7B-i 

APPENDIX 7B. RARE EARTH PHOSPHOR AVAILABILITY AND PRICING 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

7B.1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE .............................................................................7B-1

7B.2 RARE EARTH PHOSPHOR COMPOSITION ............................................................7B-2

7B.3 SUPPLY CHAIN AND APPLICATIONS ....................................................................7B-3

7B.4 RARE EARTH MARKET .............................................................................................7B-4

7B.5 IMPACT OF STANDARDS .........................................................................................7B-5

REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................................7B-7

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 7B.2.1 General Chemical Formulas for Key Phosphors ..................................................7B-2

Table 7B.2.2 Average Rare Earth Phosphor Composition ........................................................7B-3

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 7B.3.1 Rare Earth Application by Volume ....................................................................7B-4
7B-1

APPENDIX 7B. RARE EARTH PHOSPHOR AVAILABILITY AND PRICING 

7B.1 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE 

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has identified higher efficiency phosphors as a 

technology option that can be used to increase the efficacy of general service fluorescent lamps 

(GSFLs). (See chapter 3 of this preliminary technical support document [TSD].) Specifically, the 

use of narrow-band rare earth phosphors (containing the rare earth elements yttrium[Y], 

europium [Eu], and terbium [Tb]) can improve lamp efficacy by increasing ultraviolet (UV) 

radiation absorption and emission of radiation in the visible spectrum relative to other phosphors. 

DOE is considering higher efficiency phosphors as a design option in this rulemaking. 

Manufacturers expressed concern during the previous energy conservation standards 

rulemaking, published in July 2009 (hereafter, the “2009 Lamps Rule”) that higher GSFL 

standards would necessitate large increases in the demand for the more costly rare earth 

phosphor blends.a

74 FR 34080 (July 14, 2009). Depending on the lamp type, rare earth 

phosphors can be the highest input material cost of a GSFL. Thus, in the 2009 Lamps Rule, DOE 

analyzed the rare earth phosphor market and concluded that the rare earth phosphor supply 

would meet the expected increased demand of rare earth phosphors that would result from 

energy conservation standards. For this rulemaking, manufacturers again expressed concern that 

limited rare earth availability (due to restrictions from China) would increase costs substantially. 

See chapter 2 of this TSD for more details. China, which controls at least 97 percent of the rare 

earth market, has added tariffs and capped exports; the production quota in 2011 was 21 percent 

less than in 2010.1

At the time of this analysis, many manufacturersbhad been granted exception relief 

exempting their 700 series T8 lamps from the standards adopted by the 2009 Lamps Rule 

(requiring compliance in July 2012, hereafter “July 2012 standards”) for a period of two years. 

The waiver was granted due to the global supply restrictions on rare earth phosphors, the rising 

world demand of these phosphors, and the resulting impacts on producing higher efficacy 

GSFLs.2

DOE understands that supply and demand of rare earth phosphors should be considered 

when evaluating amended standards for GSFLs. Therefore, DOE is assessing the potential 

impact of standards that may result from this rulemaking on the requirement for rare earth 

phosphors and subsequent cost to the consumer. This appendix reflects DOE’s preliminary 

findings. 

 

a

 The full text and all related documents of the 2009 Lamps Rule can be found on regulations.gov, docket number 

EERE-2006-STD-0131, at www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2006-STD-0131. 

b

 At the time of this analysis, the following manufacturers had been granted exception relief exempting their 700 

series T8 lamps from current standards: Philips, GE, OSI, Ushio America, Halco Lighting Technologies, Premium 

Quality Lighting, Inc., Tailored Lighting, Inc., Litetronics International, Inc., Satco Products, Inc., DLU Lighting 

USA, Westinghouse Lighting Corporation, Ascent Battery Supply, LLC, Eiko, Ltd, and Topaz Lighting 

Corporation. 
7B-2

7B.2 RARE EARTH PHOSPHOR COMPOSITION 

Rare earths are commercially defined to include 17 elements that have similar chemical 

properties. A small subgroup of these rare earth elements exhibit luminescence, some of which 

are critical to high-performance GSFLs. During the operation of common GSFLs, cathodes that 

seal each end of the lamp emit a flow of electrons that reacts with mercury vapor in the lamp and 

emits invisible UV radiation. To convert this UV radiation into visible light, manufacturers coat 

the inside of the lamp’s glass with a fluorescent powder of blended elements, or phosphor. These 

phosphors generate visible light when struck by UV rays. In high-performance GSFLs, this 

phosphor blend includes rare earth materials. 

