1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING

ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARD

PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS AND ACTIVE MODE TEST PROCEDURE

NOPR FOR FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLASTS

U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585 Room 8E-089

Monday April 26, 2010

Chair:

Linda Graves Department of Energy

Facilitator

Jim RabaExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 2

Participants Identified: Tim Ballo Earth Justice

Ed Thomas GE Lighting

John Green Cooper Lighting

Joe Parisella Osram Sylvania

Justin Newmann NEMA Mike McGaraghan Energy Solutions

Joanna Mauer Appliance Standards Awareness Project Charlie Stephens Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance

Evan Haynes ICF International John Cymbalsky Department of Energy, Appliance Standards

Linda Graves Department of Energy, Appliance Standards

Graham Parker Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Natasha Collins Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Amanda Lowenberger American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy

Eric Andersen Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Ian SwinkExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 3 U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division Mark Duffy GE Lighting

Keith Cook Philips Lighting

Susan Anderson Osram Sylvania

Jeff Plaskon GE Lighting

Tom Eckman Northwest Power and Conservation Council Kyle Pitsor NEMA Bob Lingard Pacific Northwest National Laboratory

Gavin McCormick Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Mimi Gupta Navigant Consulting

Ali Lehr Navigant Consulting

Matthew Walker Navigant Consulting

Pekka Hakkarainen Lutron Electronics

Bob Erhardt Philips Lighting Electronics Betsy Kohl Department of Energy, General Counsel’s Office

Andrew deLaski Appliance Standards Awareness Project

Alvin RazonExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 4 National Rural Electric Cooperative Association I N D E X

AGENDA ITEMS PAGE Welcome, Ms. Graves 5

Introductions 7 Agenda Review, Mr. Raba 10 Opening statements 12 Test procedures: Overview and Existing Method 26 Mr. Walker Test procedures: Alternative Methods 54 Mr. Walker Test procedures: Proposed Method 76 Mr. Walker Energy Conservation Standard Introduction, 110 Statute, and Context Ms. Lehr Market and Technology Assessment; Screening 128 Analysis Ms. Lehr Engineering Analysis 145 Ms. Lehr Energy Use and Markup Analysis 193 Mr. Lingard Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis 208 Mr. McCormick National Impact Analysis 235 Mr. McCormick Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis 270 Mr. Carmichael NOPR Analyses 275 Mr. Lingard Final Questions/Discussions and closing 278Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 5

Ms. GravesExecutive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 6

P R O C E E D I N G S 1

9:00 a.m. 2 MR. RABA: Introducing Linda Graves, Project 3 Manager. 4 MS. GRAVES: Good morning and welcome to the 5 U.S. Department of Energy. I’m Linda Graves. I’m the 6 project leader for lighting standards, and we are 7 doing something that we’ve done only a couple times in 8 the past, we are presenting two rule makings in a 9 single day. And the purpose of today’s meeting is to 10 discuss the energy conservation standard preliminary 11 analysis for fluorescent lamp ballasts, as well the 12 draft proposed test procedures. 13 We are particularly interested in your 14 reaction to this format, because it’s our intention to 15 follow this approach from now on, of compressing what 16 used to be maybe a full day public meeting per rule 17 making into half days, so we really would appreciate 18 your response on the surveys at the end of the 19 meeting. If this worked for you, we are still very 20 intent upon getting your full participation and 21 contribution. We’ve learned a lot from the back and 22 forth with you, both at public meetings and through 23 your written comments. So we certainly want to 24 preserve that. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 7

I’m here with my new boss, John Cymbalsky, 1 but he’s not new to the U.S. Department of Energy. He 2 was formerly with the Energy Information 3 Administration for 20 years, and he is an expert on 4 forecasting, and you can certainly see how that 5 applies to our rulemaking. 6 I’m also here with my, frankly, brilliant 7 lighting teams from Pacific Northwest National 8 Laboratory, and Navigant Consulting. They will be 9 presenting the basic information to you. 10 And I’m also here with Jim Raba, who is also 11 from the Appliance Standards Group, but he has 12 graciously agreed to facilitate for us. He has 13 facilitated many times in the past, and I can always 14 count on Jim’s calm demeanor to keep things friendly 15 and civil and so everyone hears everyone. 16 So with that, I’m turning the meeting over 17 to Jim. 18 MR. RABA: Linda, you’re too nice. Yes, we 19 know that. Well, good morning. I’m Jim Raba, I’ll be 20 facilitating your public meeting today. And as a 21 facilitator, I try to keep you on track and focused. 22 You’ve come a long way to accomplish a lot, so to make 23 the best use of your time and your comments back to 24 the Department of Energy’s rule making and preliminary 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 8

analyses. So everybody will have an opportunity to 1 speak, so when you, be concise. 2 Some things to go around the room first, 3 like to have everybody introduce themselves, and when 4 you do, notice the green lights on the microphones at 5 the table. The green light should be on. If you want 6 to push the mute, just push the button and it’ll be a 7 mute as well. Let’s go around the room and introduce 8 ourselves, starting with this side, please. Your 9 name, the organization affiliation. 10

INTRODUCTIONS 11 MR. THOMAS: Hello, I’m Ed Thomas. I’m with 12 GE Lighting. 13 MR. RABA: You hear okay, court reporter? 14 Okay. Just speak closer. Thank you very much. 15

Proceed. 16 MR. GREEN: John Green, with Cooper 17 Lighting. 18 MR. PARISELLA: Joe Parisella with Osram 19 Sylvania. 20 MR. NEUMANN: Justin Neumann with NEMA. 21 MR. MCGARAGHAN: Mike McGaraghan with Energy 22 Solutions, here on behalf of Pacific Gas and Electric 23 Company, and Southern California Edison Company, and 24 San Diego Gas and Electric. Three large investor-run 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 9

utilities in California. 1 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer, Appliance 2 Standards Awareness Project. 3 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. I 4 represent the Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance. 5 MR. HAYNES: Evan Haynes, ICF International. 6 MR. CYMBALSKY: John Cymbalsky, Department 7 of Energy, Appliance Standards. 8 MS. GRAVES: Linda Graves, Appliance 9

Standards. 10 MR. RABA: In the back, the microphones that 11 are standing are live. You can use them to introduce, 12 please. 13 MR. PARKER: Graham Parker, Pacific 14 Northwest National Laboratory. 15 MS. COLLINS: Natasha Collins. I’m from 16 Pacific Northwest National Labs. 17 MS. LOWENBERGER: Amanda Lowenberger, 18 American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. 19 MR. ANDERSEN: Eric Andersen, Pacific 20 Northwest National Laboratory. 21 MR. SWINK: Ian Swink, U.S. Department of 22 Justice, Antitrust Division. 23 MR. DUFFY: Mark Duffy, GE Lighting. 24 MR. COOK: Keith Cook, Philips Lighting. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 10

