA. In total, then, this yields eight 17

potential sets of results. 18

Presented on this slide are the two that 19

bounded the potential impacts on industry value. 20

The combination of scenarios with the lowest impacts 21

is the preservation of operating prof it markup, 22

existing technologies, and shift shipment scenarios. 23

Under the preservation of operating profit 24Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 202 scenario, DOE applies a markup at each TSL that 1

results in the same operating profit in absolute 2

dollar value, both before and after standards. 3

Manufacturers’ capital base increases as a result of 4

the investments required to meet the standards, but 5

manufacturers don’t earn additional profit from 6

these investments. 7

Under the existing technologies scenario, 8

base case shipments of fluorescent lamp ballasts are 9

not impacted by any emerging technologies that could 10

potentially penetrate the market over the analysis 11

period. 12

Under the shift shipment scenario, all 13

base case consumer purchases are affected by the 14

standard, regardless of whether their ba se case 15

efficiency is below the standard as consumers may 16

seek to shift to a higher efficiency level. 17

The combination of scenarios with the 18

highest impact is the two tier markup, emerging 19

technologies, and roll up shipment scenarios. 20

Under the two tier markup, DOE modeled the 21

situation in which portfolio reduction squeezes the 22

margin of higher efficiency products as they become 23

lower relative efficiency tier products. 24

Under the emerging technologies scenario, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 203 fluorescent lamp ballasts lose market shar e to 1

emerging technologies such as LEDs over the analysis 2

period. 3

Under the roll up shipment scenario, no 4

consumer purchases beyond those that do not meet the 5

new standard level are affected by the standard, so 6

premium pricing tiers are not continually 7

m aintained. 8

The scenario combinations described in the 9

previous slide yield the INPV impacts shown here. 10

At TSL

- 3, the level proposed in the NOPR, DOE 11

estimates impacts ranging from negative 7.7 percent 12

of industry value to negative 34.7 percent of 13

indus try value. These negative impacts are due to 14

the higher product costs which cannot be fully 15

passed on to consumers and the product and capital 16

conversion costs that would result from needing to 17

upgrade the majority of product lines at TSL

- 3. 18

Now switchi ng over to our subgroup 19

analysis. One of the statutory criteria DOE is 20

required to

-- 21

MR. ERHARDT: Excuse me. Can you

-- I’m 22

trying to understand that last slide. Are you 23

saying this is going to cost the industry $300 24

million dollars? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 204 MS. POTOCKI: The value of the industry 1

would decline by up to $300 million dollars in the 2

lower bound, yes. 3

MR. ERHARDT: Okay. So you understand our 4

concerns. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Bob. 6

MS. POTOCKI: Back to the small business 7

impacts. For fluorescent lam p ballasts, the Small 8

Business Administration sets a limit of 750 total 9

employees or less to be considered a small business 10

manufacturer. DOE used all publicly available 11

information to identify potential small business 12

manufacturers. DOE also purchased i ndependent 13

reports and directly contacted potential small 14

business manufacturers to determine if they meet the 15

SBA’s definition of a small business. 16

While we found several small 17

manufacturers, production is almost exclusively 18

abroad, resulting in minimal capital exposure. 19

These small manufacturers are able to compete 20

despite the dominance of the four large 21

manufacturers in the industry in large part due to 22

the fragmented nature of the fixture industry. 23

Additionally, small manufacturers typically offer a 24

variety of lighting products and do not focus 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 205 exclusively on fluorescent lamp ballasts. 1

To show how small business manufacturer 2

could be disproportionately impacted, DOE looked at 3

the impact of the required conversion costs on both 4

large and small busi ness manufacturers by examining 5

the products offerings of both large and small 6

manufacturers. DOE’s research suggests that small 7

manufacturers will be more negatively impacted by 8

standards than large manufacturers because they lack 9

the scale to afford the large product development, 10

testing, and certification requirements required for 11

certain standard levels. 12

To mitigate impacts, DOE believes that 13

manufacturers will likely reduce the number of 14

product lines offered, especially in the short term, 15

to keep required conversion costs within manageable 16

limits. 17

And at this time, DOE requests comments on 18

the methodology and inputs used for the MIA. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Robert. 20

MR. NACHTRIEB: Rob Nachtrieb, Neutron. 21

So I have two comments, and I’ll take them in 22

reverse order. First is the impact on small 23

manufacturers. I think that the impact of this 24

regulation on small manufacturers would be 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 206 negligible because I don’t think that there are many 1

small manufacturers who are willing to compete with 2

large lamp companies in a commodities market. They 3

have all the disadvantages against them. So where 4

the small manufacturers are going to concentrate and 5

in areas where there is pote ntial for growth and 6

potential for high margins, in other words, the 7

emerging lighting sectors. So this fluorescent 8

rulemaking, I don’t think, should have a big impact 9

on small manufacturers except to shift the market 10

even quicker towards the emerging lig ht sources. 11

That’s my first comment. 12

Second comment has to do with the scenario 13

that you considered for eliminating a product 14

category and therefore squeezing margins. When you 15

eliminate a product category, essentially you leave 16

the manufacturers with no choice but to compete on 17

the basis of price and by definition, that is a 18

commodity. And so it will squeeze the margins. 19

But the scenario that you did not consider 20

was alluded to by Bob earlier, which is that 21

manufacturers won’t rest without an abil ity to 22

distinguish and will start to promote dimming 23

ballasts quite heavily, and that will be the new 24

basis on which to compete, and there will be a shift 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 207 in the market from fixed light output to dimming 1

