10-i 

CHAPTER 10. SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

10.1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................... 10-1

10.2 SHIPMENTS MODEL METHODOLOGY.................................................................. 10-1

10.2.1 General Service Fluorescent Lamps .............................................................................. 10-2

10.2.1.1 Analyzed Product Classes, Market Sectors, and Market Segments............. 10-2

10.2.1.2 Lamp Replacement ...................................................................................... 10-3

10.2.1.3 Lamp-and-Ballast System Replacement (Ballast Failure and System 

Retrofit)........................................................................................................10-3

10.2.1.4 Lamp-and-Ballast System New Purchase (Fixture Replacement, 

Renovation, and New Construction)............................................................ 10-5

10.2.2 Incandescent Reflector Lamps....................................................................................... 10-7

10.3 BASE CASE INPUTS AND FORECASTS.................................................................. 10-8

10.3.1 Base Case Scenarios Analyzed ...................................................................................... 10-8

10.3.2 General Service Fluorescent Lamps ............................................................................ 10-10

10.3.2.1 Base Case Scenarios ..................................................................................10-10

10.3.2.2 Historical Shipments.................................................................................. 10-11

10.3.2.3 Calculation of Installed Stock in 2005....................................................... 10-12

10.3.2.4 Base Case Market-Share Matrices............................................................. 10-13

10.3.2.5 Base Case Forecast Results........................................................................ 10-23

10.3.2.6 Base Case Forecast by Market Segment.................................................... 10-29

10.3.3 Incandescent Reflector Lamps..................................................................................... 10-32

10.3.3.1 Base Case Scenarios Analyzed ..................................................................10-32

10.3.3.2 Historical Shipments.................................................................................. 10-34

10.3.3.3 Calculation of Installed Stock in 2005....................................................... 10-34

10.3.3.4 Base Case Market-Share Matrices............................................................. 10-35

10.3.3.5 Base Case Forecast Results........................................................................ 10-36

10.3.3.6 Base Case Forecast by Market Segment.................................................... 10-37

10.4 STANDARDS CASE INPUTS ................................................................................... 10-38

10.4.1 General Service Fluorescent Lamps ............................................................................ 10-38

10.4.1.1 Shipments Scenarios .................................................................................. 10-38

10.4.1.2 Standards-Case Market-Share Matrices.....................................................10-42

10.4.1.3 Early Retirement of Ballasts in the Standards-Cases.................................10-76

10.4.2 Incandescent Reflector Lamps..................................................................................... 10-79

10.4.2.1 Shipments Scenarios .................................................................................. 10-79

10.4.2.2 Standards-Case Market-Share Matrices.....................................................10-82

10.5 RESULTS .................................................................................................................... 10-88

10.5.1 General Service Fluorescent Lamps ............................................................................ 10-88

10.5.1.1 Shipments Forecasts: Base and Standards-Cases ...................................... 10-88

10.5.1.2 Cumulative Shipments Impacts (2012 – 2042).......................................... 10-94

10.5.2 Incandescent Reflector Lamps..................................................................................... 10-97

10.5.2.1 Shipments Forecasts: Base and Standards-Cases ..................................... 10-98
10-ii 

10.5.2.2 Cumulative Shipments Impacts (2012–2042).......................................... 10-101

REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 10-103

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 10.1 Modeled GSFL Lamp-and-Ballast Replacement Trends......................................... 10-5

Table 10.2 GSFL Total Historical Shipments (millions)......................................................... 10-11

Table 10.3 2005 Lamp and Ballast Stocks (millions)............................................................. 10-13

Table 10.4 Base Case Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8 Medium Bipin Systems in 

the Commercial Sector..................................................................................... 10-15

Table 10.5 Base Case Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8 Medium Bipin Systems in 

the Residential Sector ...................................................................................... 10-16

Table 10.6 Base Case Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T12 Medium Bipin Systems in 

the Commercial Sector..................................................................................... 10-17

Table 10.7 Base Case Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T12 Medium Bipin Systems in 

the Residential Sector ...................................................................................... 10-18

Table 10.8 Base Case Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T8 Single Pin Slimline 

Systems............................................................................................................ 10-19

Table 10.9 Base Case Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T12 Single Pin Slimline 

Systems............................................................................................................ 10-19

Table 10.10 Base Case Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8 Medium Bipin Systems 

Replacing 8-foot T12 Single Pin Slimline Systems......................................... 10-20

Table 10.11 Base Case Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T8 Recessed Double 

Contact High Output Initial and New Ballast Systems.................................... 10-21

Table 10.12 Base Case Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T12 Recessed Double 

Contact High Output Initial and New Ballast Systems.................................... 10-22

Table 10.13 Base Case Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T5 Standard Output Initial 

and New Ballast Systems................................................................................. 10-23

Table 10.14 Base Case Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T5 High Output Initial and 

New Ballast Systems........................................................................................ 10-23

Table 10.15 IRL Historical Shipments (millions)................................................................... 10-34

Table 10.16 Base Case Market-Share Matrix for Commercial IRL Sockets.......................... 10-36

Table 10.17 Base Case Market-Share Matrix for Residential IRL Sockets ........................... 10-36

Table 10.18 Commercial Market Segment-Based Likelihood of High Lighting Expertise ... 10-41

Table 10.19 Residential Market Segment-Based Likelihood of High Lighting Expertise ..... 10-41

Table 10.20 Description of Base Case and Standards-Case GSFL Market-Share 

Matrices, Initial and New Ballast Models........................................................ 10-42

Table 10.21 Standards-Case Initial Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8 

Medium Bipin Systems (Shift Scenario) ......................................................... 10-44

Table 10.22 Standards-Case Initial Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8 

Medium Bipin Systems (Roll-up Scenario)..................................................... 10-45
10-iii 

Table 10.23 Standards-Case Initial Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T12 

Medium Bipin Systems in the Commercial Sector (Shift and Roll-up 

Scenarios)......................................................................................................... 10-46

Table 10.24 Standards-Case Initial Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T12 

Medium Bipin Systems in the Residential Sector (Shift and Roll-up 

Scenarios)......................................................................................................... 10-46

Table 10.25 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8 

Medium Bipin Systems in the Commercial Sector (Shift Scenario) ............... 10-47

Table 10.26 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8 

Medium Bipin Systems in the Commercial Sector (Roll-Up Scenario).......... 10-48

Table 10.27 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8 

Medium Bipin Systems in the Commercial Sector (Market Segment-Based 

Lighting Expertise Scenario) ........................................................................... 10-50

Table 10.28 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8 

Medium Bipin Systems in the Residential Sector (Shift Scenario)................. 10-51

Table 10.29 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8 

Medium Bipin Systems in the Residential Sector (Roll-Up Scenario)............ 10-52

Table 10.30 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T12 

Medium Bipin Systems in the Commercial Sector (Shift Scenario) ............... 10-53

Table 10.31 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T12 

Medium Bipin Systems in the Commercial Sector (Roll-up Scenario)........... 10-54

Table 10.32 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T12 

Medium Bipin Systems in the Residential Sector (Shift Scenario)................. 10-55

Table 10.33 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T12 

Medium Bipin Systems in the Residential Sector (Roll-up Scenario)............. 10-56

Table 10.34 Standards-Case Initial Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T8 

Single Pin Slimline Systems (Shift Scenario).................................................. 10-57

Table 10.35 Standards-Case Initial Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T8 

Single Pin Slimline Systems (Roll-up Scenario)............................................ 10-58

Table 10.36 Standards-Case Initial Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T12 

Single Pin Slimline Systems (Shift and Roll-up Scenarios)........................... 10-59

Table 10.37 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T8 Single 

Pin Slimline Systems (Shift Scenario)............................................................. 10-60

Table 10.38 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T8 Single 

Pin Slimline Systems (Roll-up Scenario) ........................................................ 10-61

Table 10.39 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8 

Medium Bipin Systems Replacing Eight-Foot Single Pin Slimline Systems 

(Shift Scenario)................................................................................................ 10-62

Table 10.40 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8 

Medium Bipin Systems Replacing Eight-Foot Single Pin Slimline Systems 

(Roll-up Scenario)............................................................................................ 10-63

Table 10.41 Standards-Case Initial Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T12 

Recessed Double Contact High Output Systems (Shift Scenario)................... 10-64

Table 10.42 Standards-Case Initial Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T12 

Recessed Double Contact High Output Systems (Roll-up Scenario).............. 10-65
10-iv 

Table 10.43 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T12 

Recessed Double Contact High Output New Ballast Systems (Shift 

Scenario).......................................................................................................... 10-66

Table 10.44 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T12 

Recessed Double Contact High Output New Ballast Systems (Roll-up 

Scenario).......................................................................................................... 10-67

Table 10.45 Standards-Case Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T8 Recessed Double 

Contact High Output New Ballast Systems (Shift Scenario)........................... 10-68

Table 10.46 Standards-Case Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T8 Recessed Double 

Contact High Output New Ballast Systems (Roll-up Scenario)...................... 10-69

Table 10.47 Standards-Case Initial Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T5 

Standard Output Systems (Shift Scenario) ...................................................... 10-71

Table 10.48 Standards-Case Initial Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T5 

Standard Output Systems (Roll-up Scenario).................................................. 10-72

Table 10.49 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T5 

Standard Output New Ballast Systems (Shift Scenario).................................. 10-73

Table 10.50 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T5 

Standard Output New Ballast Systems (Roll-up Scenario) ............................. 10-74

Table 10.51 Standards-Case Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T5 High Output Initial 

Ballast Systems (Shift Scenario)...................................................................... 10-75

Table 10.52 Standards-Case Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T5 High Output Initial 

Ballast Systems (Roll-up Scenario)................................................................. 10-75

Table 10.53 Standards-Case Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T5 High Output New 

Ballast Systems (Shift Scenario)...................................................................... 10-76

Table 10.54 Standards-Case Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T5 High Output New 

Ballast Systems (Roll-up Scenario)................................................................. 10-76

Table 10.55 Early Retirement of Four-Foot T12 Medium Bipin and Eight-Foot Single 

Pin Slimline Ballasts in the Standards-Cases................................................... 10-77

Table 10.56 Conversion of Four-Foot T12 Medium Bipin Systems to T8 Systems in the 

Standards-Cases in the Residential Sector....................................................... 10-77

Table 10.57 Description of Base Case and Standards-Case IRL Market-Share Matrices...... 10-82

Table 10.58 Standards-Case Market-Share Matrix for Commercial IRL Sockets (Shift, 

R-CFL Product Substitution Scenario)............................................................ 10-83

Table 10.59 Standards-Case Market-Share Matrix, For Residential IRL Sockets (Shift RCFL Product Substitution Scenario) ................................................................ 10-85

Table 10.60 Standards-Case Market-Share Matrix for Commercial IRL Sockets (Roll-up, 

BR Product Substitution Scenario).................................................................. 10-86

Table 10.61 Standards-Case Market-Share Matrix, For Residential IRL Sockets (Roll-up, 

BR Product Substitution Scenario).................................................................. 10-87

Table 10.62 Four-Foot Medium Bipin Lamp: Cumulative Shipments Impacts Caused by 

Standards, 2012–2042 (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise 

Scenario).......................................................................................................... 10-95

Table 10.63 Four-Foot Medium Bipin Lamp: Cumulative Shipments Impacts Caused by 

Standards, 2012–2042 (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market 

Segment-Based Expertise Scenario)................................................................ 10-95
10-v 

Table 10.65 Eight-Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output: Cumulative Shipments 

Impacts Caused by Standards, 2012–2042 (Existing Technologies, Shift, 

High Expertise Scenario and Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market 

Segment-Based Scenarios)............................................................................... 10-96

Table 10.66 Four-Foot T5 MiniBP Standard Output: Cumulative Shipments Impacts 

Caused by Standards, 2012–2042 (Existing Technologies, Shift, High 

Expertise Scenario).......................................................................................... 10-97

Table 10.67 Four-Foot T5 MiniBP Standard Output: Cumulative Shipments Impacts 

Caused by Standards, 2012–2042 (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, 

Market Segment-Based Expertise Scenario) ................................................... 10-97

Table 10.68 Four-Foot T5 MiniBP High Output: Cumulative Shipments Impacts Caused 

by Standards, 2012–2042 (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise 

Scenario).......................................................................................................... 10-97

Table 10.69 Four-Foot T5 MiniBP High Output: Cumulative Shipments Impacts Caused 

by Standards, 2012–2042 (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market 

Segment-Based ExpertiseScenario)................................................................. 10-97

Table 10.70 Incandescent Reflector Lamps: Cumulative Shipments Impacts Caused by 

Standards, 2012–2042 (Existing Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Product 

Substitution Scenario).................................................................................... 10-101

Table 10.71 Incandescent Reflector Lamps: Cumulative Shipments Impacts Caused by 

Standards, 2012–2042 (Existing Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Product 

Substitution Scenario, Baseline Lifetime) ..................................................... 10-102

Table 10.72 Incandescent Reflector Lamps: Cumulative Shipments Impacts Caused by 

Standards, 2012–2042 (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, BR Product 

Substitution)................................................................................................... 10-102

Table 10.73 Incandescent Reflector Lamps: Cumulative Shipments Impacts Caused by 

Standards, 2012–2042 (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, BR Product 

Substitution, Baseline Lifetime) .................................................................... 10-102
10-vi 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 10.3.2 Eight-Foot Single Pin Slimline Historical and Base Case Forecasted 

Shipments (Existing and Emerging Technologies Scenarios)......................... 10-26

Figure 10.3.3 Eight-Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Historical and Base 

Case Forecasted Shipments (Existing and Emerging Technologies 

Scenarios)......................................................................................................... 10-27

Figure 10.3.4 Four-Foot Standard Output and High Output Base Case Forecasted 

Shipments (Existing and Emerging Technologies Scenarios)......................... 10-28

Figure 10.3.5 Four-Foot Medium Bipin Base Case Shipment Forecast by Market 

Segment............................................................................................................ 10-29

Figure 10.3.9 IRL Historical and Base Case Forecasted Shipments ...................................... 10-37

Figure 10.4.1 Retrofit Rate Effect on Four-Foot T12 Shipments at TSL3 in the 

Emerging, Roll-Up, Market Segment-Based Scenario.................................... 10-78

Figure 10.5.2 Four-Foot Medium Bipin Base Case and Standards-Case Shipments 

Forecasts (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based 

Expertise Scenario).......................................................................................... 10-90

Figure 10.5.4 Eight-Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Base Case and 

Standards-Case Shipments Forecasts (Existing Technologies, Shift, High 

Expertise and Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based 

Expertise Scenarios)......................................................................................... 10-92

Figure 10.5.7 IRL Base Case and Standards-Case Shipment Forecasts (Emerging 

Technologies, Roll-up, BR Product Substitution Scenario) ............................ 10-98

Figure 10.5.9 IRL Base Case and Standards-Case Shipments Forecasts (Existing 

Technologies, Shift, BR Product Substitution Scenario, Baseline Lifetime 

Scenario)........................................................................................................ 10-100

Figure 10.5.10 IRL Base Case and Standards-Case Shipments Forecasts (Existing 

Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Product Substitution Scenario, Baseline 

Lifetime Scenario) ......................................................................................... 10-101
10-1

CHAPTER 10. SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS 

10.1 INTRODUCTION 

Lamp shipment estimates are key inputs to the national energy savings (NES) and net 

present value (NPV) calculations. Shipments are also a necessary input to the manufacturer 

impact analysis (MIA), which the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) conducts for its Final 

Rules. This chapter describes DOE’s methodology for projecting annual shipments and presents 

initial inputs and results for general service fluorescent lamps (GSFL) and incandescent reflector 

lamps (IRL). 

 In the shipments analysis, DOE develops a base case shipment forecast for each lamp 

type to depict what would happen to energy use and consumer costs for the purchase and 

operation of lamps in the absence of new or revised Federal energy conservation standards. In 

determining the base case, DOE considers historical shipments, emerging technologies, the mix 

of efficacies sold in the absence of any new or revised standards, and how that mix might change 

over time. To evaluate the impacts of standards on GSFL and IRL, collectively referred to in 

this rulemaking as the “two categories of lamps,” DOE compares the base case projection with 

forecasts of what could happen if DOE promulgates standards (the standards-case). DOE 

considers multiple shipments scenarios to characterize both the base case and standards-case 

shipments. To determine the cumulative NES and NPV of standards, DOE compares forecasted 

shipments of a base case to a standards-case over the NIA analysis period, 2012 to 2042. 

 The shipments model and the national impacts model are integrated into single Microsoft 

Excel® spreadsheets for GSFL and IRL. The two spreadsheets are accessible on the Internet at 

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/. Appendix 11A discusses how to 

access the spreadsheets and provides basic instructions for using them. This TSD chapter 

explains the shipments models. Section 10.2 presents the shipments model methodology for 

GSFL and IRL; section 10.3 describes the data inputs, historical shipments, base case scenarios 

and shipments forecasts; section 10.4 discusses the impacts of standards on the mix of lamp 

designs and lamp-and-ballast designs; and section Error! Reference source not found. presents 

the shipments results for the different trial standard levels (TSLs). 

10.2 SHIPMENTS MODEL METHODOLOGY 

In this final rule, DOE develops separate shipment models for GSFL and IRL. In general, 

to forecast shipments for these two categories of lamps, DOE followed a four-step process. First, 

DOE used 2001-to-2005 historical shipment data from the National Electrical Manufacturers 

Association (NEMA) to estimate the total historical shipments (i.e., NEMA member and nonNEMA member shipments) of each lamp type analyzed, except for 4-foot T5 MiniBP standard 

output and high output lamps, as explained in section 10.3.2.2.

1

 Second, DOE calculated an 

installed stock of lamps for each lamp type in 2005, based on the average service lifetime of each 

lamp type. Third, by modeling lamp purchasing events, such as lamp replacement and new 
10-2

construction, and applying growth rate, replacement rate, and emerging technologies penetration 

rate assumptions, DOE developed annual shipment projections from 2006 to 2042. DOE also 

calibrated its shipments model to reflect confidential shipment data provided by NEMA for 2006 

and 2007. Finally, because the shipments of lamp designs and lamp-and-ballast designs (for 

GSFL) often depend on their properties (e.g., ballast factor, efficacy, etc.), DOE developed base 

case and standards case market-share matrices as another model input. The market-share 

matrices characterize the efficacy, power rating, light output, and lifetime of the lamp and lampand-ballast designs. The matrices input the percentage market share of each design into the 

shipment model. DOE used these market-share matrices to forecast lamp stock and shipments, 

taking into account each design’s respective lifetime, and to determine the aggregate 

characteristics of the market (e.g., average light output, efficacy, energy consumption, and power 

rating). 

10.2.1 General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

10.2.1.1 Analyzed Product Classes, Market Sectors, and Market Segments 

Consistent with observed market applications, DOE forecast annual shipments for 4-foot 

medium bipin lamps in the residential and commercial sectors, 8-foot single pin slimline and 4-

foot T5 MiniBP standard output (SO) lamps in the commercial sector, and 8-foot recessed 

double contact high output (HO) and 4-foot T5 MiniBP high output (HO) lamps in the industrial 

sector. The shipments model analyzes all lamp types at TSLs which assign efficacy levels for 

each product class. For further detail on the TSLs, see chapter 9 of this technical support 

document (TSD). 

As it relates to 2-foot U-shaped lamps, DOE did not directly model their shipments 

because of their relatively small shipments-based market share (approximately 4 percent). Given 

the similarity of the 4-foot medium bipin and U-shaped product classes with regard to system 

input power and historical shipment trends (which show a decrease in T12 lamps and an increase 

in T8 lamps), DOE scaled the results from the 4-foot medium bipin product class to approximate 

the NES and NPV of 2-foot U-shaped product class. Because historical shipments of 4-foot 

medium bipin lamps were 22 times that of 2-foot U-shaped lamps, DOE used this scaling factor 

to approximate the energy savings and net present value for 2-foot U-shaped lamps. 

In addition, because GSFL of different correlated color temperatures (CCTs) were not 

segregated in the NEMA historical shipment data, DOE decided to analyze and forecast 

shipments of each lamp type (e.g., 4-foot medium bipin), and aggregate lamps of low (less than 

or equal to 4,500K) and high (greater than 4,500K) CCT. In each case, DOE uses a 

representative product class (lamps with CCT less than or equal to 4,500K) to evaluate lamp 

designs and believes that the national impacts will be similar for those product classes not 

directly analyzed (lamps with CCT greater than 4,500K). By aggregating the low and high CCT 

product classes, DOE assumes that there will be no significant migration of shipments or stock 

between lamps of different CCTs. 
10-3

In its GSFL shipment model, DOE considers specific market segments, or lamp purchase 

events, to develop estimates of annual shipments. In the shipments model, DOE accounts for the 

four market segments that correspond to the lamp purchase events that DOE uses in the lifecycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) analyses in Chapter 8. These include: lamp failure 

(Event I), ballast failure (Event III), lamp-and-ballast system retrofit (Events II and IV), and new 

construction (Event V). For each market segment, DOE makes certain assumptions about how 

consumers are likely to purchase new lamps or lamp-and-ballast systems. DOE uses these 

purchasing assumptions to develop the GSFL shipment forecasts. 

10.2.1.2 Lamp Replacement 

For those consumer purchases triggered by a lamp failure, DOE assumes that the 

consumer will purchase a lamp identical to the one that has retired, if it is available. If in the 

standards-case, the base case lamp design is not standards-compliant (and therefore unavailable 

as a replacement option), then DOE assumes consumers will purchase a new lamp that is 

compatible with the existing ballast. If no standards-compliant lamps are compatible with the 

consumer’s existing ballast, DOE models consumers as retiring their lamp-and-ballast system 

before the ballast’s end of life. The consumer’s purchase decision is then identical to that of a 

lamp-and-ballast system retrofit. 

DOE establishes the timing of lamp replacements by tracking the shipments of lamps and 

then predicting when lamps will retire based on their average service lifetime. Instead of using 

each particular lamp design’s individual lifetime, DOE uses the each lamp’s lifetime and the 

estimated distribution of lamp shipments by lamp design to establish an average lifetime for each 

lamp type. DOE then used the distribution of operating hours in each sector (discussed in the 

Energy Use Characterization, chapter 6 of this TSD) to predict the probability of lamp failing in 

any given year. Based on this probability, DOE calculates the quantity of lamp shipments 

required for lamp replacement. 

10.2.1.3 Lamp-and-Ballast System Replacement (Ballast Failure and System 

Retrofit) 

For consumer purchases triggered by a ballast failure or lamp-and-ballast system retrofit, 

DOE assumes that consumers will discard their existing lamps with the failed ballasts, even if 

lamp life remains. Consumers will then purchase new lamp-and-ballast systems compatible with 

their existing fixtures to replace their retired system. 

Historical shipments and discussions with industry experts indicate that there are several 

lamp-and-ballast replacement and retrofit trends within the GSFL market. DOE models these 

trends in both the base case and standards-case shipment models. For example, in the 

commercial sector, DOE models a natural shift upon ballast retirement and replacement from 4-

foot T12 medium bipin magnetic ballasts (1- and 2-lamps per ballast systems) to 4-foot T8 

medium bipin electronic ballasts (3-lamp per ballast systems). Specifically, DOE assumes 90 

percent of commercial 4-foot T12 medium bipin magnetic systems are replaced with 4-foot T8 

medium bipin systems and 10 percent are replaced by 4-foot T12 medium bipin electronic 
10-4

systems. In the residential sector, DOE modeled a shift from 4-foot T12 magnetic ballasts to both 

4-foot T12 magnetic systems and electronic systems in the base case, and, in the standards-case, 

to 4-foot T8 systems as well. Specifically, in the residential base case, half of retiring 4-foot T12 

magnetic systems are replaced by the same system, while the other half are replaced by 4-foot 

T12 electronic systems. In the residential standards-case, as discussed in Section 10.4.1.3 and 

shown in Table 10.56, 4-foot T8 systems begin to penetrate this market segment; they replace 25 

percent, 35 percent, and 60 percent of the retiring 4-foot T12 magnetic systems at TSL1, TSL2, 

and TSL3, respectively (T12 lamps are non-compliant at TSL4 and TSL5 and therefore all T12 

systems are replaced with T8 systems at TSL4 and TSL5). Half of remaining 4-foot T12 

systems shipped at TSL1, TSL2, and TSL3 are magnetically ballasted and half are electronically 

ballasted. 

Similarly, in the commercial sector, DOE models a shift from 8-foot T12 single pin 

slimline magnetic ballasts to 8-foot T8 and 8-foot T12 single pin slimline electronic ballasts, as 

well as a system of two 4-foot T8 medium bipin electronic ballasts. Specifically, DOE assumes 

80 percent of retired 8-foot T12 single pin magnetic systems are replaced by two 4-foot T8 

medium bipin systems, 10 percent by 8-foot T8 single pin systems, and 10 percent by 8-foot T12 

single pin electronic T12 systems. 