MS. ANDERSON: Susan Anderson, Osram 1 Sylvania. 2 MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon, GE Lighting. 3 MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman, Northwest Power and 4 Conservation Council. 5 MR. PITSOR: Kyle Pitsor, NEMA. 6 MR. RABA: Over here, please. 7 MR. LINGARD: Bob Lingard, Pacific Northwest 8 National Laboratory. 9 MR. McCORMICK: Gavin McCormick, also 10 Pacific Northwest National Lab. 11 MS. GUPTA: Mimi Gupta, Navigant Consulting. 12 MS. LEHR: Ali Lehr, Navigant Consulting. 13 MR. RABA: Now we had a few come in -- and 14 one more -- I’m sorry, I didn’t see you over there. 15 MR. WALKER: My name’s Matthew Walker, also 16 from Navigant Consulting. Thanks. 17 MR. RABA: Go ahead, please. 18 MR. HAKKAHANEN: Pekka Hakahanen, Lutron 19 Electronics. 20 MR. ERHARDT: I’m Bob Erhardt, Philips 21 Lighting Electronics and chairman of the NEMA ballast 22 section. 23 MS. KOHL: Betsy Kohl, Department of Energy, 24 General Counsel’s Office. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 11

MR. RABA: Thank you very much. 1

2

3

OPENING REMARKS, AGENDA ITEMS 4 MR. RABA: Some things we’ve come to think 5 of as norms at our public meetings to help get through 6 and have everybody speak and be heard are some things 7 we have established over many years and we’re 8 comfortable with. Ask everybody to listen as an ally, 9 we’re here to accomplish a purpose for your benefit. 10 Be concise when you speak please. Speak one at a 11 time. Raise your hand, I’ll recognize you and queue 12 you one at a time for both introductory comments, 13 statements, and final on discussions as well. 14 Please put your cell phones on silent or 15 vibrate or stun. No sidebar conversations -- take 16 them out in the back or the hallway, perhaps, too. 17 And keep the focus up here on the 18 presentations, on the topics as well, so keep moving 19 along. We have a lot to cover today, want to make the 20 best use of your time. 21 Some housekeeping items. Let’s see, very 22 quickly, restrooms are at the far end of the hallway, 23 either one. Coffee shop downstairs on the ground 24 floor, about this position on the ground floor. We’ll 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 12

take breaks later on in the morning, and throughout 1 the day. Yes, please. 2 Has everybody signed in at the reception 3 desk and checked in with a packet of information? All 4 set there? Okay. Good. 5 Agenda, I’ll deal with very quickly. You 6 can see that the morning will be focused on the test 7 procedures, an overview of them. We’ll look for a 8 time to take a break. We have a schedule here, but we 9 can see how the meeting flows through the day. Breaks 10 are scheduled, we’ll take a look at that as they come 11 along. Take a break for lunch when’s appropriate. We 12 may get ahead of schedule, which is good, may not. 13 We’ll take a look and see at that, and then later on 14 this afternoon test procedures. 15 Any question on today’s agenda? 16 So as we say, the Department of Energy wants 17 to hear from you. It’s a good time to speak. Make 18 oral and written statements, which will be very 19 helpful in lighting, when the comment period 20 continues. And again, when you speak, please be 21 recognized, state your name for the record, and your 22 organization, affiliation. We have a court reporter 23 here who will be transcribing today’s proceedings. 24 There’ll be a copy of the transcript available after 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 13

the public meeting, and there’ll also be an attendance 1 sheet, a list of attendees provided to you as the 2 meeting’s over. So you’ll have that for your records 3

as well. 4 I understand the PowerPoint slides we’ll be 5 using today, there’s a lot of content in them. 6 They’re using comment boxes focus for the key point 7 and issues, so we’ll look at them also, and each of 8 the presenters will give their introductions and 9 proceed with that and key you up on those comments and 10 questions too. 11 I think we’ve covered that so far. So 12 essentially right here, right now, we’re inviting 13 anyone to make opening statements or remarks for the 14 records, and if you’d like to do that, you’re welcome 15 to. Keep them short, concise, limit your time, 16 please. About three minutes, the most, if you would. 17

OPENING STATEMENTS 18 MR. RABA: Are there any persons who would 19 like to speak at this time? Opening statements, 20 perhaps? State your name for the record. 21 MS. GUPTA: I was just saying, this is Mimi 22 Gupta, Navigant Consulting. I think we have a couple 23 of presentations some stakeholders submitted, so this 24 is probably the best time for it. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 14

MR. RABA: It’s a good time. All right. 1 MR. ERHARDT: They’re more than three 2 minutes long, probably, but we an leave it to three 3 minutes. 4 MR. RABA: Okay, go ahead, but start -- 5 would you like to start? Who would like to start? 6 MR. WALKER: Yeah, we’ve got a PowerPoint 7 presentation we submitted, I think. 8 MR. RABA: Okay, cuing it up now? 9 MR. WALKER: He’s cuing it up. 10 MR. RABA: That’s fine. Okay, the 11 highlights, mostly. Thank you. And state your name 12 please, for the record. 13 MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt, Philips Lighting 14 and Electronics. Chairman of the NEMA ballast 15 section. 16 (Discussion regarding use of computer.) 17 Hello. Bob Erhardt, Philips Lighting and 18 Electronics. Chairman of the NEMA ballast section. 19 NEMA would like to thank the Department of Energy for 20 allowing us to participate again. We participated two 21 years ago, and again at the HID meeting, and we feel 22 it’s been very fruitful. We also would like to 23 congratulate Navigant. We feel they’ve done a good 24 job on their report of investigation, was quite a bit 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 15

to go through. We’ve been very active the last 1 several weeks. We have a few areas we’d like to 2 comment on, but we were very impressed with how in 3 depth they were able to go, and we appreciate how 4 diligent they were in accepting our input. We feel 5 they represented our input quite well. 6 Some further areas of discussion. We have a 7 few areas of discussion. We’ve been in parallel, 8 working on method of measurement, trying to improve 9 accuracy and Ed Thomas will give a more detailed 10 presentation on that, and we’ll have detailed comments 11 during the morning’s activities. 12 We have a couple comments on using common BF 13 filaments for different lamp types, a little bit on 14 sales projections, cost analysis, scaling technique 15 and considerations for emerging technologies. Again, 16 as I said, Ed Thomas will be giving a more detailed 17 presentation on method of measurement. 18 We feel that we appreciate that DOE and 19 Navigant, with Navigant’s recommendation, is looking 20 at ballast efficiency. We have some further comments 21 on that. We’ve been doing some further work. We’d 22 like to talk about our work with you, seeing lamp 23 loads with ballast efficiency measurements. 24 We’d also like to remind you that even 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 16

though ballast efficiency measurements are more 1 precise and more reproducible than lighting -- than 2 light output measurements, please take into 3 consideration there will still be some tolerances to 4 be taken into account. I think we’ve been talking 5 about two and a half percent one should assume per 6 measurement BY accuracy in ballast efficiency and five 7 percent for BEF measurements. 8 Short comment on BEF limits for different 9 lamp types. By definition, BEF refers to a light 10 output from a given lamp. We feel that when you’ve 11 used the same BEF measurement for you medium bi-pin, 12 we feel that since the lamps were of the same light 13 output that we agree with using one common set of BEF 14 standards for T12 and T8. The medium bi-pin, we’d 15 like you to take into consideration when you go to the 16 T8 HO, the T12 HO, there is a 13 percent light output 17 difference when you’re looking at the rated lumens and 18 then so therefore the T12s would have a 12 percent -- 19 a 13 percent disadvantage when you use a common BEF. 20 Sales projections, we have a couple comments 21 from NEMA biz on sales projections. There were some 22 hills and valleys in the sales projections that we 23 just historically haven’t seen, and we question that 24

and we’ll have some comment on that. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 17

