### 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 Se ctors, and Market Segments............. 10-2

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

10.2.1.3 Lamp-and-Ballast System Replacemen t (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 Installe d 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 Installe d 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 Ba llast 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 Matr ix for Eight-Foot T8 Single Pin Slimline

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

Table 10.9 Base Case Market-Share Matr ix 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 Ma trix for Eight-Foot T8 Recessed Double

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

Table 10.12 Base Case Market-Share Ma trix 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-Ba sed Likelihood of Hi gh Lighting Expertise ... 10-41

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

Table 10.20 Description of Base Case a nd 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 Comm ercial 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 Resi dential Sector (Shift and Roll-up

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medium Bipin Systems in the Commer cial Sector (Market Segment-Based

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

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

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

Table 10.29 Standards-Case New Ballast Ma rket-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 Ma rket-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T12

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

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

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

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

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

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

Medium Bipin Systems in the Resi dential 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 Mark et-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T8 Single

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

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

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

Table 10.39 Standards-Case New Ballast Ma rket-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 Ma rket-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 Ma rket-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T12

Recessed Double Contact High Output New Ballast System s (Shift

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

Table 10.44 Standards-Case New Ballast Ma rket-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 Balla st 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 Ma rket-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T5

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table 10.54 Standards-Case Market-Share Ma trix 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 Medi um 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 Ma trix for Commercial IRL Sockets (Shift,

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

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

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

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

Table 10.61 Standards-Case Market-Share Ma trix, 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 Cont act High Output: Cum ulative Shipments

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

High Expertise Scenario and Emergi ng 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 Out put: Cumulative Shipments Impacts Caused

by Standards, 2012–2042 (Existing Tec hnologies, Shift, High Expertise

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

Table 10.69 Four-Foot T5 MiniBP High Out put: 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 Sh ipments Impacts Caused by

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

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

Table 10.71 Incandescent Reflector Lamps: Cumulative Sh ipments 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 Sh ipments Impacts Caused by

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

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

Table 10.73 Incandescent Reflector Lamps: Cumulative Sh ipments 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

Shipm ents (Existing and Emer ging Technologies Scenarios) ......................... 10-26

Figure 10.3.3 Eight-Foot Recessed Double Cont act 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 Emer ging 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 Fou r-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 Standard s-Case Shipments Forecasts (Existing

Technologies, Shift, BR Product Substitu tion Scenario, Baseline Lifetime

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

Figure 10.5.10 IRL Base Case and Standard s-Case Shipments Forecasts (Existing

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

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

### 10-1 CHAPTER 10. SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS

10.1 INTRODUCT ION

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. Depart ment of Energy (DOE) conducts for its Final

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

initial inputs and results for ge neral service fluorescent lamps (G SFL) 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 revi sed Federal energy conservation standards. In

determining the base case, DOE considers histor ical 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 standard s on GSFL and IRL, collectively referred to in

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

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

considers multiple shipments scenarios to charac terize 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 impact s model are integrated into single Microsoft

Excel ® 

### spreadsheets for GSFL and IRL. The two sp readsheets are accessible on the Internet at

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

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

explains the shipments models. Section 10.2 presents the shipme nts m odel methodology for

GSFL and IRL; section 10.3 describes the data inputs, histori cal shipm ents, base case scenarios

and shipments forecasts; section 10.4 discusses the impacts of st andards on the m ix 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 ship m ent models for GSFL and IRL. In general,

to forecast shipments for these tw o categories of lamps, DOE followe d a four-step process. First,

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

Association (NEMA) to estimat e the total historical shipme nts (i.e., NEMA member and nonNEMA member shipments) of each lamp type anal yzed, 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 20 05, 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, replacem ent rate, and emerging technologies penetration

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

calibrated its shipments model to reflect conf idential 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 proper ties (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, li ght output, and lifetime of the lamp and lampand-ballast designs. The matrices input the pe rcentage 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 desi gn’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

Consisten t with observed market applicati ons, DOE forecast annual shipments for 4-foot

medium bipin lamps in the residential and commerc ial 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 Mi niBP 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 TS Ls, 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 cla ss. 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 pr esent value for 2-foot U-shaped lamps.

In addition, because GSFL of different correl ated 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 aggr egate 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 (lam ps with CCT less than or equa l 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 corr espond 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 re trofit (Events II and IV), and new

construction (Event V). For each market segm ent, 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 consum er 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 sta ndards-compliant lamps are compatible with the

consumer’s existing ballast, DOE models consum ers 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 replacemen ts 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 lifetim e, 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 triggere d by a ballast failure or lam p -and-ballast system retrofit,

DOE assumes that consumers will discard their ex isting 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 repl ace their retired system.

Historical shipments and discus sions with industry experts in dicate 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 mo dels. For example, in the

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

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

medium bipin electronic ballast s (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 repl aced by 4-foot T12 me dium 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 residentia l standards-case, as discussed in Section 10.4.1.3 and

shown in Table 10.56 , 4-foot T8 systems begin to penetrat e th is market segment; they replace 25

percent, 35 percent, and 60 percen t 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 ma gnetically ballasted and half are electronically

ballasted.

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

slimline magnetic ballasts to 8-foot T8 and 8-foot T12 single pin slimline el ectronic 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 ma gnetic 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 replacem ent 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 m akes regarding these retrofits.

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

Retired Lamp-and-Ballast System Re placement Lamp-and-Ballast System

90% 4-foot T8 medium bipin

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

(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 repla cements 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 calcu lated average commercial and i ndustrial ballast service lifetime

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

hours. The service life in the commercial a nd 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 Ne w Construction)

Finally, for consumer purchases triggere d by fixture replacement, renovation, and new

construction, DOE assumes that consumers ma y 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 constructi on in the commercial sector as being one of

these two lamp-and-ballast systems. In the resi dential sector, DOE mode ls only 4-foot medium

bipin systems for new construction. In the indus trial sector, confidentia l 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 gr owing market) or other emerging substitution

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

DOE modeled 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO and HO shipment growth base d 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 mini ature bipin systems. To do this, DOE first

calculated the size of this potential market for ne w 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 result ing percentage—approximately 12.5 percent of the

fixture replacement, renovation, and new constr uction 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-f oot recessed double contact HO systems, marketing

literature indicates a large porti on of 4-foot MiniBP T5 HO syst ems serve high-bay applications

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

contact HO lamps shows substant ial declines in 2006 and 2007, i ndicating T5 HO lamps may be

rapidly displacing them. In addi tion, DOE’s research indicated th at a significan t 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 assume d that these systems were penetrating both the

8-foot recessed double contact HO a nd 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 Mini BP T5 HO systems. DOE obtained HID shipment

data from the HID determination, from which DO E 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 a ssumed 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps fully

penetrate the 8-foot recesse d double contact HO fixture repl acement, 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 it s growth forecasts. However, because the AEO does

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

establish a growth rate for the industrial sector.

### 10-7 In addition to residential building growt h, 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 lamp s, 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 num ber 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 per cent between 2006 and 2042 for GSFL in the residential sector.

10.2.2 In candescent Reflector Lamps

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

forecasts IRL shipments by aggregating acros s 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 an alyzed. By aggregating the product classes, DOE

assumes that there will be no significant migra tion 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 m odels a trend toward an increasing number of

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

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

out by home age 3 

### , DOE assumed new homes constructe d after 2005 would in stall 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 usi ng U.S. Census data on new build ing starts in the residential

sector 4 

### . DOE estimated new construction and the num ber 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 la mps every year to replace retiring lamps and

to meet growth in the stock of lamps. DOE mo dels 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 us e characterization (Chapt er 6), DOE uses five

different operating hours to ch aracterize the usage of incande scent reflector and reflector

compact fluorescent lamps in th e residential sector. By usi ng different operating hours, DOE

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

10.3 BA SE CASE INPUTS AND FORECASTS

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

in its analysis and the base case input market-sha re 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 intr oduced above in Section

10.2

.

10.3 .1 Base Case Scenarios Analyzed

DOE recognizes that rapidly em erging new lighting technologies could penetrate GSFL

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

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

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

lasting than the lamps they repl ace. If these emerging technologi es achieve their potential, they

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

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

anticipated price and performa nce 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 obscu ring the benefits derived from

more efficient GSFL and IRL alone.

The assumptions and methodology that drive thes e 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 th e market penetrati on 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 techno logy option that achieved the highe st level of penetration in each

year in each sector. DOE then decreased the analy zed 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 Tech nologies 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 inst alled stock: LED lamps, CMH lamps, R-CFL. In general, the

Existing Technologies scenario only considers the market penetra tion of technologies that have

reached maturation in terms of price and effi cacy. 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 thos e covered by this rulemaking we re analyzed in the Existing

Technologies scenario.

The Existing Technologies scen ario 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 Emer ging Technologies scenario because the latter

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

Therefore, the efficacy differential between thos e 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 at tempts to forecast the market penetration

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

in price and efficacy. Specifically, DOE consid ered the market penetr ation 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 t echnologies 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 sect or 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

y klm Cost placement Lamp Annual yrklm CostyElectricit Annual klmice Purchase ack SimplePayb

  





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 elect ricity 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 tec hnology in the relevant sector in every year from 2006 to 2042.

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

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

relationship is valid for other em erging 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 ma rket penetration. DOE used a 5-year average of the market

penetrations predicted by the relationship as it s 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 predicte d 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 achie ved 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 remaini ng, the cost effectiveness of LCC savings and

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

1 0.3.2 General Service Fluorescent Lamps

10.3.2 .1 Base Case Scenarios



### For the GSFL Existing Technologies scenar io, 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 significan tly 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 se parately considered the potential market

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

sectors), and 2) CMH (into the comme rcial and industrial sectors).