Table 10.1 below presents the modeled lamp-and-ballast replacement trends. DOE also 

modeled early (voluntary) retirement of lamp-and-ballast systems in the standards-case. Section 

10.4.1.3 provides more details on the assumptions DOE makes regarding these retrofits. 
10-5

Table 10.1 Modeled GSFL Lamp-and-Ballast Replacement Trends 

Retired Lamp-and-Ballast System Replacement Lamp-and-Ballast System 

90% 4-foot T8 medium bipin 

4-foot T12 medium bipin (Commercial Sector) (3-lamp per ballast system) 

(1- and 2-lamp per ballast system) 10% 4-foot T12 electronic medium bipin 

(one- and 2-lamp per ballast system) 

50% 4-foot T12 electronic medium bipin 

(one- and 2-lamp per ballast system) 4-foot T12 magnetic medium bipin (Residential Sector) 

(1- and 2-lamp per ballast system) 50% 4-foot T12 magnetic medium bipin 

(one- and 2-lamp per ballast system) 

4-foot T8 medium bipin 

(3-lamp per ballast system) 

4-foot T8 medium bipin 

(3-lamp per ballast system) 

10% 8-foot T8 single pin slimline 

(2-lamp per ballast system) 

10% 8-foot T12 single pin slimline 

(2-lamp per ballast system) 

8-foot T12 single pin slimline 

(2-lamp per ballast system) 

80% 4-foot T8 medium bipin 

(two 2-lamp per ballast systems) 

8-foot T8 single pin slimline 

(2-lamp per ballast system) 

8-foot T8 single pin slimline 

(2-lamp per ballast system) 

8-foot T12 recessed double contact HO 

(2-lamp per ballast system) 

8-foot T12 recessed double contact HO 

(2-lamp per ballast system) 

8-foot T8 recessed double contact HO 

(2-lamp per ballast system) 

8-foot T8 recessed double contact HO 

(2-lamp per ballast system) 

4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO 

(2-lamp per ballast system) 

4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO 

(2-lamp per ballast system) 

4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO 

(2-lamp per ballast system) 

4-foot T5 miniature bipin HO 

(2-lamp per ballast system) 

DOE establishes the timing of ballast replacements in response to ballast failure by 

tracking ballast shipments and then predicting when these ballasts are expected to retire based on 

their service lifetime. DOE calculated average commercial and industrial ballast service lifetime 

by dividing the average ballast lifetime in hours (established in the LCC) by average operating 

hours. The service life in the commercial and industrial sectors is 14 years and 10 years, 

respectively. For the residential sector, DOE used a 15-year service life, consistent with 

measured life studies. 

10.2.1.4 Lamp-and-Ballast System New Purchase (Fixture Replacement, 

Renovation, and New Construction) 

Finally, for consumer purchases triggered by fixture replacement, renovation, and new 

construction, DOE assumes that consumers may purchase a variety of new lamp-and-ballast 

systems to service their particular lumen demand. Because historical shipment data have shown 
10-6

significant growth for only 4-foot T8 medium bipin and 4-foot T5 miniature bipin SO systems, 

DOE models all purchases due to new construction in the commercial sector as being one of 

these two lamp-and-ballast systems. In the residential sector, DOE models only 4-foot medium 

bipin systems for new construction. In the industrial sector, confidential historical shipments 

show a declining number of 8-foot recessed double contact HO lamps. Therefore, DOE assumes 

that all system purchases due to new construction in the industrial sector are either 4-foot T5 

miniature bipin HO systems (another rapidly growing market) or other emerging substitution 

technologies (e.g., light emitting diodes). 

DOE modeled 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO and HO shipment growth based on a migration from 

other product classes. DOE’s research indicated that shipment growth of 4-foot T5 miniature 

bipin SO lamps is primarily driven by a migration from the 4-foot medium bipin market. As this 

migration requires the purchase of a new fixture, to establish 4-foot miniature bipin T5 SO 

shipments, DOE allotted a portion of the 4-foot medium bipin fixture replacement, renovation, 

and new construction markets to 4-foot T5 miniature bipin systems. To do this, DOE first 

calculated the size of this potential market for new 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO systems in each year. 

DOE then determined the portion of this market that would actually be serviced by 4-foot T5 

MiniBP SO lamps by calculating the share that resulted in T5 shipments consistent with 2006 

and 2007 historical data. DOE held this resulting percentage—approximately 12.5 percent of the 

fixture replacement, renovation, and new construction market—constant throughout the analysis 

period. 

DOE developed 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO lamp shipments by modeling a migration from 

two different lighting markets. Similar to 8-foot recessed double contact HO systems, marketing 

literature indicates a large portion of 4-foot MiniBP T5 HO systems serve high-bay applications 

due to their highly concentrated light output. Historical shipment data for 8-foot recessed double 

contact HO lamps shows substantial declines in 2006 and 2007, indicating T5 HO lamps may be 

rapidly displacing them. In addition, DOE’s research indicated that a significant portion of 4-

foot T5 MiniBP HO growth can be attributed to their penetration into the high intensity 

discharge (HID) lamp high-bay and low-bay markets. Therefore, to calculate the growth in 4-

foot MiniBP T5 HO lamp shipments, DOE assumed that these systems were penetrating both the 

8-foot recessed double contact HO and HID markets. Similar to its analysis for T5 SO systems, 

DOE established that the fixture replacement, renovation and new construction market segments 

represent the available market for 4-foot MiniBP T5 HO systems. DOE obtained HID shipment 

data from the HID determination, from which DOE calculated the total lumens servicing low bay 

and high bay applications. Then, consistent with historical 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO and 8-foot 

recessed double contact HO shipments, DOE assumed 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps fully 

penetrate the 8-foot recessed double contact HO fixture replacement, renovation, and new 

construction market segments, as well as HID new construction and renovation market segments. 

 DOE bases its shipment estimates due to new construction based on EIA’s AEO2009, 

which estimates year-to-year commercial floor space and residential building growth. Because 

the AEO2009 takes into account future trends in economic growth, DOE was able to incorporate 

forecasts of macroeconomic conditions in its growth forecasts. However, because the AEO does 

not provide industrial floor space forecasts, DOE used historical MECS floor space values to 

establish a growth rate for the industrial sector. 
10-7

In addition to residential building growth, DOE also modeled a trend toward an 

increasing number of 4-foot medium bipin T8 and T12 lamps per home. DOE conducted an 

analysis to estimate the average number of T8 and T12 lamps in homes between 2005 and 2042. 

Using California data on these lamps, which was broken out by home age,2

 DOE assumed that 

the same number of T8 and T12 lamps per home would be installed in new homes as those 

installed between 2001 and 2005, and that half of homes built before 2001 would be renovated 

by 2042 to have the same number of T8 and T12 lamps as newly constructed homes. DOE 

estimated that the average number of T8 and T12 per lamps home in 2005 was 4.5, and the 

average number in 2042 will be 4.7. Combining this growth estimate of 4-foot medium bipin 

lamps per home with AEO2009’s projected growth in the residential home stock yields an 

average growth rate of 0.8 percent between 2006 and 2042 for GSFL in the residential sector. 

10.2.2 Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

Similar to DOE’s treatment of separate product classes based on CCT for GSFL, DOE 

forecasts IRL shipments by aggregating across all IRL product classes (standard-versus 

modified-spectrum, high-versus-low voltage, and high-versus-low diameter). In each of these 

cases of aggregation, DOE used a representative product class (standard-spectrum, low-voltage, 

high-diameter IRL) to evaluate lamp designs. DOE believes that the national impacts will be 

similar for other product classes not directly analyzed. By aggregating the product classes, DOE 

assumes that there will be no significant migration of shipments or stock between lamps in 

different product classes. 

The IRL shipments model forecasts IRL socket growth in both the commercial and 

residential sectors, reflecting new construction in each sector. As with GSFL, DOE uses EIA’s 

AEO2009 to project residential building stock growth and commercial floor space growth. 

Additionally, in the residential sector, DOE models a trend toward an increasing number of 

sockets per home. DOE conducted an analysis that estimated the average number of recessed 

cans in homes between 2005 and 2042. Using California data on recessed cans per home, broken 

out by home age3

, DOE assumed new homes constructed after 2005 would install the same 

number of recessed cans per home as homes constructed between 2001 and 2005. DOE also 

assumed that half of the homes constructed before 2001 would be renovated by 2042 to have an 

equal number of recessed cans per home as newly constructed homes. DOE estimated the 

distribution of homes by age using U.S. Census data on new building starts in the residential 

sector4

. DOE estimated new construction and the number of future homes constructed in each 

year from EIA’s AEO2009. Using this data, DOE estimated that the average number of recessed 

cans per home in 2005 was 4.82 and the average number of recessed cans in homes in 2042 

would be 8.52. Finally, to estimate the socket growth rate in each year, DOE multiplied the 

number of recessed cans in homes by the projected stock of homes in each year according to 

EIA’s AEO2009. Combining these two sources, DOE predicts an average growth rate of 2.6 

percent between 2006 and 2042. The model ships lamps every year to replace retiring lamps and 

to meet growth in the stock of lamps. DOE models lamp designs based on three lumen packages 

in the commercial and residential sectors: 630, 1,050 and 1,310 lumens (lm). Consumers who 
10-8

purchase lamps with a particular lumen package in the base case generally purchase lamps with 

that same lumen package in the standards-case. 

Similar to the GSFL shipments forecast, DOE establishes the timing of lamp 

replacements by tracking lamp shipments and then predicting when those lamps will retire based 

on their service lifetimes. As discussed in the LCC and PBP analysis (Chapter 8), DOE 

calculates the service lifetimes of lamps by dividing the lamp lifetime in hours by the annual 

operating hours. As discussed in the energy use characterization (Chapter 6), DOE uses five 

different operating hours to characterize the usage of incandescent reflector and reflector 

compact fluorescent lamps in the residential sector. By using different operating hours, DOE 

effectively varies the service lives of the modeled lamps, thereby affecting shipments. 

10.3 BASE CASE INPUTS AND FORECASTS 

This section does the following: 1) describes the two base case scenarios DOE employs 

in its analysis and the base case input market-share matrices for GSFL and IRL; 2) presents the 

base case forecasts for each lamp type along with historical lamp shipments data; and 3) presents 

base case forecasts for each lamp type with each lamp design and lamp-and-ballast design. The 

base case input market-share matrices correspond to the matrices introduced above in Section 

10.2. 

10.3.1 Base Case Scenarios Analyzed 

DOE recognizes that rapidly emerging new lighting technologies could penetrate GSFL 

and IRL markets and significantly affect shipment forecasts. These technologies, such as 

reflector compact fluorescent lamps (R-CFL), ceramic metal-halide (CMH), and light-emitting 

diodes (LEDs), already are, or eventually will be, significantly more efficacious and longer 

lasting than the lamps they replace. If these emerging technologies achieve their potential, they 

may significantly affect the benefit calculations from efficiency standards. However, to calculate 

NES and NPV change due to emerging technologies, DOE would need to accurately forecast the 

anticipated price and performance points of each emerging technology—a difficult and highly 

speculative task. Because of this high degree of uncertainly, DOE chose to analyze two base 

case scenarios for both GSFL and IRL: 1) “Existing Technologies” and 2) “Emerging 

Technologies.” DOE believes evaluating two base case scenarios will more completely and 

transparently characterize the uncertainty in estimating emerging technologies’ market 

penetration and the consequent impact on NPV and NES. Incorporating emerging technologies 

in the base case does not affect the relative benefits of each TSL and prevents uncertain 

projections of market share, price, or performance from obscuring the benefits derived from 

more efficient GSFL and IRL alone. 

The assumptions and methodology that drive these scenarios vary slightly between GSFL 

and IRL, and the details specific to each are described in section 10.3.2 and 10.3.3, respectively. 

In general, DOE calculated the market penetration of each of the analyzed emerging technologies 
in each year from 2006 through 2042, assessing each sector separately. DOE determined the 

market penetration of the technology option that achieved the highest level of penetration in each 

year in each sector. DOE then decreased the analyzed market size in each year in each sector by 

the amount that corresponded to the highest level of market penetration achieved by a 

technology. For example, in the Emerging Technologies base case scenario, DOE effectively 

reduced the 2042 IRL residential market size by 56 percent to reflect expected LED market 

penetration, which was the highest of all analyzed emerging technologies. 

For its base case analysis, DOE estimates the market penetration of three specific 

technologies into the projected installed stock: LED lamps, CMH lamps, R-CFL. In general, the 

Existing Technologies scenario only considers the market penetration of technologies that have 

reached maturation in terms of price and efficacy. Specifically, R-CFL is the only technology 

that DOE considered in the Existing Technologies scenario, and only within the IRL market. For 

GSFL, no technologies outside those covered by this rulemaking were analyzed in the Existing 

Technologies scenario. 

The Existing Technologies scenario assumes more limited penetration of other higher 

efficacy products than the Emerging Technologies scenario. Thus, the Existing Technologies 

scenario will yield greater NES than the Emerging Technologies scenario because the latter 

assumes a base case in which annual stocks comprise a greater level of higher efficacy products. 

Therefore, the efficacy differential between those products and those in the standards case will 

be smaller than the differential between Existing Technologies (lower efficacy products) and the 

standards-case products. 

In the Emerging Technologies scenario, DOE attempts to forecast the market penetration 

of both mature technologies and those technologies that are still undergoing significant changes 

in price and efficacy. Specifically, DOE considered the market penetration of R-CFL, LED 

lamps, and CMH lamps in the Emerging Technologies scenario. 

DOE generally followed a 5-step process for each scenario to estimate the market 

penetration of the analyzed technologies and account for their impact on NES and NPV. 

First, DOE developed price, performance, and efficacy forecasts for each of the analyzed 

technologies. Second, using those estimates, DOE calculated the payback period (PBP) of each 

technology in the relevant sector using the difference between its purchase price, annual 

electricity cost, and annual lamp replacement cost relative to the lamp it replaces. Specifically, 

DOE uses the following formula to calculate simple PBP: 

)//($ Re //($

)/($Pr

Annual CostyElectricit yrklm Annual Lamp placement Cost klm y

Purchase klmice SimplePayback

 

  

Where: 

- The Δ represents the difference between the two lamp options compared. 

- Purchase Price includes the lamp price, and, in the case of the new and retrofit 

markets, the fixture price. 

10-9
10-10

- Annual Electricity Cost is a function of the mean annual operating hours and 

efficacy for each lamp option, the electricity price, and the lumen demand. 

- Annual Lamp Replacement Cost is a function of the mean lamp life, annual 

operating hours, and lamp price, as well as labor charge. 

 Third, DOE used the relationship between PBP and market penetration to predict the 

market penetration of each technology in the relevant sector in every year from 2006 to 2042. 

The relationship, which was used to estimate the penetration of solid-state lighting in a DOE 

report, predicts the market penetration based on the PBP of a technology. DOE assumed this 

relationship is valid for other emerging lighting technologies. That is, given a PBP of a certain 

duration, a technology can be expected to achieve a certain market penetration; the higher the 

PBP, the greater the expected market penetration. DOE used a 5-year average of the market 

penetrations predicted by the relationship as its final market penetration. The 5-year average 

represents the time DOE assumed it takes products with lower PBPs to penetrate the market. 

 Fourth, when necessary, DOE applied a scaling factor to the predicted market penetration 

to account for observed market trends. Fifth, as stated above, DOE reduced the projected 

installed stock of covered products in each year by the value that corresponded to the highest 

level of market penetration achieved in each year by one of the analyzed technologies. Thus, RCFL and emerging technologies have the effect of lowering the energy savings of a potential 

new standard. For those covered lamps remaining, the cost effectiveness of LCC savings and 

thus the relative cost effectiveness of each TSL is not affected. 

10.3.2 General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

10.3.2.1 Base Case Scenarios 

For the GSFL Existing Technologies scenario, DOE analyzes only the fluorescent 

technologies covered by the rulemaking because it believes that no mature technologies in the 

current market show the potential to significantly penetrate the GSFL market. (T5 lamps, a 

rapidly growing market, are considered in the analysis as covered products). In the GSFL 

Emerging Technologies scenario, however, DOE separately considered the potential market 

penetration of two technologies: 1) LED (into the commercial, residential, and industrial 

sectors), and 2) CMH (into the commercial and industrial sectors). 

For its analysis of LED market penetration, DOE found a commercially available retrofit 

kit that included a LED replacement for a 4-foot medium bipin lamp-and-ballast system. DOE 

used the retrofit kit as a current baseline from which to project future cost, efficacy and price 

points. DOE interviewed an integrated circuit manufacturer to develop cost estimates for LED 

driver circuits. For cost estimates of other components, DOE used prices of existing LED 

products already on the market, which it modified in accordance with cost data and efficacy 

projections from DOE’s Solid State Lighting Multi-Year Program Plan.5

 Lastly, after applying a 

markup based on currently available LED lamps, DOE arrived at price and efficacy projections 

for the LED luminaire in the retrofit kit.6

 For further detail on DOE’s price and efficacy 

forecasts of potential LED replacements, see appendix 10C of the TSD. Following the 5-step 
10-11

process described above, DOE calculated a 42.9 percent market penetration rate of LED lamps 

into the 4-foot GSFL commercial sector by 2042. In the residential sector, the LED option did 

not have a low enough payback period to result in any market penetration. DOE assumed LED 

lamps penetrated only the new construction, renovation, and fixture replacement markets 

because these lamps would require their own specific fixtures. 

DOE also analyzed the potential penetration of CMH into the GSFL market. DOE first 

estimated current CMH prices using a methodology similar to the methodology it used to 

estimate GSFL and IRL prices, as described in the product price determination. (See TSD 

chapter 4.) Industry experts informed DOE that CMH efficacies and lifetimes would increase 

over the next several years while prices would remain constant. Applying these lifetime and 

efficacy projections, DOE compared CMH replacements to GSFL systems. As a result, DOE 

assumed no market penetration for CMH because it found that T5 lamp systems (standard output 

and high output) would always be less costly and more efficacious than projected CMH 

replacements. Given this information, DOE believes that it is likely that migration to CMH 

(from the GSFL market) will be dominated by the migration to standard and high output T5 

lamps. 

10.3.2.2 Historical Shipments 

As discussed in Chapter 3, DOE received 2001-to-2005 historical shipments from NEMA 

for 4-foot medium bipin, 8-foot single pin slimline, and 8-foot recessed double contact HO 

lamps. DOE also received confidential 2001-to-2005 shipments of 4-foot MiniBP T5 SO and 

HO lamps, and confidential shipment data for 2006 and 2007 for all lamp types. These 

shipments were broken down by lamp length, diameter, shape, and high output. Because DOE 

received confidential-only shipments for 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO and HO GSFL, DOE calculated 

historical shipments of these lamps based on the assumption that they represented 2 percent of 

the market in 2004, a figure that grew in 2005.7

 DOE assumed the T5 market is split evenly 

between standard output and high output. Recognizing that these shipment estimates reflect only 

the shipments of NEMA members, DOE scaled these estimates to account for the volume of 

GSFL that non-NEMA lamp companies import or manufacture. DOE believes that these NEMA 

shipments represent about 90 percent of the GSFL market. Table 10.2 provides historical GSFL 

shipments estimates for the entire U.S. market. 

Table 10.2 GSFL Total Historical Shipments (millions) 

Year 4-foot T12 

medium bipin 

4-foot T8 

medium bipin 

8-foot T12 single 

pin slimline 

8-foot T8 single 

pin slimline 

8-foot T12 

RDC HO 

8-foot T8 

RDC HO 

2001 236.2 182.4 48.1 4.9 26.5 0.7 

2002 228.9 181.8 46.0 5.9 27.1 0.6 

2003 202.1 191.4 41.3 5.8 26.9 0.5 

2004 195.4 217.4 40.3 6.4 27.3 0.7 

2005 180.7 239.5 37.4 5.8 28.3 0,4 
10-12

10.3.2.3 Calculation of Installed Stock in 2005 

DOE calculates lamp and ballast stocks in 2005 of T8 and T12 4-foot medium bipin 

GSFL, 8-foot single pin slimline GSFL, and 8-foot recessed double contact HO using historical 

shipment data from NEMA. DOE calculates the 2005 lamp stock by summing backward from 

2005 for the years that correspond to the service lifetime (i.e., the lifetime in hours divided by 

operating hours per year) of each lamp type. DOE disregards the 2005 stock of 8-foot T8 

recessed double contact HO lamps in its analysis because the stock was relatively small. 

As for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO and HO lamps, DOE did not receive public historical 

shipments data and therefore followed slightly different methodology to calculate their installed 

2005 stock. First, DOE first estimated 2001-to-2005 shipments based on assumptions derived 

from its market research and supported by manufacturer interviews. As discussed above, market 

literature indicated that 4-foot MiniBP T5 lamps represented 2 percent of the 2004 GSFL market, 

a figure DOE assumed for its analysis. DOE’s research also indicated that the combined market 

share of 4-foot MiniBP T5 SO and HO lamps was growing as a percentage of the overall GSFL 

market. Additionally, manufacturers estimated in interviews that current 4-foot MiniBP T5 

shipments are split evenly between standard output and high output lamps. Using these 

assumptions, DOE generated historical shipment estimates for 2001 to 2005. It used these 

shipments estimates to calculate the initial stock of 4-foot MiniBP SO and HO lamps in the same 

manner it does for all other GSFL product classes. DOE models 4-foot MiniBP T5 shipments to 

be half standard output and half high output. (However, due to differing lifetimes, this does not 

imply an equal installed stock for each product class.) Finally, DOE received confidential 

aggregated (both SO and HO) T5 lamp shipment data from NEMA for 2001 to 2007. DOE used 

this data to validate its installed stock estimates. 

As it relates to the residential sector, DOE calculated the initial stock of 4-foot medium 

bipin T12 lamps using the lamps sold through the DIY distribution chain, which accounted for 

approximately 25 percent of NEMA’s historical shipments. Next, DOE assumed 20 percent of 

those DIY sales went to small commercial consumers, with the remaining 80 percent apportioned 

to the residential sector. As a result, DOE assumed 20 percent of all 4-foot medium bipin 

shipments went to the residential sector and all of those were T12 lamps. From those shipments, 

DOE calculated the residential installed stock and then modeled new construction, renovation, 

and fixture/ballast replacement in the same manner described in section 10.2.1. 

Using the 2005 lamp stocks, DOE calculated the installed ballast stocks by dividing the 

total stocks of lamps by the number of lamps per ballast system. Finally, to accurately forecast 

lamp and ballast shipments, DOE established a ballast age distribution for the installed ballast 

stocks using trends in ballast shipments, calibrated to shipment data for 2006 and 2007. Because 

historical shipments indicate that the 8-foot recessed double contact HO market is relatively flat, 

DOE uses a constant ballast age distribution for these ballast systems. 

Based on manufacturer interviews and comments received, DOE assumes historical 4-foot 

T12 medium bipin, 8-foot T12 single pin slimline, and 8-foot T12 recessed double contact GSFL 

represent lamp shipments for installation on magnetic ballasts. DOE assumes that historical 

shipments of all other GSFL represented lamps shipped for installation on electronic ballasts. 
10-13

DOE establishes the corresponding ballast age distributions based on the decline in magnetic 

ballast shipments obtained from 2002 and 2005 U.S. Census Bureau data.8,9

 Table 10.3 provides 

lamp and ballast stocks in 2005 for all analyzed GSFL. 

Table 10.3 2005 Lamp and Ballast Stocks (millions) 

System Type Sector Lamp 

Stock 

Ballast 

Stock 

Ballasts 

in First 

Year of 

Service 

Ballasts 

Halfway 

through 

Service 

Lifetime* 

Ballasts in 

Last Year 

of Service 

4-foot T8 MBP Commercial 1016.0 338.7 40.1 25.1 0.9 

4-foot T12 MBP Commercial 525.3 175.1 2.1 10.2 7.4 

4-foot T12 MBP Residential 1554.3 777.1 51.5 51.5 12.9 

8-foot T8 SP slimline Commercial 21.9 11.0 0.7 0.7 0.2 

8-foot T12 SP slimline Commercial 125.0 62.5 1.8 3.8 2.3 

8-foot T8 RDC HO Industrial 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

8-foot T12 RDC HO Industrial 60.2 30.1 2.9 2.9 1.2 

4-foot T5 MiniBP SO Commercial 28.1 14.1 2.3 1.1 0.0 

4-foot T5 MiniBP HO Industrial 19.7 9.9 1.9 1.1 0.0 

* Fifth year of service for 8-foot recessed double contact HO and 4-foot T5 HO systems and seventh year of 

service for all other system types. 

 

10.3.2.4 Base Case Market-Share Matrices 

As discussed in the engineering analysis (Chapter 5) and the LCC and PBP analyses 

(Chapter 8), consumers have a variety of choices in lamp and lamp-and-ballast systems. When 

choosing lighting systems, consumers often make their choices considering lamp attributes such 

as lifetime, efficacy, price, lumen output, rated wattage, and total system power. As discussed 

earlier, the shipments for GSFL depend on such input assumptions as lamp lifetime and system 

lumen output. In addition, other lamp or lamp-and-ballast system properties such as price and 

energy consumption are key inputs to the NES and NPV calculations. Therefore, within each 

product class, DOE believes it is necessary to directly account for the mix of technologies that 

consumers select in the base case and standards case. To account for the range of possible 

consumer choices, DOE develops and populates technology market-share matrices. These 

market-share matrices allocate percentage market shares of shipments to each lamp-and-ballast 

design for the base case and standards case. As discussed in the NIA (Chapter 10), the base case 

and standards case efficacy forecasts also depend on the market-share matrices. 

The GSFL shipments model incorporates several separate market-share matrices to 

characterize shipments of lamps and lamp-and-ballast systems at different times during the 

analysis period. Because the lamp design technology mix may change over time, DOE defines 

separate market-share matrices for systems purchased in 2012 and earlier and for systems 

purchased in 2042 for each analyzed system type (e.g., 4-foot T8 medium bipin). To determine 

the technology mix of the shipments for the intermediate years of the analysis period, DOE used 

a linear progression from 2012 to 2042. For each lamp type and market-share matrix, DOE 

generates the lamp-and-ballast designs by pairing each lamp design (as presented in Chapter 5) 
10-14

with commercially available ballasts that exhibit the most common ballast factors. This 

produces both energy-saving and non-energy-saving options. 

Table 10.4 through Table 10.14 illustrate the base case market-share matrices for GSFL. 