ballasts which aren’t regulated. Thank you. 2

MR. B ROOKMAN: Thank you. Bob. 3

MR. ERHARDT: Just one comment on that. 4

While the commodities market maybe does not have a 5

strong presence with small manufacturers, some of 6

the discussions we’ve had in NEMA are that for sign 7

ballasts there are a number of bo utique ballast 8

shops, and we don’t even know how to contact them or 9

we hope that you have, because we have seen no 10

representation from them. So if you’re talking 11

about some of the smaller sign ballast 12

manufacturers, they could be completely blindsided 13

by this and if you’re going to ask them to go from 14

electromagnetic design to an electronic one, I think 15

they’re just going to have to source that from 16

somewhere else, they won’t be able to produce that 17

by themselves. 18

I don’t know what direction the industry 19

will take if you suddenly outlaw our largest product 20

lines right now. It’s going to be

-- there’s going 21

to be

-- I will say there’s going to be quite a bit 22

of upheaval in the marketplace, a lot of 23

uncertainty, and it’s not clear where the industry 24

is goi ng to go. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 208 MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Andrew deLaski. 1

MR. DeLASKI: Just a couple of comments on 2

this and I, having been involved in a number of 3

these dockets over a lot of years, I think that the 4

dynamic that we see is, you know, you’ve had a 5

standard that creates, as alluded to, tremendous 6

pressure to find methods to distinguish products. 7

There’s incredible, powerful market drivers behind 8

that so

- called shift scenario. 9

The discussion of the dimming ballast that 10

Bob and Rob have, I think is a case in poin t and as 11

is the discussion of LED technology in general, that 12

the standard will assuredly drive manufacturers to 13

develop new products that help them to maintain high 14

margins. And there’ll be incredible innovations 15

along those lines. Exactly what it is ov er a 30 16

year analysis period, we can’t predict. 17

I have a few points, Bob, so

-- the 18

dimming ballast is certainly one of those, LEDs, and 19

I think that the manufacturers, you know, they look 20

for multiple planes on which to compete, not just 21

the plane of th e ballast efficiency. So it’s not 22

just about efficiency, it’s about the multiple 23

planes around which they offer amenity and value to 24

their customers. So I think the shift scenario is 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 209 the one that we have seen in multiple dockets to be 1

the one that is the more likely. 2

The other point

-- this is again a point 3

that has come up in multiple dockets

-- is that 4

these are not just manufacturers of ballasts. My 5

understanding, and this is a question for the 6

Department, is that you’ve drawn a box around the 7

balla st business, so that loss in value that you 8

estimate is the loss in the value of the ballast 9

business. Is that a correct

-- 10

MS. POTOCKI: Correct. It is

-- we’re 11

looking at the value of the ballast industry, not of 12

a particular manufacturer who, to you r point, may 13

make LEDs. 14

MR. DeLASKI: Right. So to the extent 15

that a standard drives manufacturers or drives the 16

market towards other products that these same 17

manufacturers make perhaps at a higher margin

-- 18

MS. POTOCKI: In this analysis we don’t 19

ass ume that standards drive products more quickly. 20

We assume that it’s a base case issue, and so those 21

emerging technologies are being purchased regardless 22

of standards. 23

MR. DeLASKI: All right. So then in the 24

shift scenario

-- in the shift scenario, the market 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 210 is moving

-- your -- the market is moving towards 1

more efficient technologies, but there’s no 2

variation depending on whether or not there’s a 3

standard? 4

MR. CARMICHAEL: This is Rob Carmichael of 5

Navigant. So two separate issues. The shift 6

scenar io that you’re discussing is what

-- which

-- 7

consumers that are already above the baseline, how 8

do they react? It’s not about a shift to a 9

different emerging technology. So that issue is 10

taken up in the two base case scenarios that Grant 11

and Bob spoke a bout earlier, the emerging 12

technologies versus the existing technologies. So 13

in the emerging technologies base case scenario, we 14

assume that LEDs will penetrate what would have been 15

lacking those technologies, would have been a normal 16

course for fixed out put ballasts. So we take that 17

into account in the base case, so there’s a lower 18

base case value because we’re only looking at the 19

ballast to your box issue, you know, where do we 20

draw that box, and that’s something that we’ve 21

obviously talked about at man y of these rulemakings. 22

But what we’re trying to do with utilizing 23

the existing technologies and the emerging 24

technologies base case scenarios, is set up a bound 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 211 of where the ballast market could be, just those 1

shipments. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. That help s, thanks. 3

MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, I’d like to make some 4

comments here. Number one, when you talk about 5

losing our differentiation or products, that’s what 6

would occur if you took our proposal that eliminates 7

everything except our best products. You’re not 8

doing that. You’re proposing something that 9

eliminates even our best products. That leaves us 10

with this $300 million dollar shortfall and guess 11

what, that $300 million dollar shortfall is going to 12

keep us from investing in these new technologies. 13

That’ s the point we’ve been trying to make. It’s 14

not going to be that suddenly because these are 15

going to be so expensive because we’ve spent all 16

this money redesigning these products that we’re 17

suddenly going to be selling things that we make 18

more money with; it’s that we’re going to have to 19

spend all this money redesigning these products, and 20

we won’t have the new technologies to make more 21

money with. 22

If you let us keep our high performance 23

product lines and just eliminate everything 24

underneath it, then you ’re going to get rid of our 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 212 product differentiation, you’re going to force us 1

