13A

- i

APPENDIX 13A MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS INTERVIEW GUIDE AND

GOVERNMENT REGULATOR Y IMPACT MODEL (GRIM )

TABLE OF CONTENTS

13A.1 MANUFACTURER I MPACT ANALYSIS INTER VIEW GUIDE

........................... 13A

- 2 13A.1.1 Manuf

acturer Analysis Interview Guide

................................ ....................... 13A

- 2 13A.1.2 General Service Fluorescent and Incandescent Reflector Lamps Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Manufacturer Impact Analysis Interview Guide for Small Businesses

................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 13A

- 11 13A.2 GOVERNMENT REG ULATORY IMPACT MODEL

................................ ............ 13A

- 12 13A. 2.1 Introduction and Purpose

................................ ................................ ........... 13A

- 12 13A.2.2 Model Description

................................ ................................ ....................... 13A

- 12 13A.2.3 Detailed C ash Flow Example

................................ ................................ ...... 13A

- 15 13A.3 MIA RESULTS

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 13A

- 16 13A.3.1 Impacts on GSFL Industry Net Present Value

................................ ............ 13A

- 16 13A.3.2 Impacts on GSFL Annual Cash Flow

................................ ......................... 13A

- 20 13A.3.3 Impacts on IRL Industry Net Present Value

................................ ............... 13A

- 28 13A.3.4 Impacts on IRL Annual Cash Flow

................................ ............................. 13A

- 33 13A.3.5 Impacts on IRL Employment

................................ ................................ ...... 13A

- 37

L IST OF TABLES

Table 13.3.1.1 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for the GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Existing Technologies Base Case

– Market Segment Based

– Shift in Efficacy Dis tribution

.... ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 13A

- 16 Table 13.3.1.2 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for the GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Existing Technologies Base Case

– Market Segment Based

– Shift i n Efficacy Distribution

.... ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 13A

- 16 Table 13.3.1.3 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for the GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Existing Technologies Base Case

– Market Segment Based

– Roll

- up in Efficacy Distribution

.... ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 13A

- 16 Table 13.3.1.4 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for the GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Existing Technologies Base Case

– Marke t Segment Based

– Roll

- up in Efficacy Distribution

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 13A

- 17 Table 13.3.1.5 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for the GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Existing Technologies Base Cas e

– High Consumer Sophistication

– Shift in Efficacy Distribution

..... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 17 Table 13.3.1.6 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for the GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Existin g Technologies Base Case

– High Consumer Sophistication

– Shift in Efficacy Distribution

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 13A

- 1713A

- ii

Table 13.3.1.7 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for the GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Sc enario, Existing Technologies Base Case

– High Consumer Sophistication

– Roll

- up in Efficacy Distribution

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 13A

- 17 Table 13.3.1.8 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for the GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Existing Technologies Base Case

– High Consumer Sophistication

– Roll

- up in Efficacy Distribution

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 13A

- 18 Table 13.3.1.9 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for the GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Emerging Technologies Base Case

– Market Segment Based

– Shift in Efficacy Distribution

.... ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 13A

- 18 Table 13.3.1.10 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for the GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Emerging Technologies Base Case

– Market Segment Based

– Shift in Efficacy Distribution

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 13A

- 18 Table 13.3.1.11 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for the GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Emerging Technologies Base Case

– Market Segment Based

– Roll

- up in Efficacy Distribution

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 13A

- 18 Table 13.3.1.12 Changes i n Industry Net Present Value for the GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Emerging Technologies Base Case

– Market Segment Based

– Roll

- up in Efficacy Distribution

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 13A

- 19 Table 13.3 .1.13 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for the GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Emerging Technologies Base Case

– High Consumer Sophistication

– Shift in Efficacy Distribution

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 13A

- 19 Table 13.3.1.14 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for the GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Emerging Technologies Base Case

– High Consumer Sophistication

– Shift in Efficacy Distribution

................................ ................................ ................................ ............. 13A

- 19 Table 13.3.1.15 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for the GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Emerging Technologies Base Case

– High Consumer Sophistication

– Roll

- up in Efficacy Distribution

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 13A

- 19 Table 13.3.1.16 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for the GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Emerging Technologies Base Case

– High Consumer Sophistication

– Roll

- up in Efficacy Distribution

................................ ................................ ................................ ......... 13A

- 20 Table 13.3.3.1 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

- BR Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

- Normal Lifetim e Scenario

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 13A

- 28 Table 13.3.3.2 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

- BR Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 13A

- 29 Table 13.3.3.3 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficac y Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 13A

- 29 Table 13.3.3.4 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– R oll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 13A

- 29 Table 13.3.3.5 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitut ion Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 13A

- 2913A

- iii

Table 13.3.3.6 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 13A

- 30 Table 13.3.3.7 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technol ogies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 13A

- 30 Table 13.3.3.8 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the E merging Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 13A

- 30 Table 13.3.3.9 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Ind ustry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

- BR Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

- Baseline Lifetime Scenario

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 13A

- 30 Table 13.3.3.10 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

- BR Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 13A

- 31 Table 13.3.3.11 Changes in In dustry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 13A

- 31 Table 13.3. 3.12 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 13A

- 31 Table 13.3.3.13 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 13A

- 31 Table 13.3.3.14 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 13A

- 32 Table 13.3.3.15 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 13A

- 32 Table 13.3.3.16 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifeti me Scenario

................................ ................................ ................................ ... 13A

- 32 Table 13.3.5.1 Change in the Average Number of Domestic Employees in the IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficac y Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

................................ ................................ ............. 13A

- 41 Table 13.3.5.2 Change in the Average Number of Domestic Employees in the IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– BR Substituti on Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

................................ ................................ ............. 13A

- 41 Table 13.3.5.3 Change in the Average Number of Domestic Employees in the IRL Industry Under the Existing Techno logies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

................................ ................................ ............. 13A

- 41 Table 13.3.5.4 Change in the Average Number of Domestic Employees in the IRL Ind ustry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

................................ ................................ ............. 13A

- 4213A

- iv

Table 13.3.5.5 Change in the Average Number of Domestic Employees in the IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

................................ ................................ ............. 13A

- 42 Table 13.5.5.6 Ch ange in the Average Number of Domestic Employees in the IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

................................ ................................ ............. 13A

- 42 Table 13.3.5.7 Change in the Average Number of Domestic Employees in the IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

................................ ................................ ............. 13A

- 43 Table 13.3.5.8 Change in the Average Number of Domestic Employees in the IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime S cenario

................................ ................................ ............. 13A

- 43 Table 13.3.5.9 Change in the Average Number of Domestic Employees in the IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Di stribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

................................ ................................ ............ 13A

- 43 Table 13.3.5.10 Change in the Average Number of Domestic Employees in the IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitutio n Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