 The phosphor powders that manufacturers use in GSFLs can be divided into two groups: 

halophosphor blends and triband phosphor blends, the latter of which contain rare earth 

elements. Halophosphor blends are much less costly than those containing rare earth elements, 

but halophosphor blends are also less efficient and produce lower quality light. For some less 

efficacious GSFLs, manufacturers coat the lamp glass tubes with only halophosphor blends. 

However, fluorescent lamps now use three narrow-band rare earth phosphors (containing Y, Eu, 

and Tb) that emit light in the short, middle, and long wavelength ranges (i.e., near 450, 550, and 

610 nm3) of the visible spectrum. Lamps that meet the July 2012 standards predominately use 

triband phosphors; the more efficient fluorescent lamps exclusively use these triband phosphors.4

Coating a lamp with a layer of triband phosphors, in addition to or in place of halophosphors, 

increases efficacy while dramatically improving color quality and lumen maintenance. The 

precise blend and weight of the phosphor mixes also influence the color correlated temperature 

(CCT) and the color rendering index (CRI). 

Generally, in high-performance GSFLs, manufacturers combine a blend of three rare 

earth phosphors: one that emits green light, one that emits red light, and one that emits blue light. 

These “triband” or “triphosphor” lamps require the use of varying amounts of rare earth elements 

(in addition to other elements) in the red, green, and blue phosphors. Specifically, there are five 

critical or near-critical rare earth elements that are commonly used in the triband phosphor 

blends: Y, Eu, Tb, lanthanum (La), and cerium (Ce). These elements work to emit light at the 

wavelengths to which human eyes are most sensitive. Y and Eu are used in the red phosphor; Tb, 

La, and Ce are common to the green phosphor; and Eu is used in the blue phosphor. Table 7B.2.1

displays general chemical formulas for each color phosphor (there are two common options for 

blue).

Table 7B.2.1 General Chemical Formulas for Key Phosphors 

Phosphor Color Chemical Formula

Red Y2O3:Eu

Green LaPO4:Ce,Tb

Blue #1 BaMgAl10O17:Eu

Blue #2 (Sr,Ca,Ba)5(PO4)3Cl:Eu

 After each color phosphor is manufactured, the phosphors are blended together for use in 

triband phosphor fluorescent lamps. The triband phosphor typically contains 60 percent rare 

earths by weight. The amount of rare earth material in each phosphor color can vary by 
7B-3

manufacturer and application requirements. Table 7B.2.2 presents a breakdown of the average 

rare earth composition of triband phosphor.5

Table 7B.2.2 Average Rare Earth Phosphor Composition 

Element Total Rare Earth Content

Lanthanum 22.0%

Cerium 6.5%

Europium 4.5%

Terbium 5.0%

Yttrium 62.0%

7B.3 SUPPLY CHAIN AND APPLICATIONS 

 Hundreds of mining firms, mostly in China, extract rare-earth-containing material from 

the ground. Rare earths are mined primarily from bastnӓsite, monazite, and xenotime ores, as 

well as ion-adsorption clay. Naturally mixed in with many other elements, rare earths must be 

concentrated through a series of separation processes to distill the rare earth elements from the 

ore. Most of the mining firms also perform the initial stages of this concentration process. The 

two principal means of separating rare earths are solvent extraction and ion exchange, either of 

which can yield purities up to 99.999 percent.6The most critical rare earths for lighting 

applications are Y, Eu, and Tb. Very high levels of purity (99.99 percent or greater) are 

necessary for these phosphors in lighting applications, which increases the cost to lamp 

manufacturers. One of the difficulties associated with processing rare earths such as Y, Eu, and 