into this situation where yes, we are going to start 2

naming

-- we’re going to get our product 3

differentiation from solid state lighting and 4

controls and otherwise. But if we hav e to spend 5

this $300 million dollars that you’re showing just 6

to keep ourselves in the market, that’s not going to 7

be the output. 8

And that’s what we’re concerned about. 9

That’s exactly what we’re talking about. We’re 10

working on many initiatives. As a matter of fact, 11

I’ve had to skip meetings on net zero energy 12

buildings discussions for California

-- we’ve put 13

that on hold so that we can deal with this 14

rulemaking. Now there’s an example of work we would 15

rather be doing, than this business of trying to 16

save two percent. We’re trying to protect our 17

market. 18

For my company, this product line is about 19

45 percent of our sales. This is

-- we can’t ignore 20

this. We can’t say, oh, we’re just going to stop 21

selling that, because we’ll be out of business. W e 22

won’t have any money, we’re going to close our 23

factories and so we have to put the resources into 24

this. And it’s going to come from somewhere else. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 213 And it’s already having effect. I should be working 1

on some stuff for California right now, but for the 2

next month, this is all I’m going to work on. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie Stephens. 4

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. Before I 5

render any judgments about what you’ve done, I want 6

to talk about something you didn’t talk about. I 7

have some questions. I rea d page 2136 in the NOPR 8

about four times, and I still can’t understand how 9

you did your analysis and how you assigned costs to 10

the manufacturers for these various scenarios. And 11

what I want to do is I want to tell you what I think 12

I understand, and I want you to tell me where I blew 13

it. Okay. 14

MS. POTOCKI: What section of the NOPR is 15

page 2136? 16

MR. STEPHENS: This is a product and 17

capital conversion cost. So if I read this 18

correctly, you kind of went through the SKU list, if 19

you will, for the manuf acturer and when you found 20

one that didn’t meet the candidate standard level, 21

depending on which one you’re analyzing, you 22

assigned engineering development and testing cost to 23

that, because elsewhere you described the fact that 24

most manufacturers agreed th at the capital costs of 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 214 upgrading production volumes was not large compared 1

to the engineering and development and testing 2

costs. 3

So I’m looking at this, and so for each 4

SKU that did not meet the candidate standard level, 5

you assigned cost to that. 6

M S. POTOCKI: Correct. 7

MR. STEPHENS: Okay. So

-- and so when I 8

add those all up I get a sum for a manufacturer’s 9

product line at that candidate standard level. I’m 10

trying to understand why, if you’re a manufacturer, 11

you would take a product that is at the bottom of 12

the line and you’d invest money to redesign the 13

product and test it and develop it to bring it up to 14

the candidate standard level, when you already make 15

one that meets the candidate standard level? 16

MS. POTOCKI: I can understand that point. 17

MR. STEPHENS: So am I correct and that’s 18

how you did it? You looked at the SKUs, 19

essentially, and assigned engineering and 20

development and testing cost to each one that didn’t 21

meet this candidate standard level in order to get 22

it up to the candidate s tandard level? 23

MS. POTOCKI: Correct. When we analyzed 24

conversion costs, we assume that manufacturers want 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 215 to kind of maintain the same product offerings in 1

the standards case as in the base case. We 2

understand that to your point they may choose a 3

diff erent path and just focus on the products that 4

already meet the potential standard levels, but it’s 5

not immediately clear that perhaps that lower 6

efficiency product may exist for a particular reason 7

and they would need to design a product of that 8

particula r type. 9

MR. STEPHENS: Okay, I

-- 10

MS. POTOCKI: To Bob’s

-- can you respond 11

to that? 12

MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, you can’t expect us to 13

have incomplete product lines. Our customers 14

require us to have a full product line. You can’t 15

just say, oh, I’m going t o sell two lamp ballasts 16

and three lamp ballasts, and go buy your four lamp 17

ballasts from somebody else. You don’t have 18

customers

-- our customers buy a complete suite of 19

products and they bid on a complete suite of 20

products and they look for suppliers th at can offer 21

a complete product line. We have

-- especially in 22

this commodity market, this is the bread and butter 23

market. We have to offer a complete product line. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Jeff. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 216 MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon. I’ll add that 1

typically the manufac turers’ premium product lines 2

with the higher efficiencies also incorporate other 3

features, such as strike control, UL type CC, 4

thermal foldback, several other features that also 5

add cost. So that may not be applicable to the OEM 6

channel, the fixture chan nel for every opportunity. 7

So though the manufacturer may have a higher grade 8

product, it would still require us to have an OEM 9

type product that strips out with the retrofit type 10

features. So therefore, we would need to redesign. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Charli e. 12

MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, I guess that’s not my 13

understanding of how they did this. I wasn’t

-- I 14

assume that every manufacturer would want to make at 15

least one product that met the standard across the 16

product line. It’s also my understanding that in 17

man y product lines, they make a product already that 18

meets the standard. Is that not true? 19

MS. POTOCKI: I think Rob may have

-- 20

MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, I agree that there 21

are some product lines that don’t, but

-- 22

MR. ERHARDT: Five percent of our 23

product s. 24

MR. STEPHENS: Okay. I’m not talking 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 217 about the absolute numbers here, I’m talking about 1

methodology. So what I’m trying to get at here is 2

the methodology of taking every SKU, even if it’s 3

one of say three ballasts that are designed for a 4

particular application

-- 5

MS. POTOCKI: To simplify, we did 6

differentiate slightly between SKUs which may just 7

have slight variations and then general models. 8

MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, I understand that. 9

MR. CARMICHAEL: So, Rob Carmichael, 10

Navigant. So I think g etting at your question is 11

the fact that yes, they may have a product that 12

maybe it’s the two foot, or four foot two lamp core 13

product that meets the standard, but there’s all 14

these variations off of that one line that they 15

don’t have products necessarily, so they have to 16

redesign to bring those up to that next level. And 17

that’s where we’re counting those conversion costs 18

per model, if you will. Does that make any more 19

sense? 20

MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, I’m just trying to 21

understand if you are

-- it sounded to me when I 22

read this that you were just taking any ballast, any 23

ballast that didn’t meet whatever the candidate 24

standard level was, that you would assign R&D and 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 218 testing cost to it. 1