For its analysis of LED mark et penetration, DOE found a co mmercially 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 othe r 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 Stat e 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 ap pendix 10C of the TSD. Following the 5-step

### 10-11 process described above, DOE calculated a 42.9 pe rcent market penetration rate of LED lamps

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

not have a low enough payback peri od to result in any market pe netration. 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 met hodology similar to the methodology it used to

estimate GSFL and IRL prices, as described in the product price dete rmination. (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 replacem ents 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 th e 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-f oot 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 ou tput. Recognizing that these sh ipment 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 pe rcent of the GSFL market. Table 10.2 provides historical GSFL

shipm ents 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 la mps, DOE did not rece ive public historical

shipments data and therefore followed slightly different methodology to ca lculate their installed

2005 stock. First, DOE first estimated 2001-to-2 005 shipments based on assumptions derived

from its market research and supported by manufact urer 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 res earch also indicated that the combined market

share of 4-foot MiniBP T5 SO and HO lamps wa s 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 cal culated the initial stock of 4-foot medium

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

approximately 25 percent of NEMA ’s historical shipments. Ne xt, 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 T 12 lamps. From those shipments,

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

and fixture/ballast replacement in th e same manner described in section 10.2.1

.

Using the 2005 lam p stocks, DOE calculated th e installed ballast st ocks 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, calibra ted 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 si ngle pin slimline, and 8-foot T12 recessed double contact GSFL

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

shipments of all other GSFL represented lamps sh ipped for installation on electronic ballasts.

### 10-13 DOE establishes the corresponding ballast age di stributions based on the decline in magnetic

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

, 9 

### Table 10.3 provides

lam p 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 va riety of choices in lamp and la mp-and-ballast systems. When

choosing lighting systems, consumers often make th eir 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 i nput assumptions as lamp lifetime and system

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

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

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

consumers select in the base case and standards case. To ac count 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 standa rds case. As discussed in the NIA (Chapter 10), the base case

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

The GSFL shipments model incorporates seve ral separate market-share matrices to

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

analysis period. Because the lamp design te chnology 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 interm ediate 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 exhi bit the most common ballast factors. This

produces both energy-saving a nd 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 ma trices based on discussions with m anufacturers

and industry experts. In addi tion, DOE analyzed the quantitie s of commercially available

products to develop the breakdown of per centage 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 m ix 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 ge nerally migrates to

higher efficacy and lower ballast factors over th e 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 Factor0.71



### 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 Factor0.71



### 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 1Magnetic 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 20.68



### 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 2Electronic 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 60.88



### 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 60.85



### 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 3Electronic Ballast Factor0.78



### 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 15Magnetic 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 00.88



### 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 00.78



### 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 0Electronic Ballast Factor0.75



### 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 45 450.88



### 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 0Electronic BallastFactor0.81



### 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 6 120.88



### 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 70.89



### 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 6Electronic Ballast Factor0.90



### 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 fo r 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 51.15



### 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 51.00



### 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 5Electronic Ballast Factor0.90



### 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 65ElectronicBallastFactor1.00



### 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

shipm ents 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 m edium 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 a nd Emerging Technologies scenarios.

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

analysis period in shipm ents of 4-foot T12 me dium bipin lamps. Th ese retired 4-foot T12

medium bipin lamp-and-ballast systems are repl aced with 4-foot T8 medium bipin lamp-andballast systems upon ballast retirement. A declin e 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 si ngle pin slimline systems

will be replaced with 4-foot T8 medium bipi n 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 renovati on markets, this accounts for the increase in

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

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

in the residential sector. A dditionally, 10 percent of retire d 8-foot T12 single pin slimline

systems will be replaced with el ectronic 4-foot T12 medium bi pin 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 Technol ogies scenarios. As discussed previously,

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

Furthermore, the available market for emerging t echnologies 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 shipme nts 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 2044Shipments (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 Historica l and Base Case Forecasted Shipments

(Existing and Emerging Technologies Scenarios)

* MBP = medium bipin



### 10-25

### In acco rdance with historical shipment data, Figure 10.3.2 shows a decline in shipments

of 8-foot T12 single pin slim line 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 pi n slimline lamp-and-ballast systems upon ballast

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

T8 single pin slimline lamp shipments until 2018, wh en 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 s limline systems do not penetrate any of the new

construction, renovation, and fixture replacemen t 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 th erefore 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 2044Shipments (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 Slimli ne 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 doubl e contact HO lam p shipments decline

rapidly in the base case, which reflects a co ntinuation of confidentia l shipments data. As

discussed earlier, DOE decided not to model th e 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 t echnologies such as HID. Ther efore, the Emerging and Existing

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



## - 5 10 15 20 25 30

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044Shipments (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 acco rdance with confidential shipment data, Figure 10.3.4 depicts increasing

shipm ents of 4-foot T5 standard output and hi gh output lamps. DOE allo tted 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 Ex isting Technologies scenario, four-f oot T5 SO shipments slightly

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

new construction, fixture replacement, and renova tion 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 thes e lamps would always be more

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

into the 4-foot T5 HO market. SO are comi ng 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 2044Shipments (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

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

construction) for 4-foot medium bipin, 8-foot si ngle 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 shipm ents due to new construction, lamp shipments for replacing failed lamps and

failed ballasts dominate this market. In additi on, 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 re placements) 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 2042Shipments (billions)



## Year Fixture Replacement Renovation

New Construction Ballast Replacement/Retrofit

Lamp Replacement



### Figure 10.3.5 Four-Foot Medium Bipin Base Ca se 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 2042Shipments (billions)



## Year Fixture Replacement 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 2042Shipments (billions)



## Year Fixture Replacement Ballast Replacement Lamp Replacement



### Figure 10.3.7 8-Foot Recessed Double Contact Hi gh 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 2042Shipments (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 In candescent Reflector Lamps

10.3.3 .1 Base Case Scenarios Analyzed



### As with GSFL, DOE considered two base cas e scenarios for IRL: Existing Technologies

and Emerging Technologies. Because DOE believe s 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 th at 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 methodol ogy similar to the methodology DOE used to

estimate GSFL and IRL prices, as described in the product price dete rmination. (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 applic ations 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 incande scent 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 reside ntial 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 incr ease 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 in formation, 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 a nd CMH market penetration rate s that it used for the R-CFL

analysis. DOE believes the substitutability pr oblems 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 s ector 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 re ached the highest market penetration of

any analyzed technology in both the residentia l sector and the commer cial sector. DOE’s

analysis found LED lamps could penetrate 45 per cent 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 opera ting costs in the commercial sect or relative to the residential

sector, resulting in lowe r PBPs and faster migration to emer ging technologies. Again, DOE used

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

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

the scenario, DOE observes the year in whic h 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 de cline in covered IRL

shipments and a decline in energy savings relati ve 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 hist orical 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 (P AR) incandescent, reflector (R) incandescent, PAR38 halogen,

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

shipments of NEMA members, DOE increases th ese 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 percen t of all halogen shipme nts 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 per cent of all incandescent (non-halogen) IRL

shipments, DOE decreases the NEMA historic al incandescent shipments and the base case

installed stock accordingly.

In addition, because DOE’s IRL shipment m odel separately forecasts IRL shipments in

the commercial and residential sectors, DOE esti mates certain portions of IRL shipments to each

sector. DOE used a reflector lamp study conduc ted by the New York State Energy Research and

Development Authority 11 

### to estimate that about 33 percent of non-halogen shipments serve the

commercial sector and about 67 perc ent serve the residential sector. Similarly, DOE allocates 60

percent of halogen lamp shipments to the comme rcial sector and 40 perc ent to the residential

sector.

Table 10.15 shows the resulting historical covered IRL shipments estimates for the entire

U.S. m arket.

Table 10.15 IRL Historica l 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 emergi ng 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, therefor e, the replacement rates, derive from the assumed base case

technology mix of IRL in the commercial and resi dential sectors, which is reflected in the

market-share matrices in section 10.3.3.4 . DOE assumed incandescen t IRL have a lif etime of

2,000 hours, as this is the most common incandescent lifetime on th e market today. With these

inputs, DOE calculated that the 2005 stock of c overed 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 (Cha pter 5) and the LCC an alysis (Chapter 8),

consumers have a variety of choices in IRL. IRL shipments strongly depend on lamp lifetime.

In addition, other lamp propertie s 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 st andards-case. To account for the range of possible consumer

choices, DOE develops and populat es technology market-share ma trices. The base case and

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

The IRL base case market-share matrices a pportion 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 establis hes the percentage stock in each year, DOE’s

model then ships lamps to maintain the stock di stribution, 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 expert s and an examination of manuf acturer product catalogs. As

stated earlier, DOE models three separate lume n packages in the commercial and residential

sectors: 630 lm, 1,050 lm and 1,310 lm. These lu men packages correspond to the 50W, 75W,

and 90W baseline halogen technolo gies, respectively. An examin ation of manufacturer product

catalogs indicates that 27 percen t 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 th ese percentages to the 2011 inputs to the base

case market-share matrices for the commercial and residential sectors.