Tb, is that achieving the required purity levels can be very expensive, requiring these mining 

companies to find markets for other materials beyond rare earths such as indium, gallium, and 

germanium. These byproducts are subject to large fluctuations in price, which can affect the 

market for the key rare earths for lighting as a result.7

 Next, the concentrated rare earth product is usually shipped to a handful of phosphor 

manufacturers who further process the rare earths to higher levels of purity and/or manufacture 

the phosphor. For lighting applications, the phosphor manufacturer may sell the individual 

colored phosphors or the mixed triband phosphor to lamp manufacturers. In other instances, 

lamp manufacturers may perform the phosphor blending in-house. 

 

 Rare earth materials, including phosphors, have found an increasing range of practical 

applications in recent decades. Aside from the energy efficiency applications, rare earths are 

used in automotive catalysts, metals and magnets, petroleum catalysts, glass polishing, and 

ceramics. The industry has also experienced significant demand growth in recent years for use in 

electric and hybrid vehicles. In particular, Y and Eu are used in communication devices and as 

the red phosphor in televisions and liquid crystal displays (LCDs). Y is also used as a strengthenhancing additive to alloys of aluminum and magnesium and as an electrolyte component in 

fuel cells. Tb is utilized in electric motors and as an additive to neodymium-iron-boron 

permanent magnets. La and Ce are used as additives in fluid catalytic cracking processes for 

petroleum refining, and are also employed in nickel metal hydride batteries such as those found 

in hybrid and electric vehicles.8 9
7B-4

Figure 7B.3.1 shows the market breakdown of rare earth oxide c 10 demand in 2010.11 As 

of 2010, phosphors account for about 7 percent of rare earth consumption. There are three main 

applications within this subgroup: televisions (plasma, LCD, and cathode ray tube), triband 

phosphor fluorescent lamps, and X-ray intensifying screens. Currently, there are few, if any, 

suitable substitutes in most applications, including high-efficiency GSFLs. 

Figure 7B.3.1 Rare Earth Application by Volume 

Source: Industrial Minerals Company of Australia, March 2011. 

7B.4 RARE EARTH MARKET 

 Historically, unstable supply and demand and significant price fluctuations have been the 

norm in the rare earth market. The 1980s saw rapidly increasing demand, followed by substantial 

oversupply in the 1990s when China entered the market and quickly established a dominant 

market position.12 Prior to China’s arrival as the dominant supplier of rare earths, most 

production came from the United States. By the late 1990s, China’s low-cost supply had driven 

down prices, causing many U.S. suppliers to cut or cease operations. China currently controls 

roughly 97 percent of the rare earth market and has continued to impose significant supply 

constraints through the use of export quotas and tariffs.13 These restrictions have gradually 

increased in strictness between 2005 and 2011. However, development of several large scale rare 

earth production facilities in the United States, Australia, and South Africa is expected between 

2012 and 2015. Major rare earth mining companies opening these new facilities include 

Molycorp, Great Western Minerals Group, Lynas Corporation, and Alkane Resources.14

 Demand for rare earth phosphors is projected to grow rapidly through 2015. Trends 

towards greater energy efficiency and growth in compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) are driving 

this increase in demand, though long-term forecasts indicate a slowing of this trend due to 

 

c

 Rare earth elements have a strong affinity for oxygen and therefore are mainly present as oxides and reported in 

terms of rare earth oxides.

Magnets, 21%

Metal Alloys, 

18%

Catalysts, 20%

Polishing, 15%

Glass, 9%

Phosphors, 7%

Ceramics, 6% Other, 6%
7B-5

increasing prevalence of light-emitting diode (LED) lamps. Due to the unstable supply and 

demand, rare earth phosphor prices are currently extremely volatile, with price increases of up to 

500 percent for Eu and Tb.15 For additional information on the rare earth market, refer to the 

DOE Critical Materials Strategy (CMS)dand the Decision and Order considering the 

Applications for Exception filed by Philips Lighting Company, GE Lighting, and OSRAM 