MR. CARMICHAEL: Maybe that could be 2

clearer. Point taken. But no, it’ s not every 3

single possible SKU. There are some costs

-- you do 4

have to

-- there are some changes you’d have to 5

make, we heard from manufacturers for the product 6

lines, so you have to certify them with UL, for 7

instance, and there are costs associated with those. 8

But it’s not that there’s

-- every single different 9

SKU has a specific cost. 10

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

think the key point here is that MIA does account 12

for products that we believe meet the standard level 13

already. So if there’s a two lamp four foot medium 14

bi

- pin normal ballast factor ballast that meets the 15

proposed standard levels, there aren’t product 16

conversion costs assigned to that particular 17

ballast, but maybe that manufacturer does not sell a 18

one lamp version, in which cas e product conversion 19

costs are assigned to that ballast type. 20

MR. STEPHENS: Okay. If that’s what 21

you’re doing then I’m pretty comfortable with the 22

methodology, but that’s not how it reads in the 23

NOPR. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional comments 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 219 on this ? Go ahead. 1

MS. POTOCKI: On to the LCC. 2

**LCC Subgroup Analysis** 3

MR. LINGARD: This is Bob Lingard, PNNL. 4

I admire your stamina. Here we are, okay, just 5

shortly after three. I’m going to speak about 6

several of the NOPR analyses that are downstream 7

from the National Impact Analysis, and the results 8

are a function of t hose energy savings and economic 9

savings we see from the National Impact Analysis. 10

The LCC subgroup analysis is very similar 11

to the main LCC analysis except we’ve identified 12

several potentially adversely affected subgrou ps and 13

we look to the 2009 lamps rules and inspiration for 14

potentially affected subgroups, as we’re sharing 15

lighting systems here. These included low income 16

consumers, institutions of religious worship, and 17

institutions that serve low income populations such 18

as non - profits. 19

As Grant d iscussed in the main LCC 20

results, the life cycle cost savings were quite 21

robust at TSL

- 3, and as you might expect, when we 22

varied some of the inputs in the main LCC analysis, 23

we saw that those positive LCC savings were 24

typically preserved, and that was als o the case in 25

the LCC subgroup analysis. 26

For low income consumers we took a look at 27

the residential energy consumption survey and 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 220 extracted electricity rates from that data, which, 1

based on that data, we found we’re fractionally

-- 2

very fractionally hi gher than that paid by the 3

average population. And as a result that small 4

difference in electricity price did not have a 5

negative impact on our LCC results, so we did not 6

see a negative impact for that group. 7

For institutions of religious worship, we 8

mo dified the operating hours from the average that 9

we would expect to see in the commercial sector, so 10

instead of approximately 3900 hours, we modeled 11

approximately 2200 hours, and even with this 12

reduced operating schedule, the LCC savings for the 13

commercia l ballast designs were preserved. 14

Finally, for non

- profits, institutions 15

serving low income populations, we varied the 16

interest rate in this case, used an interest rate of 17

10.7 percent, which was based on the scenario used 18

in the lamps rule to model one of these non

- profits, 19

not having access

-- perhaps not having access to 20

credit and other resources that larger organizations 21

would, and would be facing a higher interest rate, 22

in this case, 10.7 percent. Even with that input 23

varied, the LCC savings were p reserved. 24

So to sum it up, as we did it in the main 25

LCC analysis, in our variability study, we varied 26

inputs here, but the results of the subgroup 27

analysis were consistent with the main LCC analysis 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 221 with no negative impacts to report. 1 **Utility Impact Anal ysis**  2

The Utility Impact Analysis

-- this one is 3

pretty intuitive. With increased efficiency in our 4

affected products, you would expect to see a reduced 5

electricity demand. This is using the National 6

Energy Modeling System, the BT version. This is the 7

kind of model that AEO uses in their energy 8

projections. Using this model, based on the energy 9

savings calculated in the National Impact Analysis, 10

these are the estimated reductions in electric 11

generating capacity we saw for the different trial 12

standard l evels, ranging here from TSL

- 1 to 3, and 13

these generation reductions in turn, feed other 14

downstream analysis as I’ll touch on. Again, 15

nothing dramatic to report here. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Tom Eckman. 17