................................ ................................ ............ 13A

- 44 Table 13.3.5.11 Change in the Average Number of Domestic Employees in the IRL Industry Under the Existing Tech nologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

................................ ................................ ............ 13A

- 44 Table 13.3.5.12 Change in the Average Number of Domestic Employees in the IR L Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

................................ ................................ ............ 13A

- 44 Table 13.3.5.13 Change in the Average Nu mber of Domestic Employees in the IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

................................ ................................ ............ 13A

- 45 Table 1 3.3.5.14 Change in the Average Number of Domestic Employees in the IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

................................ ................................ ............ 13A

- 45 Table 13.3.5.15 Change in the Average Number of Domestic Employees in the IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

................................ ................................ ............ 13A

- 45 Table 13.3.5.16 Change in the Average Number of Domestic Employees in the IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

................................ ................................ ............ 13A

- 46

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 13.3.2.1 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Existing Technologies Base C ase

– Market Segment Based

– Shift in Efficacy Distribution

........... 13A

- 2013A

- v

Figure 13.3.2.2 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Existing Technologies Base Case

– Ma rket Segment Based

– Shift in Efficacy Distribution

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 13A

- 21 Figure 13.3.2.3 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Existing Technologies Base Case

– Market Seg ment Based

– Roll

- up in Efficacy Distribution

....... 13A

- 21 Figure 13.3.2.4 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Existing Technologies Base Case

– Market Segment B ased

– Roll

- up in Efficacy Distribution

...... ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 13A

- 22 Figure 13.3.2.5 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Existing Technologies Base Case

– High Consumer Sophisticat ion

– Shift in Efficacy Distribution 13A

- 22 Figure 13.3.2.6 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Existing Technologies Base Case

– High Consumer Sophisticat ion

– Shift in Efficacy Distribution

.... ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 13A

- 23 Figure 13.3.2.7 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Existing Technologies Base Case

– High Consumer Sophistication

– Roll

- up in Efficacy Distribution

...... ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 13A

- 23 Figure 13.3.2.8 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Existing Technologies Base Case

– High Consumer Sophistic ation

– Roll

- up in Efficacy Distribution

.... ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 13A

- 24 Figure 13.3.2.9 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Emerging Technologies Base Case

– Market Segment Based

– S hift in Efficacy Distribution

....... ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 13A

- 24 Figure 13.3.2.10 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Emerging Technologies Base Case

– Market Segment Based

– Shift in Efficacy Distribution

....... ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 13A

- 25 Figure 13.3.2.11 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Emerging Technologies Base Case

– Market Segment Based

– Roll

- up in Eff icacy Distribution

.... ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 13A

- 25 Figure 13.3.2.12 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Emerging Technologies Base Case

– Market Segment Based

– Roll

- up in Effica cy Distribution

.... ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 13A

- 26 Figure 13.3.2.13 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Emerging Technologies Base Case

– High Consumer Sophistication

– Shift in Efficacy Distribution

.... ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 13A

- 26 Figure 13.3.2.14 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Emerging Technologies Base Case

– High Consumer Sophistication

– Shift in Effic acy Distribution

.... ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 13A

- 27 Figure 13.3.2.15 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Emerging Technologies Base Case

– High Consumer Sophistication

– Roll

- up in Effic acy Distribution

.... ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 13A

- 27 Figure 13.3.2.16 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Emerging Technologies Base Case

– High Consumer Sophistication

– Roll

- up in Efficacy Distribution

.... ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 13A

- 28 Figure 13.3.4.1 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

- BR Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Nor mal Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 3313A

- vi

Figure 13.3.4.2 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

- BR Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 33 Figure 13.3.4.3 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 34 Figure 13.3.4.4 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribut ion

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 34 Figure 13.3.4.5 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribu tion

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 35 Figure 13.3.4.6 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distr ibution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 35 Figure 13.3.4.7 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Dis tribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 36 Figure 13.3.4.8 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 36 Figure 13.3.4.9 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

- BR Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficac y Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 37 Figure 13.3.4.10 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

- BR Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in E fficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 37 Figure 13.3.4.11 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 38 Figure 13.3.4.12 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 38 Figure 13.3.4.13 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scena rio

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 39 Figure 13.3.4.14 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution S cenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13 A

- 39 Figure 13.3.4.15 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substit ution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 40 Figure 13.3.4.16 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– CFL Su bstitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 4013A

- vii

Figure 13.3.5.1 Total IRL Industry Employment by Year Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

- BR Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 46 Figure 13.3.5.2 Total IRL Industry Employment by Year Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

- BR Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 47 Figure 13.3.5.3 Total IRL Industry Employment by Year Under the Existing Technologies Base Cas e

– CFL Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 47 Figure 13.3.5.4 Total IRL Industry Employment by Year Under the Existing Technologies Base Ca se

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 48 Figure 13.3.5.5 Total IRL Industry Employment by Year Under the Emerging Technologies Bas e Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 48 Figure 13.3.5.6 Total IRL Industry Employment by Year Under the Emerging Technologies Ba se Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 49 Figure 13.3.5.7 Total IRL Industry Employment by Year Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 49 Figure 13.3.5.8 Total IRL Industry Employment by Year Under the Emerging Technologi es Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 50 Figure 13.3.5.9 Total IRL Industry Employment by Year Under the Existing Techno logies Base Case

- BR Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 50 Figure 13.3.5.10 Total IRL Industry Employment by Year Under the Existing Te chnologies Base Case

- BR Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 51 Figure 13.3.5.11 Total IRL Industry Employment by Year Under the Exist ing Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 13A

- 51 Figure 13.3.5.12 Total IRL Industry Employment by Year Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 52 Figure 13.3.5.13 Total IRL Industry Employment by Year Un der the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 52 Figure 13.3.5.14 Total IRL Industry Employment by Year Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 53 Figure 13.3.5.15 Total IRL Industry Employment by Year Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 5313A

- viii

Figure 13.3.5.16 Total IRL Industry Employme nt by Year Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ..................... 13A

- 5413A

- 1 APPENDIX 13A.13A

- 2

13A.1 MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS INTERVIEW G UIDE

13A.1.1 Manufa cturer Analysis Interview Guide



### Lamps Rulemaking Manufacturer Impact Analysis Interview Guide: General Service Fluorescent

Lamps and Incandescent Reflector Lamps

April 23, 200813A

- 3

1 KEY ISSUES

1.1 What are the key lamp manuf acturing issues for your company related to energy conservation standards and this rulemaking?

1.2 For the issues identified, how significant are they for each efficiency level? See section 6.1 of this interview guide for a description of efficiency leve ls.