In addition, based on manufacturer intervie ws, in the commercial sector DOE assumes

that 80 percent of the 2011 inst alled IRL stock is based on hal ogen technology, while 20 percent

of installed IRL is of the more efficacious ha logen infrared (HIR) technology. Because DOE

expects a natural migration toward more efficaci ous 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 inst alled 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

com mercial 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 Ma trix 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 e ssentially increase throughout th e analysis period, reflecting

both building and floor space growth and the trend toward more IRL per new home. These

effects are offset, most no ticeably 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 a nnually—much higher than AEO2009’s predicted

building and floor space growth) is unsustaina ble. 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 projec ted growth rate in building floor space,

combined with the assumption that new-home c onstruction and existing-home renovations in the

residential sector will contain an increas ing number of sockets per home (see section 10.2.2 ).

### The Em erging Technologies scenario results in a similar but more pronounced pattern of

declining shipments followed by gradually increa sing 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 2040Shipments (billions)



## Year Historical Shipments

Existing Technologies Base Case Forecast

Emerging Technologies Base Case Forecast



### Figure 10.3.9 IRL Historical and Ba se 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

m arket segment for IRL sockets for all sectors. As seen in the figure, DOE accounts for both

lamp replacements and new construction, alt hough 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 2042Shipments (billions)



## Year Shipments due to New Construction

Shipments due to Replacements



### Figure 10.3.10 IRL Base Case Shipments Fo recast by Market Segment (Emerging

Technologies Scenario)

10.4 STAN DARDS 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 ta ke into account when purchasing their GSFL

systems. Specifically, DOE regards system pr ice, system energy consumption, and system

lumen output as three key drivers of consumer purchases.

DOE develops two sets of two shipments scen arios, or four standards-case scenarios in

all, to characterize consumers that may weigh thes e factors differently. Th e first set of scenarios

comprises the “Roll-up” and “Shift” scenarios; the second se t comprises the “H igh” and “Market

segment-based” lighting expertise scenarios. (Each scenario is detailed below.) To evaluate a

standards-case, DOE models a standards-case scen ario 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-Base d expertise scenario. DOE thus considers four

standards-case scenarios and two base case scenar ios, 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 stan dards-case in which all product efficacies in the

base case that do not meet the sta ndard would roll up to meet the new standard level. Consumers

who in the base case purchase lamps above the st andard level are not a ffected 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 cons umers 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 incrementa lly 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 cons umption, 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 cons umers buy a system in the base case th at 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 desi gn in the base case,

they then

a. never buy a system that has a greater i nput power than the base case system;

b. consider only systems that have a lumen output within 10 percen t of the base case

lumen output. If none exist, buy the ba se 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 w ith equal installed prices, select the one

with a lumen output that is clos est 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. Th is 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 le vels. The High expertise scenario generally

characterizes more sophisticated lighting decisions in which cons istent lighting levels and/or

energy savings play a determinant role in consum er 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 generall y save energy sure to st andards. Conversely,

in the Market Segment-Based scenario, DOE assumes consumers occasionally accept high

lighting levels as a consequence of their expertis e (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 ev ent (new construction, replacement, etc.).

DOE undertook an extensive literature review a nd analysis to characte rize the likelihood of

consumers migrating to lower ballast factor sy stems or reduce-wattage lamps if higher efficacy

standards are required. The results characteri ze the Market Segment-Based scenario. DOE’s

analysis is described briefly be low and in detail in Appendix 10B.

For its analysis, DOE first characterized the lighting market supply chain in the

commercial and residential sectors and identifi ed 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, retr ofit, fixture replacement, renovation, and new

construction. DOE assigned probabilities reflecting each decision maker’s likelihood of making

the lighting purchase decision give n the purchase event. DOE th en 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 describe d 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 ma rket 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 sel ected for each event in each sect or in the standards case.

DOE assumed the commercial and industrial se ctors 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 sect or can be different agents making different

### 10-41 decisions than those in the small-commercial sect or. In the market segments (purchase events)

where DOE found consumer behavior to be subs tantially different between these subsectors,

DOE weighted the relative impact of each subs ector when characterizi ng the overall commercial

market. Table 10.18 and Table 10.19 present results for the commercial sector and residential

sect or, respectively.

DOE also evaluated a “Reduced Expertise” sens itivity scenario, in which it assumed that

renovation and new construction expertise in the co mmercial sector was equi valent 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,” sensitivit y scenario. In this scenario, DOE assumes that an increased

portion of base-case new construction in the comme rcial sector will incorporate lighting controls,

which will reduce operating hours and, thus, ener gy consumption. DOE’s research suggested

this trend is almost entirely in the new cons truction 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 ship ments model (from the Commercial Buildings

Energy Consumption Survey) already reflect lighting controls covering 60% of newly

constructed commercial floor space. Next, for th is scenario DOE assume d all new commercial

floor space would be equipped with lighting controls. To calculate the impact of this additional

lighting controls penetration, DOE estimated th e 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 fi ndings (38.5 percent) as the energy savings

achieved by new commercial buildings employi ng lighting controls. DOE then reduced

commercial operating hours by the pr oduct of the energy savings, incr ease 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 desi gns as the base case market-share matrices.

However, in the standards-case, some lamp de signs (and therefore lamp-and-ballast designs) are

not standards-compliant and ther efore precluded from being shi pped. 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 2 011. This is important

in the standards-case because consumer purchase d ecisions may vary in thes e two situations. If a

consumer with an existing installed ballast in 20 12 is forced to replace a base-case lamp with a

different standards-compliant lamp, the consum er is limited to only those lamp-and-ballast

designs that maintain the current ballast. Howe ver, 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 factor s different from the base case system purchase,

are available. Table 10.20 describes the inputs to the base cas e and standards-case m arket-share

matrices for initial and new ballasts.

Table 10.20 Description of Base Case and St andards-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 design s, 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 an alyzed GSFL in both the Shift and Roll-up scen ario. 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 st andards-case proportions. This is because these

“initial ballast” standards-case matrices represen t 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 balla sts,” the distribution

among ballast factors in the standa rds 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-ballas t purchases with the lumens of their base case purchase.

The second set of standards-case scenar ios, High-versus-Market Segment-Based

scenario, also influences thes e market share matrices. Table 10.21 through Table 10.54 depict

the High lighting expertise scenario. Under the High lighting expertise s cenario, 100 percent of

consumers can either shift or roll-up based on th e factors they consider (energy savings, first

cost, etc.) in making their purchase. These c onsumers with high lighting expertise will attempt

to maintain lumen output by moving to a lower ba llast 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 factor s or reduced-wattage lamps to maintain lumen

output. DOE created market share matrices to ch aracterize these consumers. As an example,

Table 10.27 presents the 4-foot T8 medium bipin ne w ballas t market share matrix for those

consumers characterized by low light ing 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 LevelsELLamp EfficacyLamp WattageSystem LumensSystem InputPowerInstalled LampPriceBase CaseTSL1TSL2TSL3TSL4TSL5



### 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 40.88



### 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 00.78



### 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 0Electronic Ballast Factor0.71



### 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 LevelsELLampEfficacyLampWattageSystemLumensSystemInput PowerInstalledLamp PriceBase CaseTSL1TSL2TSL3TSL4TSL5



### 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 4 100.88



### 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 20.78



### 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 2Electronic Ballast Factor0.71



### 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 LevelsELLampEfficacyLampWattageSystemLumensSystemInput PowerInstalledLamp PriceBase CaseTSL1TSL2TSL3TSL4TSL5



### 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 0Magnetic 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 LevelsELLampEfficacyLampWattageSystemLumensSystemInput PowerInstalledLamp PriceBase CaseTSL1TSL2TSL3TSL4TSL5



### 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 0Magnetic Ballast



### 3 91.2 34 24,000 60 6.48 0 51 51 100 0 0

Total 100 100 100 100 100 10010-47Table 10.25 Standards-Case New BallastMarket-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8Medium Bipin Systems in the CommercialSector (Shift Scenario)Mix of New Systems Purchased after2011 at Various Trial Standard LevelsBase CaseTSL1TSL2TSL3TSL4TSL5

EL Lamp Efficacy Lamp Wattage System Lumens System Input Power Installed Lamp Price201220422012204220122042201220422012204220122042lm/WWlmW2008$%%%%%%%%%%%%286.232.56,65386.84.09492049204920000000390.832.57,15486.85.17253253253000000492.332.57,52486.85.32606060606000493.830.07,07580.45.62110110110000000493.025.06,20466.56.92215215215200000595.432.57,69686.85.864040404040100

0.88596.028.06,75869.75.4131831831863031338053286.232.55,89777.94.09000000000000390.832.56,34177.95.1720202049200000492.332.56,66977.95.322222222530000493.830.06,27172.25.62000000000000493.025.05,49959.46.92120120120000000595.432.56,82177.95.86000000000000

0.78596.028.05,990675.41020202417617617286.232.55,36871.74.09000000000000390.832.55,77271.75.17202020000000492.332.56,07171.75.3220202000512000493.830.05,70866.45.62000000200000493.025.05,00654.56.9211011011011011000595.432.56,20971.75.86000000000000

Electronic Ballast Factor 0.71596.028.05,45361.65.41000000120120430Total10010010010010010010010010010010010010-48Table 10.26 Standards-Case New BallastMarket-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8Medium Bipin Systems in the CommercialSector (Roll-Up Scenario)Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard LevelsBase CaseTSL1TSL2TSL3TSL4TSL5