DOE developed the percentage inputs to these matrices based on discussions with manufacturers 

and industry experts. In addition, DOE analyzed the quantities of commercially available 

products to develop the breakdown of percentage shipments by lamp efficacy. As Table 10.4, 

Table 10.8, Table 10.10, and Table 10.12 indicate, DOE assumes that in the base case, the 

technology mix of 4-foot T8 medium bipin (in the commercial sector only), 8-foot T8 single pin 

slimline, and 8-foot T12 recessed double contact HO lamp-and-ballast generally migrates to 

higher efficacy and lower ballast factors over the analysis period. DOE assumes the distribution 

of other lamp types remain constant over the analysis period. 
10-15

Table 10.4 Base Case Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8 Medium Bipin Systems in 

the Commercial Sector 

Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

Lamp 

Lifetime 

System 

Input 

Power 

Installed 

Lamp 

Price 

Mix of 

Systems 

Purchased 

in 2012 and 

Earlier 

Mix of 

Systems 

Purchased 

in 2042 

EL 

lm/W* W hrs W 2008$ % % 

2 86.2 32.5 20,000 86.8 4.09 49% 20% 

3 90.8 32.5 20,000 86.8 5.17 25% 3% 

4 92.3 32.5 24,000 86.8 5.32 6% 0% 

4 93.8 30.0 20,000 80.4 5.62 1% 10% 

4 93.0 25.0 30,000 66.5 6.92 2% 15% 

5 95.4 32.5 24,000 86.8 5.86 4% 0% 

0.88 

5 96.0 28.0 18,000 69.7 5.41 3% 18% 

2 86.2 32.5 20,000 77.9 4.09 0% 0% 

3 90.8 32.5 20,000 77.9 5.17 2% 0% 

4 92.3 32.5 24,000 77.9 5.32 2% 2% 

4 93.8 30.0 20,000 72.2 5.62 0% 0% 

4 93.0 25.0 30,000 59.4 6.92 1% 20% 

5 95.4 32.5 24,000 77.9 5.86 0% 0% 

0.78 

5 96.0 28.0 18,000 67 5.41 0% 2% 

2 86.2 32.5 20,000 71.7 4.09 0% 0% 

3 90.8 32.5 20,000 71.7 5.17 2% 0% 

4 92.3 32.5 24,000 71.7 5.32 2% 0% 

4 93.8 30.0 20,000 66.4 5.62 0% 0% 

4 93.0 25.0 30,000 54.5 6.92 1% 10% 

5 95.4 32.5 24,000 71.7 5.86 0% 0% 

Electronic Ballast Factor 

0.71 

5 96.0 28.0 18,000 61.6 5.41 0% 0% 

Total 100 100 

* lm/W = lumens per Watt
10-16

Table 10.5 Base Case Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8 Medium Bipin Systems in 

the Residential Sector 

EL Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

Lamp 

Lifetime 

System 

Input 

Power 

Installed 

Lamp 

Price 

Mix of 

Systems 

Purchased 

in 2012 and 

Earlier 

Mix of 

Systems 

Purchased 

in 2042 

lm/W* W hrs W 2008$ % % 

2 86.2 32.5 20,000 58.6 1.91 10 10% 

3 90.8 32.5 20,000 58.6 2.99 5 5% 

4 92.3 32.5 24,000 58.6 3.13 6 6% 

4 93.8 30.0 20,000 54.6 3.43 1 1% 

4 93.0 25.0 30,000 45.4 4.73 2 2% 

5 95.4 32.5 24,000 58.6 3.68 0 0% 

0.88 

5 96.0 28.0 18,000 51.2 3.22 3 3% 

2 86.2 32.5 20,000 51.6 1.91 10 10% 

3 90.8 32.5 20,000 51.6 2.99 9 9% 

4 92.3 32.5 24,000 51.6 3.13 2 2% 

4 93.8 30.0 20,000 48.9 3.43 0 0% 

4 93.0 25.0 30,000 40.5 4.73 1 1% 

5 95.4 32.5 24,000 51.6 3.68 2 2% 

0.78 

5 96.0 28.0 18,000 45.6 3.22 0 0% 

2 86.2 32.5 20,000 46.8 1.91 29 29% 

3 90.8 32.5 20,000 46.8 2.99 15 15% 

4 92.3 32.5 24,000 46.8 3.13 2 2% 

4 93.8 30.0 20,000 44.9 3.43 0 0% 

4 93.0 25.0 30,000 37.0 4.73 1 1% 

5 95.4 32.5 24,000 46.8 3.68 2 2% 

Electronic Ballast Factor 

0.71 

5 96.0 28.0 18,000 41.7 3.22 0 0% 

Total 100 100 
10-17

Table 10.6 Base Case Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T12 Medium Bipin Systems in 

the Commercial Sector 

EL Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

Lamp 

Lifetime 

System 

Input 

Power 

Installed 

Lamp 

Price 

Mix of 

Systems 

Purchased 

before 2011* 

Mix of 

Systems 

Purchased 

in 2042 

lm/W W hrs W 2008$ % % 

0 78.0 40 20,000 107.7 4.79 0 0 

0 77.9 34 20,000 91.7 3.84 80 80 

1 80.5 40 20,000 107.7 7.08 6 6 

1 82.4 34 20,000 91.7 5.12 6 6 

1 82.9 40 24,000 107.7 8.69 3 3 

2 85.3 34 20,000 91.7 7.55 3 3 

2 87.8 40 24,000 107.7 8.79 1 1 

Magnetic Ballast 

3 91.2 34 24,000 91.7 8.66 1 1 

Total 100 100 

* In 2010, the sale of many magnetic 4-foot T12 medium bipin ballasts is banned. 
10-18

Table 10.7 Base Case Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T12 Medium Bipin Systems in 

the Residential Sector 

EL Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

Lamp 

Lifetime 

System 

Input 

Power 

Installed 

Lamp 

Price 

Mix of 

Systems 

Purchased 

in 2011 

and 

Earlier 

Mix of 

Systems 

Purchased 

in 2042 

Lm/W W hrs W 2008$ % % 

0 76.8 40 15,000 70 2.07 26 26 

0 77.9 34 20,000 60 1.66 4 4 

1 80.5 40 20,000 70 4.90 16 16 

1 82.4 34 20,000 60 2.93 1 1 

1 82.9 40 24,000 70 6.51 3 3 

2 85.3 34 20,000 60 5.37 0 0 

2 87.8 40 24,000 70 6.61 2 2 

0.68 

3 91.2 34 24,000 60 6.48 0 0 

0.65 0 76.8 40 15,000 58 2.07 25 25 

.75 0 77.9 34 20,000 60 1.66 3 3 

0.65 1 80.5 40 20,000 58 4.90 16 16 

0.75 1 82.4 34 20,000 60 2.93 1 1 

0.65 1 82.9 40 24,000 58 6.51 3 3 

0.75 2 85.3 34 20,000 60 5.37 0 0 

0.65 2 87.8 40 24,000 58 6.61 2 2 

Electronic Ballast Factor 

0.75 3 91.2 34 24,000 60 6.48 0 0 

Total 100 100 
10-19

Table 10.8 Base Case Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T8 Single Pin Slimline Systems 

EL Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

Lamp 

Lifetime 

System 

Input 

Power 

Installed 

Lamp 

Price 

Mix of 

Systems 

Purchased 

in 2012 and 

Earlier 

Mix of 

Systems 

Purchased 

in 2042 

lm/W W hrs W 2008$ % % 

3 94.8 60.1 15,000 112.8 6.62 40 6 

4 98.2 60.1 15,000 112.8 8.89 30 11 

5 101.5 60.1 18,000 112.8 9.78 6 11 

5 101.8 57.0 24,000 107.5 9.09 5 6 

0.88 

5 103.6 55.0 18,000 102.0 8.67 5 6 

3 94.8 60.1 15,000 109.1 6.62 3 7 

4 98.2 60.1 15,000 109.1 8.89 2 8 

5 101.5 60.1 18,000 109.1 9.78 2 6 

5 101.8 57.0 24,000 106.0 9.09 0 6 

0.85 

5 103.6 55.0 18,000 98.5 8.67 0 6 

3 94.8 60.1 15,000 100.4 6.62 3 7 

4 98.2 60.1 15,000 100.4 8.89 2 8 

5 101.5 60.1 18,000 100.4 9.78 2 6 

5 101.8 57.0 24,000 102.5 9.09 0 3 

Electronic Ballast Factor 

0.78 

5 103.6 55.0 18,000 90.2 8.67 0 3 

Total 100 100 

Table 10.9 Base Case Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T12 Single Pin Slimline 

Systems 

EL Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

Lamp 

Lifetime 

System 

Input 

Power 

Installed 

Lamp 

Price 

Mix of 

Systems 

Purchased 

before 

2011* 

Mix of 

Systems 

Purchased 

in 2042 

lm/W W hrs W 2008$ % % 

0 85.6 75.0 12,000 135 8.39 46 46 

1 87.3 75.0 12,000 135 11.70 16 16 

1 87.6 60.5 12,000 110 5.88 15 15 

2 92.0 75.0 15,000 135 12.69 1 1 

2 92.6 60.5 12,000 110 8.32 15 15 

Magnetic Ballast 

3 97.5 60.5 15,000 110 10.09 7 7 

Total 100 100 

* In 2010, the sale of magnetic 8-foot T12 single pin slimline ballasts is banned.
10-20

Table 10.10 Base Case Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8 Medium Bipin Systems 

Replacing 8-foot T12 Single Pin Slimline Systems 

EL Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

Lamp 

Lifetime 

System 

Input 

Power 

Installed 

Lamp 

Price 

Mix of 

Systems 

Purchased 

in 2012 

Mix of 

Systems 

Purchased 

in 2042 

lm/W W hrs W 2008$ % % 

2 86.2 32.5 20,000 117.2 4.91 49 20 

3 90.8 32.5 20,000 117.2 5.94 25 3 

4 92.3 32.5 24,000 117.2 6.08 6 0 

4 93.8 30.0 20,000 109.2 6.37 1 10 

4 93.0 25.0 30,000 90.8 7.62 2 15 

5 95.4 32.5 24,000 117.2 6.61 4 0 

0.88 

5 96.0 28.0 18,000 102.4 6.17 3 18 

2 86.2 32.5 20,000 103.2 4.91 0 0 

3 90.8 32.5 20,000 103.2 5.94 2 0 

4 92.3 32.5 24,000 103.2 6.08 2 2 

4 93.8 30.0 20,000 97.8 6.37 0 0 

4 93.0 25.0 30,000 81.0 7.62 1 20 

5 95.4 32.5 24,000 103.2 6.61 0 0 

0.78 

5 96.0 28.0 18,000 91.2 6.17 0 2 

2 86.2 32.5 20,000 93.6 4.91 0 0 

3 90.8 32.5 20,000 93.6 5.94 2 0 

4 92.3 32.5 24,000 93.6 6.08 2 0 

4 93.8 30.0 20,000 89.8 6.37 0 0 

4 93.0 25.0 30,000 74.0 7.62 1 10 

5 95.4 32.5 24,000 93.6 6.61 0 0 

Electronic Ballast Factor 

0.75 

5 96.0 28.0 18,000 83.4 6.17 0 0 

Total 100 100 
10-21

Table 10.11 Base Case Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T8 Recessed Double Contact 

High Output Initial and New Ballast Systems 

EL Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

Lamp 

Lifetime 

System 

Input 

Power 

Installed 

Lamp 

Price 

Mix of 

Systems 

Purchased 

in 2012 and 

Earlier 

Mix of 

Systems 

Purchased 

in 2042 

lm/W W hrs W 2008$ % % 

4 91.9 86 24,000 160.0 10.39 10 10 

4 93.0 86 18,000 160.0 10.56 45 45 

0.88 

5 95.3 86 18,000 160.0 12.07 45 45 

4 91.9 86 24,000 151.0 10.39 0 0 

4 93.0 86 18,000 151.0 10.56 0 0 

Electronic Ballast 

Factor 

0.81 

5 95.3 86 18,000 151.0 12.07 0 0 

Total 100 100 
10-22

Table 10.12 Base Case Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T12 Recessed Double Contact 

High Output Initial and New Ballast Systems 

EL Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

Lamp 

Lifetime 

System 

Input 

Power 

Installed 

Lamp 

Price 

Mix of 

Systems 

Purchased 

in 2012 and 

Earlier 

Mix of 

Systems 

Purchased 

in 2042 

lm/W W hrs W 2008$ % % 

0 80.1 113 12,000 237.0 10.25 20 5 

0 82.5 97 12,000 203.0 7.23 7 3 

1 83.2 113 12,000 237.0 16.25 11 13 

2 86.1 97 12,000 203.0 10.42 3 11 

3 87.6 97 12,000 203.0 16.82 6 12 

0.88 

3 88.9 97 12,000 203.0 17.14 3 6 

0 80.1 113 12,000 205.4 10.25 10 2 

0 82.5 97 12,000 177.0 7.23 4 2 

1 83.2 113 12,000 205.4 16.25 5 6 

2 86.1 97 12,000 177.0 10.42 2 5 

3 87.6 97 12,000 177.0 16.82 3 7 

0.89 

3 88.9 97 12,000 177.0 17.14 2 4 

0 80.1 113 12,000 211.5 10.25 9 2 

0 82.5 97 12,000 185.6 7.23 4 1 

1 83.2 113 12,000 211.5 16.25 5 6 

2 86.1 97 12,000 185.6 10.42 2 5 

3 87.6 97 12,000 185.6 16.82 3 6 

Electronic Ballast Factor 

0.90 

3 88.9 97 12,000 185.6 17.14 1 4 

Total 100 100 
10-23

Table 10.13 Base Case Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T5 Standard Output Initial 

and New Ballast Systems 

EL Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

Lamp 

Lifetime 

System 

Input 

Power 

Installed 

Lamp 

Price 

Mix of 

Systems 

Purchased 

in 2012 and 

Earlier 

Mix of 

Systems 

Purchased 

in 2042 

lm/W W hrs W 2008$ % % 

0 86.0 27.8 20,000 70.7 4.94 14 14 

1 104.3 27.8 20,000 70.7 6.90 19 19 

2 109.7 27.8 20,000 70.7 8.04 5 5 

1.15 

2 111.5 26 25,000 67.5 7.79 3 3 

0 86.0 27.8 20,000 63.6 4.94 7 7 

1 104.3 27.8 20,000 63.6 6.90 18 18 

2 109.7 27.8 20,000 63.6 8.04 5 5 

1.00 

2 111.5 26.0 25,000 59.6 7.79 3 3 

0 86.0 27.8 20,000 58.9 4.94 0 0 

1 104.3 27.8 20,000 58.9 6.90 18 18 

2 109.7 27.8 20,000 58.9 8.04 5 5 

Electronic Ballast Factor 

0.90 

2 111.5 26.0 25,000 54.4 7.79 3 3 

Total 100 100 

Table 10.14 Base Case Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T5 High Output Initial and 

New Ballast Systems 

TSL Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

Lamp 

Lifetime 

System 

Input 

Power 

Installed 

Lamp 

Price 

Mix of 

Systems 

Purchased 

in 2012 

and 

Earlier 

Mix of 

Systems 

Purchased 

in 2042 

lm/W W hrs W $ % % 

0 76.0 53.8 20,000 120.0 5.49 20 20 

1 92.9 53.8 20,000 120.0 8.10 65 65 

Electronic 

Ballast 

Factor 

1.00 

1 98.0 51.0 25,000 117.0 10.38 15 15 

Total 100 100 

10.3.2.5 Base Case Forecast Results 

Figure 10.3.1, Figure 10.3.2, Figure 10.3.3, and Figure 10.3.4 present the base case 

shipments forecasts from 2012 to 2042, modeled from the 2005 installed stock based on 2001-to-
10-24

2005 historical shipments. Figure 10.3.1, Figure 10.3.2, Figure 10.3.3, and Figure 10.3.4

correspond to 4-foot medium bipin shipments, 8-foot single pin slimline shipments, 8-foot 

recessed double contact HO shipments, and 4-foot T5 SO and HO, respectively. Each figure 

shows both the Existing Technologies and Emerging Technologies scenarios. 

In accordance with historical shipment data, Figure 10.3.1 shows a decline over the 

analysis period in shipments of 4-foot T12 medium bipin lamps. These retired 4-foot T12 

medium bipin lamp-and-ballast systems are replaced with 4-foot T8 medium bipin lamp-andballast systems upon ballast retirement. A decline in the commercial sector accounts for the 

majority of the reduction of the 4-foot T12 lamp shipments. As discussed earlier, DOE forecasts 

that 90 percent of retiring 3-lamp 4-foot T12 magnetic systems are replaced by one- and 2-lamp 

electronic 4-foot T8 systems, while 10 percent are replaced with the same 3-lamp T12 magnetic 

systems. DOE also forecasts that 80 percent of retired 8-foot T12 single pin slimline systems 

will be replaced with 4-foot T8 medium bipin lamp systems, which accounts for much of the 

increase in T8 systems. Along with the 4-foot T8 systems purchased to meet demand from the 

new construction, fixture replacement and renovation markets, this accounts for the increase in 

4-foot T8 medium bipin shipments through the analysis period. Four-foot T12 systems remain 

present throughout the analysis period as they are shipped as replacements on magnetic ballasts 

in the residential sector. Additionally, 10 percent of retired 8-foot T12 single pin slimline 

systems will be replaced with electronic 4-foot T12 medium bipin systems in the commercial 

sector. 

For 4-foot T8 lamps, the penetration of LED lamps in the base case is represented by the 

difference between the Emerging and Existing Technologies scenarios. As discussed previously, 

DOE’s analysis showed no market penetration of LED lamps into the residential market. 

Furthermore, the available market for emerging technologies is composed of fixture replacement, 

renovation, and new construction. Because T12 lamps are only shipped in ballast replacement 

and lamp replacement events, there is no modeled impact of emerging technologies with regard 

to 4-foot T12 systems. Thus, 4-foot T12 shipments are equivalent in each base case scenario. 
-

100 

200 

300 

400 

500 

600 

700 

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 

Shipments (millions)

Year

4‐Foot T8 MBP Existing BC Forecast 4‐Foot T8 MBP Emerging BC Forecast

4‐Foot T12 MBP Existing BC Forecast 4‐Foot T12 MBP Emerging BC Forecast

4‐Foot T8 MBP Historical Shipments 4‐Foot T12 MBP Historical Shipments

Figure 10.3.1 Four-Foot Medium Bipin Historical and Base Case Forecasted Shipments 

(Existing and Emerging Technologies Scenarios) 

* MBP = medium bipin 

10-25
In accordance with historical shipment data, Figure 10.3.2 shows a decline in shipments 

of 8-foot T12 single pin slimline lamps. Eighty percent of these retired 8-foot T12 single pin 

slimline lamp-and-ballast systems are replaced with 4-foot T8 medium bipin systems, which is 

reflected in the decline illustrated below. Of the remaining 20 percent of retiring systems, 10 

percent are replaced by 8-foot T8 single pin slimline lamp-and-ballast systems upon ballast 

retirement while 10 percent remain 8-foot T12 systems. This accounts for the growth in 8-foot 

T8 single pin slimline lamp shipments until 2018, when a declining stock of retiring 8-foot single 

pin slimline T12 lamps no longer generates enough T8 replacements to maintain positive growth 

in T8 shipments. Eight-foot single pin slimline systems do not penetrate any of the new 

construction, renovation, and fixture replacement markets, which DOE assumes are serviced by 

4-foot T8 medium bipin, 4-foot T5 standard output systems, and other emerging technologies, 

such as LED (in the Emerging Technologies scenario). Thus, the Emerging and Existing 

Technologies base cases are therefore equivalent for 8-foot single pin slimline lamps. 

-

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 

Shipments (millions)

Year

8‐Foot T8 SP Existing BC Forecast 8‐Foot T8 SP Emerging BC Forecast

8‐Foot T12 SP Existing BC Forecast 8‐Foot T12 SP Emerging BC Forecast

8‐Foot T8 SP Historical Shipments 8‐Foot T12 SP Historical Shipments

Figure 10.3.2 Eight-Foot Single Pin Slimline Historical and Base Case Forecasted 

Shipments (Existing and Emerging Technologies Scenarios) 

* SP = single pin 

10-26
Figure 10.3.3 shows that 8-foot T12 recessed double contact HO lamp shipments decline 

rapidly in the base case, which reflects a continuation of confidential shipments data. As 

discussed earlier, DOE decided not to model the 2011 stock of 8-foot T8 recessed double contact 

HO lamps, resulting in zero forecasted shipments in the base case. The decline is due to existing 

technologies that DOE believes are penetrating the fixture replacement, new construction, and 

renovation markets. DOE assumed most lighting systems purchased due to new construction are 

4-foot T5 HO or other existing technologies such as HID. Therefore, the Emerging and Existing 

Technologies are the equivalent for the 8-foot recessed double contact high output product class. 

-

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

30 

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 

Shipments (millions)

Year

8‐Foot T8 HO Existing BC Forecast

8‐Foot T8 HO Emerging BC Forecast

8‐Foot T12 HO Existing BC Forecast

8‐Foot T12 HO Emerging BC Forecast

8‐Foot T8 HO Historical Shipments

8‐Foot T12 HO Historical Shipments

Figure 10.3.3 Eight-Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Historical and Base Case 

Forecasted Shipments (Existing and Emerging Technologies Scenarios) 

* RDC = recessed double contact, HO = high output 

10-27
In accordance with confidential shipment data, Figure 10.3.4 depicts increasing 

shipments of 4-foot T5 standard output and high output lamps. DOE allotted a portion of the 4-

foot MBP fixture replacement, renovation, and new construction markets to 4-foot T5 SO 

systems, driving the increase in SO shipments. Similarly, DOE assumed 4-foot T5 HO systems 

completely penetrate the 8-foot RDC HO market, which accounts for the former’s increase over 

the analysis period. In the Existing Technologies scenario, four-foot T5 SO shipments slightly 

exceed those in the Emerging Technologies scenario because SO lamps are modeled to service 

new construction, fixture replacement, and renovation events which are being penetrated by LED 

lamps in the Emerging Technologies scenario. This yields a smaller stock of systems to migrate 

to 4-foot T5 SO lamps. For 4-foot T5 HO lamps, the Emerging and Existing Technologies 

scenarios are equivalent because DOE’s analysis found that these lamps would always be more 

cost effective than CMH alternatives. Thus, there is no penetration of emerging technologies 

into the 4-foot T5 HO market. SO are coming from commercial new construction, fixture 

replacements, and renovation. 

-

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 

Shipments (millions)

Year

4‐Foot T5 SO Existing BC Forecast 4‐Foot T5 SO Emerging BC Forecast

4‐Foot T5 HO Existing BC Forecast 4‐Foot T5 HO Emerging BC Forecast

 Figure 10.3.4 Four-Foot Standard Output and High Output Base Case Forecasted 

Shipments (Existing and Emerging Technologies Scenarios) 

10-28
10.3.2.6 Base Case Forecast by Market Segment 

Figure 10.3.5, Figure 10.3.6, Figure 10.3.7, and Figure 10.3.8 present the base case 

shipments forecast by market segment (i.e., lamp replacement, ballast replacement, or new 

construction) for 4-foot medium bipin, 8-foot single pin slimline, 8-foot recessed double contact 

HO, and 4-foot T5 SO and HO lamps, respectively. Figure 10.3.5 shows that although DOE 

accounts for shipments due to new construction, lamp shipments for replacing failed lamps and 

failed ballasts dominate this market. In addition, lamp replacement shipments are greater than 

ballast replacement shipments for all five product classes of GSFL. This effect is due to the 

much longer lifetime (and therefore fewer replacements) of ballasts relative to lamps. 

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042

Shipments (billions)

Year

Fixture Replacement Renovation

New Construction Ballast Replacement/Retrofit

Lamp Replacement

Figure 10.3.5 Four-Foot Medium Bipin Base Case Shipment Forecast by Market Segment 

10-29
0.00

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.02

0.03

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042

Shipments (billions)

Year

FixtureReplacement Ballast Replacement/Retrofit Lamp Replacement

Figure 10.3.6 Eight-Foot Single Pin Slimline Base Case Shipments Forecast by Market 

Segment 

10-30
0.000

0.002

0.004

0.006

0.008

0.010

0.012

0.014

0.016

0.018

0.020

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042

Shipments (billions)

Year

FixtureReplacement Ballast Replacement Lamp Replacement

Figure 10.3.7 8-Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Base Case Shipments Forecast 

by Market Segment 

10-31
0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042

Shipments (billions)

Year

New Construction

Renovation

Fixture Replacement

Ballast Replacement

Lamp Replacement

Figure 10.3.8 4-Foot T5 Standard and High Output Shipments Forecast by Market 

Segment 

10.3.3 Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

10.3.3.1 Base Case Scenarios Analyzed 

As with GSFL, DOE considered two base case scenarios for IRL: Existing Technologies 

and Emerging Technologies. Because DOE believes that R-CFL are a mature technology with 

relatively stable price points and efficacies, DOE considered R-CFL penetration into the 

residential market in the Existing Technologies scenario. DOE did not consider migration to 

LED and CMH in the IRL Existing Technologies scenario. Therefore, the highest market 

penetration value (and reduction in market size) for the IRL Existing Technologies base case 

reflects R-CFL penetration in each year, as it is the only technology DOE analyzed. 

In contrast, for the Emerging Technologies scenario DOE considered the market 

penetration of R-CFL, LED, and CMH lamps in both the residential and commercial sectors. 

DOE separately calculated the penetration of each technology into the IRL stock by using the 5-

step process described above. The technology that achieves the maximum market penetration 

varies over the analysis period. 