1.3 How can we most effectively incorporate these issues in the Manufacturer Impact Analysis (MIA)?

1.4 Max Tech: DOE is required to consider the maximum technically feasible energy conservation standard. DOE’s efficiency levels considered in the A NOPR were based on commercially available product. Table 1.4.1 lists the highest efficacy lamp in each product class that DOE analyzed. Please provide any efficacy improvements that may be possible as well as the associated cost increase expected for suc h a lamp.

Table 1.4.1 Maximum Technically Feasible Lamps Product Class Highest Efficacy

Commercially Available Product Analyzed Potential Efficacy Improvement Associated Cost

Increase

4

- foot MBP CCT ≤ 4500K 28W T8

2,725 initial lumens 8

- foot SP Slim line CCT ≤ 4500K 55W T8

5,700 initial lumens 8

- foot RDC HO CCT ≤ 4500K 86W T8

8,200 initial lumens IRL, Standard Spectrum Improved HIR

(e.g., 40W PAR30 4,000hr 17.0 lm/W)

2 COMPANY OVERVIEW AND ORGANIZATIONAL CHARACTERISTICS

DOE is interest ed in understanding manufacturer impact at the plant or profit center level directly pertinent to GSFL and IRL production. However, the context within which the plant operates and the details of plant production and costs are not readily available from th e published literature. Therefore, DOE invites you to provide these details confidentially in your own words to the extent possible and practical. Understanding the organizational setting around the GSFL and IRL industries profit center will help DOE und erstand the probable future of the GSFL and IRL manufacturing activity with and without energy conservation standards.

2.1 Do you have a parent company, and/or any subsidiaries relevant to the GSFL and IRL industries?13A

- 4

2.2 Do you manufacture any equipment other than GSFL and IRL? If so, what other products do you manufacture?

2.3 What percentage of your total manufacturing corresponds to GSFL and IRL?

2.4 Where are your production facilities located, and what types of products are manufactured at each l ocation? Could you provide figures for your company’s manufacturing at each location by product type (GSFL, IRL, or other), and efficiency (i.e., provide the product mix for each location).

2.5 At a particular facility, would potential GSFL and IRL rede signs be difficult to implement? If so, would your company modify the existing facility or develop a new facility?

2.6 What are your employment levels at each of these facilities?

2.7 What are your company’s total GSFL and IRL production volumes (i.e., units per year) for the past 5 years? What are the production volumes of your five highest volume product classes?

2.8 What are your equipment lines, niches, and relative strengths in the GSFL and IRL market?

2.9 Are there any niche manufacturers, small businesses, and/or component manufacturers for which the adoption of new standards would have a severe impact? If so, would manufacturers of this equipment have different incremental impacts from implemented energy conservation standards than from the re st of the industry?

3 FINANCIAL PARAMETERS

Navigant Consulting, Inc. has developed a “strawman” model of the GSFL and IRL industry financial performance called the GRIM, using publicly available data on lighting manufacturers. (e.g., U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) 10

- K Forms) This section attempts to understand how your company’s financial situation differs from our industry aggregate picture.

3.1 Please compare your financial parameters to the GRIM parameters tabulated below.13A

- 5

Table 3.1 Financial Parameters for Lamp Manufacturers GRIM Input Definition GRIM Estimated Value Your Actual (if

significantly different from our estimate) Income Tax Rate Corporate (average)

effective income tax paid (percentage of earnings before interest and ta xes, EBIT) 16.2%

Discount Rate Weighted average cost of

capital (inflation

- adjusted weighted average of corporate cost of debt and return on equity) 18.4%

Working Capital Current assets less current

liabilities (percentage of revenues) 12.1%

SG&A Sel ling, general, and

administrative expenses (percentage of revenues) 19.6%

R&D Research and development

expenses (percentage of revenues) 6.6%

Depreciation Amortization of fixed

assets (percentage of revenues) 3.5%

Capital Expenditures Outlay of cash to acquire

or improve capital assets (percentage of revenues, not including acquisition or sale of business units) 3.6%

Costs of Goods Sold Includes material, labor,

overhead, and depreciation 70.39%

3.2 How would you expect new energy conservation s tandards impact your company’s financial parameters?

4 PRODUCTION COST BREAKDOWN

To help understand the industry and costs associated with manufacturing GSFL and IRL, DOE will study the effects of energy conservation standards on the full production cost s breakdowns. DOE will estimate the industry average percentage of each cost in the full production cost.13A

- 6

4.1 Could you please provide the breakdown in the total production costs for lamps by the percentage for labor, materials, overhead, and depreciatio n by filling in the table below?

Labor % of full production costs Materials % of full production costs Overhead % of full production costs Depreciation % of full production costs

4.2 Do the percentages for the full production costs found above vary significantly between IRL and GSFL?

4.3 Within the covered IRL and GSFL, do the percentages vary significantly by efficiency level?

5 SHIPMENT PROJECTIONS AND MARKET SHARES

A new energy conservation standard can change overall shipments by chang ing product attributes, marketing approaches, equipment availability, and price. The GRIM bases revenue projections on the shipments modeled in the National Impact Analysis Spreadsheet (NIA) prepared by NCI. The NIA includes shipment forecasts for the ba seline (absent new standards) and new standards at each efficiency level being analyzed.

5.1 What is your company’s approximate market share of the GSFL and IRL industries?

5.2 Would you expect your market share to change once higher energy conservatio n standards become effective?

6 CONVERSION COSTS

An increase in energy conservation standards may cause your company to incur one

- time capital and product conversion costs . DOE calls these conversion costs because they are the costs of changing your b usiness to comply with new energy conservation standards.

6.1 What level of conversion costs do you anticipate incurring under the different efficiency levels? Refer to the tables below to provide your company’s estimates. Please provide additional qual itative information to help us understand the nature of your investments.13A

- 7

Table 6.1 GSFL: 4

- Foot Medium Bipin Product Class Standard Level Investment Numbers for Comment Design Option for Each Baseline

Conversion Capital Expenditure Product

Conversio n Expenses Stranded

Assets 40W T12 34W T12 32W T8

Baseline 700 series 600 series

- EL 1 Improved 700 series or 800 series 700 series

-

EL 2 800 series 800 series 700 series
EL 3 Improved 800 series Improved

800 series 800 series

EL 4 Improved 800 series

– 30W lamp available EL 5 Improved 800 series

– 28W lamp available

Table 6.2 GSFL: 8

- Foot Single Pin Slimline Product Class Standard Level Investment Numbers for Comment Design Option for Each Baseline

Conversion Capital Exp enditure Product

Conversion Expenses Stranded

Assets 75W T12 60W T12 59W T8

Baseline 700 series

- -

EL 1 800 series 600 series

-

EL 2 Improved 800 series 700 series

-

EL 3 Improved 800 series Improved

700 series 700 series

EL 4 800 series

EL 5 Improved 800 series

– 57W and 55W available13A

- 8

Table 6.3 GSFL: 8

- Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Product Class Standard Level Investment Numbers for Comment Design Option for Each Baseline