TSL Lamp Efficacy Lamp Wattage System Lumens System Input Power Installed Lamp Price201220422012204220122042201220422012204220122042lm/WWlmW2008$%%%%%%%%%%%%286.232.56,65386.84.09492049204920000000390.832.57,15486.85.172532532532530000492.332.57,52486.85.326060606031300493.830.07,07580.45.6211011011011011000493.025.06,20466.56.9221521521521521500595.432.57,69686.85.864040404040100

0.88596.028.06,75869.75.413183183183183188053286.232.55,89777.94.09000000000000390.832.56,34177.95.1720202051200000492.332.56,66977.95.3222222222512200493.830.06,27172.25.62000000000000493.025.05,49959.46.9212012012012012000595.432.56,82177.95.86000000000000

0.78596.028.05,990675.410202020202817286.232.55,36871.74.09000000000000390.832.55,77271.75.17202020200000492.332.56,07171.75.32202020206000493.830.05,70866.45.62000000000000493.025.05,00654.56.9211011011011011000595.432.56,20971.75.86000000000000

Electronic Ballast Factor 0.71596.028.05,45361.65.410000000000230Total10010010010010010010010010010010010010-49As discussed above,Table 10.27depicts the 4-foot T8 medium bipin new ballast market share matrix for those consumerscharacterized by the Market Segment-Based expertise scenario. The selection of Shiftor Roll-up has no affect on these consumers—they only roll-up in the standards case. AsTable 10.27illustrates, there is no migration to lower ballast factors with increasingstandards. In contrast, in the High expertise scenario, consumers do migrate to lower ballast factors, as shown inTable 10.25. Toview the market share matrices characterizing consumers with market segment-based expertise, please see the NIA spreadsheet.10-50Table 10.27 Standards-Case New BallastMarket-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8Medium Bipin Systems in the CommercialSector (Market Segment-Based Lighting Expertise Scenario)Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard LevelsBase CaseTSL1TSL2TSL3TSL4TSL5

EL Lamp Efficac y Lamp Wattag e System Lumen s System Input Power I ns t a ll e d Lamp Pri c e201220422012204220122042201220422012204220122042lm/WWlmW2008$%%%%%%%%%%%%286.232.56,65386.84.09492049204920000000390.832.57,15486.85.1725325325374230000492.332.57,52486.85.3260606060802300493.830.07,07580.45.6211011011011011000493.025.06,20466.56.9221521521521521500595.432.57,69686.85.8640404040408423

0.88596.028.06,75869.75.41318318318318318643286.232.55,89777.94.09000000000000390.832.56,34177.95.17202020200000492.332.56,66977.95.32222222224200493.830.06,27172.25.62000000000000493.025.05,49959.46.9212012012012012000595.432.56,82177.95.86000000000042

0.78596.028.05,990675.410202020202122286.232.55,36871.74.09000000000000390.832.55,77271.75.17202020200000492.332.56,07171.75.32202020204000493.830.05,70866.45.62000000000000493.025.05,00654.56.9211011011011011000595.432.56,20971.75.86000000000040

Electronic Ballast Factor 0.71596.028.05,45361.65.410000000000110Total10010010010010010010010010010010010010-51Table 10.28 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8 Medium Bipin Systems in the ResidentialSector (Shift Scenario)Mix of New Systems Purchased after2011 at Various Trial Standard LevelsBaseCaseTSL1TSL2TSL3TSL4TSL5

EL Lamp Efficacy Lamp Wattage System Lumens System Input Power Installed Lamp Price201220422012204220122042201220422012204220122042lm/WWlmW2008$%%%%%%%%%%%%286.232.520,00058.61.91101010101010000000390.832.520,00058.62.99555555000000492.332.524,00058.63.13666666666600493.830.020,00054.63.43111111000000493.025.030,00045.44.73222222990000595.432.524,00058.63.68000000000066

0.88596.028.018,00051.23.223333336611112121286.232.520,00051.61.91101010101010000000390.832.520,00051.62.9999999910100000492.332.524,00051.63.13222222550000493.830.020,00048.93.43000000000000493.025.030,00040.54.73111111000000595.432.524,00051.63.68222222222222

0.78596.028.018,00045.63.220000004413131313286.232.520,00046.81.91292929292929000000390.832.520,00046.82.9915151515151539390000492.332.524,00046.83.1322222200353500493.830.020,00044.93.430000001515292900493.025.030,00037.04.73111111111100595.432.524,00046.83.68222222222222

Electronic Ballast Factor 0.71596.028.018,00041.73.2200000011115656Total10010010010010010010010010010010010010-52Table 10.29 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8 Medium Bipin Systems in the ResidentialSector (Roll-Up Scenario)Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard LevelsBase CaseTSL1TSL2TSL3TSL4TSL5

EL Lamp Efficacy Lamp Wattage System Lumens System Input Power Installed Lamp Price201220422012204220122042201220422012204220122042lm/WWlmW2008$%%%%%%%%%%%%286.232.520,00058.61.91101010101010000000390.832.520,00058.62.99555555550000492.332.524,00058.63.1366666666111100493.830.020,00054.63.43111111111100493.025.030,00045.44.73222222222200595.432.524,00058.63.68000000000066

0.88596.028.018,00051.23.2233333333332121286.232.520,00051.61.91101010101010000000390.832.520,00051.62.9999999919190000492.332.524,00051.63.1322222222121200493.830.020,00048.93.43000000000000493.025.030,00040.54.73111111111100595.432.524,00051.63.68222222222222

0.78596.028.018,00045.63.2200000000003838286.232.520,00046.81.91292929292929000000390.832.520,00046.82.9915151515151554540000492.332.524,00046.83.1322222222363600493.830.020,00044.93.4300000000292900493.025.030,00037.04.73111111111100595.432.524,00046.83.68222222222222

Electronic Ballast Factor 0.71596.028.018,00041.73.2200000000003131Total10010010010010010010010010010010010010-53Table 10.30 Standards-Case New BallastMarket-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T12Medium Bipin Systemsin the CommercialSector (Shift Scenario)Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard LevelsBase CaseTSL1TSL2TSL3TSL4TSL5

EL Lamp Efficacy Lamp Wattage System Lumens System Input Power Installed Lamp Price201220422012204220122042201220422012204220122042lm/WWlmW2008$%%%%%%%%%%%%078.0407,603107.74.79000000000000077.9346,07291.73.8480800000000000180.5407,920107.77.08660000000000182.4346,49491.75.12660000000000182.9408,078107.78.69330000000000285.3346,89091.77.55330000000000287.8408,580107.78.79111111000000

0.88391.2347,36691.78.661111101011110000078.0407,430106.34.79000000000000077.9345,93490.33.84000000000000180.5407,740106.37.08000000000000182.4346,34790.35.1200808000000000182.9407,895106.38.69000000000000285.3346,73490.37.5500668080000000287.8408,385106.38.79009900000000

Electronic Ballast Factor 0.86391.2347,19890.38.6600339989890000Total10010010010010010010010010010010010010-54Table 10.31 Standards-Case New BallastMarket-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T12Medium Bipin Systemsin the CommercialSector (Roll-up Scenario)Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard LevelsBase CaseTSL1TSL2TSL3TSL4TSL5

EL Lamp Efficacy Lamp Wattage System Lumens System Input Power Installed Lamp Price201220422012204220122042201220422012204220122042lm/WWlmW2008$%%%%%%%%%%%%078.0407,603107.74.79000000000000077.9346,07291.73.8480800000000000180.5407,920107.77.08666600000000182.4346,49491.75.12666600000000182.9408,078107.78.69333300000000285.3346,89091.77.55333333000000287.8408,580107.78.79111111000000

0.88391.2347,36691.78.661111101011110000078.0407,430106.34.79000000000000077.9345,93490.33.84000000000000180.5407,740106.37.08000000000000182.4346,34790.35.1200808000000000182.9407,895106.38.69000000000000285.3346,73490.37.5500008686000000287.8408,385106.38.79000000000000

Electronic Ballast Factor 0.86391.2347,19890.38.6600000089890000Total10010010010010010010010010010010010010-55Table 10.32 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T12 Medium Bipin Systems in the ResidentialSector (Shift Scenario)Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard LevelsBase CaseTSL1TSL2TSL3TSL4TSL5

EL Lamp Efficacy Lamp Wattage System Lumens Sys t em Input P o w e r Installed Lamp Price201220422012204220122042201220422012204220122042lm/WWlmW2008$%%%%%%%%%%%%0.680 .8 4 0 70 07 26 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0760 15,002.0.66 0 .9 3 0 60 66 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0774 20,001.0.681 .5 4 0 70 90 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0800 20,004.0.661 .4 3 0 60 93 1 1 5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0824 20,002.0.681 .9 4 0 70 51 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0820 24,006.0.662 .3 3 0 60 37 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0854 20,005.0.682 .8 4 0 70 61 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0870 24,006.0.66391.23424,000606.480000005500000.650 .8 4 0 58 07 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0760 15,002.0.75 0 .9 3 0 60 66 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0774 20,001.0.651 .5 4 0 58 90 16 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0800 20,004.0.751 .4 3 0 60 93 1 1 55 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0824 20,002.0.651 .9 4 0 58 51 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0820 24,006.0.752 .3 3 0 60 37 0 0 35 35 59 59 0 0 0 0 0 0854 20,005.0.652 .8 4 0 58 61 2 2 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0870 24,006.