10-32
10-33

To model R-CFL penetration, DOE developed price forecasts based on historical pricing 

trends of CFL and R-CFL, using a methodology similar to the methodology DOE used to 

estimate GSFL and IRL prices, as described in the product price determination. (See TSD 

chapter 4.) DOE assumed no future change in efficacy. Using this data, DOE found the market 

penetration predicted by the PBP relationship. However, DOE believes that R-CFL may not 

always be appropriate in applications where IRL are used due to differences in color quality, 

size, dimming capability, and other factors. DOE observed that the actual market penetration of 

CFL replacements for A-line incandescent lamps thus far has been approximately 40 percent of 

the penetration predicted by the PBP-penetration relationship. Therefore, DOE applied these 

same scaling-factor reductions of 40 percent and 36 percent in calculating the market penetration 

of R-CFL into the IRL market for the residential and commercial sectors, respectively. 

For LED and CMH lamps in IRL market, DOE developed price and efficacy forecasts 

using a methodology similar to the one described above for GSFL. Industry experts informed 

DOE that CMH efficacies and lifetimes would increase over the next several years while prices 

would remain constant. To develop LED lamp prices, DOE followed the same methodology it 

used in the GSFL-to-LED analysis. Using this information, DOE derived the necessary inputs to 

the PBP-penetration relationship for CMH and LED lamps. DOE did not apply the scaling factor 

reduction to the predicted LED and CMH market penetration rates that it used for the R-CFL 

analysis. DOE believes the substitutability problems that arise when R-CFL replace IRL do not 

apply when LED and CMH replace IRL. 

By the methodology described, DOE arrived at market penetration values (and market 

size reductions) for each base case scenario. For the Existing Technology scenario, 2042 R-CFL 

penetration reached 38 percent in the residential sector and 20 percent in the commercial sector. 

(This was the highest market penetration because it was the only technology analyzed for the 

scenario.) 

For the Emerging Technology scenario, LED reached the highest market penetration of 

any analyzed technology in both the residential sector and the commercial sector. DOE’s 

analysis found LED lamps could penetrate 45 percent and 93 percent of the IRL installed stock 

by 2042 in the residential and commercial sector, respectively. This effect occurs because there 

are higher installation and operating costs in the commercial sector relative to the residential 

sector, resulting in lower PBPs and faster migration to emerging technologies. Again, DOE used 

these results to effectively reduce the size of the IRL market for its analysis. 

In addition, DOE analyzed a “Modified Emerging Technologies” sensitivity scenario. In 

the scenario, DOE observes the year in which emerging technologies achieve the highest 

percentage penetration of the installed stock. DOE then maintains this percentage constant 

throughout the remainder of the analysis period. This results in a decline in covered IRL 

shipments and a decline in energy savings relative to the normal Emerging Technologies base 

case. Please see Appendix 11B for the NIA results of this sensitivity analysis. 

 
10-34

10.3.3.2 Historical Shipments 

As discussed in Chapter 3, DOE received historical shipments of IRL aggregated for the 

commercial and residential sectors from 2001 to 2005 from NEMA. (DOE also received 

additional 2004 to 2008 historical shipment data from NEMA.) NEMA broke these shipments 

down into parabolic reflector (PAR) incandescent, reflector (R) incandescent, PAR38 halogen, 

and PAR30 and PAR20 halogen lamps. Recognizing that these shipment estimates only reflect 

shipments of NEMA members, DOE increases these estimates to account for the volume of IRL 

that are imported or manufactured by non-NEMA lamp companies. DOE believes that these 

NEMA shipments represent approximately 85 percent of all halogen shipments and 70 percent of 

incandescent shipments. 

Certain ER, BR, and R-shaped IRL (e.g., BR 30 and BR40 65 Watt) are exempted from 

energy conservation standards. To account for these exemptions, DOE estimated the market 

share of these exemptions using a combination of manufacturer product catalog research and 

additional shipment data submitted by NEMA.10 Because research indicated that these 

exemptions constitute approximately 60 percent of all incandescent (non-halogen) IRL 

shipments, DOE decreases the NEMA historical incandescent shipments and the base case 

installed stock accordingly. 

In addition, because DOE’s IRL shipment model separately forecasts IRL shipments in 

the commercial and residential sectors, DOE estimates certain portions of IRL shipments to each 

sector. DOE used a reflector lamp study conducted by the New York State Energy Research and 

Development Authority11 to estimate that about 33 percent of non-halogen shipments serve the 

commercial sector and about 67 percent serve the residential sector. Similarly, DOE allocates 60 

percent of halogen lamp shipments to the commercial sector and 40 percent to the residential 

sector. 

Table 10.15 shows the resulting historical covered IRL shipments estimates for the entire 

U.S. market. 

Table 10.15 IRL Historical Shipments (millions) 

Year Commercial Residential 

2001 70 72 

2002 71 74 

2003 74 77 

2004 82 85 

2005 87 94 

10.3.3.3 Calculation of Installed Stock in 2005 

To forecast IRL shipments from 2006 to 2042, DOE first estimates the IRL stock in 2005 

using the above historical shipment data. DOE then forecasts IRL shipments from 2006 to 2042 

by applying growth, replacement rate, and emerging technologies assumptions. The growth rate 

methodology and assumptions that DOE use are described in section 10.2.2. The average lifetime 
10-35

of halogen lamps and, therefore, the replacement rates, derive from the assumed base case 

technology mix of IRL in the commercial and residential sectors, which is reflected in the 

market-share matrices in section 10.3.3.4. DOE assumed incandescent IRL have a lifetime of 

2,000 hours, as this is the most common incandescent lifetime on the market today. With these 

inputs, DOE calculated that the 2005 stock of covered IRL is approximately 223 million lamps in 

the residential sector and 64 million lamps in the commercial sector. 

10.3.3.4 Base Case Market-Share Matrices 

As discussed in the engineering analysis (Chapter 5) and the LCC analysis (Chapter 8), 

consumers have a variety of choices in IRL. IRL shipments strongly depend on lamp lifetime. 

In addition, other lamp properties such as price and energy consumption are key inputs to the 

NES and NPV calculations. Therefore, within IRL in the commercial and residential sectors, 

DOE believes it is necessary to directly account for the mix of technologies that consumers 

select in the base case and standards-case. To account for the range of possible consumer 

choices, DOE develops and populates technology market-share matrices. The base case and 

standards case efficacy forecasts also depend on the market-share matrices. 

The IRL base case market-share matrices apportion the installed lamp stock in 2011 and 

2042 by percentage market shares of each IRL lamp design. Given these two inputs, DOE 

creates a dynamic base case and assumes that the percentage stock values change linearly 

through the analysis period. Once DOE establishes the percentage stock in each year, DOE’s 

model then ships lamps to maintain the stock distribution, taking into account lamp replacements 

and new construction. 

DOE develops the percentage inputs to the base case market-share matrices based on 

discussions with industry experts and an examination of manufacturer product catalogs. As 

stated earlier, DOE models three separate lumen packages in the commercial and residential 

sectors: 630 lm, 1,050 lm and 1,310 lm. These lumen packages correspond to the 50W, 75W, 

and 90W baseline halogen technologies, respectively. An examination of manufacturer product 

catalogs indicates that 27 percent of the covered IRL market is at 630 lm, 32 percent is at 1,050 

lm, and 41 percent is at 1,310 lm. DOE applies these percentages to the 2011 inputs to the base 

case market-share matrices for the commercial and residential sectors. 

In addition, based on manufacturer interviews, in the commercial sector DOE assumes 

that 80 percent of the 2011 installed IRL stock is based on halogen technology, while 20 percent 

of installed IRL is of the more efficacious halogen infrared (HIR) technology. Because DOE 

expects a natural migration toward more efficacious IRL, DOE assumes that the installed IRL 

stock in the commercial sector in 2042 is 50 percent halogen and 50 percent halogen infrared. In 

contrast, in residential base case DOE assumes that 100 percent of installed IRL is halogen 

technology in 2011 and remains constant throughout the analysis period. 

Table 10.16 and Table 10.17 provide the base case market-share matrices for IRL in the 

commercial and residential sectors. 
10-36

Table 10.16 Base Case Market-Share Matrix for Commercial IRL Sockets 

Trial 

Standard 

Level Lamp Design 

Installed 

Lamp Price 

Stock 

in 2011 

% 

Stock in 2042 

% 

90W, 14.6 lm/W, 2,500 hrs, Halogen 6.43 32 18 

75W, 14.0 lm/W, 2,500 hrs, Halogen 6.43 25 14 

50W, 12.6 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Halogen 5.80 21 12 

82.5W, 15.9 lm/W, 6,000 hours, Long Life HIR 8.06 2 5 

68.8W, 15.3 lm/W, 6,000 hours, Long Life HIR 8.06 2 4 

46W, 13.5 lm/W, 6,000 hours, Long Life HIR 7.43 1 3 

79W, 16.6 lm/W, 3,000 hurs, Imp. Halogen 7.88 1 2 

66W, 15.9 lm/W, 3,000 hours, Imp. Halogen 7.88 1 2 

45W, 14.0 lm/W, 3,000 hours, Imp. Halogen 7.25 1 1 

70W, 18.0 lm/W, 3,000 hrs, HIR 8.06 4 10 

60W, 17.5 lm/W, 3,000 hrs, HIR 8.06 3 8 

42W, 15.1 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 7.43 3 7 

66W, 19.8 lm/W, 4,000 hurs, Imp. HIR 9.43 2 5 

55W, 19.1 lm/W, 4,000 hours, Imp. HIR 9.43 2 4 

40W, 17.0 lm/W, 4,000 hurs, Imp. HIR 8.80 1 3 

Base Case 

Total 100 100 

Table 10.17 Base Case Market-Share Matrix for Residential IRL Sockets 

Trial 

Standard 

Level Lamp Design 

Installed 

Lamp Price 

Stock in 

2011 

% 

Stock in 

2042 

% 

90W, 14.6 lm/W, 2,500 hrs, Halogen 5.33 41 41 

75W, 14.0 lm/W, 2,500 hrs, Halogen 5.33 32 32 

50W, 12.6 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Halogen 4.70 27 27 

Base Case 

Total 100 100 

10.3.3.5 Base Case Forecast Results 

Figure 10.3.9 depicts the base case shipment forecasts for all sectors of IRL from 2006 to 

2042, and shows historical shipments from 2001 to 2005. The forecasted shipments in the 

Existing Technologies scenario essentially increase throughout the analysis period, reflecting 

both building and floor space growth and the trend toward more IRL per new home. These 

effects are offset, most noticeably from 2005 to 2012, by continued growth and market 

penetration of R-CFL, albeit at declining rates. DOE believes the historical growth rate of the 

IRL stock (approximately 8 to 10 percent annually—much higher than AEO2009’s predicted 

building and floor space growth) is unsustainable. NEMA shipment data from 2004 and 2008, 

which show significant declines from 2005, support this assumption. Therefore, DOE bases IRL 

socket growth after 2005 on the AEO 2009 projected growth rate in building floor space, 

combined with the assumption that new-home construction and existing-home renovations in the 

residential sector will contain an increasing number of sockets per home (see section 10.2.2). 
The Emerging Technologies scenario results in a similar but more pronounced pattern of 

declining shipments followed by gradually increasing shipments, as this scenario accounts for 

LED and CMH penetration in addition to R-CFLs. The continued introduction of additional RCFLs and other long-lived emerging technologies into the market mitigates replacement needs 

initially as well, contributing to the forecasted decline in shipments. 

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040

Shipments (billions)

Year

Historical Shipments

Existing Technologies Base Case Forecast

Emerging Technologies Base Case Forecast

Figure 10.3.9 IRL Historical and Base Case Forecasted Shipments 

10.3.3.6 Base Case Forecast by Market Segment 

Figure 10.3.10 depicts the Emerging Technologies base case shipments forecast by 

market segment for IRL sockets for all sectors. As seen in the figure, DOE accounts for both 

lamp replacements and new construction, although lamp replacement shipments dominate this 

market. 

10-37
0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042

Shipments (billions)

Year

Shipments due to New Construction

Shipments due to Replacements

Figure 10.3.10 IRL Base Case Shipments Forecast by Market Segment (Emerging 

Technologies Scenario) 

10.4 STANDARDS CASE INPUTS 

10.4.1 General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

10.4.1.1 Shipments Scenarios 

To characterize consumer behavior in the standards-case, DOE considers many lampand-ballast system properties that consumers take into account when purchasing their GSFL 

systems. Specifically, DOE regards system price, system energy consumption, and system 

lumen output as three key drivers of consumer purchases. 

DOE develops two sets of two shipments scenarios, or four standards-case scenarios in 

all, to characterize consumers that may weigh these factors differently. The first set of scenarios 

comprises the “Roll-up” and “Shift” scenarios; the second set comprises the “High” and “Market 

segment-based” lighting expertise scenarios. (Each scenario is detailed below.) To evaluate a 

standards-case, DOE models a standards-case scenario and compares it to the base case. One 

standards-case scenario, for example, would be the Roll-up, High lighting expertise scenario; 

10-38
10-39

another would be the Shift, Market Segment-Based expertise scenario. DOE thus considers four 

standards-case scenarios and two base case scenarios, yielding eight total sets of results. 

The first set of standards-case scenarios for GSFL includes the “Roll-up” and “Shift” 

scenarios. The Roll-up scenario represents a standards-case in which all product efficacies in the 

base case that do not meet the standard would roll up to meet the new standard level. Consumers 

who in the base case purchase lamps above the standard level are not affected as they are 

assumed to continue to purchase the same base case lamp or lamp system in the Roll-up 

scenario. The Roll-up scenario characterizes consumers primarily driven by the first-cost of the 

lamp. In contrast, the Shift scenario models a standards-case in which all base case consumer 

purchases are affected by the standard (whether or not their base case efficacy is below the 

standard). In this scenario, any consumer may purchase a reduced-wattage lamp. As the 

standard level increases, market share incrementally accumulates at TSL5 because it represents 

“max tech” (i.e., moving beyond it is impossible). The Shift scenario characterizes consumers 

primarily concerned with system energy consumption, and reflects an upper bound scenario. 

 The following discussion presents the standards-case decision-making process 

characterized by the Roll-up scenario. Lamp-and-ballast designs from which consumers choose 

are presented in the market-share matrices. 

1) If consumers buy a system in the base case that complies with the standard, then they 

buy the base case system. 

2) If consumers do not buy a standards-compliant system in the base case, then they 

a. consider only systems that have a lumen output that is within 10 percent of the 

base case lumen output; 

b. select the lowest first-cost lamp-and-ballast design; or 

c. if there are two lamp-and-ballast designs with equal installed prices, they select 

the one with a lumen output that is closest to the base case lumen output. 

 The following discussion presents the standards-case decision-making process 

characterized by the Shift scenario. 

1) If consumers buy the least efficacious lamp-and-ballast design in the base case, they 

then 

a. consider only systems that have a lumen output that is within 10 percent of the 

base lumen output; 

b. select the lowest first-cost lamp-and-ballast design; or 

c. if there are two lamp-and-ballast designs with equal installed prices, they select 

the one with a lumen output that is closest to the base case lumen output. 

2) If consumers do not buy the least efficacious lamp-and-ballast design in the base case, 

they then 

a. never buy a system that has a greater input power than the base case system; 

b. consider only systems that have a lumen output within 10 percent of the base case 

lumen output. If none exist, buy the base case system (if it is standardscompliant); 
10-40

c. consider only systems that use less input power than the base case system. If 

none exist, they buy the lowest first-cost (if two lamp-and-ballast designs have 

equal installed prices, select the one with a lumen output that is closest to the base 

case lumen output); 

d. select the lowest first-cost lamp-and-ballast design; or 

e. if there are two lamp-and-ballast designs with equal installed prices, select the one 

with a lumen output that is closest to the base case lumen output. 

f. in general consumers seek to shift to an efficacy level that keeps their purchase 

the same number of efficacy levels above the baseline as in the base case. 

 

 The second set of standards-case GSFL scenarios comprises the lighting expertise 

scenarios: High and Market Segment-Based. This set of scenarios characterizes consumers’ 

decisions (or lack thereof) to either maintain equivalent light output upon the purchase of a new 

higher efficacy lamp or accept higher lighting levels. The High expertise scenario generally 

characterizes more sophisticated lighting decisions in which consistent lighting levels and/or 

energy savings play a determinant role in consumer behavior. In this scenario, consumers are 

more likely to choose a lower ballast factor to pair with higher efficacy lamps or reducedwattage lamps. These consumers therefore generally save energy sure to standards. Conversely, 

in the Market Segment-Based scenario, DOE assumes consumers occasionally accept high 

lighting levels as a consequence of their expertise (or lack thereof). These consumers often seek 

to purchase the same wattage lamp (with higher efficacy) and same ballast factor as in the base 

case, thus often not saving energy as a result of standards. That expertise, and whether 

consumers migrate to lower ballast factors, is based on the consumer type (owner, electrical 

contractor, homebuilder, etc.) and the purchase event (new construction, replacement, etc.). 

DOE undertook an extensive literature review and analysis to characterize the likelihood of 

consumers migrating to lower ballast factor systems or reduce-wattage lamps if higher efficacy 

standards are required. The results characterize the Market Segment-Based scenario. DOE’s 

analysis is described briefly below and in detail in Appendix 10B. 

For its analysis, DOE first characterized the lighting market supply chain in the 

commercial and residential sectors and identified the decision makers within each one (e.g., 

contractors, homeowners, etc.). DOE broke down each sector by the principal events that 

prompt lamp purchases: ballast failure, retrofit, fixture replacement, renovation, and new 

construction. DOE assigned probabilities reflecting each decision maker’s likelihood of making 

the lighting purchase decision given the purchase event. DOE then analyzed the likelihood of 

each decision maker choosing to run a lamp on a lower BF ballast if forced by standards to 

purchase a more efficacious lamp. DOE described that likelihood with a probability that was 

based on the technical expertise and motivation of the decision maker. Within each purchase 

event, DOE multiplied the likelihood of each market actor making the decision by the likelihood 

of that actor choosing a lower BF ballast. In this way, DOE derived an estimate for the 

likelihood of a lower BF being selected for each event in each sector in the standards case. 

DOE assumed the commercial and industrial sectors behave similarly with respect to 

ballast factor choices and no distinction was made between them in this analysis. Additionally, 

decision makers in the large-commercial sector can be different agents making different 
10-41

decisions than those in the small-commercial sector. In the market segments (purchase events) 

where DOE found consumer behavior to be substantially different between these subsectors, 

DOE weighted the relative impact of each subsector when characterizing the overall commercial 

market. Table 10.18 and Table 10.19 present results for the commercial sector and residential 

sector, respectively. 

DOE also evaluated a “Reduced Expertise” sensitivity scenario, in which it assumed that 

renovation and new construction expertise in the commercial sector was equivalent to the fixture 

replacement market segment (34%). Please see Appendix 11B for results from this sensitivity 

analysis. 

Table 10.18 Commercial Market Segment-Based Likelihood of High Lighting Expertise 

Lamp Purchase Event Probability 

Renovation 69% 

New Construction 78% 

Retrofit 92% 

Ballast Replacement 8% 

Fixture Replacement 34% 

Table 10.19 Residential Market Segment-Based Likelihood of High Lighting Expertise 

Lamp Purchase Event Probability 

Renovation 48% 

New Construction 61% 

Retrofit 0% 

Ballast Replacement 0% 

Fixture Replacement 0% 

Lastly, in addition to modeling two sets of scenarios for GSFL shipments, DOE develops 

a “Lighting Controls,” sensitivity scenario. In this scenario, DOE assumes that an increased 

portion of base-case new construction in the commercial sector will incorporate lighting controls, 

which will reduce operating hours and, thus, energy consumption. DOE’s research suggested 

this trend is almost entirely in the new construction and major renovation market segments. A 

2003 study suggested such controls are already common to roughly 60 percent of newly 

constructed commercial square footage.12 Using this data point, DOE began with the assumption 

that the operating hours DOE uses in its shipments model (from the Commercial Buildings 

Energy Consumption Survey) already reflect lighting controls covering 60% of newly 

constructed commercial floor space. Next, for this scenario DOE assumed all new commercial 

floor space would be equipped with lighting controls. To calculate the impact of this additional 

lighting controls penetration, DOE estimated the energy savings, or reduction in operating hours, 

based on data from a Lighting Research Center study on the savings potential from occupancy 

sensors. The study found a savings potential range of 17 percent to 60 percent, depending on the 
10-42

application and tenant behavior. 13 This finding was in line with other industry estimates. For its 

analysis, DOE assumed the midpoint of these findings (38.5 percent) as the energy savings 

achieved by new commercial buildings employing lighting controls. DOE then reduced 

commercial operating hours by the product of the energy savings, increase in commercial square 

footage with lighting controls, and the average proportion of the lighting market serving newlyconstructed commercial buildings over the analysis period. For the results of this sensitivity, 

please see Appendix 11B. 

 

10.4.1.2 Standards-Case Market-Share Matrices 

 Similar to in the base case, DOE is constructing market-share matrices to characterize 

shipments of lamps and lamp-and-ballast systems in the standards-case. These market-share 

matrices provide the same lamp-and-ballast designs as the base case market-share matrices. 

However, in the standards-case, some lamp designs (and therefore lamp-and-ballast designs) are 

not standards-compliant and therefore precluded from being shipped. In addition, in the 

standards-case, the shipments model defines separate market-share matrices for the ballasts 

installed before 2012 (initial ballasts) versus new ballasts installed after 2011. This is important 

in the standards-case because consumer purchase decisions may vary in these two situations. If a 

consumer with an existing installed ballast in 2012 is forced to replace a base-case lamp with a 

different standards-compliant lamp, the consumer is limited to only those lamp-and-ballast 

designs that maintain the current ballast. However, when a consumer purchases a new lamp-andballast system, either for retrofitting, ballast replacement, or new construction, all lamp-andballast systems, including those with ballast factors different from the base case system purchase, 

are available. Table 10.20 describes the inputs to the base case and standards-case market-share 

matrices for initial and new ballasts. 

Table 10.20 Description of Base Case and Standards-Case GSFL Market-Share Matrices, 

Initial and New Ballast Models 

Case Initial Ballast Matrix 

(ballasts installed before 2012) 

New Ballast Matrix 

(ballasts installed in 2012 and later) 

Base *#

Technology mix of the lamp and ballast 

purchases before 2012 

*Technology mix of new lamp-andballast systems purchased in 

2012 and 2042 

Standards 

**#

Technology mix of first-lamp purchases 

shipped for installation on ballasts purchased 

before 2012. 

*Technology mix of new lamp-andballast systems purchased in 

2012 and 2042 

* Lamp replacement purchases are always the same lamp design as the retiring lamp. 

** With the exception of the first lamp purchase after 2011, lamp replacement purchases are always the same as the 

retiring lamp. 

# Though they are presented as lamp-and-ballast designs, during the analysis period these matrices result in 

shipments of lamps for lamp replacement purposes only. 

DOE uses the Shift and Roll-up scenarios to populate the standards-case market-share 

matrices. Table 10.21 through Table 10.54 present the standards-case market-share matrices for 

all analyzed GSFL in both the Shift and Roll-up scenario. As seen in the standards-case marketshare matrices for initial ballast systems, the base case proportions of lamp-and-ballast systems 
10-43

at each ballast factor are equivalent to the standards-case proportions. This is because these 

“initial ballast” standards-case matrices represent only lamp replacements on previously existing 

ballasts. In these situations, consumers are limited in their lamp-and-ballast designs and 

therefore may not always be able to match the lumens of their base case system. 

As seen in the standards-case market-share matrices for “new ballasts,” the distribution 

among ballast factors in the standards case shows a clear migration to lower ballast factors. By 

using a lower ballast factor with a higher efficacy lamp, consumers are better able to match the 

lumens of their lamp-and-ballast purchases with the lumens of their base case purchase. 