Cost analysis. Very difficult to do, we 1 recognize. We’re still trying to see if we can do it. 2 We’re trying to pull together some cost numbers. I’ll 3 make one comment here. There was an assumption that 4 the most efficient ballast was cheaper than the lesser 5 efficient ballast. We wish that were true, but we 6 haven’t been able to find that fountain of youth or 7 oxymoron, if you will. 8 Scaling techniques. I think the scaling 9 techniques are valid -- well, scaling techniques are 10 valid. We have a couple comments on maybe where we 11 could give some tweaks to them. I went to the 12 California Energy Commission has a data base of over 13 400 ballast models, and they are submittals that 14 manufacturers must make to sell to California. They 15 must come from a certified laboratory. So as far as I 16 know, that’s the best data base I’ve found for public 17 domain information on certified ballast parameters. 18 And I used that, and I found your scaling techniques 19 were pretty good. There might be some area with the 20 one lamp, we had a lot of fall-out on the one lamp 21 side. The data from the California Energy Commission 22 website, when I did some averaging, it appears that 23 maybe we would like some allowance on the one lamp. 24 Some small differences in the -- going from 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 18

lamp power -- I’m sorry -- on the low, medium, and 1 high output. In general, the LWs have lower 2 efficiency. The high outputs actually have a little 3 higher efficiency, you gave them lower. We’re not 4 going to complain. But we may talk about that a 5 little bit. 6 We’ve going to have some comments on T5. If 7 you look at the CSL-3 limits, a lot of us, even our 8 premium products, our high-line products are on the 9 edge or a half a point below what you propose. We’d 10 like to talk about that a little bit. T5s, there’s 11 some considerations -- first of all, because it’s a 12 smaller lamp, it has the opportunity for more 13 efficacious luminaires -- because you get better 14 optical control out of them, and we’d like you to take 15 that into consideration. 16 And T5 lamps, at their operating 17 temperature, they’re lumen output goes up slightly, 18 and the T8s go down slightly, so that’s another area 19 we’d like you to take into account when considering 20 the BEF requirements for T5. 21 And then, we’d like you to consider, when 22 you’re looking at both the -- when you’re looking at 23 future sales of fluorescent ballast, consider the 24 emergence of solid state lighting. It is -- two years 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 19

ago, nobody knew exactly how it was taking off. Well, 1 then I think the indication now is maybe it’s coming 2 to be time, and you might want to consider if ten and 3 15 years from now, what exactly the fluorescent market 4 will be because there are some projections that solid 5 state could be taking over as much as 50 percent of 6 the lighting market in the ten year time frame. 7 General comments. I mentioned we looked at 8 the California Energy Commission. We’re going to 9

comment on the CSL 2 and 3 data. 10 The other thing we’d like you to consider is 11 manufacturers are, you know, I think all of us here 12 were very involved in improving energy efficiency. 13 We’re doing it -- the newest areas of energy 14 efficiency -- lighter controls and working with new 15 light sources have the potential to generate 16 significantly more energy savings than picking up one 17 or two percent on an efficiency standard for a 18 fluorescent ballast. So we hope that you’ll 19 appreciate that when you’re talking about what it 20 would take to dedicate engineering resources to 21 redesigning fixed output ballast, please realize 22 that’s probably energy resources you could be talking 23 away from a much more beneficial technology, and 24 please take that into consideration. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 20

And those are my beginning comments. I hope 1 I didn’t go over three minutes. 2 MR. RABA: You did fine. That is very 3 helpful. Very helpful indeed. 4

MR. WALKER: We also have a second 5 presentation? 6

MR. THOMAS: Yes. 7

MR. WALKER: All set. 8 MR. THOMAS: Good morning you all. I’m Ed 9 Thomas. I’m with GE Lighting. I’m also the chair of 10 the ballast technical committee within the NEMA group. 11 And I’d like to talk to you a little bit about test 12 methodology. 13 Of course, as Bob mentioned, we certainly 14 want to thank the department for allowing us this 15 opportunity. We also want to thank Navigant and the 16 team of Navigant that we worked with very closely 17 during a lot of testing and qualification that we were 18 doing. And we’d like to continue to work with both 19 the department and Navigant to finish off this work 20 and move toward a ballast efficiency measurement. 21 The advantages of ballast efficiency are 22 many, more repeatable, less chance of errors, removes 23 inaccuracies associated with lamp to lamp variation, 24 manufacturer’s variation, and photometric variation. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 21

It allows the accurate evaluation of a high 1 performance product, but still there’s some issues. 2 The proposed rule involves utilization of a 3 standard fixed resistance load where it is designed 4 for a normal light level ballast. As you know, the 5 industry has several different light levels of 6 ballasts, and if you were to try to engage a normal 7 load on a low light level ballast, and impedance 8 mismatch occurs, and therefore drives the ballast from 9 its proper operating, high performance, efficiency 10 point. And the same is true with the high ballast 11

factor to normal ballast factor as well. 12 And there was some discussion about scaling, 13 saying that a certain percentage shift would be 14 expected. That may be true on one particular type or 15 a narrow range of types of ballast, but across the 16 industry, that is not necessarily a true statement. 17 To operate properly, the ballast would 18 require a specific load for the specific light level. 19 These loads, I think the people at Navigant are 20 familiar with these loads, they’re very costly, 21 precision-resistive networks, and you would require 22 one per lamp channel and so a four lamp ballast would 23 require four sets of these precise resistors, and then 24 you would require a different bank for each particular 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 22

light level, and the necessity of arriving at these 1 values come standardization of lamp types. As lamp 2 types become available, they need to be standardized 3 and the resistance value derived from them. 4 So what our recommendation would be would be 5 to utilize lamps as the load for testing the ballast. 6 Ballasts are inherently designed to operate lamps. 7 The lamp has a dynamic load. It adjusts to the light 8 level provided by the ballast. Lamps are readily 9 available. Lamps can be obtained from any 10 manufacturer at low cost and provide a proper 11 operating point for the ballast. 12 We, as NEMA, have been working for a couple 13 of years now on developing a ballast efficiency test 14 procedure. It has recently circulated throughout our 15 NEMA committees. It’s been balloted and approved, and 16 I believe it is a handout here at this meeting today. 17 So if you would refer to that, that would be helpful. 18 Again, just to highlight a few 19 characteristics. Electrical efficiency brings you 20 independent of lamp load characteristics. As you 21 know, fluorescent lamps are manufactured in high 22 volume. There’s variation from manufacturer to 23 manufacturer and lot to lot, and unfortunately, these 24 variations affect the input wattage to the ballast, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 23

over which the ballast has no control. And you 1 combine that with some errors in the photometric 2 system, then that leads to the inaccuracies of the 3 present BEF photometric base system. However, even 4 with a pure electrical measurement, some issues still 5 exist with accuracy. 6 When you’re looking at modern, high7 performance ballasts, they operate roughly in the 20 8 through, basically 100 kilohertz region, and when 9 you’re accurately measuring frequencies of that 10 extent, you need a fairly sophisticated instrument. 11 Just doing a quick back of the envelope calculation on 12 the instrument, gives me a basic 1.5 percent accuracy 13 for the instrument itself at that type of frequency, 14 and this is not an inexpensive instrument. 15 When you couple the current transducers and 16 the wiring capacitances, that error increases a little 17 bit more to the range that Mr. Erhardt had mentioned 18 earlier. And even with these errors, you still get a 19 more accurate, more repeatable measurement than if you 20 use the existing photometric system. 21 MR. ERHARDT: Could I make one comment, Ed? 22 MR. THOMAS: Yes, sir. 23 MR. ERHARDT: Each piece of equipment has 24 about a one and a half percent. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 24