Electronic Ballast Factor0.75 3 .2 3 0 60 48 0 0 4 4 41 41 96 96 0 0 0 0914 24,006.Total10010010010010010010010010010010010010-56Table 10.33 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T12 Medium Bipin Systems in the ResidentialSector (Roll-up Scenario)Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard LevelsBase CaseTSL1TSL2TSL3TSL4TSL5

EL Lamp Efficacy Lamp Wattage System Lumens S ys t em Input Power Installed Lamp Price201220422012204220122042201220422012204220122042lm/WWlmW2008$%%%%%%%%%%%%0.68076.84015,000702.07262600000000000.66077.93420,000601.66440000000.68180.54020,000704.9016161616000000000.66182.43420,000602.931155000000000.68182.94024,000706.513333000000000.66285.33420,000605.370000440000000.68287.84024,000706.612222330000000.66391.23424,000606.48000000313100000.65076.84015,000582.07252500000000000.75077.93420,000601.66330000000.65180.54020,000584.9016161616000000000.75182.43420,000602.93115555000000000.65182.94024,000586.513333000000000.75285.33420,000605.37000089890000000.65287.84024,000586.61222222000000

Electronic Ballast Factor0.75391.23424,000606.4800003370700000Total10010010010010010010010010010010010010-57Table 10.34 Standards-Case Initial BallastMarket-Share Matrix for Eight-FootT8 Single Pin Slimline Systems (ShiftScenario)Mix of New Lamps Purchased as Replacements on Ballasts Installed before 2011 atVarious Trial Standard Levels

EL Lamp Efficacy Lamp Wattage System Lumens System Input Power Installed Lamp Price Base Case TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5lm/WWlmW2008$%%%%%%394.860.19,029112.86.624040404000498.260.19,553112.88.8930303030005101.560.110,199112.89.786666665101.857.09,592107.59.09555555

0.885103.655.09,530102.08.6755557575394.860.18,721109.16.62333300498.260.19,228109.18.892222005101.560.19,852109.19.782222225101.857.09,265106.09.09000000

0.855103.655.09,20698.58.67000055394.860.18,003100.46.62333300498.260.18,468100.48.892222005101.560.19,040100.49.782222225101.857.08,502102.59.09000000

Electronic Ballast Factor 0.785103.655.08,44790.28.67000055Total10010010010010010010-58Table 10.35 Standards-Case Initial Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Eight-FootT8 Single Pin Slimline Systems(Roll-up Scenario)Mix of New Lamps Purchased as Replacements on Ballasts Installed before 2011 at VariousTrial Standard Levels

EL Lamp Efficacy Lamp Wattage System Lumens System Input Power Installed Lamp Price Base Case TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5lm/WWlmW2008$%%%%%%394.860.19,029112.86.624040404000498.260.19,553112.88.89303030303005101.560.110,199112.89.786666665101.857.09,592107.59.09555555

0.885103.655.09,530102.08.6755554575394.860.18,721109.16.62333300498.260.19,228109.18.892222205101.560.19,852109.19.782222225101.857.09,265106.09.09000000

0.855103.655.09,20698.58.67000035394.860.18,003100.46.62333300498.260.18,468100.48.892222205101.560.19,040100.49.782222225101.857.08,502102.59.09000000

Electronic Ballast Factor 0.785103.655.08,44790.28.67000035Total10010010010010010010-59Table 10.36 Standards-Case Initial Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Eight-FootT12 Single Pin Slimline Systems(Shift and Roll-up Scenarios)Mix of New Lamps Purchased as Replacements on Ballasts Installed before 2010at Various Trial Standard Levels

EL Lamp Efficacy Lamp Wattage System Lumens System Input Power Installed Lamp Price Base Case Mix of Systems Installed before 2 0 1 0 TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5lm/WWlmW2008$%%%%%%085.675.011,1031588.394600000187.375.011,57515811.7016620000187.660.58,2091265.8815150000292.075.011,97615812.691163000292.660.59,0681268.32151530000

Magnetic Ballast397.560.59,64512610.0977710000Total10010010010010010010-60Table 10.37 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T8 Single Pin Slimline Systems (Shift Scenario)Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard LevelsBase CaseTSL1TSL2TSL3TSL4TSL5

EL Lamp Efficacy Lamp Wattage System Lumens System Input Power Installed Lamp Price201220422012204220122042201220422012204220122042lm/WWlmW2008$%%%%%%%%%%%%3 4. 0. 2 2. .62 40 6 40 6 40 6 40 6 0 0 0 098 61 9,09 118 64 8. 0. 5 2. .89 30 11 30 11 30 11 30 11 0 0 0 092 61 9,53 118 85101.560.110,199112.89.786116116116116116115 . .0 92 7.5 09 5 6 5 6 5 6 5656561018 579,5109.

0.885103.655.09,530102.08.675656565656563 .8 .1 21 9.1 62 3 7 3 7 3 7 37000094608,7106.4 .2 .1 28 9.1 89 2 8 2 8 2 8 28000098609,2108.5 . .1 52 9.1 78 2 6 2 6 2 6 2626261015 609,8109.5 . .0 65 6.0 09 0 6 0 6 0 6 0606061018 579,2109.

0.855103.655.09,20698.58.6706060606301730173 .8 .1 03 0.4 62 3 7 3 7 3 7 37000094608,0106.4 .2 .1 68 0.4 89 2 8 2 8 2 8 28000098608,4108.5 . .1 40 0.4 78 2 6 2 6 2 6 2626261015 609,0109.5 . .0 02 2.5 09 0 3 0 3 0 3 0303031018 578,5109.

Electronic Ballast Factor 0.785103.655.08,44790.28.670303030350395039Total10010010010010010010010010010010010010-61Table 10.38 Standards-Case New BallastMarket-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T8Single Pin Slimline Systems (Roll-upScenario)Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard LevelsBase CaseTSL1TSL2TSL3TSL4TSL5

EL Lamp Efficacy Lamp Wattage System Lumens System Input Power Installed Lamp Price201220422012204220122042201220422012204220122042lm/WWlmW2008$%%%%%%%%%%%%3 .8 .1 29 2.8 62 40 6 40 6 40 6 40 6 0 0 0 094609,0116.498.260.19,553112.88.8930113011301130113011005101.560.110,199112.89.786116116116116116115 . .0 92 7.5 09 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 6 5 61018 579,5109.

0.885103.655.09,530102.08.67565656565635173 .8 .1 21 9.1 62 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 0 0 0 094608,7106.4 .2 .1 28 9.1 89 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 0 098609,2108.5 . .1 52 9.1 78 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 61015 609,8109.5 . .0 65 6.0 09 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 61018 579,2109.

0.855103.655.09,20698.58.6706060606401240123 .8 .1 03 0.4 62 3 7 3 7 3 7 3 7 0 0 0 094608,0106.4 .2 .1 68 0.4 89 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 2 8 0 098608,4108.5 . .1 40 0.4 78 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 6 2 61015 609,0109.5 . .0 02 2.5 09 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 3 0 31018 578,5109.

Electronic Ballast Factor 0.785103.655.08,44790.28.67030303036171033Total10010010010010010010010010010010010010-62Table 10.39 Standards-Case New BallastMarket-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8Medium Bipin Systems Replacing EightFoot Single Pin SlimlineSystems (Shift Scenario)Mix of New Systems Purchased after2011 at Various Trial Standard LevelsBase CaseTSL1TSL2TSL3TSL4TSL5

EL Lamp Efficacy Lamp Wattage System Lumens System Input Power Installed Lamp Price201220422012204220122042201220422012204220122042lm/WWlmW2008$%%%%%%%%%%%%286.232.58,870117.25.25492049204920000000390.832.59,539117.26.33253253253000000492.332.510,032117.26.48606060606000493.8309,434109.26.78110110110000000493.0258,27290.88.08215215215200000595.432.510,261117.27.024040404040100

0.88596.0289,011102.46.5731831831863031338053286.232.57,862103.25.25000000000000390.832.58,455103.26.3320202049200000492.332.58,892103.26.482222222530000493.8308,36297.86.78000000000000493.0257,33281.08.08120120120000000595.432.59,095103.27.02000000000000

0.78596.0287,98791.26.57020202417617617286.232.57,15793.65.25000000000000390.832.57,69693.66.33202020000000492.332.58,09493.66.4820202000512000493.8307,61189.86.78000000200000493.0256,67474.08.0811011011011011000595.432.58,27993.67.02000000000000

Electronic Ballast Factor 0.71596.0287,27083.46.57000000120120430Total10010010010010010010010010010010010010-63Table 10.40 Standards-Case New BallastMarket-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T8Medium Bipin Systems Replacing EightFoot Single Pin SlimlineSystems (Roll-up Scenario)Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard LevelsBase CaseTSL1TSL2TSL3TSL4TSL5

EL Lamp Efficacy Lamp Wattage System Lumens System Input Power Installed Lamp Price201220422012204220122042201220422012204220122042lm/WWlmW2008$%%%%%%%%%%%%2 .2 .5 70 7.2 25 49 20 49 20 49 20 0 0 0 0 0 086328,8115.3 .8 .5 39 7.2 33 25 3 25 3 25 3 25 3 0 0 0 090329,5116.4 .3 . 3 7.2 48 6 0 6 0 6 0 6 0 31 3 0 092325 10,02 116.493.8309,434109.26.7811011011011011000493.0258,27290.88.08215215215215215005 .4 . 6 7.2 02 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 4 0 10 095325 10,21 117.

0.88596.0289,011102.46.5731831831831831880532 .2 .5 62 3.2 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 086327,8105.3 .8 .5 55 3.2 33 2 0 2 0 2 0 51 20 0 0 0 090328,4106.4 .3 .5 92 3.2 48 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 51 22 0 092328,8106.4 .8 30 62 7.8 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0938,396.493.0257,33281.08.08120120120120120005 .4 .5 95 3.2 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 095329,0107.