SYLVANIA, Inc. granted by the DOE Office of Hearing and Appeals.e

7B.5 IMPACT OF STANDARDS 

 DOE recognizes significant price increases of rare earth phosphors are likely given the 

actions of China and expected increase in demand. Therefore, DOE conducted a sensitivity 

analysis to address the potential increases in end-user lamp prices attributable to greater 

phosphor input costs. DOE compared the life-cycle cost (LCC) savings due to purchasing higher 

efficacy GSFLs (as calculated in chapter 8 of this TSD) to LCC savings under scenarios with 

higher phosphor prices. Additionally, in the national impact analysis (NIA), DOE conducted a 

sensitivity analysis that evaluated the impact of rare earth phosphor prices by developing 

shipment scenarios based on high, medium, and low prices of rare earth phosphors. (See chapters 

9, 10, and appendix 9B of this TSD for further details of this analysis.) 

To analyze the impact of higher phosphor prices on the consumer, DOE compared the 

LCC savings due to purchasing higher efficacy GSFLs (as calculated in chapter 8 of this TSD) to 

LCC savings from these purchases in a scenario with higher phosphor prices. For this analysis, 

DOE assumed that the cost of the lamp to the end-user would need to increase by at least the 

same amount as the LCC savings before the cost of rare earth phosphors negatively impacted 

consumer savings. Because the LCC savings represent savings to the end-user, DOE divided 

LCC savings by the markup used in the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) of the 2009 Lamps 

Rule to determine how much the rare earth phosphor manufacturing cost would impact the enduser. DOE assumed that this cost increase would be attributable only to the increase in the cost of 

rare earth phosphors. 

DOE first determined the quantity of rare earth phosphor required to achieve the desired 

efficacy of GSFLs in each product class (i.e., by lamp type) using the high-efficiency (800 and 

800P series) fluorescent lamp estimates provided in the CMS. DOE then determined the cost of 

the rare earth phosphors to the manufacturers considering the quantity of each phosphor required 

and the current estimated cost of each phosphor type. DOE calculated that the average cost per 

weight to manufacturers of rare earth phosphor used in the fluorescent lamps covered is

approximately $0.20 per gram at current phosphor prices. Next, by applying manufacturer and 

retail markups, DOE analyzed how much this rare earth phosphor cost could increase before it 

would negatively impact LCC savings for each candidate standard level (CSL). DOE focused on 

CSLs that had been determined to result in positive LCC savings. 

 

d

 U.S. Department of Energy. Critical Materials Strategy. December 2011. Accessible here: 

http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/DOE_CMS2011_FINAL_Full.pdf. 

e Philips Lighting Company, et al. OHA Case Nos. EXC-12-0001, EXC-12-0002, EXC-12-0003 (2012). Accessible 

here: http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/oha/EE/EXC-12-0001thru03.pdf. 
7B-6

For the 2-lamp instant start (IS) system pairing in the 4-foot medium bipin (MBP) 

product class, phosphor prices could increase more than three times before negatively impacting 

LCC savings at both CSL 1 and CSL 2. For the 2-lamp programmed start (PS) system pairing in 

the 4-foot MBP product class, phosphor prices could increase at least five times before resulting 

in negative LCC savings at CSL 2 for the reduced wattage representative lamp units. Consumers 

face negative LCC savings for this system pairing at CSL 1 and at CSL 2 for the full wattage 

representative lamp unit.

For the 4-lamp IS system pairing in the 4-foot MBP product class, phosphor prices could 

increase at least three times at CSL 1 and at least two times at CSL 2 before negatively impacting 

LCC savings. For the 4-lamp PS system pairing in the 4-foot MBP product class, phosphor 

prices could increase more than five times before resulting in negative LCC savings at CSL 2 for 

the reduced wattage representative lamp units. Consumers already face negative LCC savings at 

CSL 1 and at CSL 2 for the full wattage representative lamp unit.

In the residential sector, for the 2-lamp IS system pairing in the 4-foot MBP product 

class, phosphor prices could increase 80 percent before consumers would experience negative 

LCC savings at CSL 1. For the same system pairing at CSL 2, phosphor prices may only increase 

30 percent before resulting in negative LCC savings for a reduced wattage representative lamp 

unit. Consumers already face negative LCC savings at CSL 2 for the full wattage representative 

lamp unit and some reduced wattage representative lamp unitsf.