MR. THOMAS: Yes. 1 MR. ERHARDT: And when you’re doing ballast 2 efficiency, you’re using two pieces of equipment, 3 you’re taking the ratio, so it’s the addition of the 4 two accuracies that you’re talking about. So if you 5 have plus or minus a half, and plus or minus a half, 6 one and a half, that’s where we’re getting our two and 7 a half percent from. 8 MR. RABA: Thank you, and your name and 9 organization for the record? 10 MR. ERHARDT: I’m sorry, Bob Erhardt, 11 Philips Electric. 12 MR. RABA: Thank you. 13 MR. THOMAS: Just briefly here, measurement 14 errors will affect the readings, and as we mentioned, 15 the instrument alone is typically a couple percent. 16 The photometric measurements are typically five 17 percent or greater variability, and when you consider 18 the fact that you have a light measuring system, you 19 have a lamp that may vary in parameters, you have a 20 ballast with electrical measurement in front of it -- 21 all these errors cumulate through the existing 22 photometric base system. And just to give an 23 understanding, a typical ballast efficacy factor would 24 be 1.58. Many people recognize CEE standards as a 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 25

more or less industry standard. If you start to apply 1 the errors that cumulate through the system, you can 2 see where the BEF numbers will vary greatly and 3 there’s been talk of putting a third digit on the end 4 of a BEF number, and based upon the accuracies that we 5 see, that third digit doesn’t mean anything from a 6 statistical viewpoint. 7 Again, this is just a table for the CEE, 8 showing where my 1.58 came from before. Just in 9 tabular form, just showing a range of the numbers with 10 a three percent error, the range of numbers with a 11 five percent error. And just a -- roughly, this is a 12 plot that I generated some time ago, and it appears my 13 bar has shifted -- the black bar here is supposed to 14 be at the point of 1.58. I don’t know how that 15 happened. But anyways, the part I wanted to call your 16 attention to is the error bars that are on the plot, 17 that’s going to cover quite a range of BEFs versus 18 efficiency. 19 And again, this is just the table that the 20 raw data come from, and the one point I’d call here is 21 the relationship for a conversion factor. You look at 22 this set of numbers for the Instant Start system, 23 you’re seeing an average of about 1.7. Average of the 24 numbers here, you’re seeing for Program Start systems, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 26

a little bit less efficient. There’s about a 1.68, 1 and we did notice somewhere through the documents that 2 some of the performance ratings for Program Start 3 systems seem to be a little bit higher than that for 4 Instant Start systems, which is not really consistent 5 with what we find in the industry. 6 And again, this is a plot that was generated 7 by our friends at the Lighting Research Center while 8 working with Navigant, and we see distribution of 9 ballasts that we tested during the work, and a 10 clustering right around 89-90 percent efficiency, 11 which is the mark that we were looking for. 12 And that’s it. Any questions? Yes, ma’am. 13 MS. GRAVES: Yeah, Ed. 14 MR. RABA: Name please? 15 MS. GRAVES: Linda Graves, Department of 16 Energy. Your presentation will be part of the docket, 17 part of the record of this meeting, so if you would 18 like to submit a correction to that one slide, that 19 would be fine. 20 MR. THOMAS: I can do that, thank you. 21 MR. RABA: Yes. Charlie Stephens. 22 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Northwest 23 Energy Efficiency Alliance. I just wanted to -- when 24 you were using the term light level, that’s ballast 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 27

factor. As you using that for a synonym for ballast 1 factor as you’re talking about the different -- in 2 general when you use that term? 3 MR. THOMAS: Right. That’s right. 4 MR. STEPHENS: Okay. Thank you. 5 MR. RABA: Other questions? Comments. Very 6 good. Thank you. Very thorough. Very thorough. 7 Thank you. Anyone else wish to make an opening 8 statement? We did see a couple new arrivals. For the 9 record, will you please, if you came in late, please 10 state your name for the records and your organization 11 affiliation. There’s a hot mike standing up behind 12 you, and there’s a mike at the table. The green light 13 should be on. You, sir. 14 MR. deLASKI: Andrew deLaski, Appliance 15 Standards Awareness Project. 16 MR. RABA: And the back, please? 17 MR. RAZON: Alvin Razon, National Rural 18 Electric Cooperative Association. 19 MR. RABA: Thank you, welcome. Proceed. 20

TEST PROCEDURE: OVERVIEW AND EXISTING METHOD 21 MR. WALKER: Thank you for those 22 presentations. Let’s pick back up where Jim left off, 23 throughout his presentation he presents particular 24 issues on which it seeks comments in these blue boxes 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 28

you can see on this slide. These issues correspond to 1 those 11 issues particularly identified in the Notice 2 of Proposed Rulemaking, the one that was published a 3 few weeks ago. 4 These issues won’t necessarily be presented 5 in this order in this presentation, and we just remind 6 everyone that comments are welcome on any aspect of 7 the analysis, not just these 11 issues. 8 So the test procedure portion of the 9 presentation will have four main parts. First, a 10 discussion of the regulatory history and rulemaking 11 process. Then a few slides on the existing test 12 procedure, and a discussion of some of the 13 alternatives that DOE considered, and then finally, 14 some summary of the proposal in the Notice of Proposed 15 Rulemaking. 16 So a little history. In 1975 the Energy 17 Policy and Conservation Act initially established the 18 energy standards conservation program. Then in 1988, 19 the National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments 20 amended EPCA to add fluorescent lamp ballasts to the 21 program. This Congressional Act also required DOE to 22 initially establish test procedure to set minimum 23 efficiency standards for ballasts, and then it also 24 required DOE to amend these standards two times. Also 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 29

within these -- this energy bill it was indicated that 1 DOE could consider additional ballasts in its 2 revisions of standards. 3 Then in 1989 initially established the test 4 procedure for fluorescent lamp ballast. In 2000, DOE 5 published an energy conservation standard as the first 6 amendment in accordance with the statute. And in 7 2005, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 added new energy 8 conservation standards for ballasts that operate 9 energy saver lamps. In 2008, DOE published a 10 framework document for the energy conservation 11 standard that’s currently under development, and that 12 is the standard that we’ll be discussing in the 13 afternoon. It was at this meeting that DOE first 14 received comment that it should review the active mode 15 test procedure. 16 Then in 2009, DOE published a final rule 17 addressing standby and off-mode test procedures for 18 ballasts. This was in response to a provision in the 19 Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, EISA 20 2007. And finally, just a few weeks ago, on March 21 24th, DOE published both the NOPR for the active mode 22 test procedure, and Notice of Public Meeting, 23 announcing the availability of the preliminary 24 analysis for the standards rulemaking. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 30