0.78596.0287,98791.26.5702020202028172 .2 .5 57 3.6 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 086327,195.3 .8 .5 96 3.6 33 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 0 0 0 090327,696.4 .3 .5 94 3.6 48 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 0 6 0 0 092328,096.4 .8 30 11 9.8 78 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0937,686.493.0256,67474.08.08110110110110110005 .4 .5 79 3.6 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 095328,297.

Electronic Ballast Factor 0.71596.0287,27083.46.570000000000230Total10010010010010010010010010010010010010-64Table 10.41 Standards-Case Initial BallastMarket-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T12 Recessed Double Contact High OutputSystems (Shift Scenario)Mix of New Lamps Purchased as Replacements on Ballasts Installed before 2012at Various Trial Standard Levels

EL Lamp Efficacy Lamp Wattage System Lumens System Input Power Installed Lamp Price B ase C ase Mi x o f Systems Installed before 2 012 TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5lm/WWlmW2008$%%%%%%080.111315,476237.010.253900000082.59713,205203.07.231500000183.211316,431237.016.2521210000286.19714,279203.010.4276161000387.69714,535203.016.821212336600

Magnetic Ballast388.99714,725203.017.146663400Total10010010010010010010-65Table 10.42 Standards-Case Initial BallastMarket-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T12 Recessed Double Contact High OutputSystems (Roll-up Scenario)Mix of New Lamps Purchased as Replacements on Ballasts Installed before 2012at Various Trial Standard Levels

EL Lamp Efficacy Lamp Wattage System Lumens System Input Power Installed Lamp Price Base Case Mix of Systems Installed before 2 0 12 TSL1 TSL2 TSL3 TSL4 TSL5lm/WWlmW2008$%%%%%%080.111315,476237.010.253900000082.59713,205203.07.231500000183.211316,431237.016.2521210000286.19714,279203.010.4276182000387.69714,535203.016.821212129400

Magnetic Ballast388.99714,725203.017.14666600Total10010010010010010010-66Table 10.43 Standards-Case New BallastMarket-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T12Recessed Double Contact High OutputNew Ballast Systems (Shift Scenario)Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard LevelsBase CaseTSL1TSL2TSL3TSL4TSL5

EL Lamp Efficacy Lamp Wattage System Lumens System Input Power Installed Lamp Price201220422012204220122042201220422012204220122042lm/WWlmW2008$%%%%%%%%%%%%0 .1 1 7 7. 25 20 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08013 15,46 230 10.0 .5 97 0 3.0 23 7 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08213,25 207.1 .2 1 3 7. 25 11 13 11 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08313 16,41 230 16.2 .1 97 7 3. 42 3 11 30 17 20 5 0 0 0 0 0 08614,29 200 10.3 .6 97 3 3. 82 6 12 0 0 21 25 20 5 0 0 0 08714,55 200 16.

0.88388.99714,725203.017.14363636192500000 .1 1 3 5. 25 10 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08013 14,35 204 10.0 .5 97 3 7.0 23 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08212,22 177.1 .2 1 2 5. 25 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08313 15,20 204 16.2 .1 97 2 7. 42 2 5 27 13 27 13 0 0 0 0 0 08613,26 170 10.3 .6 97 6 7. 82 3 7 8 23 3 7 27 15 0 0 0 08713,44 170 16.

0.89388.99713,640177.017.142411221433184300000 .1 1 6 1. 25 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08013 14,61 215 10.0 .5 97 1 5.6 23 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08212,50 187.1 .2 1 6 1. 25 5 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 08313 15,56 215 16.2 .1 97 2 5. 42 2 5 9 2 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 08613,57 186 10.3 .6 97 7 5. 82 3 6 0 0 0 0 10 2 0 0 0 08713,70 186 16.

Electronic Ballast Factor 0.90388.99713,950185.617.141414396100000Total10010010010010010010010010010010010010-67Table 10.44 Standards-Case New BallastMarket-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T12Recessed Double Contact High OutputNew Ballast Systems (Roll-up Scenario)Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard LevelsBase CaseTSL1TSL2TSL3TSL4TSL5

EL Lamp Efficacy Lamp Wattage System Lumens System Input Power Installed Lamp Price201220422012204220122042201220422012204220122042lm/WWlmW2008$%%%%%%%%%%%%080.111315,476237.010.252050000000000082.59713,205203.07.23730000000000183.211316,431237.016.251113111300000000286.19714,279203.010.4231142206345000000387.69714,535203.016.8261261261269570000

0.88388.99714,725203.017.14363636360000080.111314,335205.410.251020000000000082.59712,232177.07.23420000000000183.211315,220205.416.25565600000000286.19713,226177.010.422517111711000000387.69713,464177.016.8237373722230000

0.89388.99713,640177.017.14242424240000080.111314,661211.510.25920000000000082.59712,510185.67.23410000000000183.211315,566211.516.25565600000000286.19713,527185.610.42252525000000387.69713,770185.616.82363636360000

Electronic Ballast Factor 0.90388.99713,950185.617.14141414140000Total10010010010010010010010010010010010010-68Table 10.45 Standards-Case Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T8 Recessed Double Contact High Output New BallastSystems (Shift Scenario)Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard LevelsBase CaseTSL1TSL2TSL3TSL4TSL5

EL Lamp Efficacy Lamp Wattage System Lumens System Input Power Installed Lamp Price201220422012204220122042201220422012204220122042lm/WWlmW2008$%%%%%%%%%%%%491.98612,49616010.391010101010101010101000493.08612,67216010.564545454545454545454500

0.88595.38613,72816012.0745454545454545454545100100491.98611,50215110.39000000000000493.08611,66415110.56000000000000

Electronic Ballast Factor 0.81595.38612,63615112.07000000000000Total10010010010010010010010010010010010010-69Table 10.46 Standards-Case Market-Share Matrix for Eight-Foot T8 Recessed Double Contact High Output New BallastSystems (Roll-up Scenario)Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard LevelsBase CaseTSL1TSL2TSL3TSL4TSL5

EL Lamp Efficacy Lamp Wattage System Lumens System Input Power Installed Lamp Price201220422012204220122042201220422012204220122042lm/WWlmW2008$%%%%%%%%%%%%491.98612,49616010.391010101010101010101000493.08612,67216010.564545454545454545454500

0.88595.38613,72816012.0745454545454545454545100100491.98611,50215110.39000000000000493.08611,66415110.56000000000000

Electronic Ballast Factor 0.81595.38612,63615112.07000000000000Total10010010010010010010010010010010010010-7010-71Table 10.47 Standards-Case Initial BallastMarket-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T5 Standard Output 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

- TSL4 TSL5lm/WWlmW2008$%%%086.027.83,79570.74.9414001104.327.86,11870.76.90191402109.727.86,66570.78.04555

1.152111.5266,11867.57.7932236086.027.83,30063.64.947001104.327.85,32063.66.9018702109.727.85,79663.68.04555

1.002111.526.05,32059.67.7932128086.027.82,97058.94.940001104.327.84,78858.96.9018002109.727.85,21658.98.04555

Electronic Ballast Factor 0.902111.526.04,78854.47.7932121Total10010010010-72Table 10.48 Standards-Case Initial BallastMarket-Share Matrix for Four-FootT5 Standard Output Systems (Roll-upScenario)Mix of New Systems Purchased Before 2012at Various Trial Standard Levels

TSL Lamp Efficacy Lamp Wattage System Lumens System Input Power Installed Lamp Price Base Case TSL1

- TSL4 TSL5lm/WWlmW2008$%%%086.027.83,79570.74.9414001104.327.86,11870.76.90193302109.727.86,66570.78.04555

1.152111.5266,11867.57.793336086.027.83,30063.64.947001104.327.85,32063.66.90182502109.727.85,79663.68.04555

1.002111.526.05,32059.67.793328086.027.82,97058.94.940001104.327.84,78858.96.90181802109.727.85,21658.98.04555

Electronic Ballast Factor 0.902111.526.04,78854.47.793321Total10010010010-73Table 10.49 Standards-Case New Ballast Market-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T5 Standard Output New Ballast Systems (ShiftScenario)Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard LevelsBase CaseTSL1-TSL4TSL5

EL Lamp Efficacy Lamp Wattage System Lumens System Input Power Installed Lamp Price201220422012204220122042lm/WWlmW2008$%%%%%%086.027.83,79570.74.94141400001104.327.86,11870.76.90191900002109.727.86,66570.78.04555555

0.882111.5266,11867.57.79333333086.027.83,30063.64.947700001104.327.85,32063.66.90181800002109.727.85,79663.68.045524242424

0.892111.526.05,32059.67.79333333086.027.82,97058.94.940000001104.327.84,78858.96.9018182121002109.727.85,21658.98.045523232323

Electronic Ballast Factor 0.902111.526.04,78854.47.793321214242Total10010010010010010010-74Table 10.50 Standards-Case New BallastMarket-Share Matrix for Four-Foot T5Standard Output New Ballast Systems(Roll-up Scenario)Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Trial Standard LevelsBase CaseTSL1-TSL4TSL5

EL Lamp Efficacy Lamp Wattage System Lumens System Input Power Installed Lamp Price201220422012204220122042lm/WWlmW2008$%%%%%%086.027.83,79570.74.94141400001104.327.86,11870.76.9019191919002109.727.86,66570.78.04555555