The second set of standards-case scenarios, High-versus-Market Segment-Based 

scenario, also influences these market share matrices. Table 10.21 through Table 10.54 depict 

the High lighting expertise scenario. Under the High lighting expertise scenario, 100 percent of 

consumers can either shift or roll-up based on the factors they consider (energy savings, first 

cost, etc.) in making their purchase. These consumers with high lighting expertise will attempt 

to maintain lumen output by moving to a lower ballast factor if necessary. However, under the 

Market Segment-Based scenario, a certain percentage, based on the market segment, will only 

roll-up and will not move to lower ballast factors or reduced-wattage lamps to maintain lumen 

output. DOE created market share matrices to characterize these consumers. As an example, 

Table 10.27 presents the 4-foot T8 medium bipin new ballast market share matrix for those 

consumers characterized by low lighting expertise. Again, the selection of Shift or Roll-up has 

no affect on these consumers—they only roll up in the standards case. 
10-44

Table 10.21 Standards-Case Initial Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8 

Medium Bipin Systems (Shift Scenario) 

Mix of New Lamps Purchased as Replacements on Ballasts Installed before 2011 

at Various Trial Standard Levels

EL 

Lamp Efficacy 

Lamp Wattage 

System Lumens 

System Input 

Power 

Installed Lamp 

Price 

Base Case 

TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 

Lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % % % % 

2 86.2 32.5 6,653 86.8 4.09 49 49 0 0 0 49 

3 90.8 32.5 7,154 86.8 5.17 25 25 49 0 0 25 

4 92.3 32.5 7,524 86.8 5.32 6 6 6 6 0 6 

4 93.8 30.0 7,075 80.4 5.62 1 1 25 49 0 1 

4 93.0 25.0 6,204 66.5 6.92 2 2 2 2 0 2 

5 95.4 32.5 7,696 86.8 5.86 4 4 4 4 10 4 

0.88 

5 96.0 28.0 6,758 69.7 5.41 3 3 4 29 80 3 

2 86.2 32.5 5,897 77.9 4.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 90.8 32.5 6,341 77.9 5.17 2 2 0 0 0 2 

4 92.3 32.5 6,669 77.9 5.32 2 2 2 2 0 2 

4 93.8 30.0 6,271 72.2 5.62 0 0 2 0 0 0 

4 93.0 25.0 5,499 59.4 6.92 1 1 1 1 0 1 

5 95.4 32.5 6,821 77.9 5.86 0 0 0 0 2 0 

0.78 

5 96.0 28.0 5,990 67.0 5.41 0 0 0 2 3 0 

2 86.2 32.5 5,368 71.7 4.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 90.8 32.5 5,772 71.7 5.17 2 2 0 0 0 2 

4 92.3 32.5 6,071 71.7 5.32 2 2 2 4 0 2 

4 93.8 30.0 5,708 66.4 5.62 0 0 2 0 0 0 

4 93.0 25.0 5,006 54.5 6.92 1 1 1 1 0 1 

5 95.4 32.5 6,209 71.7 5.86 0 0 0 0 2 0 

Electronic Ballast Factor 

0.71 

5 96.0 28.0 5,453 61.6 5.41 0 0 0 0 3 0 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 
10-45

Table 10.22 Standards-Case Initial Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8 

Medium Bipin Systems (Roll-up Scenario) 

Mix of New Lamps Purchased as Replacements on Ballasts Installed before 2011 at 

Various Trial Standard Levels

EL 

Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

System 

Lumens 

System 

Input Power 

Installed 

Lamp Price 

Base Case 

TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % % % % 

2 86.2 32.5 6,653 86.8 4.09 49 49 49 0 0 0 

3 90.8 32.5 7,154 86.8 5.17 25 25 25 74 0 0 

4 92.3 32.5 7,524 86.8 5.32 6 6 6 6 31 0 

4 93.8 30.0 7,075 80.4 5.62 1 1 1 1 50 0 

4 93.0 25.0 6,204 66.5 6.92 2 2 2 2 2 0 

5 95.4 32.5 7,696 86.8 5.86 4 4 4 4 4 10 

0.88 

5 96.0 28.0 6,758 69.7 5.41 3 3 3 3 3 80 

2 86.2 32.5 5,897 77.9 4.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 90.8 32.5 6,341 77.9 5.17 2 2 2 2 0 0 

4 92.3 32.5 6,669 77.9 5.32 2 2 2 2 4 0 

4 93.8 30.0 6,271 72.2 5.62 0 0 0 0 0 0 

4 93.0 25.0 5,499 59.4 6.92 1 1 1 1 1 0 

5 95.4 32.5 6,821 77.9 5.86 0 0 0 0 0 2 

0.78 

5 96.0 28.0 5,990 67.0 5.41 0 0 0 0 0 3 

2 86.2 32.5 5,368 71.7 4.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 

3 90.8 32.5 5,772 71.7 5.17 2 2 2 2 0 0 

4 92.3 32.5 6,071 71.7 5.32 2 2 2 2 4 0 

4 93.8 30.0 5,708 66.4 5.62 0 0 0 0 0 0 

4 93.0 25.0 5,006 54.5 6.92 1 1 1 1 1 0 

5 95.4 32.5 6,209 71.7 5.86 0 0 0 0 0 2 

Electronic Ballast Factor 

0.71 

5 96.0 28.0 5,453 61.6 5.41 0 0 0 0 0 3 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 
10-46

Table 10.23 Standards-Case Initial Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T12 

Medium Bipin Systems in the Commercial Sector (Shift and Roll-up Scenarios) 

Mix of New Lamps Purchased as Replacements on Ballasts Installed before 2010 at 

Various Trial Standard Levels

EL 

Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

System 

Lumens 

System 

Input Power 

Installed 

Lamp Price 

Base Case 

TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % % % % 

0 78.0 40 8,208 129 4.79 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0 77.9 34 6,072 108 3.84 80 0 0 0 0 0 

1 80.5 40 8,550 129 7.08 6 6 0 0 0 0 

1 82.4 34 6,494 108 5.12 6 86 0 0 0 0 

1 82.9 40 8,721 129 8.69 3 3 0 0 0 0 

2 85.3 34 6,890 108 7.55 3 3 89 0 0 0 

2 87.8 40 9,263 129 8.79 1 1 10 0 0 0 

Magnetic Ballast 

3 91.2 34 7,366 108 8.66 1 1 1 100 0 0 

Total 100 100 100 100 0 0 

Table 10.24 Standards-Case Initial Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T12 

Medium Bipin Systems in the Residential Sector (Shift and Roll-up Scenarios) 

Mix of New Lamps Purchased as Replacements on Ballasts Installed before 2010 at 

Various Trial Standard Levels

EL 

Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

System 

Lumens 

System 

Input Power 

Installed 

Lamp Price 

Base Case 

TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5 

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % % % % 

0 76.8 40 15,000 70 2.07 51 0 0 0 0 0 

0 77.9 34 20,000 60 1.66 7 0 0 0 0 0 

1 80.5 40 20,000 70 4.90 32 32 0 0 0 0 

1 82.4 34 20,000 60 2.93 1 8 0 0 0 0 

1 82.9 40 24,000 70 6.51 5 5 0 0 0 0 

2 85.3 34 20,000 60 5.37 0 0 8 0 0 0 

2 87.8 40 24,000 70 6.61 4 4 41 0 0 0 

Magnetic Ballast 

3 91.2 34 24,000 60 6.48 0 51 51 100 0 0 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 
10-47

Table 10.25 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8 Medium Bipin Systems 

Sector (Shift Scenario) 

Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard Levels

Base Case TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL

EL 

Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

System 

Lumens 

System Input 

Power 

Installed 

Lamp Price 

2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % % % % % % % 

2 86.2 32.5 6,653 86.8 4.09 49 20 49 20 49 20 0 0 0 3 90.8 32.5 7,154 86.8 5.17 25 3 25 3 25 3 0 0 0 4 92.3 32.5 7,524 86.8 5.32 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 4 93.8 30.0 7,075 80.4 5.62 1 10 1 10 1 10 0 0 0 4 93.0 25.0 6,204 66.5 6.92 2 15 2 15 2 15 2 0 0 5 95.4 32.5 7,696 86.8 5.86 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 

0.88 

5 96.0 28.0 6,758 69.7 5.41 3 18 3 18 3 18 6 30 31 2 86.2 32.5 5,897 77.9 4.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 90.8 32.5 6,341 77.9 5.17 2 0 2 0 2 0 49 20 0 4 92.3 32.5 6,669 77.9 5.32 2 2 2 2 2 2 25 3 0 4 93.8 30.0 6,271 72.2 5.62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 93.0 25.0 5,499 59.4 6.92 1 20 1 20 1 20 0 0 0 5 95.4 32.5 6,821 77.9 5.86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0.78 

5 96.0 28.0 5,990 67 5.41 0 2 0 2 0 2 4 17 6 2 86.2 32.5 5,368 71.7 4.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 90.8 32.5 5,772 71.7 5.17 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 92.3 32.5 6,071 71.7 5.32 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 51 4 93.8 30.0 5,708 66.4 5.62 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 93.0 25.0 5,006 54.5 6.92 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 5 95.4 32.5 6,209 71.7 5.86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Electronic Ballast Factor 

0.71 

5 96.0 28.0 5,453 61.6 5.41 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 1 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 
10-48

Table 10.26 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8 Medium Bipin Systems 

Sector (Roll-Up Scenario) 

Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard Levels

Base Case TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 

TSL 

Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

System 

Lumens 

System 

Input 

Power 

Installed 

Lamp 

Price 

2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % % % % % % % 

2 86.2 32.5 6,653 86.8 4.09 49 20 49 20 49 20 0 0 0 3 90.8 32.5 7,154 86.8 5.17 25 3 25 3 25 3 25 3 0 4 92.3 32.5 7,524 86.8 5.32 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 31 4 93.8 30.0 7,075 80.4 5.62 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 4 93.0 25.0 6,204 66.5 6.92 2 15 2 15 2 15 2 15 2 5 95.4 32.5 7,696 86.8 5.86 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 

0.88 

5 96.0 28.0 6,758 69.7 5.41 3 18 3 18 3 18 3 18 3 2 86.2 32.5 5,897 77.9 4.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 90.8 32.5 6,341 77.9 5.17 2 0 2 0 2 0 51 20 0 4 92.3 32.5 6,669 77.9 5.32 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 51 4 93.8 30.0 6,271 72.2 5.62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 93.0 25.0 5,499 59.4 6.92 1 20 1 20 1 20 1 20 1 5 95.4 32.5 6,821 77.9 5.86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0.78 

5 96.0 28.0 5,990 67 5.41 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 86.2 32.5 5,368 71.7 4.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 90.8 32.5 5,772 71.7 5.17 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 4 92.3 32.5 6,071 71.7 5.32 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 6 4 93.8 30.0 5,708 66.4 5.62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 93.0 25.0 5,006 54.5 6.92 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 5 95.4 32.5 6,209 71.7 5.86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Electronic Ballast Factor 

0.71 

5 96.0 28.0 5,453 61.6 5.41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1
10-49

 As discussed above, Table 10.27 depicts the 4-foot T8 medium bipin new ballast market share matrix for 

characterized by the Market Segment-Based expertise scenario. The selection of Shift or Roll-up has no affect o

they only roll-up in the standards case. As Table 10.27 illustrates, there is no migration to lower ballast factors w

standards. In contrast, in the High expertise scenario, consumers do migrate to lower ballast factors, as shown in 

view the market share matrices characterizing consumers with market segment-based expertise, please see the NI
10-50

Table 10.27 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8 Medium Bipin Systems 

Sector (Market Segment-Based Lighting Expertise Scenario) 

Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard Levels

EL Base Case TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 

Lamp 

Efficac

y 

Lamp 

Wattag

e 

System 

Lumen

s 

System 

Input 

Power 

Installe

d 

Lamp 

Price

2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 20

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % % % % % % % 

2 86.2 32.5 6,653 86.8 4.09 49 20 49 20 49 20 0 0 0 3 90.8 32.5 7,154 86.8 5.17 25 3 25 3 25 3 74 23 0 4 92.3 32.5 7,524 86.8 5.32 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 80 4 93.8 30.0 7,075 80.4 5.62 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 4 93.0 25.0 6,204 66.5 6.92 2 15 2 15 2 15 2 15 2 5 95.4 32.5 7,696 86.8 5.86 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 

0.88 

5 96.0 28.0 6,758 69.7 5.41 3 18 3 18 3 18 3 18 3 2 86.2 32.5 5,897 77.9 4.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 90.8 32.5 6,341 77.9 5.17 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 4 92.3 32.5 6,669 77.9 5.32 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4 93.8 30.0 6,271 72.2 5.62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 93.0 25.0 5,499 59.4 6.92 1 20 1 20 1 20 1 20 1 5 95.4 32.5 6,821 77.9 5.86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0.78 

5 96.0 28.0 5,990 67 5.41 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 86.2 32.5 5,368 71.7 4.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 90.8 32.5 5,772 71.7 5.17 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 4 92.3 32.5 6,071 71.7 5.32 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 4 4 93.8 30.0 5,708 66.4 5.62 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 93.0 25.0 5,006 54.5 6.92 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 5 95.4 32.5 6,209 71.7 5.86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Electronic Ballast Factor 

0.71 

5 96.0 28.0 5,453 61.6 5.41 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 
10-51

Table 10.28 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8 Medium Bipin Systems Sector (Shift Scenario) 

Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard Levels

Base Case TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 

EL 

Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

System 

Lumens 

System Input 

Power 

Installed 

Lamp Price 

2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % % % % % % 

2 86.2 32.5 20,000 58.6 1.91 10 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 3 90.8 32.5 20,000 58.6 2.99 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 0 4 92.3 32.5 24,000 58.6 3.13 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 4 93.8 30.0 20,000 54.6 3.43 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 4 93.0 25.0 30,000 45.4 4.73 2 2 2 2 2 2 9 9 5 95.4 32.5 24,000 58.6 3.68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0.88 

5 96.0 28.0 18,000 51.2 3.22 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 2 86.2 32.5 20,000 51.6 1.91 10 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 3 90.8 32.5 20,000 51.6 2.99 9 9 9 9 9 9 10 10 4 92.3 32.5 24,000 51.6 3.13 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 5 4 93.8 30.0 20,000 48.9 3.43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 93.0 25.0 30,000 40.5 4.73 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 5 95.4 32.5 24,000 51.6 3.68 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

0.78 

5 96.0 28.0 18,000 45.6 3.22 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 2 86.2 32.5 20,000 46.8 1.91 29 29 29 29 29 29 0 0 3 90.8 32.5 20,000 46.8 2.99 15 15 15 15 15 15 39 39 4 92.3 32.5 24,000 46.8 3.13 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 4 93.8 30.0 20,000 44.9 3.43 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 15 4 93.0 25.0 30,000 37.0 4.73 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 95.4 32.5 24,000 46.8 3.68 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

Electronic Ballast Factor 

0.71 

5 96.0 28.0 18,000 41.7 3.22 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 
10-52

Table 10.29 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8 Medium Bipin Systems Sector (Roll-Up Scenario) 

Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard Levels

EL Base Case TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TS

Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

System 

Lumens 

System 

Input 

Power 

Installed 

Lamp 

Price 

2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % % % % % % % 

2 86.2 32.5 20,000 58.6 1.91 10 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 3 90.8 32.5 20,000 58.6 2.99 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 0 4 92.3 32.5 24,000 58.6 3.13 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 11 4 93.8 30.0 20,000 54.6 3.43 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 93.0 25.0 30,000 45.4 4.73 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 95.4 32.5 24,000 58.6 3.68 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0.88 

5 96.0 28.0 18,000 51.2 3.22 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 86.2 32.5 20,000 51.6 1.91 10 10 10 10 10 10 0 0 0 3 90.8 32.5 20,000 51.6 2.99 9 9 9 9 9 9 19 19 0 4 92.3 32.5 24,000 51.6 3.13 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 12 4 93.8 30.0 20,000 48.9 3.43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 93.0 25.0 30,000 40.5 4.73 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 95.4 32.5 24,000 51.6 3.68 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

0.78 

5 96.0 28.0 18,000 45.6 3.22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 86.2 32.5 20,000 46.8 1.91 29 29 29 29 29 29 0 0 0 3 90.8 32.5 20,000 46.8 2.99 15 15 15 15 15 15 54 54 0 4 92.3 32.5 24,000 46.8 3.13 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 36 4 93.8 30.0 20,000 44.9 3.43 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29 4 93.0 25.0 30,000 37.0 4.73 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 95.4 32.5 24,000 46.8 3.68 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 

Electronic Ballast Factor 

0.71 

5 96.0 28.0 18,000 41.7 3.22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 
10-53

Table 10.30 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T12 Medium Bipin Systems 

Sector (Shift Scenario) 

Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard Levels

Base Case TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 

EL 

Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

System 

Lumens 

System 

Input 

Power 

Installed 

Lamp Price 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 20

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % % % % % % % % 

0 78.0 40 7,603 107.7 4.79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77.9 34 6,072 91.7 3.84 80 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 80.5 40 7,920 107.7 7.08 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 82.4 34 6,494 91.7 5.12 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 82.9 40 8,078 107.7 8.69 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 85.3 34 6,890 91.7 7.55 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 87.8 40 8,580 107.7 8.79 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 

0.88 

3 91.2 34 7,366 91.7 8.66 1 1 1 1 10 10 11 11 0 0 78.0 40 7,430 106.3 4.79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77.9 34 5,934 90.3 3.84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 80.5 40 7,740 106.3 7.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 82.4 34 6,347 90.3 5.12 0 0 80 80 0 0 0 0 0 1 82.9 40 7,895 106.3 8.69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 85.3 34 6,734 90.3 7.55 0 0 6 6 80 80 0 0 0 2 87.8 40 8,385 106.3 8.79 0 0 9 9 0 0 0 0 0 

Electronic Ballast Factor 

0.86 

3 91.2 34 7,198 90.3 8.66 0 0 3 3 9 9 89 89 0 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 1
10-54

Table 10.31 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T12 Medium Bipin Systems 

Sector (Roll-up Scenario) 

Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard Levels

Base Case TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 

EL 

Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

System 

Lumens 

System 

Input 

Power 

Installed 

Lamp Price 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 20

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % % % % % % % % 

0 78.0 40 7,603 107.7 4.79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77.9 34 6,072 91.7 3.84 80 80 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 80.5 40 7,920 107.7 7.08 6 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 82.4 34 6,494 91.7 5.12 6 6 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 1 82.9 40 8,078 107.7 8.69 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 2 85.3 34 6,890 91.7 7.55 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 2 87.8 40 8,580 107.7 8.79 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 

0.88 

3 91.2 34 7,366 91.7 8.66 1 1 1 1 10 10 11 11 0 0 78.0 40 7,430 106.3 4.79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 77.9 34 5,934 90.3 3.84 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 80.5 40 7,740 106.3 7.08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 82.4 34 6,347 90.3 5.12 0 0 80 80 0 0 0 0 0 1 82.9 40 7,895 106.3 8.69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 85.3 34 6,734 90.3 7.55 0 0 0 0 86 86 0 0 0 2 87.8 40 8,385 106.3 8.79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Electronic Ballast Factor 

0.86 

3 91.2 34 7,198 90.3 8.66 0 0 0 0 0 0 89 89 0 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10
10-55

Table 10.32 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T12 Medium Bipin Systems Sector (Shift Scenario) 

Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard Levels

Base Case TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TS

EL 

Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

System 

Lumens 

System

Input Power

Installed 

Lamp 

Price 

2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % % % % % % % 

0.68 0 .8 4 0 70 07 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

76 0 15,0 0 2.

0. 66 0 .9 3 0 60 66 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 4 20,0 0 1.0.68 1 .5 4 0 70 90 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

80 0 20,0 0 4.

0.66 1 .4 3 0 60 93 1 1 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 

82 4 20,0 0 2.

0.68 1 .9 4 0 70 51 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

82 0 24,0 0 6.

0.66 2 .3 3 0 60 37 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 

85 4 20,0 0 5.

0.68 2 .8 4 0 70 61 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

87 0 24,0 0 6.

0.66 3 91.2 34 24,000 60 6.48 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 0 0.65 0 .8 4 0 58 07 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

76 0 15,0 0 2.

0. 75 0 .9 3 0 60 66 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 77 4 20,0 0 1.0.65 1 .5 4 0 58 90 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

80 0 20,0 0 4.

0.75 1 .4 3 0 60 93 1 1 55 55 0 0 0 0 0 

82 4 20,0 0 2.

0.65 1 .9 4 0 58 51 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

82 0 24,0 0 6.

0.75 2 .3 3 0 60 37 0 0 35 35 59 59 0 0 0 

85 4 20,0 0 5.

0.65 2 .8 4 0 58 61 2 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 

87 0 24,0 0 6.

Electronic Ballast Factor 

0. 75 3 .2 3 0 60 48 0 0 4 4 41 41 96 96 0 

91 4 24,0 0 6.

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 
10-56

Table 10.33 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T12 Medium Bipin Systems Sector (Roll-up Scenario) 

Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard Levels

Base Case TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 

EL 

Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

System 

Lumens System 

Input 

Power

Installed 

Lamp Price 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 20

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % % % % % % % 

0.68 0 76.8 40 15,000 70 2.07 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.66 0 77.9 34 20,000 60 1.66 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 00.68 1 80.5 40 20,000 70 4.90 16 16 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 0.66 1 82.4 34 20,000 60 2.93 1155000000.68 1 82.9 40 24,000 70 6.51 3333000000.66 2 85.3 34 20,000 60 5.37 0000440000.68 2 87.8 40 24,000 70 6.61 2222330000.66 3 91.2 34 24,000 60 6.48 0 0 0 0 0 0 31 31 0 0.65 0 76.8 40 15,000 58 2.07 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.75 0 77.9 34 20,000 60 1.66 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 00.65 1 80.5 40 20,000 58 4.90 16 16 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 0.75 1 82.4 34 20,000 60 2.93 1 1 55 55 0 0 0 0 0 0.65 1 82.9 40 24,000 58 6.51 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0.75 2 85.3 34 20,000 60 5.37 0 0 0 0 89 89 0 0 0 0.65 2 87.8 40 24,000 58 6.61 2 2 2 2 2 2 0 0 0 

Electronic Ballast Factor 

0.75 3 91.2 34 24,000 60 6.48 0 0 0 0 3 3 70 70 0 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 10
10-57

Table 10.34 Standards-Case Initial Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T8 Single Pin Slimline Sy

Scenario) 

Mix of New Lamps Purchased as Replacements on Ballasts Installed before 2011 at 

Various Trial Standard Levels

EL 

Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

System 

Lumens 

System 

Input Power 

Installed 

Lamp Price 

Base Case 

TSL1 

TSL2 

TSL3 

TSL4 

TSL5 

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % % % % 

3 94.8 60.1 9,029 112.8 6.62 40 40 40 40 0 0 4 98.2 60.1 9,553 112.8 8.89 30 30 30 30 0 0 5 101.5 60.1 10,199 112.8 9.78 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 101.8 57.0 9,592 107.5 9.09 5 5 5 5 5 5 

0.88 

5 103.6 55.0 9,530 102.0 8.67 5 5 5 5 75 75 3 94.8 60.1 8,721 109.1 6.62 3 3 3 3 0 0 4 98.2 60.1 9,228 109.1 8.89 2 2 2 2 0 0 5 101.5 60.1 9,852 109.1 9.78 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 101.8 57.0 9,265 106.0 9.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0.85 

5 103.6 55.0 9,206 98.5 8.67 0 0 0 0 5 5 3 94.8 60.1 8,003 100.4 6.62 3 3 3 3 0 0 4 98.2 60.1 8,468 100.4 8.89 2 2 2 2 0 0 5 101.5 60.1 9,040 100.4 9.78 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 101.8 57.0 8,502 102.5 9.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Electronic Ballast Factor 

0.78 

5 103.6 55.0 8,447 90.2 8.67 0 0 0 0 5 5 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 
10-58

Table 10.35 Standards-Case Initial Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T8 Single Pin Slimline Sy(Roll-up Scenario) 

Mix of New Lamps Purchased as Replacements on Ballasts Installed before 2011 at Various 

Trial Standard Levels

EL 

Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

System 

Lumens 

System 

Input Power 

Installed 

Lamp Price 

Base Case 

TSL1 

TSL2 

TSL3 

TSL4 

TSL5 

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % % % % 

3 94.8 60.1 9,029 112.8 6.62 40 40 40 40 0 0 4 98.2 60.1 9,553 112.8 8.89 30 30 30 30 30 0 5 101.5 60.1 10,199 112.8 9.78 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 101.8 57.0 9,592 107.5 9.09 5 5 5 5 5 5 

0.88 

5 103.6 55.0 9,530 102.0 8.67 5 5 5 5 45 75 3 94.8 60.1 8,721 109.1 6.62 3 3 3 3 0 0 4 98.2 60.1 9,228 109.1 8.89 2 2 2 2 2 0 5 101.5 60.1 9,852 109.1 9.78 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 101.8 57.0 9,265 106.0 9.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0.85 

5 103.6 55.0 9,206 98.5 8.67 0 0 0 0 3 5 3 94.8 60.1 8,003 100.4 6.62 3 3 3 3 0 0 4 98.2 60.1 8,468 100.4 8.89 2 2 2 2 2 0 5 101.5 60.1 9,040 100.4 9.78 2 2 2 2 2 2 5 101.8 57.0 8,502 102.5 9.09 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Electronic Ballast Factor 

0.78 

5 103.6 55.0 8,447 90.2 8.67 0 0 0 0 3 5 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 
10-59

Table 10.36 Standards-Case Initial Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T12 Single Pin Slimline S(Shift and Roll-up Scenarios) 

Mix of New Lamps Purchased as Replacements on Ballasts Installed before 2010 

at Various Trial Standard Levels

EL 

Lamp Efficacy 

Lamp Wattage 

System Lumens 

System Input Power 

Installed Lamp Price 

Base Case Mix of 

Systems Installed before 2010

TSL1 

TSL2 

TSL3 

TSL4 

TSL5 

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % % % % 

0 85.6 75.0 11,103 158 8.39 46 0 0 0 0 0 1 87.3 75.0 11,575 158 11.70 16 62 0 0 0 0 1 87.6 60.5 8,209 126 5.88 15 15 0 0 0 0 2 92.0 75.0 11,976 158 12.69 1 1 63 0 0 0 2 92.6 60.5 9,068 126 8.32 15 15 30 0 0 0 

Magnetic Ballast 

3 97.5 60.5 9,645 126 10.09 7 7 7 100 0 0 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 
10-60

Table 10.37 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T8 Single Pin Slimline Syst

Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard Levels

Base Case TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL

EL 

Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

System 

Lumens 

System 

Input 

Power 

Installed 

Lamp 

Price 

2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % % % % % % % 

3 4. 0. 2 2. .62 40 6 40 6 40 6 40 6 0 

9 8 6 1 9,0 9 11 8 6

4 8. 0. 5 2. .89 30 11 30 11 30 11 30 11 0 

9 2 6 1 9,5 3 11 8 8

5 101.5 60.1 10,199 112.8 9.78 6 11 6 11 6 11 6 11 6 5 . .0 92 7.5 09 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 101 8 57 9,5 10 9. 65

0.88 

5 103.6 55.0 9,530 102.0 8.67 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 3 .8 .1 21 9.1 62 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 94 60 8,7 10 6. 704 .2 .1 28 9.1 89 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 98 60 9,2 10 8. 805 . .1 52 9.1 78 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 101 5 60 9,8 10 9. 625 . .0 65 6.0 09 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 101 8 57 9,2 10 9. 60

0.85 

5 103.6 55.0 9,206 98.5 8.67 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 30 3 .8 .1 03 0.4 62 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 94 60 8,0 10 6. 704 .2 .1 68 0.4 89 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 98 60 8,4 10 8. 805 . .1 40 0.4 78 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 101 5 60 9,0 10 9. 625 . .0 02 2.5 09 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 101 8 57 8,5 10 9. 30

Electronic Ballast Factor 

0.78 

5 103.6 55.0 8,447 90.2 8.67 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 50 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 
10-61

Table 10.38 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T8 Single Pin Slimline SystScenario) 

Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard Levels

Base Case TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 

EL 

Lamp Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

System 

Lumens 

System Input 

Power 

Installed 

Lamp Price 

2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % % % % % % % 

3 .8 .1 29 2.8 62 40 6 40 6 40 6 40 6 0 

94 60 9,0 11 6.