Conversion Capital Expenditure Prod uct

Conversion Expenses Stranded

Assets 110W T12 95W T12 86W T8

Baseline 700 series 600 series

-

EL 1 800 series

- -

EL 2 700 series

-
EL 3 800 series

-
EL 4 700 series

EL 5 800 series

Table 6.4 IRL Conversion Costs Prod uct Class Standard Level Conversion

Capital Expenditures Product

Conversion Expenses Stranded

Assets Design Option

Baseline Halogen (3,000 hr)

EL 1 Improved Halogen (2,500

- 3,000 hr) EL 2 Halogen Infrared (3,000 hr)

EL 3 Improved Halogen Infrared (4,000 hr) * Note: “improved” design options may employ the use technologies such as improved optics, enhanced reflector materials, or higher efficiency filaments. “Improved halogen” and “improved halogen infrared” lamps may have approximately a 10 percent efficacy improvement over the “halogen” and “halogen infrared” lamps, respectively.

6.2 If DOE were to regulate the nominal 4

- foot T5 fluorescent lamp it would be required to analyze both the standard efficacy 28W T5 lamp (2,900 initial lumen s) as well as the premium efficacy 28W T5 lamp (3,050 initial lumens) offered by OSI. What would be the conversion capital expenditures, product conversion expenses, and stranded assets associated with energy conservation standards set at the higher effic acy T5 lamp?

6.3 DOE is required to consider the maximum technically feasible energy conservation standard. DOE’s efficiency levels currently being considered are based on commercially available product. As discussed earlier in section 1.4, if higher ef ficiency products can be manufactured, what would be the conversion capital expenditures, product conversion expenses, and stranded assets associated with increasing energy conservation standards to that level?13A

- 9

6.4 What is your depreciation period for the capital expenditures (building, equipment, and tooling)?

7 MARKUPS AND PROFITABILITY

One of the primary objectives of the MIA is to assess the impact of efficiency levels on industry profitability. In this section, DOE would like your assistance in und erstanding how the efficiency levels would impact your company’s revenues and profitability. The following questions will assist DOE in developing industry revenues and profitability for a base

- case cash flow and several standards cases using the GRIM mod el.

In order to assess industry revenue, DOE needs to determine manufacturing selling price. During the Framework workshop, manufacturers suggested DOE obtain market or consumer prices first and work backwards to derive manufacturing selling price.

7.1 DOE needs to translate market (or consumer purchasing) prices for lamps into manufacturing selling prices. DOE estimates that manufacturing selling price is approximately 60% of consumer (end

- user) prices for GSFL and approximately 70% of consumer pri ces for IRL. Referencing DOE’s medium prices in Table 7.3.1 through Table 7.3.8 in Chapter 7 of the technical support document (TSD), please comment on these approximations of manufacturing selling price. Also, please comment on whether these percentages vary with lamp type or efficacy.

7.2 One potential effect of standards is to commoditize what are currently premium products. Do profit levels vary by product class? Do profit levels vary by efficiency level? Please explain why or why not?

7.3 Do you expect changes in your estimated profitability following the new energy conservation standard? If so, please explain why.

8 CUMULATIVE REGULATORY BURDEN

Cumulative regulatory burden refers to the burden that industry faces from overlapping effects of

n ew or revised DOE standards and/or other regulatory actions affecting the same products or industry.

8.1 Are there other recent or impending regulations that lamp manufacturers face (from DOE or otherwise)? What level of investment are you expecting to i ncur as a result of these regulations?

8.2 Under what circumstances would you be able to coordinate any expenditures related to other regulations thereby lessening the cumulative burden?

9 EXPORTS / FOREIGN COMPETITION / OUTSOURCING13A

- 10

Disparity between do mestic and foreign energy conservation standards could impact exports or imports. Labor content and material changes, resulting from energy conservation standards, may impact sourcing decisions.

9.1 What percentage of your company’s GSFL and IRL sales ar e domestically manufactured? Absent standards, are production facilities being relocated to foreign countries? Would new energy conservation standards impact your domestic vs. foreign manufacturing decision?

9.2 Does your company export domestically m anufactured GSFLs and/or IRLs? If so, to what regions do you export your equipment? What percentage of sales can be attributed to each?

9.3 Would a new standard be expected to affect your export sales? What would the resulting impact be, if any, on your manufacturing operations and profitability?

9.4 Are your foreign exports of domestically manufactured lamps affected by energy conservation standards in other countries?

9.5 What percentage of the U.S. market for GSFLs and IRLs has been captured by fore ign competition? Would standards have an impact on foreign competition?

9.6 What is your outlook for the future operation of your company and the GSFL and IRL industries with regard to exports?

10 DIRECT EMPLOYMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT

The impact of new energy conservation standards on employment is an important consideration in the rulemaking process. This section of the interview guide seeks to explore current trends in lamp production employment and solicit manufacturer views on how domestic employmen t patterns might be affected by new energy conservation standards.

10.1 Would your domestic employment levels change under new energy conservation standards? If so, please explain how they would change.

10.2 Would the workforce skills necessary under ne w energy conservation standards require extensive retraining or replacement of employees?

11 CONSOLIDATION

New energy conservation standards can alter the competitive dynamics of the market. This can include prompting companies to enter or exit the mark et, or to merge. DOE and the Justice Department are both interested in any potential reduction in competition that would result from a new energy conservation standard.

11.1 In the absence of new standards, do you expect any industry consolidation? Plea se describe your expectations.13A

- 11

11.2 How would new standards affect your ability to compete?

11.3 Could new standards disproportionately advance or harm the competitive positions of some firms (e.g., small businesses)?

13A.1.2 General Service Fluoresc ent and Incandescent Reflector Lamps Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Manufacturer Impact Analysis Interview Guide for Small Businesses

1. Are you aware of the US Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) on

- going rulemaking to establish national minimum ener gy conservation standards for certain general service fluorescent lamps and incandescent reflector lamps? Would you like to be added to DOE’s email database for updates relating to this rulemaking?

2. We are assessing the impacts of a potential minimum energy conservation standard on small businesses. Is your company a small business (defined as less than 1,000 employees by the US Small Business Administration (SBA), including all subsidiaries and parent companies, and employees in all countries where you operate)?

3. Would a minimum energy conservation standard set higher than current standards for incandescent reflector lamps or general service fluorescent lamps (whereby all your competitors would also required to meet the same standard), cause any burdens on your business? If so, please explain. Please consider costs such as new designs, capital investment, prototype testing, and marketing that might be required.