So from this point on, the presentation will 1 focus on the test procedure. The test procedure in 2 general consists of two parts. First, a NOPR, and 3 then a final rule. DOE has published this NOPR on 4 March 24th and it seeks comment both through oral 5 comments at today’s meeting, and through written 6 comments which are due by June 7, 2010, just about a 7 month and a half from now. DOE will then review and 8 consider all of these comments before publishing a 9 final rule, which will be published on or before the 10 same day as the final rule for the energy conservation 11 standard rulemaking, which is about June 2011. 12 The test procedure is very much 13 interconnected with decisions that are made in the 14 standards rulemaking, in particular the scope of 15 coverage under consideration, so in order to 16 synchronize the two rulemakings, DOE will publish both 17 of them around the same time. 18 The test procedure NOPR accomplishes several 19 items. First it serves as the seven-year review of 20 the active mode test procedure. One of the provisions 21 of EISA 2007, one of the recent energy bills, requires 22 DOE to review its test procedures every seven years. 23 Next, the test procedure NOPR proposes to 24 update ANSI references in the existing test procedure. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 31

It then proposes a new test procedure based on ballast 1 efficiency correlated to BEF for use with amended 2 standards, and these amended standards are those that 3 are currently under development and will be discussed 4 in the afternoon. Finally, it proposes to set up 5 certification requirements for use with both the 6 existing standards and the amended standards. 7 while there are currently energy 8 conservation standards for ballast, manufacturers 9 aren’t required to submit written documentation 10 indicating compliance, so DOE is proposing to make a 11 change. 12 So at the bottom of this slide you can see a 13 diagram that describes the timing of these provisions. 14 First. on June 2011, the test procedure final rule and 15 standards final rule will be published. Thirty days 16 after that, the updates to the existing test procedure 17 will be come effective, and that’s the updated ANSI 18 references and the existing light output base method. 19 Then in June 2012, DOE is proposing that manufacturers 20 use the updated existing test procedure to indicate 21 compliance with existing standards. 22 Then in June 2014, the energy conservation 23 standard will become effective, and on that same date, 24 the new test procedure which uses ballast efficiency 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 32

correlated to BEF will also become effective. This 1 test procedure will be located at Appendix Q-1 of the 2 Code of Federal Regulations, whereas the existing test 3 procedures, in Appendix Q. 4 Then finally, in June 2015, one year after 5 this new test procedure becomes effective, 6 manufacturers will again be required to submit written 7 documentation that indicates compliance with the 8 amended standards using the new test procedure. 9 So at this time we have our first issue for 10 comment. This actually comes from the energy 11 conservation standard preliminary analysis. Some 12 manufacturers observed that there are non-compliant 13 ballasts available in the marketplace, and DOE’s 14 requesting comment on reasonable ways to enhance the 15 certification and enforcement procedures for these 16

ballasts. 17 Floor’s open. 18 MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt, Philips Lighting 19 Electronics, NEMA ballast section chair. I think 20 we’ve commented before, and in California, the 21 California Energy Commission requires that all test 22 data be done by a certified laboratory, that there’s a 23 certified copy of data available for inspection. 24 We’ve already -- we are already submitting data in 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 33

this format. Laboratories that are certified by UL, 1 CSA, or other recognized laboratories that -- if your 2 lab is certified for doing UL work, meaning that you 3 have an audit program and that you’re showing that you 4 meet your ISO criteria, et cetera, that’s what 5 California’s been using for their submission of data. 6 We propose something common so we may use 7 the same set of data, preferably. 8 MR. RABA: Understandable. Thank you. Any 9 other comments, please, at this time? 10 MR. deLASKI: Andrew deLaski, Appliance 11 Standards Awareness Project. Bob, this is a question 12 for you. The slide there says manufacturers have 13 observed non-compliant ballasts, and I’m wondering if 14 you -- if the NEMA ballast section has a sense of 15 where are those problems, you know, is it certain 16 types of ballast? I mean, can you characterize the 17 nature of the problems that the ballast section has 18

observed? 19 MR. ERHARDT: I don’t know, maybe I’ll let - 20 - actually Justin’s rather new with NEMA. I don’t 21 know that our company has been the one bringing this 22 to attention, but some of the NEMA companies have been 23 bringing this up, that they’ve observed some offshore 24 suppliers that are doing private labeling, don’t 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 34

necessarily meet the requirements that they’re 1 claiming. But I can’t speak for my own company. I 2 can open it up to the other NEMA company 3 representatives. 4

MR. RABA: And that was Bob Erhardt? 5

MR. ERHARDT: And that was Bob Erhardt. 6 MR. RABA: Thank you. Anybody else. Okay. 7 MR. WALKER: All right. Great. So we’ll 8 move on to the second section where we’ll discuss the 9 existing test procedure, some of the comments we 10 received on potential drawbacks. 11 Existing procedures based heavily on 12 ANSI82.2, the 1984 version which calculates ballast 13 efficacy factor by first measuring ballast factor, a 14 measure of relative light output, and dividing by the 15 ballast input power, and multiplying by 100. In the 16 NOPR, DOE is proposing to amend the existing test 17 procedure by updating the ANSI reference from the 1984 18 version of C82.2 to the 2002 version. In addition, 19 it’s proposing to indicate particular ANSI standards 20 for use with ballasts that operate at low or high 21 frequency. 22 At this time, we seek comments on the 23 updates to the existing test procedure -- the updates 24 -- the test procedure by updating the ANSI standards 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 35

and the appropriate use of the three standards 1 mentioned on this slide. 2 MR. RABA: Comments? Sir. You have 3 comments on this? 4 MR. THOMAS: Yes. Busy taking notes here, 5 excuse me. Ed Thomas, GE Lighting. Yeah, we found 6 issues with this system because it’s based upon input 7 power for one. Lamps have variation and that 8 variation relates to the wattage of the lamp that it’s 9 actually going to operate at. With the efficient 10 ballast, typically -- let’s just pick a number -- 90 11 percent efficiency -- 90 percent of the input wattage 12 that’s represented by the input power comes from the 13 lamps. The ballast manufacturer has no control over 14 that level of wattage. And so that number will vary 15 around at the pleasure of the lamps being used in the 16 test. And when you add to that, the errors associated 17 with the photometric measurement, this is where we 18 find large variations in ballast efficacy factor that 19 can make a high performance ballast look not so good. 20 And if one were to -- how shall I use the 21 term -- shop for laboratories, you could find an 22 improvement in your ratings, should you desire to do 23 that. Not a recommended practice, but it has been 24 heard of in the industry. So between the variations 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 36

between laboratories, variations in the lamp types, 1 and even the skill between the different laboratories, 2 even though the test method is defined, if you were to 3 read through the test method, it’s not accurately 4 defined, and there’s a lot of latitude that’s involved 5 in the measurement. 6