MR. ECKMAN: One more time into the fray. 18

Did you happen to mon e tize how much savings there 19

would be by avoiding this generation? 20

MR. LINGARD: I’ll defer to my ethereal 21

colleague, Natasha Collins. 22

MR. ECKMAN: Forty

- seven gigawatts is lots 23

of generating costs. 24

MS. COLLINS: Yes, this is Natasha 25

Collins. This has not been mon e tized. This is just 26

physical values. We did mon e tize the quantities of 27

CO2 avoided, but not this. 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 222 MR. ECKMAN: I would recommend that that 1

be done. Those are national benefits that we don’t 2

have to pay for if they pass through. 3

MS. KAARSBERG: Could I ask a quick 4

clarification? 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Tina, yes. 6

MS. KAARSBERG : You mean like you want us 7

to put in the dollars per kilowatt, some kind of 8

average dollars per kilowatt for this time period

-- 9

MR. ECKMAN: Yeah, I mean, just the cost 10

of operation, thousand dollars

-- 11

MS. KAARSBERG: Right, right. Okay. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Did you hear that on the 13

record? Capital cost of generation. 14

MR. ECKMAN: At least

-- well, we’re 15

paying for the fuel cost as we use these kilowatt 16

hours, but

-- 17

MS. KAARSBERG : As well, yes. 18

MR. ECKMAN: As well

-- capital and fuel, 19

life cycle cost of these things, some of which are 20

recovered in rates which are captured in life cycle 21

cost savings, but these are marginal costs, and 22

rates are aver age costs, most of the country, so 23

we’re not really capturing a portion of the cost 24

that’s being paid for here. 25

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 26

MR. LINGARD: Did I have any other comment 27

from Natasha or Grant? I know they’ve worked with 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 223 these analyses for other rulemaking. Okay. 1

MS. COLLINS: No comment. 2

**Employment Impact Analysis** 3

MR. LINGARD: The employment analysis 4

looks at the indirect effects on national employment 5

that higher efficiency products will have. This 6

uses the IMSET , Model of the IMSET , I M pact of Sector 7

Energy Technologies model, looking at essentially 8

product costs and energy, and modeling the economic 9

impacts of how, for example, monetary savings might 10

be spent elsewhere in the economy. I quickly get 11

over my head in the details of this model, but I do 12

have my colleague, Grant Williams, here if we have 13

any questions. 14

MR. ERHARDT: This may be for my personal 15

edification, but I’m a little curious in the 16

methodology behind this in terms of how more savings 17

contributes to jobs. It’s been described to me by 18

others before

-- by consumers saving money, they’re 19

going to go to Chili’s more frequently, so Chili is 20

going to hire m ore John Doe’s to be waiters. I’m 21

curious how we come to this assumption, because it 22

seems very round about. And maybe that’s been 23

explained to me wrong in the past, so that’s why I’m 24

asking as well. 25

MR. WILLIAMS: This is Grant Williams. 26

Yeah, IMSET model takes a look at the savings in 27

terms of energy savings and also differences in 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 224 installed costs between the products and it makes 1

some assumptions about where that money could go, so 2

exactly what you’re saying. I don’t have the 3

specifics of it in fro nt of me, but if you’d like to 4

file a comment, I’ll be happy to provide you the 5

answer. It’s a pretty complicated model. 6

DR. KAARSBERG: Grant, if I could get a 7

clarification. Isn't it true that the sort of 8

input

- output matrix, input

- output data for th e IMSET 9

model is not

-- comes not from a bunch of 10

assumptions, but from actual measurements, or data 11

of how jobs flow with the economy? That was my 12

understanding. 13

MR. WILLIAMS: Right, but the model takes 14

inputs from both the National Impacts Analysis a nd 15

also takes some inputs from a few other data 16

sources. I don’t have those in front of me right 17

now, but like I said, I’d be happy to answer in 18

detail in a comment. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Bob. 20

MR. ERHARDT: Does it also take into 21

account the manufactu rer impact? If you’re taking 22 $300 million dollars from us, it might lose a few 23

jobs. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: You want to answer that? 25

MS. COLLINS: Natasha Collins. I think 26

that this is in addition to manufacturer impact. 27

MR. WILLIAMS: This is net. 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 225 MR. B ROOKMAN: Tom Eckman, yes. 1

MR. ECKMAN: To shed a little light on it. 2

If we go back to the prior slide. Every analysis 3

I’ve seen says that investments in electric 4

generation sector produces fewer jobs for dollar 5

investment than any other sector of the economy 6

except for defense. Because it’s capital intensive, 7

it’s not job intensive. Build a lot of plant, a lot 8

of wire, but not a lot of jobs. And so if we don’t 9

invest in these plants, instead invest in saving 10

energy which gives the consumer more dis cretionary 11

income, wherever they spend it, we’re going to have 12

more jobs in the economy than spending it on 13

generation. That’s the simple principle. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Robert. 15

Okay. Andrew. 16

MR. DeLASKI: I’m okay. That was cogent. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, other than

-- yes, 18

Cheryl. 19

MS. ENGLISH: I just have a question. So 20

how many jobs were created from the previous 21

fluorescent ballast rulemaking? 22

MS. COLLINS: This is Natasha Collins. I 23

don’t have that number available right now, but I 24

don’t know it was part of the required analysis at 25

the time. 26

MS. ENGLISH: So I’ll just go on record. 27

We did not feel the increase of those jobs. 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 226 MR. DeLASKI: Cheryl, ACEE E and .. did a 1

report

-- 2

MS. COLLINS: I certainly wouldn’t say 3

that. 4

MR. DeLASKI: ... and we did attempt to look 5

at the history of the US appliance industry program, 6

and you make a good point, that any one individual 7

standard may have a relatively small impact on US 8

employment. But the fact that the US economy is 9

much mo re efficient today because of a whole host of 10

standards that DOE has established, I think it’s

-- 11

there’s the IMSET model, there’s many input

- output 12

models as time references, that demonstrates that by 13

being more efficient

-- all because I think Bob 14

descri bes, for all the efforts that the lighting 15

industry has made to make it more efficient, does 16

create employment in the economy at large over time, 17

not just any individual action, but being more 18

efficient moves investment out of power plants and 19

fuel, away f rom coal mining and building power 20

plants and into lighting retrofits and into doing 21

things that actually create more employment. It’s 22

pretty well established through lots of different 23

models. 24

MS. ENGLISH: This is Cher y l. Does the 25

study that you’re re ferencing look at the jobs by 26

sector, specifically what the impact on 27

manufacturers are with these regulations? 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 227 MR. DeLASKI: This is an input