4. Are there any reasons that a small business such as yours might be at a competit ive disadvantage relative to a larger business under mandatory energy conservation standards? Please consider such factors as technical expertise, capital budgets, bulk purchasing power for materials, etc.13A

- 12

13A.2 GOVERNMENT REGULATOR Y IMPACT MODEL

13A. 2. 1 Introduction and Purpose

The purpose of the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM) is to help quantify the impacts of energy conservation standards and other regulations on manufacturers. The basic mode of analysis is to estimate the change in value of the industry or manufacturers(s) following a regulation or a series of regulations. The model structure also allows a n analysis of multiple products with regulations taking effect over a period of time, and of multiple r egulations on the same products

. Industry net present value is defined, for the purpose of this analysis, as the discounted sum of industry free cash flows plus a discounted terminal value. The model calculates the actual cash flows by year and then determines the present value of those cash flows both without an energy conservation standard (i.e., the base case) and under different trial standard levels (TSLs).

Output from the model consists of summary financial metrics, graphs of major variables, and, when appropriate, access to the co mplete cash flow calculation.

13A.2.2 Model Description

The basic structure of the GRIM is a standard annual cash flow analysis that uses manufacturer selling prices, manufacturing costs, a shipments forecast, and financial parameters as inputs and accep ts a set of regulatory conditions as changes in costs and investments. The cash flow analysis is separated into two major blocks: income and cash flow. The income calculation determines net operating profit after taxes. The cash flow calculation conver ts net operating profit after taxes into an annual cash flow by including investment and non

- cash items. Below are definitions of listed items on the printout of the output sheet (see Section J.2. 3).

Unit Sales: Total annual shipments for the industry we re o btained from the National Impact Analysis Spreadsheet ;

Revenues: Annual revenues

- computed by multiplying equipment unit price at each efficiency level by the app ropriate manufacturer markup;

Labor: The portion of cost of goods sold (COGS) that incl udes direct labor, commissions, dismissal pay, bonuses, vacation, sick leave, social security contributions, fringe, and assembly labor up

- time;

Material : The portion of COGS that includes materials;

Overhead: The portion of COGS that includes indirect labor, indirect material, energy use, maintenance, depreciation, property taxes, and insurance related to assets. While included in overhead, the depreciation is shown as a separate line item;13A

- 13

Depreciation: Annual depreciation computed as a percentage of COGS . While included in overhead, the depreciation is shown as a separate line item;

Stranded Assets: In the year the standard becomes effective, a one time write

- off of stranded assets is accounted for;

Standard SG&A: Selling, general, and administra tive costs are computed as a percentage of Revenues (2) ;

R&D: GRIM separately accounts for ordinary research and development (R&D) as a percentage of Revenues (2) ;

Product Conversion Expense: Product conversion expenses are one

- time investments in

rese arch, development, testing, and marketing focused on making pro duct designs comply with the amended energy conservation standard. GRIM allocates these costs over the period between the standard’s announcement and effective dates;

Earnings Before Interest and Taxes (EBIT): Includes profits before deductions for interest paid and taxes;

EBIT as a Percentage of Sales: GRIM calculates EBIT as a percentage of sales to compare with the industry’s average reported in financial statements;

Taxes: Taxes on EBI T (11) are calculated by multiplying the tax rate contained in Major Assumptions by EBIT (11)

. Net Operating Profits After Taxes (NOPAT): Computed by subtracting Cost of Goods Sold ((3) to (6)), SG&A ( 8 ), R&D ( 9 ), Product Conversion Expense (10 ), and Taxe s (13) from Revenues (2).

NOPAT repeated : NOPAT is repeated in the Statement of Cash Flows;

Depreciation repeated : Depreciation is added back in the Statement of Cash Flows including stranded assets because both are non

- cash expense s ;
Change in Working C apital : Change in cash tied up in accounts receivable, inventory, and other cash investments necessary to support operations is calculated by multiplying working capital (as a percentage of revenues) by the change in annual revenues.

Cash Flow From Oper

ations : Calculated by taking NOPAT (15) , adding back non

- cash items such as a Depreciation (16) , and subtracting out Change in Working Capital (17) ;
Ordinary Capital Expenditures: Ordinary investments in property, plant, and equipment to maintain and rep lace existing production assets, computed as a percentage of Revenues (2) ;
Conversion Capital Expenditures: Conversion capital expenditures are one

- time investments in property, plant, and equipment to adapt or change existing production facilities so tha t new product designs can be fabricated and assembled under the new regulation;13A

- 14

Capital Investment: Total investments in property, plant, and equipment are computed by adding Ordinary Capital Expenditures (19) and Conversion Capital Expenditures (20) ;

Fre e Cash Flow: Annual cash flow from operations and investments; computed by subtracting Capital Investment (21 ) from Cash Flow from Operations (18) ;

Terminal Value: Estimate of the continuing value of the industry after 2042. Computed by growing the Free Cash Flow in year 2042 at a constant rate in perpetuity;

Present Value Factor: Factor used to calculate an estimate of the present value of an amount to be received in the future;

Discounted Cash Flow: Free Cash Flows (22 ) multiplied by the Present Valu e Factor (24 ) . For 2042 the discounted cash flow includes the discounted Terminal Value (23 ) ; and

Industry Value thru 2042: The sum of Discounted Cash Flows (25 ).13A

- 15

13A.2.3 Detailed Cash Flow Example13A

- 16

13A.3 MIA RESULTS

13 A .3. 1 Impacts on GSFL Industry Net Present Value

Table 13A.3

. 1 .1 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for the GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Existing Technologies Base Case

– Market Segment Based

– Shift in Efficacy Distribution

Units Base Case Trial Standard Level 1 2 3 4 5 INPV 2008$ Millions 639 708 692 710 593 640
Change in INPV 2008$ Millions

- 69 53 72

- 46 1 (%)

- 10.81% 8.33% 11.22%

- 7.17%

- 0.16%

Table 13A.3

. 1

. 1 Changes in Industry Net Present Valu e for the GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Existing Technologies Base Case

– Market Segment Based

– Shift in Efficacy Distribution

Units Base

Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV 2008$

Millions 533 677 650 459 398 325

Change in IN PV 2008$

Millions - 144 117

- 74

- 135

- 208
(%)

- 27.02% 21.94%

- 13.87%

- 25.25%

- 39.08%

Table 13A.3

. 1. 2 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for the GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Existing Techno logies Base Case

– Market Segment Based

– Roll

- up in Efficacy Distribution

Units Base Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV 2008$

Millions 639 704 685 703 575 635

Change in INPV 2008$

Millions - 65 47 64

- 64

- 4
(%)

- 10.16% 7.28% 10.01%

- 10.04%

- 0 .59%13A

- 17

Table 13A.3

. 1. 3 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for the GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Existing Technologies Base Case