4 98.2 60.1 9,553 112.8 8.89 30 11 30 11 30 11 30 11 30 5 101.5 60.1 10,199 112.8 9.78 6 11 6 11 6 11 6 11 6 5 . .0 92 7.5 09 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 

101 8 57 9,5 10 9.

0.88 

5 103.6 55.0 9,530 102.0 8.67 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 3 .8 .1 21 9.1 62 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 0 

94 60 8,7 10 6.

4 .2 .1 28 9.1 89 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 

98 60 9,2 10 8.

5 . .1 52 9.1 78 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 

101 5 60 9,8 10 9.

5 . .0 65 6.0 09 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 

101 8 57 9,2 10 9.

0.85 

5 103.6 55.0 9,206 98.5 8.67 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 40 3 .8 .1 03 0.4 62 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 0 

94 60 8,0 10 6.

4 .2 .1 68 0.4 89 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 

98 60 8,4 10 8.

5 . .1 40 0.4 78 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 

101 5 60 9,0 10 9.

5 . .0 02 2.5 09 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 

101 8 57 8,5 10 9.

Electronic Ballast Factor 

0.78 

5 103.6 55.0 8,447 90.2 8.67 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 6 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 
10-62

Table 10.39 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8 Medium Bipin Systems 

Foot Single Pin Slimline Systems (Shift Scenario) 

Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard Levels

Base Case TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TS

EL 

Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

System 

Lumens 

System 

Input 

Power 

Installed 

Lamp 

Price 

2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % % % % % % % 

2 86.2 32.5 8,870 117.2 5.25 49 20 49 20 49 20 0 0 0 3 90.8 32.5 9,539 117.2 6.33 25 3 25 3 25 3 0 0 0 4 92.3 32.5 10,032 117.2 6.48 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 4 93.8 30 9,434 109.2 6.78 1 10 1 10 1 10 0 0 0 4 93.0 25 8,272 90.8 8.08 2 15 2 15 2 15 2 0 0 5 95.4 32.5 10,261 117.2 7.02 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 

0.88 

5 96.0 28 9,011 102.4 6.57 3 18 3 18 3 18 6 30 31 2 86.2 32.5 7,862 103.2 5.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 90.8 32.5 8,455 103.2 6.33 2 0 2 0 2 0 49 20 0 4 92.3 32.5 8,892 103.2 6.48 2 2 2 2 2 2 25 3 0 4 93.8 30 8,362 97.8 6.78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 93.0 25 7,332 81.0 8.08 1 20 1 20 1 20 0 0 0 5 95.4 32.5 9,095 103.2 7.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

0.78 

5 96.0 28 7,987 91.2 6.57 0 2 0 2 0 2 4 17 6 2 86.2 32.5 7,157 93.6 5.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 90.8 32.5 7,696 93.6 6.33 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 4 92.3 32.5 8,094 93.6 6.48 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 51 4 93.8 30 7,611 89.8 6.78 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 4 93.0 25 6,674 74.0 8.08 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 5 95.4 32.5 8,279 93.6 7.02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Electronic Ballast Factor 

0.71 

5 96.0 28 7,270 83.4 6.57 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 20 1 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 
10-63

Table 10.40 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8 Medium Bipin Systems 

Foot Single Pin Slimline Systems (Roll-up Scenario) 

Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard Levels

Base Case TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 

EL 

Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

System 

Lumens 

System 

Input 

Power 

Installed 

Lamp Price 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % % % % % % % 

2 .2 .5 70 7.2 25 49 20 49 20 49 20 0 0 0 

86 32 8,8 11 5.

3 .8 .5 39 7.2 33 25 3 25 3 25 3 25 3 0 

90 32 9,5 11 6.

4 .3 . 3 7.2 48 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 31 

92 32 5 10,0 2 11 6.

4 93.8 30 9,434 109.2 6.78 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 4 93.0 25 8,272 90.8 8.08 2 15 2 15 2 15 2 15 2 5 .4 . 6 7.2 02 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 

95 32 5 10,2 1 11 7.

0.88 

5 96.0 28 9,011 102.4 6.57 3 18 3 18 3 18 3 18 3 2 .2 .5 62 3.2 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

86 32 7,8 10 5.

3 .8 .5 55 3.2 33 2 0 2 0 2 0 51 20 0 

90 32 8,4 10 6.

4 .3 .5 92 3.2 48 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 51 

92 32 8,8 10 6.

4 .8 30 62 7.8 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

93 8,3 9 6.

4 93.0 25 7,332 81.0 8.08 1 20 1 20 1 20 1 20 1 5 .4 .5 95 3.2 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

95 32 9,0 10 7.

0.78 

5 96.0 28 7,987 91.2 6.57 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 .2 .5 57 3.6 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

86 32 7,1 9 5.

3 .8 .5 96 3.6 33 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 

90 32 7,6 9 6.

4 .3 .5 94 3.6 48 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 6 

92 32 8,0 9 6.

4 .8 30 11 9.8 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

93 7,6 8 6.

4 93.0 25 6,674 74.0 8.08 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 10 1 5 .4 .5 79 3.6 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

95 32 8,2 9 7.

Electronic Ballast Factor 

0.71 

5 96.0 28 7,270 83.4 6.57 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 
10-64

Table 10.41 Standards-Case Initial Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T12 Recessed Double CoSystems (Shift Scenario) 

Mix of New Lamps Purchased as Replacements on Ballasts Installed before 2012 

at Various Trial Standard Levels

EL 

Lamp Efficacy 

Lamp Wattage 

System Lumens 

System Input Power 

Installed Lamp Price Base Case Mix of

Systems Installed before 2012

TSL1 

TSL2 

TSL3 

TSL4 

TSL5 

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % % % % 

0 80.1 113 15,476 237.0 10.25 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 82.5 97 13,205 203.0 7.23 15 0 0 0 0 0 1 83.2 113 16,431 237.0 16.25 21 21 0 0 0 0 2 86.1 97 14,279 203.0 10.42 7 61 61 0 0 0 3 87.6 97 14,535 203.0 16.82 12 12 33 66 0 0 

Magnetic Ballast 

3 88.9 97 14,725 203.0 17.14 6 6 6 34 0 0 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 
10-65

Table 10.42 Standards-Case Initial Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T12 Recessed Double CoSystems (Roll-up Scenario) 

Mix of New Lamps Purchased as Replacements on Ballasts Installed before 2012 

at Various Trial Standard Levels

EL 

Lamp Efficacy 

Lamp Wattage 

System Lumens 

System Input Power 

Installed Lamp Price 

Base Case Mix of 

Systems Installed before 2012 

TSL1 

TSL2 

TSL3 

TSL4 

TSL5 

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % % % % 

0 80.1 113 15,476 237.0 10.25 39 0 0 0 0 0 0 82.5 97 13,205 203.0 7.23 15 0 0 0 0 0 1 83.2 113 16,431 237.0 16.25 21 21 0 0 0 0 2 86.1 97 14,279 203.0 10.42 7 61 82 0 0 0 3 87.6 97 14,535 203.0 16.82 12 12 12 94 0 0 

Magnetic Ballast 

3 88.9 97 14,725 203.0 17.14 6 6 6 6 0 0 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 
10-66

Table 10.43 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T12 Recessed Double ContNew Ballast Systems (Shift Scenario) 

Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard Levels

Base Case TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TS

EL 

Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

System 

Lumens 

System 

Input 

Power 

Installed 

Lamp Price 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % % % % % % % 

0 .1 1 7 7. 25 20 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

80 1 3 15,4 6 23 0 10.

0 .5 97 0 3.0 23 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

82 13,2 5 20 7.

1 .2 1 3 7. 25 11 13 11 13 0 0 0 0 0 

83 1 3 16,4 1 23 0 16.

2 .1 97 7 3. 42 3 11 30 17 20 5 0 0 0 

86 14,2 9 20 0 10.

3 .6 97 3 3. 82 6 12 0 0 21 25 20 5 0 

87 14,5 5 20 0 16.

0.88 

3 88.9 97 14,725 203.0 17.14 3 6 3 6 3 6 19 25 0 0 .1 1 3 5. 25 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

80 1 3 14,3 5 20 4 10.

0 .5 97 3 7.0 23 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

82 12,2 2 17 7.

1 .2 1 2 5. 25 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

83 1 3 15,2 0 20 4 16.

2 .1 97 2 7. 42 2 5 27 13 27 13 0 0 0 

86 13,2 6 17 0 10.

3 .6 97 6 7. 82 3 7 8 23 3 7 27 15 0 

87 13,4 4 17 0 16.

0.89 

3 88.9 97 13,640 177.0 17.14 2 4 11 22 14 33 18 43 0 0 .1 1 6 1. 25 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

80 1 3 14,6 1 21 5 10.

0 .5 97 1 5.6 23 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

82 12,5 0 18 7.

1 .2 1 6 1. 25 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

83 1 3 15,5 6 21 5 16.

2 .1 97 2 5. 42 2 5 9 2 9 2 0 0 0 

86 13,5 7 18 6 10.

3 .6 97 7 5. 82 3 6 0 0 0 0 10 2 0 

87 13,7 0 18 6 16.

Electronic Ballast Factor 

0.90 

3 88.9 97 13,950 185.6 17.14 1 4 1 4 3 9 6 10 0 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 
10-67

Table 10.44 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T12 Recessed Double ContNew Ballast Systems (Roll-up Scenario) 

Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard Levels

Base Case TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 

EL 

Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

System 

Lumens 

System 

Input 

Power 

Installed 

Lamp Price 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % % % % % % % 

0 80.1 113 15,476 237.0 10.25 20 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82.5 97 13,205 203.0 7.23 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 83.2 113 16,431 237.0 16.25 11 13 11 13 0 0 0 0 0 2 86.1 97 14,279 203.0 10.42 3 11 42 20 63 45 0 0 0 3 87.6 97 14,535 203.0 16.82 6 12 6 12 6 12 69 57 0 

0.88 

3 88.9 97 14,725 203.0 17.14 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 0 0 80.1 113 14,335 205.4 10.25 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82.5 97 12,232 177.0 7.23 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 83.2 113 15,220 205.4 16.25 5 6 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 86.1 97 13,226 177.0 10.42 2 5 17 11 17 11 0 0 0 3 87.6 97 13,464 177.0 16.82 3 7 3 7 3 7 22 23 0 

0.89 

3 88.9 97 13,640 177.0 17.14 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 0 0 80.1 113 14,661 211.5 10.25 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 82.5 97 12,510 185.6 7.23 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 83.2 113 15,566 211.5 16.25 5 6 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 2 86.1 97 13,527 185.6 10.42 2 5 2 5 2 5 0 0 0 3 87.6 97 13,770 185.6 16.82 3 6 3 6 3 6 3 6 0 

Electronic Ballast Factor 

0.90 

3 88.9 97 13,950 185.6 17.14 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 4 0 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 
10-68

Table 10.45 Standards-Case Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T8 Recessed Double Contact High OutpSystems (Shift Scenario) 

Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard Levels

Base Case TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TS

EL 

Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

System 

Lumens 

System 

Input 

Power 

Installed 

Lamp Price 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % % % % % % % 

4 91.9 86 12,496 160 10.39 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 4 93.0 86 12,672 160 10.56 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 

0.88 

5 95.3 86 13,728 160 12.07 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 4 91.9 86 11,502 151 10.39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 93.0 86 11,664 151 10.56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Electronic Ballast 

Factor 

0.81 

5 95.3 86 12,636 151 12.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 
10-69

Table 10.46 Standards-Case Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T8 Recessed Double Contact High OutpSystems (Roll-up Scenario) 

Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard Levels

Base Case TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TS

EL 

Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

System 

Lumens 

System 

Input 

Power 

Installed 

Lamp Price 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % % % % % % % 

4 91.9 86 12,496 160 10.39 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 4 93.0 86 12,672 160 10.56 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 

0.88 

5 95.3 86 13,728 160 12.07 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 4 91.9 86 11,502 151 10.39 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 93.0 86 11,664 151 10.56 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Electronic Ballast 

Factor 

0.81 

5 95.3 86 12,636 151 12.07 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 
10-70
10-71

Table 10.47 Standards-Case Initial Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T5 Standard Output Syst

Mix of New Systems Purchased before 2012 at Various Trial Standard Levels 

EL 

Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

System 

Lumens 

System 

Input 

Power 

Installed 

Lamp 

Price 

Base Case 

TSL1-

TSL4 

TSL5 

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % 

0 86.0 27.8 3,795 70.7 4.94 14 0 0 1 104.3 27.8 6,118 70.7 6.90 19 14 0 2 109.7 27.8 6,665 70.7 8.04 5 5 5 

1.15 

2 111.5 26 6,118 67.5 7.79 3 22 36 0 86.0 27.8 3,300 63.6 4.94 7 0 0 1 104.3 27.8 5,320 63.6 6.90 18 7 0 2 109.7 27.8 5,796 63.6 8.04 5 5 5 

1.00 

2 111.5 26.0 5,320 59.6 7.79 3 21 28 0 86.0 27.8 2,970 58.9 4.94 0 0 0 1 104.3 27.8 4,788 58.9 6.90 18 0 0 2 109.7 27.8 5,216 58.9 8.04 5 5 5 

Electronic Ballast Factor 

0.90 

2 111.5 26.0 4,788 54.4 7.79 3 21 21 

Total 100 100 100 
10-72

Table 10.48 Standards-Case Initial Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T5 Standard Output Syst

Scenario) 

Mix of New Systems Purchased Before 2012 at Various Trial Standard Levels 

TSL 

Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

System 

Lumens 

System 

Input 

Power 

Installed 

Lamp 

Price 

Base Case 

TSL1-

TSL4 

TSL5 

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % 

0 86.0 27.8 3,795 70.7 4.94 14 0 0 1 104.3 27.8 6,118 70.7 6.90 19 33 0 2 109.7 27.8 6,665 70.7 8.04 5 5 5 

1.15 

2 111.5 26 6,118 67.5 7.79 3 3 36 0 86.0 27.8 3,300 63.6 4.94 7 0 0 1 104.3 27.8 5,320 63.6 6.90 18 25 0 2 109.7 27.8 5,796 63.6 8.04 5 5 5 

1.00 

2 111.5 26.0 5,320 59.6 7.79 3 3 28 0 86.0 27.8 2,970 58.9 4.94 0 0 0 1 104.3 27.8 4,788 58.9 6.90 18 18 0 2 109.7 27.8 5,216 58.9 8.04 5 5 5 

Electronic Ballast Factor 

0.90 

2 111.5 26.0 4,788 54.4 7.79 3 3 21 

Total 100 100 100 
10-73

Table 10.49 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T5 Standard Output New BScenario) 

Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard Levels 

Base Case TSL1-TSL4 TSL5 

EL 

Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

System 

Lumens 

System 

Input 

Power

Installed 

Lamp Price 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % % % %

0 86.0 27.8 3,795 70.7 4.94 14 14 0 0 0 0 1 104.3 27.8 6,118 70.7 6.90 19 19 0 0 0 0 

0.88 2 109.7 27.8 6,665 70.7 8.04 5 5 5 5 5 5 

2 111.5 26 6,118 67.5 7.79 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 86.0 27.8 3,300 63.6 4.94 7 7 0 0 0 0 1 104.3 27.8 5,320 63.6 6.90 18 18 0 0 0 0 

0.89 2 109.7 27.8 5,796 63.6 8.04 5 5 24 24 24 24 

2 111.5 26.0 5,320 59.6 7.79 3 3 3 3 3 3 0 86.0 27.8 2,970 58.9 4.94 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 104.3 27.8 4,788 58.9 6.90 18 18 21 21 0 0 2 109.7 27.8 5,216 58.9 8.04 5 5 23 23 23 23 

Electronic Ballast Factor 

0.90 

2 111.5 26.0 4,788 54.4 7.79 3 3 21 21 42 42 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 
10-74

Table 10.50 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T5 Standard Output New B

(Roll-up Scenario) 

Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard Levels 

Base Case TSL1-TSL4 TSL5 

EL 

Lamp 

Efficacy 

Lamp 

Wattage 

System 

Lumens 

System 

Input 

Power

Installed 

Lamp Price 2012 2042 2012 2042 2012 2042 

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % % % %

0 86.0 27.8 3,795 70.7 4.94 14 14 0 0 0 0 1 104.3 27.8 6,118 70.7 6.90 19 19 19 19 0 0 

0.88 2 109.7 27.8 6,665 70.7 8.04 5 5 5 5 5 5 

2 111.5 26 6,118 67.5 7.79 3 3 3 3 22 22 0 86.0 27.8 3,300 63.6 4.94 7 7 0 0 0 0 1 104.3 27.8 5,320 63.6 6.90 18 18 18 18 0 0 

0.89 2 109.7 27.8 5,796 63.6 8.04 5 5 5 5 5 5 

2 111.5 26.0 5,320 59.6 7.79 3 3 3 3 21 21 0 86.0 27.8 2,970 58.9 4.94 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 104.3 27.8 4,788 58.9 6.90 18 18 39 39 0 0 2 109.7 27.8 5,216 58.9 8.04 5 5 5 5 5 5 

Electronic Ballast Factor 

0.90 

2 111.5 26.0 4,788 54.4 7.79 3 3 3 3 42 42 

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 
10-75

Table 10.51 Standards-Case Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T5 High Output Initial 

Ballast Systems (Shift Scenario) 

Mix of New Systems Purchased Before 2012 at Various Trial Standard Levels EL Lamp Efficacy Lamp Wattage System Lumens System Input Power Installed Lamp Price 

Base Case TSL1-TSL5 

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % 

0 76.0 53.8 5,770 120.0 5.49 20 0 

1 92.9 53.8 9,200 120.0 8.10 65 20 

nic 

Ballast 

1.00 

1 98.0 51 9,200 117.0 10.38 15 80 

Total 100 100 

Table 10.52 Standards-Case Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T5 High Output Initial 

Ballast Systems (Roll-up Scenario) 

Mix of New Systems Purchased Before 2012 at Various Trial Standard Levels EL Lamp Efficacy Lamp Wattage System Lumens System Input Power Installed Lamp Price 

Base Case TSL1-TSL5 

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % 

0 76.0 53.8 5,770 120.0 5.49 20 0 

1 92.9 53.8 9,200 120.0 8.10 65 85 

nic 

Ballast 

1.00 

1 98.0 51 9,200 117.0 10.38 15 15 

Total 100 100 
10-76

Table 10.53 Standards-Case Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T5 High Output New 

Ballast Systems (Shift Scenario) 

Mix of New Systems Purchased After 2011 at Various Trial Standard Levels 

Base Case TSL1-TSL5 

EL 

Lamp Efficacy 

Lamp Wattage 

System 

Lumens 

System Input 

Power 

Installed Lamp 

Price 

2012 2042 2012 2042

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % % 

0 76.0 53.8 5,770 120.0 5.49 20 20 0 0 

1 92.9 53.8 9,200 120.0 8.10 65 65 20 20 

nic 

Ballast 

1.00 

1 98.0 51 9,200 117.0 10.38 15 15 80 80 

Total 100 100 100 100 

Table 10.54 Standards-Case Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T5 High Output New 

Ballast Systems (Roll-up Scenario) 

Mix of New Systems Purchased After 2011 at Various Trial Standard Levels 

Base Case TSL1-TSL5 

EL 

Lamp Efficacy 

Lamp Wattage 

System 

Lumens 

System Input 

Power 

Installed Lamp 

Price 

2012 2042 2012 2042

lm/W W lm W 2008$ % % % % 

0 76.0 53.8 5,770 120.0 5.49 20 20 0 0 

1 92.9 53.8 9,200 120.0 8.10 65 65 85 85 

nic 

Ballast 

1.00 

1 98.0 51 9,200 117.0 10.38 15 15 15 15 

Total 100 100 100 100 

10.4.1.3 Early Retirement of Ballasts in the Standards-Cases 

 The commercial GSFL shipments model incorporates early retirement (or retrofit) of 4-

foot T12 medium bipin and 8-foot T12 single pin slimline ballast systems in the standards case. 

As historical shipments indicate, in the base case, as magnetic T12 ballasts reach their end of 

life, these systems are replaced by their electronic T8 counterpart systems. In the standards 

cases, DOE assumes that when consumers who own T12 magnetic ballasts are forced to 

purchase more expensive standards-compliant lamps, some consumers may instead discard their 

magnetic ballast before its natural end of life to purchase a more cost-effective T8 electronic 

system. As the standard level and lamp price increase, DOE expects this rate of early ballast 

retirement to increase as well. Table 10.55 summarizes DOE’s assumptions about early ballast 
10-77

retirements in the standards-cases for 4-foot T12 medium bipin and 8-foot T12 single pin 

slimline ballasts. Percentage annual retrofit rates represent the percentage of remaining T12 

installed ballast stock that is retrofitted each year. Similarly, DOE models a higher conversion 

rate from T12 to T8 systems in the residential sector with higher TSLs, as shown in Table 10.56. 

Here, when T12 systems reach the natural end of their life, DOE assumes increasing portions of 

residential consumers will replace those T12 systems with T8 systems at increasing TSLs. At 

TSL4 and TSL5, all T12 systems are automatically replaced with T8 systems because no T12 

lamps are standards-compliant. Figure 10.4.1 depicts how shipments of 4-foot T12 lamps 

change in response to early retrofit rates, at TSL3, holding the residential conversion rate 

constant at 0 percent. Similarly, Figure 10.4.2 depicts how shipments of 4-foot T12 lamps 

change in response to residential conversion rates at TSL3, holding early retirement rates of 4-

foot T12 systems constant at 0 percent. 

Table 10.55 Early Retirement of Four-Foot T12 Medium Bipin and Eight-Foot Single Pin 

Slimline Ballasts in the Standards-Cases 

Trial Standard Level Rate of Early Retirement 

(% of remaining initial ballast stock retired early per year) 

1 10 

2 15 

3 20 

 4* 25 

 5* 25 

* In addition to voluntary early retirement, T12 ballasts are automatically retrofitted at the end of lamp life because 

no T12 lamps are standards-compliant 

Table 10.56 Conversion of Four-Foot T12 Medium Bipin Systems to T8 Systems in the 

Standards-Cases in the Residential Sector 

Trial Standard Level Rate of Early Retirement 

(% of remaining initial ballast stock retired early per year) 

1 25 

2 35 

3 60 

 4* N/A 

 5* N/A 

* T12 ballasts are automatically retrofitted at the end of lamp life because no T12 lamps are standards-compliant 
60 

70 

80 

90 

100 

110 

120 

130 

140 

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042 

Shipments (millions)

Year

0% Retrofit Rate 10% Retrofit Rate 15% Retrofit Rate

20% Retrofit Rate 25% Retrofit Rate

 Figure 10.4.1 Retrofit Rate Effect on Four-Foot T12 Shipments at TSL3 in the Emerging, 

Roll-Up, Market Segment-Based Scenario 

10-78
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042 

Shipments (millions)

Year

0% Conversion 25% Conversion 35% Conversion 60% Conversion

Figure 10.4.2 Residential Conversion Rate Effect on Four-Foot T12 Shipments at TSL3 in 

the Emerging, Roll-Up, Market Segment-Based Scenario 

10.4.2 Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

10.4.2.1 Shipments Scenarios 

DOE considers two sets of standards-case scenarios for IRL: “Roll-up” and “Shift” 

scenarios; and the “BR Product Substitution” and “R-CFL Product Substitution” scenarios. As 

discussed above with GSFL, to evaluate a standards-case, DOE models a standards-case scenario 

and compares it to the base case. One IRL standards-case scenario, for example, would be the 

Roll-up, BR Product Substitution scenario; another would be the Shift, R-CFL Product 

Substitution scenario. In sum, DOE thus considers four IRL standards-case scenarios and two 

base case scenarios (Existing Technologies and Emerging Technologies), yielding eight total sets 

of results. 

10-79

The Shift and Roll-up scenarios for IRL are similar to those for GSFL. Again, the Rollup scenario represents a standards-case in which all product efficacies in the base case that do 

not meet the standard would roll up to meet the new standard level. Those product efficacies that 

were above the standard level are considered unaffected, as consumers continue to purchase the 
10-80

same base case lamp or lamp system. In contrast, the Shift scenario models a standards case in 

which all base case consumer purchases are affected by the standard (whether or not their base 

case efficacy meets the standard). In the shift scenario consumers strive to maintain the same 

efficacy differential (between their purchase and the baseline) in both the base case and standards 

case. For example, if in the base case, a consumer purchases a lamp at EL3, he is purchase a 

lamp two market efficacy levels above the baseline (EL1 represents a model lamp not 

commercially available). Therefore under standards set at TSL3 (corresponding to EL3), that 

same consumer will purchase IRL at EL5, two efficacy levels above the new baseline. 