- output 1

model of the US economy, so not a

-- 2

MS. ENGLISH: So there are a whole lot of 3

variables in that. 4

MR. DeLASKI: Absolutely. ... model, the 5

impact on acuity

-- 6

MS. ENGLISH: To say that’s directly as a 7

function of

-- 8

MR. DeLASKI: No, this is not trying to

-- 9

this is not manufacture impacts, this is economy

10

wide impacts. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Tina, you ha d a comment? 12

DR. KAARSBERG: Just a little tidbit. I 13

actually worked with the IMSET model quite a bit in 14

the past, in previous lives, and my memory is that 15

it’s more than 100 different energy sectors are

-- I 16

mean not energy, more than 100 different sec tors, 17

period. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Employment sectors. 19

DR. KAARSBERG: Yeah, employment sectors. 20

You know everything from fast food joints and 21

whatever, window washing, it has everything in 22

there, and I think it might be possible

-- I don’t 23

see why it would n’t be possible, based on my 24

understanding , to look at specific sectors and ups 25

and downs, if the data

-- if there’s enough data. 26

And then to get back to the question 27

about, you know, what does it do in terms of showing 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 228 job losses. You feed it

-- I view these models as a 1

way to translate

-- you guys feel free to interrupt 2

me if I’m wrong

-- but I view them as a way to 3

translate your energy savings and your cost savings 4

into job and employment numbers by sector. That’s 5

basically what this thing does, and the factors that 6

you use to make these changes are all based on 7

actual measured data. They get updated, I don’t 8

know, maybe once every seven or eight years. So 9

it’s not really a model, it’s really a conversion 10

calculator. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: I see Grant wa nts to add on 12

there. 13

MR. WILLIAMS: I’ve never seen the 14

incredulous looks about these job numbers. I’d just 15

like to ask for some comments, if there’s a way we 16

can present this information perhaps more granularly 17

or -- that would

-- maybe you guys could appreciate, 18

or would be more

-- 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie. 20

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. If I’m 21

not mistaken, the model doesn’t attempt to reflect 22

reality in terms of where the jobs are created 23

either, otherwise it would have to take into account 24

the last 20 years of jobs being off

- shored to 25

various places. So I’m not sure the model 26

distinguishes where those jobs were created. So I 27

don’t think you can just look at your own reality 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 229 and try to derive it out of the model. Some of 1

these jobs, quite fran kly, are created in China. 2

But I think if you do an honest job of it, 3

you can look at your own economy and trace what jobs 4

are created back into our own economy, like energy 5

efficiency, which many jobs cannot be off

- shored. 6

MR. DeLASKI: Just for the record, I don’t 7

believe it’s a model of the world economy. I 8

believe it’s a model of the US economy, so

-- 9

MR. NEUMANN: But am I understanding 10

correctly that

-- 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Justin, go ahead. 12

MR. NEUMANN:

-- DOE standards are sending 13

jobs to Ch ina? Was that just said? 14

MR. STEPHENS: I’m saying that if the jobs 15

aren’t showing up in your own factory, they might 16

not have anything to do with DOE’s standards. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So I think we’re 18

finished with employment analysis. Let’s move o n to 19

environmental analysis. 20

**E nvironmental**  **Impact A**  **nalysis** 21

MR. LINGARD: To wrap up our discussion of 22

the NOPR analyses, Environmental Impact Analys e s

. 23

In its original form we started off with estimates 24

of emission reductions and in recent rulemakings 25

w e’re now monetizing the benefits of these emission 26

reductions. What you see here on this slide are the 27

air pollutant emission reductions based

-- resulting 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 230 from reduced energy demand for the trial standard 1

levels. What the NOPR text and the TSD go into m ore 2

detail is assigning monetary benefits to these 3

emission reductions and combining these with the 4

traditional NIA results. 5

That would include the central cost of 6

carbon values which have flowed out of an 7

interagency working group that is indeed a proce ss 8

in progress, as well as dollar values for nitrogen 9

oxides. Again, this is based on the National Energy 10

Modeling System, the NEMS model. 11

But again, the basic message here is as 12

you would expect with reduced energy demand, with 13

reduced electrical gen eration you’ll see reduced air 14

pollutant emissions. And I’m sure Natasha would be 15

happy to elaborate if anybody has questions. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Robert. 17

MR. NACHTRIEB: Rob Nachtrieb. I still 18

have to say that’s not a lot of CO2 reduction. We 19

emit trillions of metric tons a year now, right? 20

Okay. So this is over

-- over 30 years this is not 21

a lot of reduction, I’ll just point out. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 23

MS. COLLINS: That point is well taken, 24

and some of those reductions are more difficult to 25

explain than others because this model is complex, 26

and sometimes it’s not coal generation that’s 27

reduced which has most CO2 emissions, but other 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 231 types of generation are reduced. That’s what we 1

have this time wasn’t a lot of coal generation that 2

was redu ced. It’s hard to explain why the model 3

does what it does. It’s very complex, but the 4

potential for coal reduction is still big. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Charlie. 6