– Market Segment Based

– Roll

- up in Efficacy Distribution

Units Base

Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV 2008$

Millions 533 667 633 433 367 316

Change in INPV 2008$

Millions - 134 101

- 100 0166

- 217
(%)

- 25.08% 18.86%

- 18.74

- 31.21%

- 40.70%

Table 13A.3

. 1. 4 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for the GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Existing Technologies Base Case

– High Consumer Sophistication

– Shift in Efficacy Distribution

Units Base

Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV 2008$

M illions 639 697 695 721 635 671

Change in INPV 2008$

Millions - 58 56 82

- 4 33
(%)

- 9.11% 8.83% 12.82%

- 0.64% 5.09%

Table 13A.3

. 1. 5 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for the GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Existing Technologies Base Case

– High Consumer Sophistication

– Shift in Efficacy Distribution

Units Base

Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV 2008$

Millions 533 645 627 506 523 328

Change in INPV 2008$

Millions - 112 94

- 27

- 10

- 205
(%)

- 21.02% 17.69%

- 5.13%

- 1.87%

- 38.45%

Table 13A.3

. 1. 6 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for the GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Existing Technologies Base Case

– High Consumer Sophistication

– Roll

- up in Efficacy Distribution

Units Base

Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV 2008$

Millions 639 686 683 702 590 662

Change in INPV 2008$

Millions - 48 44 63

- 49 23
(%)

- 7.46% 6.90% 9.91%

- 7.65% 3.61%13A

- 18

Table 13A.3

. 1. 7 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for the GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Existing Technologies Base Case

– High Consumer Sophistication

– Roll

- up in Efficacy Distribution

Units Base

Case Tri al Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV 2008$

Millions 533 625 578 431 427 310

Change in INPV 2008$

Millions - 92 45

- 102

- 106

- 223
(%)

- 17.29% 8.52%

- 19.06%

- 19.90%

- 41.75%

Table 13A.3

. 1. 8 Changes in Indus try Net Present Value for the GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Emerging Technologies Base Case

– Market Segment Based

– Shift in Efficacy Distribution

Units Base Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV 2008$

Millions 601 670 654 667 550 59 3

Change in INPV 2008$

Millions - 68 52 65

- 51

- 9
(%)

- 11.35% 8.72% 10.87%

- 8.49%

- 1.43%

Table 13A.3

. 1. 9 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for the GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Emer ging Technologies Base Case

– Market Segment Based

– Shift in Efficacy Distribution

Units Base

Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV 2008$

Millions 527 672 645 457 395 324

Change in INPV 2008$

Millions - 144 118

- 70

- 132

- 203
(%)

- 27.39% 22.32 %

- 13.30%

- 25.06%

- 38.50%

Table 13A.3

. 1. 10 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for the GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Emerging Technologies Base Case

– Market Segment Based

– Roll

- up in Efficacy Distribution

Units Base Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV 2008$

Millions 601 666 648 660 535 588

Change in INPV 2008$

Millions - 64 46 59

- 67

- 13
(%)

- 10.72% 7.66% 9.78%

- 11.07%

- 2.17%13A

- 19

Table 13A.3

. 1. 11 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for the GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Emerging Technologies Base Case

– Market Segment Based

– Roll

- up in Efficacy Distribution

Units Base

Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV 20 08$

Millions 527 662 629 432 365 316

Change in INPV 2008$

Millions - 134 102

- 95

- 162

- 211
(%)

- 25.47% 19.29%

- 18.08%

- 30.74%

- 40.04%

Table 13A.3

. 1. 12 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for the GSFL In dustry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Emerging Technologies Base Case

– High Consumer Sophistication

– Shift in Efficacy Distribution

Units Base

Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV 2008$

Millions 601 659 657 676 590 623

Change in INPV 2008$

Milli ons - 57 55 75

- 11 22
(%)

- 9.50% 9.21% 12.46%

- 1.88% 3.59%

Table 13A.3

. 1. 13 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for the GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Emerging Technologies Base Case

– H igh Consumer Sophistication

– Shift in Efficacy Distribution

Units Base

Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV 2008$

Millions 527 639 622 504 521 329

Change in INPV 2008$

Millions - 111 95

- 23

- 6

- 198
(%)

- 21.11% 17.94%

- 4.45%

- 1.21%

- 37.63%

Table 13A.3

. 1. 14 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for the GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Emerging Technologies Base Case

– High Consumer Sophistication

– Roll

- up in Efficacy Distribution

Units Base

Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV 2008$

Millions 601 649 645 660 550 614

Change in INPV 2008$

Millions - 47 44 58

- 51 13
(%)

- 7.85% 7.26% 9.67%

- 8.52% 2.13%13A

- 20

Table 13A.3

. 1. 15 Changes in I ndustry Net Present Value for the GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Emerging Technologies Base Case

– High Consumer Sophistication

– Roll

- up in Efficacy Distribution

Units Base

Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV 2008$

Millions 527 620 574 430 427 312

Change in INPV 2008$

Millions - 92 47

- 97

- 100

- 215
(%)

- 17.52% 8.83%

- 18.39%

- 19.00%

- 40.77%

13 A .3.2 Impacts on GSFL Annual Cash Flow

Figure 13A.3

. 2.1 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Existing Technologies Base Case

– Market Segment Based

– Shift in Efficacy Distribution13A

- 21

Figure 13A.3

. 2. 1 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Existing Technolo gies Base Case

– Market Segment Based

– Shift in Efficacy Distribution

Figure 13A.3

. 2. 2 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Existing Technologies Base Case

– Market Segment Based

– Roll

- up in Efficacy Distribution13A

- 22

Figure 13A .3

. 2. 3 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Existing Technologies Base Case

– Market Segment Based

– Roll

- up in Effica cy Distribution

Figure 13A.3

. 2. 4 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Existing Technologies Base Case

– High Consumer Sophistication

– Shift in Efficacy Distribution13A

- 23

Figur e 13A.3

. 2. 5 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Existing Technologies Base Case

– High Consumer Sophistication

– Shift in Efficacy Distribution

Figure 13A.3

. 2. 6 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Existing Technologies Base Case

– High Consumer Sophistication

– Roll

- up in Efficacy Distribution13A

- 24

Figure 13A.3

. 2. 7 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Existing Technologies Base Case

– High Consumer Sophistication

– Roll

- up in Efficacy Distribution

Figure 13A.3

. 2. 8 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Emerging Technologies Base Case

– Market Segment Based

– Shift in Efficacy Distribution13A

- 25

Figure 13A.3

. 2. 9 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL I ndustry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Emerging Technologies Base Case

– Market Segment Based

– Shift in Efficacy Distribution

Figure 13A.3

. 2. 10 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Emerging Technologies Base Case