0.882111.5266,11867.57.7933332222086.027.83,30063.64.947700001104.327.85,32063.66.9018181818002109.727.85,79663.68.04555555

0.892111.526.05,32059.67.7933332121086.027.82,97058.94.940000001104.327.84,78858.96.9018183939002109.727.85,21658.98.04555555

Electronic Ballast Factor 0.902111.526.04,78854.47.7933334242Total100100100100100100

### 10-75 Table 10.51 Standards-Case Market-Share Matr ix for Four-Foot T5 High Output Initial

Ballast Systems (Shift Scenario)

Mix of New Systems Purchased Before 2012 at Various Trial Standard LevelsELLamp EfficacyLamp WattageSystemLumensSystem InputPowerInstalled LampPrice



### 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 20nicBallast1.00



### 1 98.0 51 9,200 117.0 10.38 15 80

Total 100 100



### Table 10.52 Standards-Case Market-Share Matr ix for Four-Foot T5 High Output Initial

Ballast Systems (Roll-up Scenario)

Mix of New Systems Purchased Before 2012 at Various Trial Standard LevelsELLamp EfficacyLamp WattageSystemLumensSystem InputPowerInstalled LampPrice



### 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 85nicBallast1.00



### 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-TSL5ELLamp EfficacyLamp WattageSystemLumensSystem InputPowerInstalled LampPrice



### 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 20nicBallast1.00



### 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-TSL5ELLamp EfficacyLamp WattageSystemLumensSystem InputPowerInstalled LampPrice



### 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 85nicBallast1.00



### 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 incorpor ates 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 lamp s, 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 in crease, DOE expects this rate of early ballast

retirement to increase as well. Table 10.55 summarizes DOE’s assump tions 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 a nnual retrofit rates re present 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 system s reach the natural end of their life, DOE assumes increasing portions of

residential consumers will replace those T12 syst ems with T8 systems at increasing TSLs. At

TSL4 and TSL5, all T12 systems are automatical ly 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 resi dential conversion rate

constan t at 0 percent. Similarly, Figure 10.4.2 depicts how shipments of 4-foot T12 lamps

change in response to residential conversion rate s at TSL3, holding early retirem ent rates of 4-

foot T12 systems constant at 0 percent.

Table 10.55 Early Retirement of Four-Foot T 12 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 Mediu m 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 2 021 2024 2027 2030 2 033 2036 2039 2042Shipments (millions)



## Year 0% Retrofit Rate 10% Retrofit Rate 15% Retrofit Rate

20% Retrofit Rate 25% Retrofit Rate



### Figure 10.4.1 Retrofit Rate Eff ect 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 2 021 2024 2027 2030 2 033 2036 2039 2042Shipments (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 In candescent Reflector Lamps

10.4.2 .1 Shipments Scenarios



### DOE considers two sets of standards-case scenarios for IRL: “R oll-up” and “Shift”

scenarios; and the “BR Product Substitution” and “R-CFL Product Substitution” scenarios. As

discussed above with GSFL, to evaluate a standa rds-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; anot her would be the Shift, R-CFL Product

Substitution scenario. In sum, DOE thus consid ers four IRL standards-case scenarios and two

base case scenarios (Existing T echnologies and Emerging Technologi es), yielding eight total sets

of results.

10-79 The Shift and Roll-up scenarios for IRL are si milar 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. T hose product effi cacies that

were above the standard level are considered un affected, as consumers continue to purchase the

### 10-80 same base case lamp or lamp system. In contra st, 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 sc enario 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 cons umer 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). Theref ore 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 sect or 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 IR L commercial sector responds to the Roll-up or Shift scenario

assumptions as GSFL does. Some commerc ial 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” scen arios. 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 t hus 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 di scussed 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, DO E 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 relations hip described in section 10.3.3.1 . DOE observed that in the

commercial sector the p redicted market penetrat ion rates of halogen lamps into the BR market

are consistent with current mark et trends. DOE applies the rela tionship to the higher-efficiency

design options, such as HIR, to calculate increm ental market penetration of exempted lamps in

the standards-case. Specifically, as standards become increasingly stringent and require more

efficient technologies, an incr easing number of consumers mi grate to exempted lamps.

In the residential sector, however, DOE found that the market penetration predicted by

the PBP relationship between BR and halogen lamp s was not consistent with available market

data. DOE concluded residentia l consumers do not make purchase decisions based on PBP.

Therefore, DOE estimated the migration to th e 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 incr easing 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, separa te product substitution scen ario, called the R-CFL

Product Substitution scenario, in which DOE mode led 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 ba se cases. For the residential sector DOE

calculates simple payback periods comparing R-CF L to the baseline halogen, and R-CFL to the

higher-efficiency lamp designs. Using incremen tal 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 th at 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 appr opriate in applications where

IRL are used due to differences in color quality, size, dimming capability, and other factors.

Therefore, DOE applies scaling-fact or reductions of 40 percent for the residential sector. In the

commercial sector, DOE assumes that all instituti ons wishing to convert to R-CFL despites the

technology’s substitutability issues (such as lowe r color quality) do so by 2012. Therefore, there

is no additional movement to R-CFL in res ponse to standards in the commercial sector.

In addition to modeling these two sets of s cenarios 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-lifetim e and 4,200-hour-lifetime la mps at TSL 4 and TSL 5. In contrast, at

TSL 4 in the Baseline Lifetime scenario, DOE an alyzed 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 modele d 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 an alyzed TSL 5 lamps. See appendix 11B for NIA

results of this scenario.

Lastly, DOE also develops a “10-percen t 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 incor poration of non-energy-saving lamp designs results

in an overall higher lumen output per IRL in the re sidential sector. To qua ntify the percentage of

consumers that purchase same-wattage lamp designs, DOE assumes that the average initial

lumen output of IRL of the standard s-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 sta ndards-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

m arket-share matrices for IRL shipments in each the commercial and residential sectors. These

market-share matrices provide the same lamp de signs as the base case market-share matrices.

However, in the standards-case, some lamp desi gns are not standards-comp liant and are therefore

precluded from being shipped beginning in 2012. In the standards-case, standards-compliant

lamps do not occupy all IRL sock ets 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, re presenting the percentage of sockets occupied

by specific IRL, is given in 2015 and 2042. Becau se the longest-lived commercial IRL in the

base case has a service life of 1.7 years, the co mmercial standards-case market-share matrix is

given in 2013 and 2042. Table 10.57 describes the inputs to the ba se case and standards-case IRL

m arket-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 necessar ily the same as the retiring lamp.



### Table 10.58 displays the commercial standards-case m arket-share matrix for the Shift, RCFL Product Substitution scenario. As discussed earlier, in the base case, the commercial IRL

market is composed mostly of ha logen 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 befo re 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 im proved 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, D OE assumes that the entire residential

market purchases halogen IRL in the base case. At all subsequent TSLs, consumers usually

choose the least costly standa rds-compliant lamp (Roll-up a nd Shift are the same in the

residential sector). As discussed previously, DOE calculated simple pa yback 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 incrementa l market penetrations. At TSL1, almost the

entire residential market is co mposed of improved halogen IRL, with a small portion purchasing

reflector CFL or 65W BR lamps. At TSL2, consum ers start to shift to HIR lamps, so that at

TSL3 the majority residential market is purch asing HIR technology. At TSL4, the residential

IRL market is composed of pr edominantly 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 comm ercial and residential sector, respective ly. 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 choos e 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 Matr ix for Commercial IRL Sockets (Shift, RCFL Product Substitution Scenario)

Stock in

2011* Stock in

2013** Stock in

2042 TSL Lamp Design EL 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 3Base 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

83W, 15.9 lm/W, 6000 hrs, Long Life HIR 8.06 2 5TSL 1



### 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 3TSL 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 10TSL 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 15TSL 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 27TSL 5



### Total 100 100

*Base-case input only.

**Standards-case input only.

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

Stock in

2011* Stock in

2015** Stock in

2042 TSL Lamp Design EL 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

4.70 27 27BaseCase



### 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 1TSL 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 2TSL 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 3TSL 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 3TSL 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 3TSL 5



### Total 100 100

*Base-case input only.

**Standards-case input only.

### 10-86 Table 10.60 Standards-Case Market-Share Matr ix for Commercial IRL Sockets (Roll-up,

BR Product Substitution Scenario)

Stock in

2011* Stock in

2013** Stock in

2042 TSL Lamp Design EL 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 3Base 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 5TSL 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 2TSL 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 3TSL 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 1TSL 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

65W, 9.5lm/W, 2000 hrs, BR30 Incandescent IRL 2.63 3 3TSL 5



### Total 100 100

*Base-case input only.

**Standards-case input only.



### Table 10.61 Standards-Case Market-Share Matr ix, For Residential IRL Sockets (Roll-up,

BR Product Substitution Scenario)

Stock in

2011* Stock in

2015** Stock in

2042 TSL Lamp Design TSL 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

4.70 27 27BaseCase



### 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

65W, 9.5lm/W, 2000 hrs, BR30 Incandescent IRL 1.53 4 4TSL 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 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 6TSL 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

65W, 9.5lm/W, 2000 hrs, BR30 Incandescent IRL 1.53 7 7TSL 3



### 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 32TSL4



### 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

65W, 9.5lm/W, 2000 hrs, BR30 Incandescent IRL 1.53 16 16TSL 5



### Total 100 100

*Base-case input only.