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. I just 7

observe that I agree that 14 million metric tons is 8

not very much, but 120 million metric tons is 9

actually quite a lot, compared to the total. I mean 10

for one technology shift. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Let’s do that last 12

slide. 13

MR. WILLIAMS: At this point, I think I 14

turn over the floor to Tina Kaarsb e rg. Tin a. 15

DR. KAARSBERG: I’ll bring my prop. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: And following this last 17

slide that shows a proposed energy conservation 18

standards at TSL

- 3, is an opportunity for anybody 19

that wishes to do so to make closing remarks. 20

**Proposed Standard** 21

DR. KAARSBERG: Okay. Well, I guess the 22

fact that I’m up here means that we’re just about 23

done with our presentation. As Doug just said, 24

we’re quite eager to get more if you have more. But 25

this slide here is just once again showing the 26

equation and all the different characteristics of 27

the various product classes, and this kind of sums 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 232 it up. This is the work product that everyone 1

worked on. 2

We are going to be talking with you about 3

this. We are very, very

-- very, very anxious to 4

get the NEMA data that y ou have put together to date 5

and also anything that you would be able to put 6

together between now and when it is conceivable that 7

we can be able to use it. 8

For our part, there’s three things I 9

believe we promised to get you up on the web site as 10

soon as possible. I believe, but I’m not positive 11

that all of these items will be going up on our DOE 12

website, but there is a possibility that some or all 13

of it will go up on the regulations.gov site that 14

has the docket. And I tried it out the other day, 15

and I f ound out that there’s some certain tricks you 16

need to know in order to be able to navigate 17

effectively. And so I brought this nifty handout. 18

I only made ten copies, but if any of you are 19

interested in learning some tips on how to navigate 20

our docket page , let me know. 21

But I will be sending you an e

- mail to all 22

the people who are on the list that went around

-- 23

and if for some reason you do not appear on the 24

list, or there’s other people that you want, let me 25

or Brenda or both of us know. If you alrea dy get 26

the Lighting Blast, you’ll also get the e

- mail of 27

the URL. We hope to do this, really, in the next 24 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 233 hours. So it’ll be

-- we’re going to put up, 1

especially for some of our advocacy folks wanted to 2

see the NEMA presentation, we’re going to put th at 3

up. We’re going to put up Robert van Buskirk’s 4

slide with the equation and showing the slides

-- 5

showing all the NEMA data. And then finally we’re 6

going to put up all of the test data in addition to 7

the Appendix C5 data

-- 8

MR. BROOKMAN: LRC. 9

DR. KAARSBERG: Yeah, we’re going to put 10

that all up, and we’re going to try as much as 11

possible to make it user friendly, just click here 12

and boom, here it is, but since we also want to get 13

it out there as quickly as possible, it may not be 14

quite so user frie ndly. 15

Okay. Other points. I do like this slide 16

because it shows you some of how this initial factor 17

is very similar for a number of these. But I 18

believe that Robert’s proposed thing has only one 19

factor that gets fit, and I think that may or may

-- 20

no? Which other one? A gets fit? I thought

-- oh, 21

A and B. Okay. I thought B was something that we 22

just set and then NEMA

-- okay. I’ll believe that, 23

whatever. 24

But, anyway, finally, this is our reminder 25

about all the different ways you can communicate 26

with us, especially you, NEMA, you can always just 27

e - mail us, or say hi, or, you know, I’ll come over 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 234 personally and pick up, bring my little USB drive 1

over to get the data. We’re very, very interested 2

in this. 3

I want to remind you that the deadline for 4

comments is on a Friday, and since it is a Friday, 5

the team asked me to ask you to please, please, 6

please, please get it in by five o’clock. 7

Let’s see

-- any other items. Okay. I 8

think that’s it for us, but I just again would like 9

to thank you. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: We’ll take final comments. 11

DR. KAARSBERG: And we will be working 12

with you. So anyway, any final comments before you 13

head for the hills. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Jeff. 15

**Final Comments** 16

MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon, speaking on 17

behalf of GE. I have two comments and one question 18

that weren’t covered by the issues that I wanted to 19

raise. Number one, the programmed start readings 20

were purely based upon, you can see in the data, on 21

technology of filament cut out technology, and that 22

assumes that you can have filament cut out 23

technology in all the wattage ranges, when in fact, 24

there are ballasts that operate below ANSI levels 25

for T8 and T12 lamps and below IEC levels that 26

require full filament heating to maintain lamp life. 27

Given that, and those are still in the 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 235 intent of saving energy for the nation, I would 1

request that

-- ask the DOE to consider that those 2

be included in the same category as dimming ballasts 3

that require full filament heating and therefore 4

cannot meet the efficiency standards that were 5

given. Point number one. 6

Point number two. I found it not clear on 7

the lamp that should be used in the testing of a 8

ballast. I believe we’re on an assumption of what 9

are the primary lamps that can be used for testing, 10

but I don’t think it sp ells out specifically the 11

lamp that could be used. And of course, as the load 12

adjusts on the ballast, the efficiency can adjust 13

too. So if the load of the lamp, reduced wattage 14

lamp is used, the efficiency cannot be as good as a 15

higher wattage lamp. For example, an F

- 32, you 16

could use an F

- 40 T8 lamp, because it is rated to 17

rate the ballast. So I think the DOE should 18

consider that and clarify that rule. 19

The third point is a question for the DOE 20

and Navigant, and that is the intent, as with this, 21

we wi ll all be required to publish BLE numbers, I 22

assume, for each one of our ballasts. It is unclear 23

so far whether that should be directly correlated 24

back to the system watts in the ballast factor of 25

that ballast. There’s a separate test for 26

photometry to d o that, separate test results. The 27

question to the DOE is will there be transfer 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 236 functions that correlate back from that BLE back to 1