Because in the residential sector all consumers purchase at the minimum compliant level, 

all consumers are forced to roll-up to the next highest efficacy level under energy conservation 

standards. Therefore, in the residential sector, the Shift and Roll-up scenarios produce the same 

results. In contrast, the IRL commercial sector responds to the Roll-up or Shift scenario 

assumptions as GSFL does. Some commercial consumers who purchase lamps above the 

minimum standard level in the base case may continue to do so in the standards-case. 

The second set of standards-case IRL scenarios includes the “R-CFL Product 

Substitution” and “BR Product Substitution” scenarios. In these scenarios, DOE assumes 

consumers purchasing regulated IRL in the base case do not necessarily continue to purchase 

regulated IRL in the standards case. DOE thus models a shift to both exempted BR lamps 

(namely the 65W BR30 lamp) and to R-CFL in two separate standards-case scenarios. 

Regarding migration to BR lamps, as discussed earlier, EISA 2007 extended energy 

conservation standards coverage to certain ER and BR while leaving others exempted. For the 

BR Product Substitution scenario, DOE assumes that as the efficacy standard on IRL increases, 

some consumers who would normally purchase a covered IRL may instead choose to purchase 

higher wattage, lower first cost, exempted 65 Watt BR lamps. Although these exempted lamps 

do not fall under the scope of this rulemaking, DOE includes the effect of consumer migration to 

these lamps in the BR Product Substitution scenario. 

To estimate the additional migration to exempted BR lamps in the standards-case, DOE 

calculates PBPs for BR lamps relative to each lamp design (halogen, improved halogen, etc.). 

Using these PBP values, DOE arrives at market penetration rates by employing the same PBPmarket penetration relationship described in section 10.3.3.1. DOE observed that in the 

commercial sector the predicted market penetration rates of halogen lamps into the BR market 

are consistent with current market trends. DOE applies the relationship to the higher-efficiency 

design options, such as HIR, to calculate incremental market penetration of exempted lamps in 

the standards-case. Specifically, as standards become increasingly stringent and require more 

efficient technologies, an increasing number of consumers migrate to exempted lamps. 

In the residential sector, however, DOE found that the market penetration predicted by 

the PBP relationship between BR and halogen lamps was not consistent with available market 

data. DOE concluded residential consumers do not make purchase decisions based on PBP. 

Therefore, DOE estimated the migration to the exempted lamps based on available data on 

market trends. 
10-81

In each sector, DOE apportions the resultant market shares of the analyzed technologies 

in the market-share matrices. 

Additionally, DOE expects increasing residential sector migration to R-CFL in the 

standards-case as the technology matures and becomes relatively more cost-competitive. 

Therefore, DOE also analyzed a second, separate product substitution scenario, called the R-CFL 

Product Substitution scenario, in which DOE modeled standards-case migration to R-CFL and 

not to the exempted BR lamps. DOE uses the same market penetration methodology as it does 

for the IRL Existing and Emerging Technologies base cases. For the residential sector DOE 

calculates simple payback periods comparing R-CFL to the baseline halogen, and R-CFL to the 

higher-efficiency lamp designs. Using incremental market penetrations based on the payback 

period calculations, DOE incorporated standards-driven migration to R-CFL in the residential 

sector. As previously discussed, DOE observed that the actual market penetration of R-CFL thus 

far has been approximately 40 percent of the penetration predicted by the PBP-penetration 

relationship. DOE believes that R-CFL may not always be appropriate in applications where 

IRL are used due to differences in color quality, size, dimming capability, and other factors. 

Therefore, DOE applies scaling-factor reductions of 40 percent for the residential sector. In the 

commercial sector, DOE assumes that all institutions wishing to convert to R-CFL despites the 

technology’s substitutability issues (such as lower color quality) do so by 2012. Therefore, there 

is no additional movement to R-CFL in response to standards in the commercial sector. 

In addition to modeling these two sets of scenarios for IRL shipments, DOE also modeled 

a “Baseline Lifetime” scenario for IRL, to evaluate the affects of shorter lifetime lamps at TSL 4 

and TSL 5. As shown below in Table 10.58, in the normal standards-case scenarios DOE 

models 4,000-hour-lifetime and 4,200-hour-lifetime lamps at TSL 4 and TSL 5. In contrast, at 

TSL 4 in the Baseline Lifetime scenario, DOE analyzed additional IRL options with lifetimes 

equal to the baseline lamps’ lifetimes (2,500 hours for the 90W lumen package, 2,500 hours for 

the 75W lumen package, and 3,000 hours for the 50W lumen package). Because DOE already 

analyzes lamps with similar lifetimes at TSL 1, TSL 2, and TSL 3, DOE did not apply this 

scenario to those TSLs. Additionally, DOE modeled the shorter lifetime lamps at TSL 4 to have 

the same efficacy, wattage, and price as the longer-lifetime TSL 4 lamps. 

For TSL 5, DOE modeled three additional shorter lifetime lamps (one for each baseline 

lumen package), all of which have lifetimes of 2,500 hours. Because these lamps use the same 

technology, DOE used the same prices for TSL 5 as it used for TSL 4. Lastly, DOE used the 

same efficacy and wattage of the previously analyzed TSL 5 lamps. See appendix 11B for NIA 

results of this scenario. 

Lastly, DOE also develops a “10-percent lumen increase” scenario, in which DOE 

assumes that a portion of residential consumers of IRL will buy a more efficacious lamp at the 

same wattage as in the base case. This incorporation of non-energy-saving lamp designs results 

in an overall higher lumen output per IRL in the residential sector. To quantify the percentage of 

consumers that purchase same-wattage lamp designs, DOE assumes that the average initial 

lumen output of IRL of the standards-cases is 10 percent higher than that of the base case. DOE 

does not model this sensitivity scenario in the commercial sector. Shipment results for the 10-
10-82

percent lumen increase sensitivity scenarios are presented in Appendix 11B of this TSD. In 

addition to modeling these scenarios, DOE’s shipment spreadsheet also allows for the user to 

generate custom inputs into the base case and standards-case market-share matrices. In addition 

to making available all lamp designs discussed above (both reduced-wattage and same-wattage 

lamp designs), the spreadsheet is also capable of modeling an increased or decreased shift toward 

non-IRL technologies in the standards-case. 

10.4.2.2 Standards-Case Market-Share Matrices 

Similar to the base case, DOE constructs market-share matrices for the commercial and 

residential sectors. Table 10.58 through Table 10.61 display the upper- and lower-bound scenario 

market-share matrices for IRL shipments in each the commercial and residential sectors. These 

market-share matrices provide the same lamp designs as the base case market-share matrices. 

However, in the standards-case, some lamp designs are not standards-compliant and are therefore 

precluded from being shipped beginning in 2012. In the standards-case, standards-compliant 

lamps do not occupy all IRL sockets until the lamps purchased before 2012 fail. For example, 

the longest-lived residential IRL in the base case has a service life of 3.4 years. Therefore, 

standards-compliant lamps will not occupy all IRL sockets until about 2015. For this reason, the 

residential standards-case market-share matrix, representing the percentage of sockets occupied 

by specific IRL, is given in 2015 and 2042. Because the longest-lived commercial IRL in the 

base case has a service life of 1.7 years, the commercial standards-case market-share matrix is 

given in 2013 and 2042. Table 10.57 describes the inputs to the base case and standards-case IRL 

market-share matrices for the commercial and residential sectors. 

Table 10.57 Description of Base Case and Standards-Case IRL Market-Share Matrices 

Case Input Description 

Base *Technology mix of lamp designs in the lamp stock in 

2011 and 2042 

Standards * Technology mix of lamp designs in the lamp stock in 

2013 (commercial) or 2015 (residential) and 2042. 

* Note: Because CFL penetration into the lamp stock is changing over the analysis period, lamp purchases for lamp 

replacement purposes are not necessarily the same as the retiring lamp. 

Table 10.58 displays the commercial standards-case market-share matrix for the Shift, RCFL Product Substitution scenario. As discussed earlier, in the base case, the commercial IRL 

market is composed mostly of halogen lamps. Since these matrices represent the Shift scenario, 

those consumers already purchasing efficient lamp products shift to purchase even more efficient 

ones. In the commercial sector, DOE assumed that all institutions wishing to convert to R-CFL 

despite its shortcomings (such as lower color quality) do so before 2012. Therefore, there is no 

additional movement to R-CFL in response to standards. At TSL1 halogen are no longer 

standards-compliant and consumers purchasing halogen-type IRL purchase improved halogen 

technology. At TSL 2 only long-life HIR and improved halogen lamps with a reduced-wattage 
10-83

can be sold. At TSL 3 only HIR are standards-compliant. TSL4 and TSL 5 allow only the most 

efficient HIR lamps. 

Table 10.59 displays the residential standards-case market-share matrix for the Shift, RCFL Product Substitution scenario. As discussed earlier, DOE assumes that the entire residential 

market purchases halogen IRL in the base case. At all subsequent TSLs, consumers usually 

choose the least costly standards-compliant lamp (Roll-up and Shift are the same in the 

residential sector). As discussed previously, DOE calculated simple payback periods comparing 

R-CFL to the baseline halogen and R-CFL to the higher-efficiency lamp designs. It used these 

payback period calculations to determine incremental market penetrations. At TSL1, almost the 

entire residential market is composed of improved halogen IRL, with a small portion purchasing 

reflector CFL or 65W BR lamps. At TSL2, consumers start to shift to HIR lamps, so that at 

TSL3 the majority residential market is purchasing HIR technology. At TSL4, the residential 

IRL market is composed of predominantly improved HIR lamps. TSL5 represents a “max-tech” 

HIR lamp, which has a further improved reflective coating, IR coating, or filament design. 

Table 10.60 and Table 10.61 display the Roll-up, BR Product Substitution scenario, in 

the commercial and residential sector, respectively. In the Roll-up scenario, consumers already 

purchasing standards-compliant lamps continue to purchase products at the same efficiency 

level. DOE assumes that some consumers choose to purchase the less efficient 65W BR lamp, 

which is exempted from standards, because of the difference in price. 

Table 10.58 Standards-Case Market-Share Matrix for Commercial IRL Sockets (Shift, RCFL Product Substitution Scenario) 

Stock in 

2011* 

Stock in 

2013** 

Stock in 

TSL Lamp Design EL 2042 Installed 

Lamp Price % % %

90W, 14.6 lm/W, 2500 hrs, Halogen 6.43 32 18 

75W, 14.0 lm/W, 2500 hrs, Halogen 6.43 25 14 

50W, 12.6 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Halogen 

0 

5.80 21 12 

83W, 15.9 lm/W, 6000 hrs, Long Life HIR 8.06 2 5 

69W, 15.3 lm/W, 6000 hrs, Long Life HIR 8.06 2 4 

46W, 13.5 lm/W, 6000 hrs, Long Life HIR 7.43 1 3 

79W, 16.6 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved Halogen 7.88 1 2 

66W, 15.9 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved Halogen 7.88 1 2 

45W, 14 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved Halogen 

2 

7.25 1 1 

70W, 18 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 8.06 4 10 

60W, 17.5 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 8.06 3 8 

42W, 15.1 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 

3 

7.43 3 7 

66W, 19.8 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 9.43 2 5 

55W, 19.1 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 9.43 2 4 

40W, 17 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 

4 

8.80 1 3 

Base Case 

Total 100 100 

86W, 15.3 lm/W, 2500 hrs, Improved Halogen 7.41 31 18 

72W, 14.6 lm/W, 2500 hrs, Improved Halogen 7.41 24 14 

48W, 13.2 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved Halogen 

1 

6.78 20 12 

TSL 1 

83W, 15.9 lm/W, 6000 hrs, Long Life HIR 8.06 2 5 

69W, 15.3 lm/W, 6000 hrs, Long Life HIR 

2 

8.06 2 4 
10-84

46W, 13.5 lm/W, 6000 hrs, Long Life HIR 7.43 1 3 

79W, 16.6 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved Halogen 7.88 1 2 

66W, 15.9 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved Halogen 7.88 1 2 

45W, 14 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved Halogen 7.25 1 1 

70W, 18 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 8.06 4 10 

60W, 17.5 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 8.06 4 8 

42W, 15.1 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 

3 

7.43 3 7 

66W, 19.8 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 9.43 2 5 

55W, 19.1 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 9.43 2 4 

40W, 17 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 

4 

9.80 1 3 

Total 100 100

83W, 15.9 lm/W, 6000 hrs, Long Life HIR 8.06 9 6 

69W, 15.3 lm/W, 6000 hrs, Long Life HIR 8.06 7 4 

46W, 13.5 lm/W, 6000 hrs, Long Life HIR 7.43 8 5 

79W, 16.6 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved Halogen 7.88 22 13 

66W, 15.9 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved Halogen 7.88 17 10 

45W, 14 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved Halogen 

2 

7.25 12 7 

70W, 18 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 8.06 4 7 

60W, 17.5 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 8.06 3 6 

42W, 15.1 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 

3 

7.43 2 5 

66W, 19.8 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 9.43 4 10 

55W, 19.1 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 9.43 4 8 

40W, 17 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 

4 

8.80 3 7 

60W, 21 lm/W, 4200 hrs, Improved HIR Plus 10.02 2 5 

52W, 20.3 lm/W, 4200 hrs, Improved HIR Plus 10.02 2 4 

40W, 19.1 lm/W, 4200 hrs, Improved HIR Plus 

5 

9.39 1 3 

TSL 2 

Total 100 100 

70W, 18 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 8.06 31 18 

60W, 17.5 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 8.06 24 14 

42W, 15.1 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 

3 

7.43 20 12 

66W, 19.8 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 9.43 4 7 

55W, 19.1 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 9.43 3 6 

40W, 17 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 

4 

8.80 2 5 

60W, 21 lm/W, 4200 hrs, Improved HIR Plus 10.02 7 15 

52W, 20.3 lm/W, 4200 hrs, Improved HIR Plus 10.02 5 12 

40W, 19.1 lm/W, 4200 hrs, Improved HIR Plus 

5 

9.39 4 10 

TSL 3 

Total 100 100 

66W, 19.8 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 9.43 31 18 

55W, 19.1 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 9.43 24 14 

40W, 17 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 

4 

8.80 20 12 

60W, 21 lm/W, 4200 hrs, Improved HIR Plus 10.02 10 23 

52W, 20.3 lm/W, 4200 hrs, Improved HIR Plus 10.02 8 18 

40W, 19.1 lm/W, 4200 hrs, Improved HIR Plus 

5 

9.39 7 15 

TSL 4 

Total 100 100 

60W, 21 lm/W, 4200 hrs, Improved HIR Plus 10.02 41 41 

52W, 20.3 lm/W, 4200 hrs, Improved HIR Plus 10.02 32 32 

40W, 19.1 lm/W, 4200 hrs, Improved HIR Plus 

5 

9.39 27 27 

TSL 5 

Total 100 100 

*Base-case input only. 

**Standards-case input only.
10-85

Table 10.59 Standards-Case Market-Share Matrix, For Residential IRL Sockets (Shift RCFL Product Substitution Scenario) 

Stock in 

2011* 

Stock in 

2015** 

Stock in 

TSL Lamp Design EL 2042 Installed 

Lamp Price % % %

90W, 14.6 lm/W, 2500 hrs, Halogen 5.33 41 41 

75W, 14.0 lm/W, 2500 hrs, Halogen 5.33 32 32 

50W, 12.6 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Halogen 

0 

Base Case 

4.70 27 27 

Total 100 100 

86W, 15.3 lm/W, 2500 hrs, Improved Halogen 6.31 40 40 

72W, 14.6 lm/W, 2500 hrs, Improved Halogen 6.31 31 31 

48W, 13.2 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved Halogen 

1 

5.68 26 26 

26W, 50 lm/W, 8000 hrs, Reflector CFL 7.99 1 1 

23W, 52.2 lm/W, 8000 hrs, Reflector CFL 7.99 1 1 

16W, 46.9 lm/W, 8000 hrs, Reflector CFL 6.58 1 1 

TSL 1 

Total 100 100

83W, 15.9 lm/W, 6000 hrs, Long Life HIR 6.96 12 12 

69W, 15.3 lm/W, 6000 hrs, Long Life HIR 6.96 9 9 

46W, 13.5 lm/W, 6000 hrs, Long Life HIR 6.33 7 7 

79W, 16.6 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved Halogen 6.78 28 28 

66W, 15.9 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved Halogen 6.78 21 21 

45W, 14 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved Halogen 

2 

6.15 17 17 

26W, 50 lm/W, 8000 hrs, Reflector CFL 7.99 2 2 

23W, 52.2 lm/W, 8000 hrs, Reflector CFL 7.99 2 2 

16W, 46.9 lm/W, 8000 hrs, Reflector CFL 6.58 2 2 

TSL 2 

Total 100 100 

70W, 18 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 6.96 39 39 

60W, 17.5 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 6.96 30 30 

42W, 15.1 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 

3 

6.33 24 24 

26W, 50 lm/W, 8000 hrs, Reflector CFL 7.99 2 2 

23W, 52.2 lm/W, 8000 hrs, Reflector CFL 7.99 2 2 

16W, 46.9 lm/W, 8000 hrs, Reflector CFL 6.58 3 3 

TSL 3 

Total 100 100 

66W, 19.8 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 8.33 37 37 

55W, 19.1 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 8.33 28 28 

40W, 17 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 

4 

7.70 24 24 

26W, 50 lm/W, 8000 hrs, Reflector CFL 7.99 4 4 

23W, 52.2 lm/W, 8000 hrs, Reflector CFL 7.99 4 4 

16W, 46.9 lm/W, 8000 hrs, Reflector CFL 6.58 3 3 

TSL 4 

Total 100 100 

60W, 21 lm/W, 4200 hrs, Improved HIR Plus 8.92 37 37 

52W, 20.3 lm/W, 4200 hrs, Improved HIR Plus 8.92 28 28 

40W, 19.1 lm/W, 4200 hrs, Improved HIR Plus 8.29 24 24 

26W, 50 lm/W, 8000 hrs, Reflector CFL 7.99 4 4 

23W, 52.2 lm/W, 8000 hrs, Reflector CFL 7.99 4 4 

16W, 46.9 lm/W, 8000 hrs, Reflector CFL 

5 

6.58 3 3 

TSL 5 

Total 100 100 

*Base-case input only. 

**Standards-case input only. 
10-86

Table 10.60 Standards-Case Market-Share Matrix for Commercial IRL Sockets (Roll-up, 

BR Product Substitution Scenario) 

Stock in 

2011* 

Stock in 

2013** 

Stock in 

TSL Lamp Design EL 2042 Installed 

Lamp Price % % %

90W, 14.6 lm/W, 2500 hrs, Halogen 6.43 32 18 

75W, 14.0 lm/W, 2500 hrs, Halogen 6.43 25 14 

50W, 12.6 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Halogen 

0 

5.80 21 12 

83W, 15.9 lm/W, 6000 hrs, Long Life HIR 8.06 2 5 

69W, 15.3 lm/W, 6000 hrs, Long Life HIR 8.06 2 4 

46W, 13.5 lm/W, 6000 hrs, Long Life HIR 7.43 1 3 

79W, 16.6 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved Halogen 7.88 1 2 

66W, 15.9 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved Halogen 7.88 1 2 

45W, 14 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved Halogen 

2 

7.25 1 1 

70W, 18 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 8.06 4 10 

60W, 17.5 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 8.06 3 8 

42W, 15.1 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 

3 

7.43 3 7 

66W, 19.8 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 9.43 2 5 

55W, 19.1 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 9.43 2 4 

40W, 17 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 

4 

8.80 1 3 

Base Case 

Total 100 100 

86W, 15.3 lm/W, 2500 hrs, Improved Halogen 7.41 31 18 

72W, 14.6 lm/W, 2500 hrs, Improved Halogen 7.41 24 14 

48W, 13.2 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved Halogen 

1 

6.78 15 7 

83W, 15.9 lm/W, 6000 hrs, Long Life HIR 8.06 2 5 

69W, 15.3 lm/W, 6000 hrs, Long Life HIR 8.06 2 4 

46W, 13.5 lm/W, 6000 hrs, Long Life HIR 7.43 1 3 

79W, 16.6 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved Halogen 7.88 1 2 

66W, 15.9 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved Halogen 7.88 1 2 

45W, 14 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved Halogen 

2 

7.25 1 1 

70W, 18 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 8.06 4 10 

60W, 17.5 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 8.06 4 8 

42W, 15.1 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 

3 

7.43 3 7 

66W, 19.8 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 9.43 2 5 

55W, 19.1 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 9.43 2 4 

40W, 17 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 

4 

9.80 1 3 

65W, 9.5lm/W, 2000 hrs, BR30 Incandescent IRL 2.63 5 5 

TSL 1 

Total 100 100

83W, 15.9 lm/W, 6000 hrs, Long Life HIR 8.06 10 8 

69W, 15.3 lm/W, 6000 hrs, Long Life HIR 8.06 8 6 

46W, 13.5 lm/W, 6000 hrs, Long Life HIR 7.43 8 6 

79W, 16.6 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved Halogen 7.88 24 18 

66W, 15.9 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved Halogen 7.88 19 14 

45W, 14 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved Halogen 

2 

7.25 12 9 

70W, 18 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 8.06 4 10 

60W, 17.5 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 8.06 4 8 

42W, 15.1 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 

3 

7.43 3 7 

66W, 19.8 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 9.43 2 5 

55W, 19.1 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 9.43 2 4 

40W, 17 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 

4 

9.80 1 3 

65W, 9.5lm/W, 2000 hrs, BR30 Incandescent IRL 2.63 2 2 

TSL 2 

Total 100 100 
10-87

70W, 18 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 8.06 39 36 

60W, 17.5 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 8.06 30 28 

42W, 15.1 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 

3 

7.43 23 21 

66W, 19.8 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 9.43 2 5 

55W, 19.1 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 9.43 2 4 

40W, 17 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 

4 

9.80 1 3 

65W, 9.5lm/W, 2000 hrs, BR30 Incandescent IRL 2.63 3 3 

TSL 3 

Total 100 100 

66W, 19.8 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 9.43 41 41 

55W, 19.1 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 9.43 32 32 

40W, 17 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 

4 

9.80 26 26 

65W, 9.5lm/W, 2000 hrs, BR30 Incandescent IRL 2.63 1 1 

TSL 4 

Total 100 100 

60W, 21 lm/W, 4200 hrs, Improved HIR Plus 10.02 41 41 

52W, 20.3 lm/W, 4200 hrs, Improved HIR Plus 10.02 32 32 

40W, 19.1 lm/W, 4200 hrs, Improved HIR Plus 

5 

9.39 24 24 

TSL 5 

65W, 9.5lm/W, 2000 hrs, BR30 Incandescent IRL 2.63 3 3 

Total 100 100 

*Base-case input only. 

**Standards-case input only.

Table 10.61 Standards-Case Market-Share Matrix, For Residential IRL Sockets (Roll-up, 

BR Product Substitution Scenario) 

Stock in 

2011* 

Stock in 

2015** 

Stock in 

TSL Lamp Design TSL 2042 Installed 

Lamp Price % % %

90W, 14.6 lm/W, 2500 hrs, Halogen 5.33 41 41 

75W, 14.0 lm/W, 2500 hrs, Halogen 5.33 32 32 

50W, 12.6 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Halogen 

0 

Base Case 

4.70 27 27 

Total 100 100 

86W, 15.3 lm/W, 2500 hrs, Improved Halogen 6.31 41 41 

72W, 14.6 lm/W, 2500 hrs, Improved Halogen 6.31 32 32 

48W, 13.2 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved Halogen 

1 

5.68 23 23 

TSL 1 

65W, 9.5lm/W, 2000 hrs, BR30 Incandescent IRL 1.53 4 4 

Total 100 100

83W, 15.9 lm/W, 6000 hrs, Long Life HIR 6.96 12 12 

69W, 15.3 lm/W, 6000 hrs, Long Life HIR 6.96 10 10 

46W, 13.5 lm/W, 6000 hrs, Long Life HIR 6.33 6 6 

79W, 16.6 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved Halogen 6.78 29 29 

66W, 15.9 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved Halogen 6.78 22 22 

45W, 14 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved Halogen 

2 

6.15 14 14 

65W, 9.5lm/W, 2000 hrs, BR30 Incandescent IRL 1.53 6 6 

TSL 2 

Total 100 100 

70W, 18 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 6.96 41 41 

60W, 17.5 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 6.96 32 32 

42W, 14.8 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 

3 

6.33 20 20 

TSL 3 

65W, 9.5lm/W, 2000 hrs, BR30 Incandescent IRL 1.53 7 7 

Total 100 100 

66W, 19.8 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 8.33 41 41 

55W, 19.1 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 8.33 32 32 

TSL 

4 

40W, 17 lm/W, 4000 hrs, Improved HIR 

4 

7.70 14 14 
10-88

65W, 9.5lm/W, 2000 hrs, BR30 Incandescent IRL 1.53 14 14 

Total 100 100 

60W, 21 lm/W, 4200 hrs, Max Tech HIR 8.92 41 41 

52W, 20.3 lm/W, 4200 hrs, Max Tech HIR 8.92 32 32 

40W, 19.1 lm/W, 4200 hrs, Max Tech HIR 

5 

8.29 11 11 

TSL 5 

65W, 9.5lm/W, 2000 hrs, BR30 Incandescent IRL 1.53 16 16 

Total 100 100 

*Base-case input only. 