**Standards-case input only.



### 10.5 RESU LTS



### The following sections show the shipments fo recasts 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 m edium bipin, 8-f oot single pin slimline, 8-foot recessed double

contact HO, 4-foot T5 standard output and high out put lamps in the Existi ng Technologies, Shift,

High Expertise Scenario and the Emerging T echnologies, Roll-up, Market-Segment Based

expertise scenario. These reflect th e 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 ra te of lamp replacement

does not change between the Sh ift and Roll-up, High and Market Segment-Based expertise

standards-case scenarios. In addition, because ba llast lifetime does not cha nge, the rate of ballast

failure is also the same in both scenarios. Because the ballast retrof it rate is an input external to

the market-share matrices, the rate of occurr ence of ballast retrofits are the same for both

scenarios. Using the Shift or Roll-up scenar io 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 tabl es when different, the

upper- and lower-bound scenarios can result in simila r quantities of shipments for all GSFL lamp

types.

As seen in Figure 10.5.1 and Figure 10.5.2 , the standards-case for ecasts of 4-foot m edium

bipin lamps experience similar trends as the base cas e, 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 th ese 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 s ector. Specifically, 4-foot T8 medium bipin

shipments increase because they replace 80 percen t 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 se ctor, at higher TSLs a

greater portion of consumers replace their retired T12 systems with T8 systems; consequently, a

greater proportion of residential shipments are T8 s as opposed to T12s at higher TSLs. Because

4-foot T12 medium bipin and 8-foot T12 si ngle 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 2044Shipments (millions)



## Year Base Case: 4

‐ Foot MBP T8 Base Case: 4

‐ Foot MBP T12

TSL 1: 4

‐ Foot MBP T8 TSL 1: 4

‐ Foot MBP T12

TSL 2: 4

‐ Foot MBP T8 TSL 2: 4

‐ Foot MBP T12

TSL 3: 4

‐ Foot MBP T8 TSL 3: 4

‐ Foot MBP T12

TSL 4: 4

‐ Foot MBP T8 TSL 4: 4

‐ Foot MBP T12

TSL 5: 4

‐ Foot MBP T8 TSL 5: 4

‐ Foot MBP 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 2044Shipments (millions)



## Year Base Case: 4

‐ Foot MBP T8 Base Case: 4

‐ Foot MBP T12

TSL 1: 4

‐ Foot MBP T8 TSL 1: 4

‐ Foot MBP T12

TSL 2: 4

‐ Foot MBP T8 TSL 2: 4

‐ Foot MBP T12

TSL 3: 4

‐ Foot MBP T8 TSL 3: 4

‐ Foot MBP T12

TSL 4: 4

‐ Foot MBP T8 TSL 4: 4

‐ Foot MBP T12

TSL 5: 4

‐ Foot MBP T8 TSL 5: 4

‐ Foot MBP T12



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

Forecasts (Emerging Technologies, Roll-up, Ma rket Segment-Based Expertise Scenario)



### As seen in Figure 10.5.3 , the standards-case forecasts of 8-foot single pin slim line 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 d ecrease 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 d eclines 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 va ries 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 in creasingly 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., th ere are no T12 lamp shipme nts at these TSLs).

10-90

### There is no difference between the upper- and lower-bound scenarios prim arily because 8-foot

single p in slimline lamps are not modeled to se rvice 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 2044Shipments (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 lam ps 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, th ese systems are automa tically retrofitted upon

lamp failure to 8-foot T8 recessed double cont act HO systems (i.e., ther e are no shipments at

these TSLs). These ballast retrofits and la mp 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 sa me 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-f oot 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 2044Shipments (millions)



## Year Base Case: 8

‐ Foot HO T8 Base Case: 8

‐ Foot HO T12

TSL 1: 8

‐ Foot HO T8 TSL 1: 8

‐ Foot HO T12

TSL 2: 8

‐ Foot HO T8 TSL 2: 8

‐ Foot HO T12

TSL 3: 8

‐ Foot HO T8 TSL 3: 8

‐ Foot HO T12

TSL 4: 8

‐ Foot HO T8 TSL 4: 8

‐ Foot HO T12

TSL 5: 8

‐ Foot HO T8 TSL 5: 8

‐ Foot HO T12



### Figure 10.5.4 Eight-Foot Recessed Double Contac t High Output Base Case and StandardsCase Shipments Forecasts (Existing Techno logies, 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 simila r trends as the base case at sl ightly 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 2044Shipments (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 (Exist ing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise

Scenario)



### 10-93

## - 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044Shipments (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 c onsidered for 4-foot medium bipin, 8-foot

single pin slimline, 8-foot recessed double contac t HO, and 4-foot T5 standard output and high

output lamps under the Existing Technologies, Shif t, High expertise and Emerging Technologies,

Roll-up, Market Segment-Based expertise scenario s. 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 retr ofit rates. However, b ecause all lamps within

a particular product class are assu med 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 replac ement 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 rate s (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 m edium bipin cumulative lamp ship ments generally increase as well. With higher

retrofit rates, consumers are discarding their ex isting, 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 lam p system at TSL5 results in fewer shipme nts due to new construction, and therefore fewer

cumulative shipments.

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

Standards, 2012–2042 (Emerging Technologies, Ro ll-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 pi n 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 fo r both the lower- and upper-bound scenarios for

8-foot single pin slim line and 8-foot recessed dou ble contact HO lamps, respectively. For the

former, cumulative impacts decrease with increasi ng trial standard levels because of the large

number of 8-foot single pin slim line systems that experience an ear ly 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 recesse d 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, Ro ll-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 Contac t High Output: Cumulative Shipments

Impacts Caused by Standards, 2012–2042 (Exist ing 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 st andard and high output

lam ps exhibit small differences cumulative imp acts from standards in the Existing Technologies,

Shift, High expertise and Emerging Technologies , Roll-up, Market Segment-Based scenarios

because average lumen output increases only sligh tly in the Shift scenar io. 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 st andard output shipment

impacts generally decrease due to the higher average system lume n output of these lamps. Fourfoot T5 MiniBP high output shipments impacts are approximately equivalent at each TSL as

there is only one efficacy le vel for this product class.

### 10-97 Table 10.66 Four-Foot T5 MiniBP Standard Output: Cumulative Shipments Impacts

Caused by Standards, 2012–2042 (Existing Techno logies, 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 Tec hnologies, 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 Outpu t: Cumulative Shipments Impacts Caused

by Standards, 2012–2042 (Existing Technologi es, 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 Outpu t: Cumulative Shipments Impacts Caused

by Standards, 2012–2042 (Emerging Technologi es, 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 In candescent Reflector Lamps



### This section presents shipment results for th e 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

standard s-cases for IRL. These two shipment fo recasts can be characterized as the lower- and

upper-bound energy savings scenarios.

Figure 10.5.7 displays the IRL base case in the E merging 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 haloge n IRL (some of which are 2,500 hours), instead

purchase improved halogen IRL (with a lifetim e 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 sh ipments. The longer

lifetimes (4,000 hours) of improved halogen lamps designs at TSL3 cause an even further

reduction in IRL shipments. Similar trends occu r at TSL4 and TSL5 as the lamps shipped at

these standard levels are 4,000 hours a nd 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 2045Shipments (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 Pr oduct Substitution Scenario)



### Figure 10.5.8 displays IRL shipments in Existing Technologies base case and shipm ents for the

Shift, R-CFL Product Substitution standards-case s cenario. Again, shipments in the standards10-98

### cases are lower than the base case shipm ents 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 2045Shipments (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 Lifetim e 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 occu rs because the average lifetim e in this scenario is lower than the average

lifetime in the normal lifetime scenario, resul ting 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 lo wer than the average lifet ime of covered IRL in

the base case. This occurs because the base ca se 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 2045Shipments (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 2045Shipments (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 Substituti on 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 norm al 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, Shi ft, 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, Shi ft, 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: So lid-State Lighting Research and Developm ent

. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy.

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/publ ications/pdfs/ssl/ssl_mypp2009_web.pdf

6 

### Because they are based on an existing LED retr ofit kit, DOE’s projections did not consider

innovations in form factor or OLED technol ogy which could improve the possible payback

period for solid-state lighting technologies

.

7 

### DiLouie, Craig. “Introducing the T5 La mp.” Power Outlet. Vol. 4, No. 3.

8 

### U.S. Census Bureau. Current Industrial Re ports, Fluorescent Lamp Ba llasts: 2005: Table 1.

Summary of Shipments of Fluorescent Lamp Ba llasts: 1995 to 2005. 2006. Washington, D.C.

< http://www.census.gov/industry/1/mq335c055.pdf >.

9 

### U.S. Census Bureau. Current Industrial Repor ts, Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts: 2005: Table 1.

Summary of Shipments of Fluorescent Lamp Ba llasts: 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 I ndustrial Equipment: High-Intensity Discharge

(HID) Lamps and is available in Docket # EE–DET-03-001.

11 

### New York State Energy Resear ch and Development Authority. Incandescent Reflector Lamps

Study of Proposed Energy Effici ency Standards for New York State . 2006 (Last accessed

October 7, 2006) < http://www.nyserda.org/publications /Report%2006-07-Co mplete%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 C ontrols: Current Use, Major Tr ends and Future Direction,”

Lighting Controls Association (2003).

13 

### VonNeida, Bill; Maniccia, Dorene; Tweed, Al an, An Analysis of the Energy and Cost

Savings Potential of Occupancy Sensors for Co mmercial Lighting Systems, Lighting Research

Center and Environmental Pr otection Agency (August 2000).