a system watts number, and back to

-- from that lamp 2

arc current back to a ballast factor. Otherwise, 3

those numbers may s tay the same and we may be 4

publishing just new numbers on BLE that may not be 5

quite relevant to someone that’s trying to calculate 6

energy savings for a particular retrofit based on 7

the lumens and the system watts. 8

MS. GUPTA: This is Mimi Gupta. Just to 9

get a bit of a clarification on that conversion 10

factor that you’re talking, from BLE back to ballast 11

factor and input power. Are you talking about for 12

the purposes of your catalogs and marketing? 13

MR. PLASKON: That's correct. 14

MS. GUPTA: Is

-- I gues s we would request 15

comment on whether you think that would be helpful 16

for DOE to do that. I don’t think it’s required for 17

the actual compliance for these products. 18

MR. PLASKON: At this point, it’s a 19

question, so I think

-- for you and Navigant, but 20

it’ s not connected in your intent today. I think 21

we’ll provide comments through NEMA on that before 22

we comment. 23

MS. GUPTA: And then with regard to the 24

lamps that require full filament heating, are those 25

lamps marketed as such? 26

MR. PLASKON: Not lamps, b ut ballasts. So 27

ballasts that operate below minimum levels of ANSI 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 237 currents of the lamps. For example, the minimum of 1

a F32 T8 lamp today is 155 milliamps. If you 2

operate below that it requires full filament heating 3

to comply with ANSI. Therefore, we would not be 4

able to meet the BLE requirements for ballasts below 5

that, although those ballasts do offer energy 6

savings below what any ballast operating above that 7

level could offer. These exist in both T5 and T8 8

systems. 9

MS. GUPTA: Are those threshold s in a 10

particular ANSI standard? 11

MR. PLASKON: Correct. 12

MS. GUPTA: And which one? 13

MR. THOMAS: I think it’s

-- Ed Thomas

-- 14

I think it’s the C78.81. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you for that. 16

Bob. 17

MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, quick comment on that, 18

and i n particular interest we talked about the 19

residential ballasts and this is exactly what you 20

ran up against with the residential ballast. If you 21

wanted to have an electronic instant start, you had 22

to have higher power. If you can run at a

-- if 23

you’re put ting filament heating on it, you can run 24

at a lower power, but with filament heating you 25

won’t meet the efficiency spec. So there’s a Catch

26

22 for you. 27

Just in general, contrary to appearances, 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 238 I am appreciative of the opportunity to discuss with 1

the DO E and I am pleased to see the proposal for 2

possibly a new formula in coming up with a proposal 3

that we can both agree on, and I look forward to 4

working with you over the next couple weeks to try 5

to come together on a solution. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you ve ry much. Final 7

comments? 8

MS. GUPTA: Doug, could I just ask one 9

more question? 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Sure. 11

MS. GUPTA: And I didn’t get a chance to 12

ask this before, but in regard to the N

-- what is 13

it

-- the N

- can, F

- can, and the A

- can -- I don’t 14

remember seeing this in the NEMA presentation, but 15

in your written comments if you could please provide 16

what you would estimate the efficiency difference 17

between the A

- can and the N

- can ballasts would be, 18

that would be very helpful. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So with that

-- yes, 20

Mike. 21

MR. McGARAGHAN: Mike McGaraghan with 22

California Utilities. Just wanted to echo Bob’s 23

comments that we appreciate the analysis that’s been 24

done and the opportunity to come and comment on it. 25

Overall, thought it was a very strong ana lysis and 26

also appreciate NEMA bringing the presentation and 27

the test data. Clearly we would not be supportive 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 239 of a standard that actually cuts out as many 1

products from the market as NEMA’s data showed. But 2

based on the testing results that DOE got, we’ re 3

very supportive of the standard levels that have 4

been proposed, despite the fact that there are, you 5

know, much greater efficiency gains to be had from 6

controls and LEDs. Those are emerging technologies 7

and they are not minimum efficiency standards, so 8

they’re not across the board. So I don’t think we 9

have the luxury, necessarily, to pick and choose our 10

energy savings opportunities at this point. I think 11

that we need to pursue all of them and I think that 12

going from baseline generic electronic ballast s to 13

high efficiency ballasts across the country as a 14

minimum performance standard is a huge opportunity, 15

not just a watt or two, and we encourage DOE to stay 16

that course. So thanks very much for having us. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Final comments? 18

So then from my part I’ll just thank you all. I 19

thought we had a really solid exchange here today. 20

People were quite direct, which is always 21

appreciated. I always appreciate and the Department 22

always appreciates the insight they gain from this, 23

lots of f lexibility in the mix as well. My thanks, 24

and I’ll turn it back to Tina for her final thanks. 25

DR. KAARSBERG: Okay. Well, I guess I 26

want to give you final thanks, and I agree, we’ve 27

got a lot of work to do. Everyone get a lot of 28Executive Court Reporters (301) 565

- 0064 240 sleep tonight, maybe y our last chance. No, 1

seriously, we really appreciate everyone. We 2

appreciate your comments. We appreciate your 3

appreciation, and most of all we appreciate what you 4

will be doing in the next two weeks. Thank you very 5

much. 6

(Whereupon, at 3:36 p.m., th e meet ing in 7

the above captioned matter was adjourned .) 8

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