MR. RABA: Further comments? 7 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, Bob Erhardt, Philips 8 Lighting and Electronics. We’d also like to comment, 9 and when we’re talking about using ballast efficiency 10 measurements, we currently have only developed 11 correlations for instant start ballasts and ballasts 12 that do filament cutout when operating at full output. 13 ANSI test procedures for BEF will be required for 14 rapid start and other lamp types that -- other ballast 15 types that leave filament heating in place. 16 There is a new version of ANSI 82.2 coming 17 out. It is -- Ed maybe you can keep me corrected here 18 -- but I believe it’s being voted on currently, is 19 that right? 20

MR. THOMAS: 82.2? 21

MR. ERHARDT: Yes. 22 MR. THOMAS: I believe it’s certainly in the 23 works. I don’t know quite where it is now. 24 MR. ERHARDT: Anyhow, we believe it’s out 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 37

for vote currently, and it’s publication will be 1 imminent. So you may wish to consider using the 82.2, 2 2010 I believe it would be. 3 MR. RABA: Thank you. Anyone else please? 4

Go ahead. 5 MR. MCGARAGHAN: This is Mike McGaraghan on 6 behalf of California investor-run utilities. We would 7 generally support this shift to ballast efficiency, 8 provided that DOE agrees with NEMA’s finding that it 9 does decrease variation in lamp testing. But I do 10 have a handful of questions, some of them may be best 11 for DOE, some perhaps for NEMA. 12 The first is if someone could provide a 13 little more detail on the resistor bank method one 14 used for program start ballasts. Does it capture 15 cathode heating? The second question, does using a 16 number of different resistors for different ballast 17 factors accurately capture impedance in lamps? The 18 variation of impedance? And the third question -- why 19 don’t we start with those two? And if anyone has 20 responses, that’d be great. And then I’ll get to the 21 third question. 22 MR. RABA: Restate the first question, 23 please? 24 MR. ERHARDT: I think I understood the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 38

questions. First of all, I think -- 1

MR. RABA: Bob Erhardt? 2 MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt, Philips Lighting 3 and Electronics. I think we’ve already stated that 4 for now we are only proposing ballast efficiency 5 measurements for instant start ballasts and for 6 program start ballasts that have full filament cutout 7 at full operation, so when the filaments are not being 8 heated. And getting back to what Ed was talking 9 about, we are now proposing -- we have a preferred 10 method of actually using reference lamps for doing the 11 ballast efficiency measurement. The reason being that 12 while, for a given ballast operating at a different 13 power point, at a given ballast factor, a set of 14 substitution resistors can be reasonably accurately 15 developed, and resistors can offer some opportunity 16 for ease of measurement. You can do just an RMS 17 voltage across them if you know it’s a non-shifting 18 precision resistor, for instance. 19 However, the -- even small variations in 20 ballast factor move the ballast away from its normal 21 operating point when you’re using a common set of 22 resistors for all ballasts, and it would -- we would 23 propose that if you were to use resistors that you 24 would at least have one for each class, which would 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 39

mean you would have to have separate resistors defined 1 for low, medium, and high output, and maybe even 2 further delineated because a high output ballast could 3 be a one ballast factor, or it could be a 1.2 ballast 4 factor, and you do start to see significant deviations 5 from the proper operating point of the electronic 6 ballast when you’re moving it away from its design 7 operating point. 8 We have found -- I’ve been in the industry 9 28 years, we been using substitution resistors without 10 any difficulty all along. Occasionally, you will find 11 a ballast that operates differently on resistors than 12 it does on lamps, and that is another factor to take 13 into consideration. And one of the reasons why we 14 would again propose that you look at using reference 15 lamps to do ballast efficiency measurements, the lamp 16 automatically compensates for the power level, and the 17 ballast should be able to operate the lamps. There 18 have been times when a ballast may not start properly 19 if they’re connected with resistors, or there may 20 other difficulties. 21 MR. RABA: Is there any follow-on to the 22 comments? Response. Next question? 23 MR. MCGARAGHAN: So I just want to clarify. 24

MR. RABA: Sure. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 40

MR. MCGARAGHAN: NEMA’s proposing to use 1 reference lamps. DOE has proposed to use resistors. 2 In the DOE proposal using resistors, how do you intend 3 to measure program start lamps without cathode cutout? 4 MR. WALKER: I think I can answer your 5 question. In the proposed method, a program start 6 ballast that uses cathode cutout would have maybe just 7 a residual amount of electroheating left. That would 8 still be captured in an output power measurement, but 9 it would be very similar to an instant start system. 10 However, for a rapid start system that does 11 include cathode heating, the heating power would be 12 included in the output power measurement as the 13 proposal stands at this point. 14

MR. RABA: That was Matt Walker. Does that 15 help your concerns? 16 MR. MCGARAGHAN: Yes, thank you. And the 17 last question I had was DOE indicated in the TSD, not 18 in the test procedure NOPR, that it cannot -- it 19 interprets -- I’m not sure if it’s referencing a 20 statute, but it says that it cannot move away from the 21 BEF metric, and that’s why it’s proposing BE into BEF. 22 Can DOE provide more background on why it believe it 23 cannot move away from BEF? 24 MS. KOHL: I’m not sure -- this is Betsy 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 41

Kohl from DOE -- I’m not quite sure that we’re there 1 yet, whether that was an error in the document or not. 2 Do you have a citation you can give me and we can make 3

sure -- 4 MS. GRAVES: Could you speak into the 5 microphone, please. 6 MS. KOHL: Sorry. This is Betsy Kohl, DOE 7 GC. And I was asking for a reference to the document 8 where he’s looking. 9 MR. MCGARAGHAN: On Page 221. 10 MS. KOHL: Okay. 11 MR. MCGARAGHAN: "Doe preliminarily 12 determined that it cannot change their recorded metric 13

from BEF." 14 MS. KOHL: We will take a look at that. 15

MR. MCGARAGHAN: The follow-on comment to 16 that is that the California Investor-run utilities 17 would support the transition to relative system 18 efficiency, and believe that that could be done as a 19 conversion from ballast efficiency to ballast efficacy 20 factor, and then on to relative system efficiency. 21