– Market Segment Based

– Roll

- up in Efficacy Distribution13A

- 26

Figure 13A.3

. 2. 11 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Emerging Techno logies Base Case

– Market Segment Based

– Roll

- up in Efficacy Distribution

Figure 13A.3

. 2. 12 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Emerging Technologies Base Case

– High Consu mer Sophistication

– Shift in Efficacy Distribution13A

- 27

Figure 13A.3

. 2. 13 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Emerging Technologies Base Case

– High Consumer Sophistication

– Shift in Efficacy Distribution

Figure 13A.3

. 2. 14 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Flat Markup Scenario, Emerging Technologies Base Case

– High Consumer Sophistication

– Roll

- up in Efficacy D istribution13A

- 28

Figure 13A.3

. 2. 15 Annual Net Cash Flow for GSFL Industry with a Four

- Tier Markup Scenario, Emerging Technologies Base Case

– High Consumer Sophistication

– Roll

- up in Efficacy Distribution

13 A .3.3 Impacts on IRL Industry Net Present Value

Table 13A.3

. 3

. 1 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

- BR Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

- Normal Lifetim e Scenario
Units Base

Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV (2008$

millions) 301 293 233 221 199 190

Change in INPV (2008$

millions) - (8) (66) (81) (102) (111)
(%)

- - 2.80%

- 22.71%

- 26.78%

- 34.02%

- 36.90%13A

- 29

Table 13A.3

. 3 .2 Cha nges in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

- BR Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario
Units Base

Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV (2008$

millions ) 301 293 232 222 198 190

Change in INPV (2008$

millions) - (8) (69) (79) (103) (111)
(%)

- - 2.80%

- 23.00%

- 26.16%

- 34.30%

- 36.90%

Table 13A.3

. 3 .3 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario
Units Base

Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV (2008$

millions) 301 294 232 220 197 191

Change in INPV (2008$

millions) - (8) (69) (82) (105) (111 )
(%)

- - 2.57%

- 22.99%

- 27.08%

- 34.76%

- 36.71%

Table 13A.3

. 3 .4 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lif etime Scenario
Units Base

Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV (2008$

millions) 301 294 231 222 196 191

Change in INPV (2008$

millions) - (8) (70) (80) (106) (111)
(%)

- - 2.57%

- 23.28%

- 26.46%

- 35.04%

- 36.71%

Table 13A.3 3

. 3 .5 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario
Units Base

Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV (2008$

millio ns) 221 207 159 141 125 117

Change in INPV (2008$

millions) - (14) (62) (79) (95) (103)
(%)

- - 6.27%

- 27.89%

- 35.99%

- 43.19%

- 46.90%13A

- 30

Table 13A.3

. 3 .6 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologie s Base Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario
Units Base

Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV (2008$

millions) 221 207 159 142 125 117

Change in INPV (2008$

millions) - (14) (62) (79) (595) (103)
(%)

- - 6.27%

- 27.96%

- 35.85%

- 43.25%

- 46.90%

Table 13A.3

. 3 .7 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal L ifetime Scenario
Units Base

Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV (2008$

millions) 221 205 158 139 123 117

Change in INPV (2008$

millions) - (15) (63) (81) (98) (104)
(%)

- - 6.87%

- 28.52%

- 36.94%

- 44.30%

- 47.18%

Table 13A.3

. 3 .8 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario
Units Base

Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV (2008$

m illions) 221 205 158 139 123 117

Change in INPV (2008$

millions) - (15) (63) (81) (98) (104)
(%)

- - 6.87%

- 28.58%

- 36.80%

- 44.36%

- 47.18%

Table 13A.3

. 3 .9 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the Existing Techno logies Base Case

- BR Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

- Baseline Lifetime Scenario
Units Base

Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV (2008$

millions) 301 293 232 218 261 258

Change in INPV (2008$

millions) - (8) (69) (83) (4 0) (43)
(%)

- - 2.80%

- 22.94%

- 27.49%

- 13.22%

- 14.24%13A

- 31

Table 13A.3

. 3 .10 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

- BR Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up i n Efficacy Distribution

– Base line Lifetime Scenario
Units Base

Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV (2008$

millions) 301 293 232 222 281 258

Change in INPV (2008$

millions) - (8) (69) (79) (21) (43)
(%)

- - 2.80%

- 23.00%

- 26.16%

- 6.81%

- 14.24%

Table 13A.3

. 3 .11 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

- Shift i n Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario
Units Base

Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV (200 8$

millions) 301 294 231 218 258 288

Change in INPV (2008$

millions) - (8) (70) (84) (43) (14)
(%)

- - 2.57%

- 23.22%

- 27.78%

- 14.39%

- 4.55%

Table 13A.3

. 3 .12 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the Existing Tech nologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up i n Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario
Units Base

Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV (2008$

millions) 301 294 231 222 277 288

Change in INPV (2008$

millions) - (8) (70) (8 0) (24) (14)
(%)

- - 2.57%

- 23.28%

- 26.46%

- 7.98%

- 4.55%

Table 13A.3

. 3 .13 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribut ion

– Bas eline Lifetime Scenario
Units Base

Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV (2008$

millions) 221 207 159 141 164 149

Change in INPV (2008$

millions) - (14) (62) (80) (57) (72)
(%)

- - 6.27%

- 27.94%

- 36.14%

- 25.80%

- 32.53%13A

- 32

Table 13A.3

. 3 .14 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up i n Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario
Units Base

Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV (2008$

millions) 221 207 159 142 167 149

Change in INPV (2008$

millions) - (14) (62) (79) (54) (72)
(%)

- - 6.27%

- 27.96%

- 35.85%

- 24.38%

- 32.53%

Table 13A.3 3

. 3 .15 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the Emergin g Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

- Shift i n Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario
Units Base

Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV (2008$

millions) 221 205 158 139 160 171

Change in INPV (2008$

millions) - (15) (6 3) (82) (61) (49)
(%)

- - 6.87%

- 28.57%

- 37.09%

- 27.52%

- 22.35%

Table 13A.3

. 3 .16 Changes in Industry Net Present Value for IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up i n Efficacy Distribu tion

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario
Units Base

Case Trial Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV (2008$

millions) 221 205 158 139 163 171

Change in INPV (2008$

millions) - (15) (63) (81) (58) (49)
(%)

- - 6.87%

- 28.58%

- 36.80%

- 26.11%

- 22.35%13A

- 33

13 A .3.4 Impacts on IRL Annual Cash Flow

Figure 13A.3

. 16 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

- BR Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetim e Scenario

Figure 13A.3

. 2 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

- BR Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario13A

- 34

Figure 13A.3

. 3 Ann ual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

Figure 13A.3

. 4 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the Existi ng Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario13A