**Standards-case input only.

10.5 RESULTS 

The following sections show the shipments forecasts for the various TSLs for GSFL and 

IRL. 

10.5.1 General Service Fluorescent Lamps 

10.5.1.1 Shipments Forecasts: Base and Standards-Cases 

Figure 10.5.1 through Figure 10.5.6 present the shipments forecasts for the base case and 

standards-cases for 4-foot medium bipin, 8-foot single pin slimline, 8-foot recessed double 

contact HO, 4-foot T5 standard output and high output lamps in the Existing Technologies, Shift, 

High Expertise Scenario and the Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market-Segment Based 

expertise scenario. These reflect the upper- and lower-bound energy scenarios. 

Quantities of lamp shipments depend on the occurrence of the lamp purchasing events: 

lamp failure, ballast failure, ballast retrofit, and new construction. As discussed earlier, instead 

of using each particular lamp design’s individual lifetime to time lamp replacements, DOE uses 

an average lifetime for each analyzed lamp type. For this reason, the rate of lamp replacement 

does not change between the Shift and Roll-up, High and Market Segment-Based expertise 

standards-case scenarios. In addition, because ballast lifetime does not change, the rate of ballast 

failure is also the same in both scenarios. Because the ballast retrofit rate is an input external to 

the market-share matrices, the rate of occurrence of ballast retrofits are the same for both 

scenarios. Using the Shift or Roll-up scenario and High or Market Segment-Based expertise 

scenario does affect the average lumen output of the lamp-and-ballast systems shipped, and 

therefore the quantities of systems shipped due to renovation, fixture replacement, and new 

construction. However, these market segments compose a fairly small portion of overall lamp 

shipments. Therefore, though presented separately in the following tables when different, the 

upper- and lower-bound scenarios can result in similar quantities of shipments for all GSFL lamp 

types. 

As seen in Figure 10.5.1 and Figure 10.5.2, the standards-case forecasts of 4-foot medium 

bipin lamps experience similar trends as the base case, though at modified rates. In both the base 

case and standards-case, the shipments forecast depicts a decrease in shipments of 4-foot T12 

medium bipin systems, as only 10 percent of these retiring systems are replaced with the same 
system. This trend is matched by a corresponding increase in shipments of 4-foot T8 medium 

bipin systems due to their replacement of T12 systems, an increasing number of lamps per home, 

and growth in lumen demand in the commercial sector. Specifically, 4-foot T8 medium bipin 

shipments increase because they replace 80 percent of 8-foot T12 single pin slimline systems. 

Additionally, with increasing trial standard levels, the early retrofit rates of 4-foot T12 medium 

bipin systems in the commercial sector increase. In the residential sector, at higher TSLs a 

greater portion of consumers replace their retired T12 systems with T8 systems; consequently, a 

greater proportion of residential shipments are T8s as opposed to T12s at higher TSLs. Because 

4-foot T12 medium bipin and 8-foot T12 single pin slimline lamps are no longer standardscompliant at EL4 and EL5, these systems are automatically retrofitted upon lamp failure (i.e., 

there are no T12 lamp shipments at these levels). Both these voluntary retrofits and standardinduced retrofits increase shipments of 4-foot T8 medium bipin lamps and decrease shipments of 

4-foot T12 medium bipin lamps. 

-

100 

200 

300 

400 

500 

600 

700 

800 

2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 

Shipments (millions)

Year

Base Case: 4‐FootMBP T8 Base Case: 4‐FootMBP T12

TSL 1: 4‐FootMBP T8 TSL 1: 4‐FootMBP T12

TSL 2: 4‐FootMBP T8 TSL 2: 4‐FootMBP T12

TSL 3: 4‐FootMBP T8 TSL 3: 4‐FootMBP T12

TSL 4: 4‐FootMBP T8 TSL 4: 4‐FootMBP T12

TSL 5: 4‐FootMBP T8 TSL 5: 4‐FootMBP T12

Figure 10.5.1 Four-Foot Medium Bipin Base Case and Standards-Case Shipments 

Forecasts (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise Scenario) 

10-89
-

100 

200 

300 

400 

500 

600 

700 

2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 

Shipments (millions)

Year

Base Case: 4‐FootMBP T8 Base Case: 4‐FootMBP T12

TSL 1: 4‐FootMBP T8 TSL 1: 4‐FootMBP T12

TSL 2: 4‐FootMBP T8 TSL 2: 4‐FootMBP T12

TSL 3: 4‐FootMBP T8 TSL 3: 4‐FootMBP T12

TSL 4: 4‐FootMBP T8 TSL 4: 4‐FootMBP T12

TSL 5: 4‐FootMBP T8 TSL 5: 4‐FootMBP T12

Figure 10.5.2 Four-Foot Medium Bipin Base Case and Standards-Case Shipments 

Forecasts (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Expertise Scenario) 

As seen in Figure 10.5.3, the standards-case forecasts of 8-foot single pin slimline lamps 

experience similar trends as the base case, though at modified rates. In both the base case and 

standards-case, the shipment forecast depicts a decrease in shipments of 8-foot T12 single pin 

slimline lamps, as only 10 percent of retiring 8-foot T12 single pin slimline magnetic systems are 

replaced with 8-foot T12 electronic systems. Initially, this trend is matched by a corresponding 

increase in shipments of 8-foot T8 single pin slimline lamps due to the replacement of 10 percent 

of 8-foot T12 single pin slimline systems with 8-foot T8 single pin slimline systems. However, 

further into the analysis period, the stock of 8-foot 12 systems declines such that there are not 

enough retiring T12 systems each year for T8 systems to replace and continue positive shipment 

growth. Thus, around 2019—the precise year varies by TSL—8-foot T8 shipments peak and 

begin to fall. Additionally, as with 4-foot medium bipin systems, the early retrofit rates of 8-foot 

T12 single pin slimline systems increase with increasingly TSLs. Because 8-foot T12 single pin 

slimline lamps are no longer standards-compliant at TSL4 and TSL5, these systems are 

automatically retrofitted upon lamp failure (i.e., there are no T12 lamp shipments at these TSLs). 

10-90
There is no difference between the upper- and lower-bound scenarios primarily because 8-foot 

single pin slimline lamps are not modeled to service fixture replacement, renovation, and new 

construction needs, and because average lifetime does not vary by scenario. 

-

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

16 

2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 

Shipments (millions)

Year

Base Case: 8‐Foot SP T8 Base Case: 8‐Foot SP T12

TSL 1: 8‐Foot SP T8 TSL 1: 8‐Foot SP T12

TSL 2: 8‐Foot SP T8 TSL 2: 8‐Foot SP T12

TSL 3: 8‐Foot SP T8 TSL 3: 8‐Foot SP T12

TSL 4: 8‐Foot SP T8 TSL 4: 8‐Foot SP T12

TSL 5: 8‐Foot SP T8 TSL 5: 8‐Foot SP T12

Figure 10.5.3 Eight-Foot Single Pin Slimline Base Case and Standards-Case Shipments 

Forecasts (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise and Emerging Technologies, Rollup, Market Segment-Based Expertise Scenarios) 

As seen in Figure 10.5.4, the standards-case shipment forecasts of 8-foot recessed double 

contact HO lamps are identical to the base case at TSL1, TSL2, and TSL3. The only difference 

between the base case and these standards levels is that higher efficacy lamps are being shipped 

in the standards-cases. However, because 8-foot T12 recessed double contact HO lamps are no 

longer standards-compliant at EL4 and EL5, these systems are automatically retrofitted upon 

lamp failure to 8-foot T8 recessed double contact HO systems (i.e., there are no shipments at 

these TSLs). These ballast retrofits and lamp replacements are a one-to-one replacement, 

resulting in approximately same quantity of T8 shipments in the standards-case as T12 shipments 

in the base case. They are not exactly the same because 8-foot RDC HO T8 lamps have longer 

lifetimes their T12 counterparts. There is no difference between the upper- and lower-bound 

scenarios primarily because 8-foot recessed double contact HO lamps are not modeled to service 

fixture replacement, renovation, and new construction needs. 

10-91
-

2 

4 

6 

8 

10 

12 

14 

16 

18 

20 

2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 

Shipments (millions)

Year

Base Case: 8‐FootHO T8 Base Case: 8‐FootHO T12

TSL 1: 8‐FootHO T8 TSL 1: 8‐FootHO T12

TSL 2: 8‐FootHO T8 TSL 2: 8‐FootHO T12

TSL 3: 8‐FootHO T8 TSL 3: 8‐FootHO T12

TSL 4: 8‐FootHO T8 TSL 4: 8‐FootHO T12

TSL 5: 8‐FootHO T8 TSL 5: 8‐FootHO T12

Figure 10.5.4 Eight-Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Base Case and StandardsCase Shipments Forecasts (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise and Emerging 

Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Expertise Scenarios) 

As seen in Figure 10.5.5 and Figure 10.5.6, the standards case does not significantly vary 

from the base case forecasts of 4-foot T5 MiniBP standard output and high output lamps. These 

two product classes experience similar trends as the base case at slightly modified rates. This 

effect is largely due to the fact that DOE does not directly assume additional shifts to or from 

these product classes in the standards case. 

10-92
-

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 

Shipments (millions)

Year

Base Case: 4‐Foot T5 SO Base Case: 4‐Foot T5 HO

TSL 1: 4‐Foot T5 SO TSL 1: 4‐Foot T5 HO

TSL 2: 4‐Foot T5 SO TSL 2: 4‐Foot T5 HO

TSL 3: 4‐Foot T5 SO TSL 3: 4‐Foot T5 HO

TSL 4: 4‐Foot T5 SO TSL 4: 4‐Foot T5 HO

TSL 5: 4‐Foot T5 SO TSL 5: 4‐Foot T5 HO

Figure 10.5.5 Four-Foot T5 MiniBP Standard Output and High Output Base Case and 

Standards-Case Shipments Forecasts (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise 

Scenario) 

10-93
-

10 

20 

30 

40 

50 

60 

70 

80 

90 

2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044 

Shipments (millions)

Year

Base Case: 4‐Foot T5 SO Base Case: 4‐Foot T5 HO

TSL 1: 4‐Foot T5 SO TSL 1: 4‐Foot T5 HO

TSL 2: 4‐Foot T5 SO TSL 2: 4‐Foot T5 HO

TSL 3: 4‐Foot T5 SO TSL 3: 4‐Foot T5 HO

TSL 4: 4‐Foot T5 SO TSL 4: 4‐Foot T5 HO

TSL 5: 4‐Foot T5 SO TSL 5: 4‐Foot T5 HO

Figure 10.5.6 Four-Foot MiniBP Base Case and Standards-Case Shipments Forecasts 

(Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Expertise Scenario) 

10.5.1.2 Cumulative Shipments Impacts (2012 – 2042) 

Table 10.62 through Table 10.69 show the cumulative shipments impacts from 2012 to 

2042 caused by each of the five standards-cases considered for 4-foot medium bipin, 8-foot 

single pin slimline, 8-foot recessed double contact HO, and 4-foot T5 standard output and high 

output lamps under the Existing Technologies, Shift, High expertise and Emerging Technologies, 

Roll-up, Market Segment-Based expertise scenarios. As discussed earlier, quantities of lamp 

shipments in the standards-case are based on lamp replacement rates, ballast replacement rates, 

shipments due to new construction, and ballast retrofit rates. However, because all lamps within 

a particular product class are assumed to have the same lifetime, lamp replacement rates in the 

base case and standards-case are equivalent. In addition, because the ballast lifetime never varies 

within a particular market sector, ballast replacement rates are equivalent in the base case and 

standards case. The only aspects that do vary are the shipments due to new construction 

(because average lumen outputs per system vary), and ballast retrofit rates (for 4-foot medium 

bipin and 8-foot single pin slimline systems). 

10-94
10-95

Table 10.62 and Table 10.63 and show that as ballast retrofit rates increase with standard 

levels, 4-foot medium bipin cumulative lamp shipments generally increase as well. With higher 

retrofit rates, consumers are discarding their existing, working lamps and therefore must make 

more total lamp purchases. However, the average lumen output per system affects these 

cumulative shipments as well. For example, as seen in Table 10.62 a high average lumen output 

per lamp system at TSL5 results in fewer shipments due to new construction, and therefore fewer 

cumulative shipments. 

Table 10.62 Four-Foot Medium Bipin Lamp: Cumulative Shipments Impacts Caused by 

Standards, 2012–2042 (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise Scenario) 

Trial Standard Level Cumulative Impacts (millions of lamps) 

1 25 

2 54 

3 269 

4 537 

5 335 

Table 10.63 Four-Foot Medium Bipin Lamp: Cumulative Shipments Impacts Caused by 

Standards, 2012–2042 (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Expertise 

Scenario) 

Trial Standard Level Cumulative Impacts (millions of lamps) 

1 25 

2 54 

3 119 

4 211 

5 280 
10-96

 Because DOE assumed no 8-foot single pin slimline and 8-foot recessed double contact 

HO markets due to new construction, cumulative shipment impacts do not vary when changing 

the technology mix of shipments. Error! Reference source not found. Table 10.64 and Table 

10.65 present cumulative shipments impacts for both the lower- and upper-bound scenarios for 

8-foot single pin slimline and 8-foot recessed double contact HO lamps, respectively. For the 

former, cumulative impacts decrease with increasing trial standard levels because of the large 

number of 8-foot single pin slimline systems that experience an early turnover to 4-foot medium 

bipin systems. For both 8-foot single pin slimline and 8-foot recessed double contact HO lamps, 

cumulative impacts decrease at TSL4 and TSL5 when standards phase out T12 lamps of this 

type. In turn, while the shipment model in the industrial sector does not incorporate retrofits, 

cumulative shipment impacts for 8-foot recessed double contact HO lamps exist because there is 

a ballast lifetime difference between T8 and T12 systems of this product class, resulting in the 

cumulative impacts show in Table 10.65. 

Table 10.64 Eight-Foot Single Pin Slimline: Cumulative Shipments Impacts Caused by 

Standards, 2012–2042 (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Scenarios) 

Trial Standard Level Cumulative Impacts (millions of lamps) 

1 (45) 

2 (55) 

3 (61) 

4 (92) 

5 (92) 

Table 10.65 Eight-Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output: Cumulative Shipments 

Impacts Caused by Standards, 2012–2042 (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise 

Scenario and Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based Scenarios) 

Trial Standard Level Cumulative Impacts (millions of lamps) 

1 - 

2 - 

3 - 

4 (68.0) 

5 (68.0) 

As shown in Table 10.66 and Table 10.69, 4-foot T5 MiniBP standard and high output 

lamps exhibit small differences cumulative impacts from standards in the Existing Technologies, 

Shift, High expertise and Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based scenarios 

because average lumen output increases only slightly in the Shift scenario. Impacts are roughly 

flat until TSL5 when a higher average lumen output causes fewer lamps to be shipped to service 

lumen demand. Similar to other product classes, 4-foot T5 MiniBP standard output shipment 

impacts generally decrease due to the higher average system lumen output of these lamps. Fourfoot T5 MiniBP high output shipments impacts are approximately equivalent at each TSL as 

there is only one efficacy level for this product class. 
10-97

Table 10.66 Four-Foot T5 MiniBP Standard Output: Cumulative Shipments Impacts 

Caused by Standards, 2012–2042 (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise Scenario) 

Trial Standard Level Cumulative Impacts (millions of lamps) 

1 (71.01) 

2 (69.40) 

3 (63.17) 

4 (53.53) 

5 (59.14) 

Table 10.67 Four-Foot T5 MiniBP Standard Output: Cumulative Shipments Impacts 

Caused by Standards, 2012–2042 (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based 

Expertise Scenario) 

Trial Standard Level Cumulative Impacts (millions of lamps) 

1 (40.73) 

2 (39.15) 

3 (36.08) 

4 (30.65) 

5 (55.89) 

Table 10.68 Four-Foot T5 MiniBP High Output: Cumulative Shipments Impacts Caused 

by Standards, 2012–2042 (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise Scenario) 

Trial Standard Level Cumulative Impacts (millions of lamps) 

1 (78.5) 

2 (78.5) 

3 (78.5) 

4 (78.5) 

5 (78.5) 

Table 10.69 Four-Foot T5 MiniBP High Output: Cumulative Shipments Impacts Caused 

by Standards, 2012–2042 (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Market Segment-Based 

ExpertiseScenario) 

Trial Standard Level Cumulative Impacts (millions of lamps) 

1 (56.3) 

2 (56.3) 

3 (56.3) 

4 (56.3) 

5 (56.3) 

10.5.2 Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

 This section presents shipment results for the IRL shipment scenarios. The results for the 

10-percent lumen increase sensitivity scenarios are presented in Appendix 10B. 
10.5.2.1 Shipments Forecasts: Base and Standards-Cases 

Figure 10.5.7 and Figure 10.5.8 present shipments forecasts for the base case and 

standards-cases for IRL. These two shipment forecasts can be characterized as the lower- and 

upper-bound energy savings scenarios. 

Figure 10.5.7 displays the IRL base case in the Emerging Technologies scenario and the 

standards-case shipment forecasts for the Roll-up, BR Product Substitution scenario. At TSL1, 

consumers who in the base case purchase halogen IRL (some of which are 2,500 hours), instead 

purchase improved halogen IRL (with a lifetime of 3,000 hours) in the standards-case. 

Similarly, at TSL2 all consumers purchase HIR IRL with a lifetime of 3,000 hours. Because the 

lifetimes of the TSL1 and TSL2 lamp designs are longer than those of the base case lamps, lamp 

replacements occur less frequently, thereby causing a reduction in shipments. The longer 

lifetimes (4,000 hours) of improved halogen lamps designs at TSL3 cause an even further 

reduction in IRL shipments. Similar trends occur at TSL4 and TSL5 as the lamps shipped at 

these standard levels are 4,000 hours and 4,200 hours in lifetime, respectively. 

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

Shipments (billions)

Year

IRL - Base Case IRL - TSL1

IRL - TSL2 IRL - TSL3

IRL - TSL4 IRL - TSL5

Add'l BR - TSL1 Add'l BR - TSL2

Add'l BR - TSL3 Add'l BR - TSL4

Add'l BR - TSL5

Figure 10.5.7 IRL Base Case and Standards-Case Shipment Forecasts (Emerging 

Technologies, Roll-up, BR Product Substitution Scenario) 

Figure 10.5.8 displays IRL shipments in Existing Technologies base case and shipments for the 

Shift, R-CFL Product Substitution standards-case scenario. Again, shipments in the standards10-98
cases are lower than the base case shipments due to the integration of longer lifetime lamp 

designs. 

10-99

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

Shipments (billions)

Year

IRL - Base Case IRL - TSL1

IRL - TSL2 IRL - TSL3

IRL - TSL4 IRL - TSL5

Add'l RCFL - TSL1 Add'l RCFL - TSL2

Add'l RCFL - TSL3 Add'l RCFL - TSL4

Add'l RCFL - TSL5

Figure 10.5.8 IRL Base Case and Standards-Case Shipments Forecasts (Existing 

Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Product Substitution Scenario) 

 

Figure 10.5.9 and Figure 10.5.10 present shipments forecasts for the same base case and 

standards-cases shown above, but in the Baseline Lifetime scenario. As shown in the figures, the 

only difference is that at TSL4 and TSL5 there are more shipments than in the normal lifetime 

scenario. (As discussed in section 10.4.2.1, DOE analyzed this scenario only at TSL 4 and TSL 

5). This effect occurs because the average lifetime in this scenario is lower than the average 

lifetime in the normal lifetime scenario, resulting in the need for greater lamp replacement 

shipments. TSL 5 results in more shipments than the base case because the average lifetime of 

covered IRL in Baseline Lifetime scenario is lower than the average lifetime of covered IRL in 

the base case. This occurs because the base case assumes a distribution that includes longer-life 

lamps, while TSL 5 only has 2,500-hour lamps. 
0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

Shipments (billions)

Year

IRL - Base Case IRL - TSL1

IRL - TSL2 IRL - TSL3

IRL - TSL4 IRL - TSL5

Add'l BR - TSL1 Add'l BR - TSL2

Add'l BR - TSL3 Add'l BR - TSL4

Add'l BR - TSL5

Figure 10.5.9 IRL Base Case and Standards-Case Shipments Forecasts (Existing 

Technologies, Shift, BR Product Substitution Scenario, Baseline Lifetime Scenario) 

10-100
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

Shipments (billions)

Year

IRL - Base Case IRL - TSL1

IRL - TSL2 IRL - TSL3

IRL - TSL4 IRL - TSL5

Add'l RCFL - TSL1 Add'l RCFL - TSL2

Add'l RCFL - TSL3 Add'l RCFL - TSL4

Add'l RCFL - TSL5

Figure 10.5.10 IRL Base Case and Standards-Case Shipments Forecasts (Existing 

Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Product Substitution Scenario, Baseline Lifetime Scenario) 

10.5.2.2 Cumulative Shipments Impacts (2012–2042) 

Table 10.70 through Table 10.73 present cumulative shipment impacts for the upper- and 

lower-bound energy savings scenarios, with the normal and Baseline Lifetimes. Shipment 

impacts are associated with the increased lifetime of standards-case lamps. The longer the 

lifetime of standards-case lamps, the greater the impact on shipments due to fewer lamps needing 

to be replaced each year. 

Table 10.70 Incandescent Reflector Lamps: Cumulative Shipments Impacts Caused by 

Standards, 2012–2042 (Existing Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Product Substitution Scenario) 

TSL Shipments (billions) 

IRL (non exempt) 65WBR30 R-CFL 

1 -0.105 0.000 0.038 

2 -1.248 0.000 0.056 

3 -0.819 0.000 0.069 

10-101
10-102

4 -1789 0.000 0.111 

5 -1.903 0.000 0.111 

Table 10.71 Incandescent Reflector Lamps: Cumulative Shipments Impacts Caused by 

Standards, 2012–2042 (Existing Technologies, Shift, R-CFL Product Substitution Scenario, 

Baseline Lifetime) 

TSL Shipments (billions) 

IRL (non exempt) 65WBR30 R-CFL 

4 -0.425 0.000 0.111 

5 0.243 0.000 0.111 

Table 10.72 Incandescent Reflector Lamps: Cumulative Shipments Impacts Caused by 

Standards, 2012–2042 (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, BR Product Substitution) 

TSL Shipments (billions) 

IRL (non exempt) 65WBR30 R-CFL 

1 0.042 0.134 0.000 

2 -0.570 0.216 0.000 

3 -0.247 0.228 0.000 

4 -0.678 0.437 0.000 

5 -0.695 0.531 0.000 

Table 10.73 Incandescent Reflector Lamps: Cumulative Shipments Impacts Caused by 

Standards, 2012–2042 (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, BR Product Substitution, Baseline 

Lifetime) 

TSL Shipments (billions) 

IRL (non exempt) 65WBR30 R-CFL 

4 0.162 0.437 0.000 

5 0.250 0.531 0.000 

 
10-103

 

REFERENCES 

1 National Electrical Manufacturers Association. 2006. No. 12 at p. 7. This written comment, 

document number 12, is available in Docket # EE–2006–STD–0131. For more information, 

contact Brenda Edwards-Jones at (202) 586-2945. 

2

 RLW Analytics, Inc. “California Statewide Residential Lighting and Appliance Efficiency 

Saturation Survey.” Sonoma, CA. August 2005. 

 

3

 RLW Analytics, Inc. “California Statewide Residential Lighting and Appliance Efficiency 

Saturation Survey.” Sonoma, CA: RLW Analytics, Inc. 

4

 U.S. Census Bureau. Manufacturing, Mining, and Construction Statistics. “Net Privately 

Owned Housing Unit Starts.” http://www.census.gov/const/startsan.pdf 

5 Multi-Year Program Plan FY’10 to FY’15: Solid-State Lighting Research and Development. 

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy. 

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/ssl/ssl_mypp2009_web.pdf

6 Because they are based on an existing LED retrofit kit, DOE’s projections did not consider 

innovations in form factor or OLED technology which could improve the possible payback 

period for solid-state lighting technologies .

7

 DiLouie, Craig. “Introducing the T5 Lamp.” Power Outlet. Vol. 4, No. 3. 

8

 U.S. Census Bureau. Current Industrial Reports, Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts: 2005: Table 1. 

Summary of Shipments of Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts: 1995 to 2005. 2006. Washington, D.C. 

<http://www.census.gov/industry/1/mq335c055.pdf>. 

 

9

 U.S. Census Bureau. Current Industrial Reports, Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts: 2005: Table 1. 

Summary of Shipments of Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts: 1992 to 2002. 2003. Washington, D.C. 

<http://www.census.gov/industry/1/mq335c025.pdf>. 

10 This written comment, document number 17, was submitted in response to the Energy 

Conservation Program for Commercial and Industrial Equipment: High-Intensity Discharge 

(HID) Lamps and is available in Docket # EE–DET-03-001. 

11 New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. Incandescent Reflector Lamps 

Study of Proposed Energy Efficiency Standards for New York State. 2006 (Last accessed 

October 7, 2006) <http://www.nyserda.org/publications/Report%2006-07-Complete%20reportweb.pdf> The October 7, 2006 material from this website is available in Docket # EE–2006–

STD–0131. For more information, contact Brenda Edwards-Jones at (202) 586-2945. 
10-104

 

12 DiLouie, Craig, “Lighting Controls: Current Use, Major Trends and Future Direction,” 

Lighting Controls Association (2003).

13 VonNeida, Bill; Maniccia, Dorene; Tweed, Alan, An Analysis of the Energy and Cost 

Savings Potential of Occupancy Sensors for Commercial Lighting Systems, Lighting Research 

Center and Environmental Protection Agency (August 2000).