MR. RABA: Other comments. 22 MR. THOMAS: Thank you. Ed Thomas, GE 23 Lighting. I’d like to go back to the point that 24 Matthew mentioned just a minute ago, when you 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 42

mentioned the testing of rapid start -- 1 MS. GRAVES: Ed, we need you to speak into 2 the microphone, please. 3 MR. THOMAS: I’m sorry, yes. Going back to 4 the point that Matthew mentioned about testing the 5 rapid start systems and having the heating energy 6 taken as part of the output. Therefore, there would 7 be no difference in the performance level between a 8 rapid start system that heats the lamps continuously 9 and an instant start system that does not and 10 transfers all of its energy to light. I can’t 11 understand how those two would be equated. 12 MS. GUPTA: Matthew, this is Mimi Gupta, 13 Navigant. I think you misspoke, right. 14 MR. MCGARAGHAN: I think I did mispeak. 15 Thank you. 16 MS. GUPTA: I think the cathode heating is 17 not included in the outcome power to the lamp so a 18 rapid start ballast would be less efficient than an 19 instant start according to the test procedure. 20 MR. THOMAS: Yeah, I guess the reason I 21 raised that is I noticed how the groupings of systems 22 were put together with rapid start grouped in the same 23 categories as instant start. And with the power that 24 is lost in the cathode heating, I’m just wondering how 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 43

that’s going to be rationed out, and where is that 1 loss going to be assigned to, I guess would be the 2 question that I actually have. 3 MS. GUPTA: I get -- this is Mimi Gupta from 4 Navigant Consulting. What do you mean, where would it 5 be assigned to? You mean would the standard account 6 for it? 7 MR. THOMAS: More or less, yes. You have a 8 certain amount of energy that’s in a rapid start 9 system that would be transferred to the making of 10 light, if you will, and there’s a certain amount of 11 energy that’s transferred simply to heat the cathodes. 12 Okay. That’s in a rapid start system. In an instant 13 start system, all the energy is transferred into 14 making light. Therefore it’s going to be more 15 efficient system. 16 What the present rule seems to have is a 17 rapid start grouped in the same exact category as 18 instant start, and I just need to understand how that 19

can be. 20 MS. GUPTA: Right. I think this gets to 21 product classes, which is what we’ll discuss later 22 this afternoon, but I think the idea is, does DOE -- 23 DOE tries to determine whether there’s a unique 24 utility between a T12 rap, four foot medium bi-pin rap 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 44

start system, and a T8 instant start system. And in 1 the preliminary analysis, DOE determined there wasn’t 2 a unique utility, so even though a rapid start system 3 would have to expend some energy to keep those 4 cathodes, there’s no additional utility between the 5 two systems so that’s why they set the same standard 6 for both and put them in the same product class. 7 MR. ERHARDT: May I respond? 8

MR. RABA: Yes. 9 MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt. Just a couple 10 quick comments. One, at the risk of getting ahead 11 into the product categories, rapid start systems fall 12 somewhere more between instant start and program start 13 as far as how well they treat the lamps. Before there 14 was program start, rapid start was the preferred 15 configuration for longer lamp life and frequent 16 switching. 17 I believe that Navigant answered the 18 questions by saying that filament heating would be 19 considered as losses in doing a ballast efficiency 20 measurement, and I think that’s a clarification for 21

Mr. Thomas. 22 One small comment is that I don’t know 23 exactly how significant it is, but filament heating 24 will reduce cathode fall which could affect column 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 45

efficacy. It may only be on the order of one or two 1 percent, but it’s not exactly pure losses because your 2 cathode fall may go down a couple volts, and that 3 could increase your column efficacy. 4 MR. RABA: In the back, please? 5 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. So would 6 that effect on the lamp cathode show up in a 7 photometric measurement from the output from the lamp, 8 as it’s currently -- as the test currently is done? 9 MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt. As the test is 10 currently done, light output’s light output. So it 11 take into account all effects and you’re looking at -- 12 actually you’re looking at the column efficacy, and so 13 in the current BEF, no, I guess the current BEF where 14 you’re looking at just one portion of the two, would 15 be very close to what Navigant has proposed. 16 MR. STEPHENS: Okay, the reason I asked 17 that, I think I recall something in the Federal 18 Register Notice where there was some descriptions of 19 this issue where it was reference to cathode heating, 20 having an impact on the lamp efficacy and the light 21 output of the lamp. And so the current test, if 22 you’re measuring with a photocell, the output of the 23 lamp, if there is an improvement in other words, of 24 the light output of the lamp as a result of that, it 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 46

wouldn’t, as you suggested, be entirely losses. 1 MR. RABA: Yes, Charlie Stephens. 2 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. 3 MR. ERHARDT: Let me clarify. I may be 4 back-tracking a little bit here. The column efficacy 5 is -- there’s a -- the column discharge which is 6 giving you light, and then there’s the cathode fall. 7 And so the total lamp voltage, if you have a 130 volt 8 lamp, for instance, 10-15 volts of that might be 9 cathode fall that produces no light. It’s a power 10 dissipation. That’s one of the -- and that is what 11 filament heating can affect. So yes, heating the 12 filaments can improve the efficacy -- well, can 13 improve the efficacy of the column, but not enough to 14 cover the losses you’re putting into the filaments by 15 heating the filaments. 16 I’m just saying that -- I’m getting into 17 minutiae and perhaps we’re getting a little too 18 detailed because I don’t think NEMA has any objection 19 to putting rapid start with instant start for the 20 purpose of classification. 21 MR. RABA: I see a nodding of the head. 22 Thank you Bob. Further comments? 23 MS. GUPTA: Jim, can I -- 24 MR. RABA: Mimi Gupta. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 47

MS. GUPTA: I just wanted to ask a follow-on 1 question, Bob. So you mentioned how there’s no 2 ballast efficiency measurement method for rapid start 3 that NEMA has come to a consensus on, is that correct? 4 MR. ERHARDT: Well, we have not come to 5 agreement on -- and I guess I read quite a bit of this 6 document, I don’t claim to have read all of the 7 document, and we have not come to consensus on how to 8 treat the filament losses if we wanted to use a 9 ballast efficiency. There have been proposals, but we 10 haven’t done any testing to back it up, and we do have 11 quite a bit of round robin testing and testing at 12 certified labs, with the instant start configuration. 13 We just have not done the diligence on the program 14 start and the rapid start with filament heating in 15 place. 16 We think the Navigant proposal of including 17 the filament heating with the losses is a good first 18 pass approximation. We just have not done the due 19 diligence to convince ourselves that we want to 20 support that. 21 MR. RABA: Thank you, Bob, very thorough. 22 Questions to follow on? Comments? Matt? 23

24MR. WALKER: All right. This slide’s going 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 48

to hit on two of the things we just talked about, but 1 I’ll go ahead and go through it again for 2 completeness. At the framework document meeting, many 3 -- DOE received many comments on potential sources of 4 variation in the existing test procedure, both through 5 lamp manufacturing, and differences in the measurement 6 technique itself. As well, many commentors pointed 7 out that the metric of BEF might have some 8 limitations. 9 First, for lamp manufacturing variation, 10 some commentors indicated that ballasts tested with 11 the reference lamp, the measured power of this 12 reference lamp can deviate up to 2.5 percent of the 13 rated lamp power, which then impacts the ballast input 14 power and ultimately, BEF. 15 Then in terms of differences in the 16 measurement technique itself. DOE received comment 17 that the same ballast tested at different facilities 18 may exhibit different values of BEF. One possible 19 source of this difference could be differences in 20 ambient temperature from one facility to the next. A 21 lamp is known to change its operating characteristics 22 in response to temperature, and this can affect 23 ballast input power, and again, ultimately BEF. 24

