Page 1 of 4 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
PUBLIC MEETING ON TEST PROCEDURES FOR GENERAL SERVICE FLUORESCENT LAMPS,
INCANDESCENT REFLEC TOR LAMPS, AND
GENERAL SERVICE INCANDESCENT LAMPS

AND

ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR
GENERAL SERVICE FLUORESCENT LAMP S AND INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS

Room 8E-089 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 March 10-11, 2008



## Issues for Stakeholder Comment

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) published an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) regarding Energy Conservation Standa rds and a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) regarding Test Procedur es for certain lamp types. While DOE invites comments from stakeholders on all aspects of the material presen ted in these notices, there are several issues in particular on which DOE seeks comment. Thes e issues are highlighted throughout the NOPR and ANOPR presentations. The list of issues is re produced below, grouped according to the session at which they will be discussed. Within those gr oupings, several issues are associated with those highlighted in Section V.E of the ANOPR or in Section IV.E of the NOPR and are numbered accordingly. Though un-numbered items do not app ear in these sections of the ANOPR or NOPR, DOE seeks comment on these issues as well.

1. Test Procedures

DOE seeks comment on the proposed test procedur e reference updates, speci fically, whether these updates to ANSI, IESNA, and CIE standards would intr oduce an additional testing burden or change the measurement of lamp efficacy. (Issue #1)

DOE seeks comment on whether it should limit fluores cent lamp testing to low-frequency ballasts. (Issue #2)

DOE seeks comment on whether fluorescent lamp efficacy should be calculated to the nearest tenth of a lumen per watt. (Issue #3)

DOE seeks comment on the proposed incorporation by reference of the industry standard LM-9-1999 for measuring and determining CCT for fluorescent lamps. (Issue #4)

### Issues for Comment

Page 2 of 4 DOE seeks comment on its proposal that all GSFL that are considered to be in the same basic model must have similar CCTs. (Issue #5)

DOE seeks comment on the proposed refe rence ballast sett ings. (Issue #6)

DOE seeks comment on the proposed additions to the GSIL test procedure. (Issue #7)

DOE seeks comment on its proposal to not incorporate a measure of off mode and standby mode energy consumption in its test procedures for GSFL, IRL, and GSIL. (Issue #8)

2. Scope of Coverage

DOE invites comment on its considered expansion of coverage of general service fluorescent lamps. (Issue #1)

3. Engineering Analysis

DOE invites comment on the possible approaches to handling the issue of CRI in setting GSFL efficacy
standards.

DOE invites comments on GSFL product classes. Sp ecifically, DOE invites comment on whether T12 and T8 fluorescent lamps should be in the same pr oduct class. DOE also invites comments on whether there should be a CCT divider, how many groupings of CCT are appropriate, and what the CCT divider or dividers should be. (Issue #3)

DOE invites comment on the creation of product classe s that encompass the full range of IRL wattages and the creation of a separated product class for modified spectrum lamps. (Issue #3)

DOE invites comments on the selection of GSFL lamp-a nd-ballast designs from baseline to max-tech as
well as the selection of GSFL candidate standard levels.

DOE invites comments on the method used to scale to product classes with CCT > 4100K and the 2-foot U-shaped product class. (Issue #4)

DOE invites comment on the selection of IRL lamp designs from baseline to max-tech.

DOE invites comment on whether the IRL candidate standard level repres ents the appropriate technology across all wattages.

DOE invites comments on the method used to scale from a standard-spectrum lamp to a modifiedspectrum lamp. (Issue #4)

DOE requests feedback on the approach fo r developing end-user GSFL prices.

DOE requests feedback on the approach for developing end-user IRL prices.

### Issues for Comment

Page 3 of 4 4. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis

DOE requests feedback on whether the average operat ing hours derived are a reasonable estimation of their end-uses. (Issue #6)

DOE invites comments on the system power rating of the lamp-and-ballast system s analyzed. (Issue #7)

DOE seeks comment on the use of residual value and on other possible approach es to calculating lifecycle costs for products with varying lifetimes. (Issue #8)

DOE seeks comment on average labor times and la bor rates. Specifically, DOE requests comment on how labor times will be affected by th e 2005 National Electric Code. (Issue #9)

DOE seeks comment on any other aspects related to th e Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses.

5. National Impacts Analysis

DOE invites comment on the methodology and data sour ces used to estimate initial lamps stocks in 2011. (Issue #11)

DOE invites comment on the fluorescent base-case and standards-case market share matrices. (Issue #10, Issue #12)

DOE invites comment on the fluorescent base -case shipment forecasts. (Issue #11)

DOE invites comment on appropriate standards-case voluntary magnetic T12 ballast retrofit rates for the 4-foot MBP and 8-foot SP slimline. (Issue #11)

DOE invites comment on the shipment scenarios anal yzed and other scenarios DOE should analyze for GSFL. (Issue #12)

DOE invites comment on the methodology used to inco rporate emerging technologies in the base-case IRL forecast. (Issue #11)

DOE invites comment on the assumptions discussed in cluding IRL operating sectors, market shares of incandescent and halogen IRL, and market shares of exempted IRL. (Issue #11)

DOE invites comment on the population of IRL base-c ase and standards-case ma rket share matrices. (Issue #10, Issue #12)

DOE invites comment on the national lumen output proj ection in both the standards case and base case. Specifically DOE invites comment on whether any shipment or stock adjustments are necessary in response to over-lighting or under-lighting. (Issue #11)

DOE invites comment on standards-case shipment scen arios analyzed for incandescent reflector lamps. (Issue #12)

### Issues for Comment

Page 4 of 4 DOE invites comment on the HVAC interaction implemented in the commercial and residential sectors.

DOE invites comment on the inclusion and the magnit ude of the rebound effect for purposes analyzing the expected effects of this regulation.

DOE invites comment on its usage of residual value to account for the remaining lifetime of lamps.

6. NOPR Analyses

DOE requests feedback on the criteria it should use for basing the sele ction of Trial Standard Levels. (Issue #13)

DOE welcomes comment on how LCC inputs may change for each consumer subgroup.