For 8-foot single pin slimline lamps, phosphor prices can only increase approximately 5 

percent before resulting in negative LCC savings at CSL 1. For 8-foot recessed double contact 

high output (HO) lamps, consumers experience negative LCC savings at CSL 1. 

For 4-foot T5 miniature bipin (MiniBP) standard output lamps, phosphor prices could 

increase about 50 percent before consumers would experience negative LCC savings at CSL 1. 

Similarly, DOE determined that for 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps, phosphor prices can increase 

approximately 70 percent before resulting in negative LCC savings at CSL 1. 

Based on the analysis above, DOE concludes that the CSLs are achievable even with 

potential variability in rare earth phosphor prices. DOE will, however, continue to examine the 

impacts of rare earth phosphor availability in relation to standards for GSFLs during the course 

of this rulemaking. 

 

f

 While consumers experience positive LCC savings for the 25 W representative lamp unit in the lamp replacement 

scenario, they face negative LCC savings for this representative lamp unit in the lamp-and-ballast replacement 

scenario. 
7B-7

REFERENCES 

1

Philips Lighting Company, et al. OHA Case Nos. EXC-12-0001, EXC-12-0002, EXC-12-0003 

(2012). (Last accessed: October 22, 2012.) <http://www.oha.doe.gov/cases/ee/EXC-12-

0001thru03.pdf> 

2

 Ibid. 

3

Srivastava, Alok M. and Sommerer, Timothy J. Fluorescent Lamp Phosphors. Interface. 1998. 

7(2): pp. 28-31. (Last accessed: February 1, 2013.) 

<http://www.electrochem.org/dl/interface/sum/sum98/IF6-98-Page28-31.pdf> 

4

Philips Lighting Company, et al. OHA Case Nos. EXC-12-0001, EXC-12-0002, EXC-12-0003 

(2012). (Last accessed: October 22, 2012.) <http://www.oha.doe.gov/cases/ee/EXC-12-

0001thru03.pdf> 

5 U.S. Department of Energy. Critical Materials Strategy. December 2011. (Last accessed 

December 18, 2012.) <http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/DOE_CMS2011_FINAL_Full.pdf> 

6

“Facts.” Metall Rare Earth Limited. 2011. (Last accessed November 27, 2012.)

<http://www.metall.com.cn/re/facts.htm>

7 American Physical Society Panel on Public Affairs. Securing Materials for Emerging 

Technologies. American Physical Society and Materials Research Society. Washington, DC. 

February 2011. 

8 U.S. Department of Energy. Critical Materials Strategy. December 2011. (Last accessed 

December 18, 2012.) <http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/DOE_CMS2011_FINAL_Full.pdf> 

9 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Rare Earth Elements: A Review of Production, 

Processing, Recycling, and Associated Environmental Issues. 2012. National Risk Management 

Research Laboratory Office of Research and Development: Cincinnati, OH. Report No. EPA 

600/R-12/572. 

10 Ibid. 

11 Kingsnorth, Dudley J. Industrial Minerals Company of Australia. Meeting the Challenges of 

Supply this Decade. Presentation for the Environmental and Energy Study Institute. Washington, 

DC. March 2011. 

12 Haxel, Gordon B., Hedrick, James B., and Orris, Greta J. Rare Earth Elements—Critical 

Resources for High Technology. United States Geological Survey. November 2002. 

13 Philips Lighting Company, et al. OHA Case Nos. EXC-12-0001, EXC-12-0002, EXC-12-0003 

(2012). (Last accessed October 22, 2012.) <http://www.oha.doe.gov/cases/ee/EXC-12-

0001thru03.pdf> 
7B-8

14 U.S. Department of Energy. Critical Materials Strategy. December 2011. (Last accessed 

December 18, 2012.) <http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/DOE_CMS2011_FINAL_Full.pdf> 

15 Ibid.