- 35

Figure 13A.3 3. 4

. 5 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scena rio

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

Figure 13A.3

. 6 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lif etime Scenario13A

- 36

Figure 13A.3

. 7 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

Figure 13A.3

. 8 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario13A

- 37

Figure 13A.3

. 9 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the E xisting Technologies Base Case

- BR Substitution Scenario

- Shift i n Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

Figure 13A.3

. 10 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

- BR Substitution S cenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario13A

- 38

Figure 13A.3

. 11 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

- Shift i n Efficacy Distribution

– Bas eline Lifetime Scenario

Figure 13A.3

. 12 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up i n Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario13A

- 39

Figure 13A.3 3.4

. 13 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

- Shift i n Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

Figure 13A.3

. 14 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Ind ustry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario13A

- 40

Figure 13 A.3

. 15 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Cas e

– CFL Substitution Scenario

- Shift i n Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

Figure 13A.3

. 16 Annual Net Cash Flow for IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Effica cy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario13A

- 41

13A.3.5 Impacts on IRL Employment

Table 13A.3

. 5. 16 Change in the Average Number of Domestic Employees in the IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 2012

– 2042 1,400 1,575 1,348 1,538 1,419 1,428

Change in the Average Number of Do mestic IRL Employees from 2012

– 2042 - 175

- 51 139 19 28

Table 13A.3

. 5. 17 Change in the Average Number of Domestic Employees in the IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Sc enario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 2012

– 2042 1,400 1,575 1,341 1,557 1,411 1,428

Change in the Average Number of Domestic IRL Emplo yees from 2012

– 2042 - 175

- 58 158 12 28

Table 13A.3 Change in the Average Number of Domestic Employees in the IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– N ormal Lifetime Scenario

Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 2012

– 2042 1,400 1,579 1,340 1,529 1,398 1,429

Change in the Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 2012

– 2042 - 179

- 59 130

- 1 2913A

- 42

T able 13A.3 Change in the Average Number of Domestic Employees in the IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 2012

– 2042 1,400 1,579 1,333 1,548 1,391 1.429

Change in the Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 2012

– 2042 - 179

- 66 149

- 9 29

Table 13A.3 Change in the Average Number of Domestic Employees in the IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Average Number of Domestic I RL Employees from 2012

– 2042 707 819 664 779 698 706

Change in the Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 2012

– 2042 - 113

- 42 73

- 8 0

Table 13A.3 Change in the Average Number of Domestic Employees in the IRL Industry Unde r the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 2012

– 2042 707 819 664 781 698 706

Chang e in the Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 2012

– 2042 - 113

- 43 75

- 9 013A

- 43

Table 13A.3 Change in the Average Number of Domestic Employees in the IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Sce nario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 2012

– 2042 707 806 652 761 677 698

Change in the Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 2012

– 2042 - 100

- 54 54

- 30

- 9

Table 13A.3 Change in the Average Number of Domestic Employees in the IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 2012

– 2042 707 806 652 763 676 698

Change in the Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 2012

– 2042 - 100

- 55 56

- 30

- 9

Table 13A.3 Change in the Average Number of Domestic Employees in the IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 2012

– 2042 1,400 1,575 1,345 1,529 1,957 2,209

Change in the Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 2012

– 2042 - 175

- 54 129 558 80913A

- 44

Table 13A.3 Change in the Average Number of Domest ic Employees in the IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 20 12

– 2042 1,400 1,575 1,341 1,557 2,121 2,209

Change in the Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 2012

– 2042 - 175

- 58 158 722 809

Table 13A.3 Change in the Average Number of Domestic Employees in the IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 2012

– 2042 1,400 1,579 1,337 1,520 1,928 2 ,232

Change in the Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 2012

– 2042 - 179

- 62 120 528 832

Table 13A.3 Change in the Average Number of Domestic Employees in the IRL Industry Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 2012

– 2042 1,400 1,579 1,333 1,548 2,092 2,232

Change in the Average Number of Do mestic IRL Employees from 2012

– 2042 - 179

- 66 149 692 83213A

- 45

Table 13A.3 Change in the Average Number of Domestic Employees in the IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 2012

– 2042 707 819 664 779 1,019 1,066

Change in the Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 2012

– 2042 - 113

- 43 72 312 359

Table 13A.3 Change in the Average Number of Domestic Employees in the IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

Baseli ne TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 2012

– 2042 707 819 664 781 1,034 1,066

Change in the Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 2012

– 2042 - 113

- 43 75 328 359

Table 13A.3 Chang e in the Average Number of Domestic Employees in the IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 2012

– 2042 707 806 652 760 988 1,069

Change in the Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 2012

– 2042 - 100

- 55 53 281 36313A

- 46

Table 13A.3 Change in the Average Number of Domestic Employees in the IRL Industry Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

Baseline TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5

Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 2012

– 2042 707 806 65 2 763 1,003 1,069

Change in the Average Number of Domestic IRL Employees from 2012

– 2042 - 100

- 55 56 297 363

Figure 13A.3 through Figure 13A.3 show total annual domestic employment levels for each TSL calculated by the GRIM under the two base

- case scenarios and the four standards

- case shipment scenarios.

Figure 13A.3 Total IRL Industry Employment by Year Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

- BR Substitution Scenar io

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario13A

- 47

Figure 13A.3 Total IRL Industry Employment by Year Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

- BR Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifet ime Scenario

Figure 13A.3 Total IRL Industry Employment by Year Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario13A

- 48

Figure 13A.3 To tal IRL Industry Employment by Year Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

Figure 13A.3 Total IRL Industry Employment by Year Under the Eme rging Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario13A

- 49

Figure 13A.3 Total IRL Industry Employment by Year Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scena rio

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

Figure 13A.3 Total IRL Industry Employment by Year Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lif etime Scenario13A

- 50

Figure 13A.3 Total IRL Industry Employment by Year Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Normal Lifetime Scenario

Figure 13A.3 9 Total IRL Industry Employment by Year Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

- BR Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario13A

- 51

Figure 13A.3 10 Total IRL Industry Employment by Year Under t he Existing Technologies Base Case

- BR Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

Figure 13A.3 11 Total IRL Industry Employment by Year Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substi tution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario13A

- 52

Figure 13A.3 12 Total IRL Industry Employment by Year Under the Existing Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distributio n

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

Figure 13A.3 13 Total IRL Industry Employment by Year Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario13A

- 53

Figure 13A.3 14 Total IRL Industry Employment by Year Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– BR Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario

Figure 13A.3 15 Total IRL Industry Employme nt by Year Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

- Shift in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario13A

- 54

Figure 13A.3 16 Total IRL Industry Employment by Year Under the Emerging Technologies Base Case

– CFL Substitution Scenario

– Roll

- Up in Efficacy Distribution

– Baseline Lifetime Scenario