Commentors also noted that to measure 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 49

ballast factor in electronic ballasts is often 1 compared to reference circuit that operates at low 2 frequency. DOE also received comment that lamps from 3 different manufacturers may respond differently to 4 this change between low and high frequency operation, 5 which affects the consistency of the ballast factor 6 measurement, and again, ultimately, the efficiency 7 metric of BEF. 8 And the finally, DOE received many comments 9 on the fact that BEF cannot be used to directly 10 compare ballasts that operate different total wattage 11 loads, different wattage lamps, and different numbers 12 of lamps. 13 Along this same lines, several commentors 14 suggested that the metric could be changed from BEF to 15 an alternative, such as ballast efficiency or relative 16 system efficacy. As we’ve described before, DOE has 17 preliminarily setting standards in terms of BEF, but 18 may consider alternatives. And in this proposal, DOE 19 is proposing to measure ballast efficiency using a 20 ballast resistor system, and then correlate this 21 measured ballast efficiency to BEF. 22 On this slide, DOE is just seeking comments 23 on all aspects of the existing test procedure. I 24 think we’ve already received a lot of comment to the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 50

effect of this issue, but if there is any lingering 1 thoughts? 2 MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt, Philips Lighting 3 and Electronics. One small comment. I saw in the 4 document, and you just said it again, BEF is related 5 to the light output, not the power of the lamp. And 6 so for that reason, you can conceivably use the same - 7 - you can compare BEFs for lamps with like light 8 output, reference light output. But again, it’s -- 9 one reason that you’re using BEF is that there is some 10 variation in the light output of the lamp and since it 11 is a photometric measurement, you want to be measuring 12 the ballast, then, so you use a reference lamp and you 13 do a comparison. 14 But as I said in my opening comments, we 15 agree you can use the same BEF limits for the two 16 lamps you specified for your medium by-pin. You had a 17 34 watt T12, and you had a 32 watt T8, but they had 18 within a percent or so, the same lumen output. And in 19 that case, when you’re assuming the same lamp, the 20 same reference lamp, rating on the reference lamp, 21 then I think it is fair to use the same metric, the 22 same limits of BEF, when you have the same light 23 output. It’s not power, it’s the light output. 24 MR. RABA: Okay. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 51

MR. HAKKAHANEN: Pekka Hakahanen, Lutron 1 Electronics. One small comment is that while ballast 2 efficacy factor is a photometric measurement, so is 3 the relative system efficiency, or relative system 4 efficacy metric, and suffers from these same problems 5 that -- of inaccuracy that the BEF does. 6

MR. RABA: Thanks. 7 MR. deLASKI: Could you bring up the 8 previous slide, please? 9

MR. WALKER: Sure. 10 MR. deLASKI: Andrew deLaski, Appliance 11 Standards Awareness Project. In your last step, 12 there, your last bullet here, to ... BE to BEF, so 13 what’s the purpose of that step? 14 MR. WALKER: I guess the purpose is to -- I 15 feel like I’m saying the same thing -- the goal is to 16 set standards in terms of BEF, so in order to reach 17 that BEF value that we can set standards on, the 18 measured efficiency metric needs to be correlated to a 19 different number. Is that answering your question? 20

MR. deLASKIV: Let’s hear what Bob has to 21

say. 22 MR. ERHARDT: This was NEMA’s proposal and 23 in principle, the light output is proportional, at 24 least to a first order approximation, to the output 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 52

power for an instant start system, and that’s why we 1 have some -- we haven’t come to agreement yet on what 2 to do when you’re still heating the filaments. But 3 for an instant start system, the column power is 4 almost directly proportional to the output power. So 5 if you’re measuring ballast efficiency for an instant 6 start system, and you’re measuring the output power 7 over the input power, you’re measuring a parameter 8 that has, we feel, a direct correlation to light 9 output. Output power has a direct correlation to 10 light output. 11 And so that’s why we feel you can develop a 12 correlation between BEF, which is a relative light 13 output, and it’s the BF is the light output of the 14 ballast over the reference light output. It’s a 15 number. But again, it’s light output that you’re 16 talking about. And output power has a correlation to 17 light output, so you can develop a correlation -- if 18 you agree that output power is proportional to light 19 output, and that’s what our testing -- you know, we’ve 20 done testing to show this -- then you can use a 21 mathematical formula for a given lamp type, after 22 you’ve developed -- after you’ve developed a lumens 23 per watt, if you will, for a lamp, then you can just 24 take that -- you can take that number and put it into 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 53

your output watts over input watts formula, and get 1 light output over input watts, which is BEF. 2 MR. deLASKI: Okay. 3 MR. RABA: You look puzzled. 4 MR. deLASKI: It’s okay. 5 MR. ERHARDT: I have been accused of being 6 over-detailed. 7 MR. RABA: Thank you, Bob. We’ll study it 8 later. The record. Thank you very much. Comment 9 there, please? 10 MR. MCGARAGHAN: Mike McGaraghan, California 11 utilities. I just wanted to respond to the gentleman 12 from Lutron, I’m sorry I missed his name. 13

MR. RABA: Pekka. 14 MR. MCGARAGHAN: Pekka. Mentioned a minute 15 ago that RSE, relative system efficiency, would have 16 the same negative aspects as ballast efficacy factor 17 because it’s based on lumen output. But I just want 18 to make sure -- my understanding is if you can 19 correlate ballast efficiency to ballast efficacy 20 factor with this set of mathematical equations, that 21 you could do the same thing from ballast efficiency to 22 relative system efficiency. And the benefit of 23 relative system efficiency is that you can -- or one 24 benefit -- is that you can compare ballasts operating 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 54

different numbers of lamps. So instead of 70 product 1 classes, by my count, we’d be down to 18 or 20, I 2 forget which. 3 MR. RABA: Thank you. Yes, please. 4 MR. HAKKAHANEN: Pekka Hakahanen, Lutron. 5 Agree with your last comment. I just wanted to point 6 out that the -- if it’s used in the form of 7 photometric measurements, then it has the same 8 problems. If we start with ballast efficiency, and 9 then move to whichever metric, we avoid the problems. 10

MR. RABA: Bob? 11 MR. ERHARDT: This is Bob Erhardt. Just a 12 couple of comments. One, yes, RSE does make -- give a 13 set of numbers that are easier to understand. When 14 you’re comparing for the same lamp, an RSE gives -- 15 and you have different numbers of lamps, agreed, it 16 gives you an indication of the efficiency of the 17

ballast. 18 Whether you can take the 40-odd number of 19 medium by-pin categories and put them into -- cut them 20 by a factor of 12 or more, you have to recognize that 21 they have -- we have recognized that there are -- that 22 high power ballasts are more efficient than low power 23 ballasts, and Navigant has made a recommendation, and 24 DOE has it in the preliminary analysis that the -- you 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 55

would effectively have a higher RSE - a lower RSE 1 allowance for a one-lamp low power ballast, than you 2 would a four-lamp high power ballast, because there 3 are formulas for taking into account the relative 4 efficiencies of different categories of ballasts. 5 And the other issue with RSE. I think if it 6 wasn’t for the T8 lamp being a 60 hertz referenced 7 lamp, and that at high frequency it doesn’t run at 32 8 watts, I think NEMA would be more open to RSE. But 9 RSE gets a little confusing because it takes the rated 10 lamp power and puts it into the equation. And for a 11 T5 lamp, for instance, where the rated lamp power is 12 at a ballast factor of one; for a T8 lamp, the rated 13 light output with a ballast factor of one does not 14 occur at 32 watts. So it still is not -- for 15 differing lamp types, it’s still not -- it’s still not 16 a direct reference. 17 MR. RABA: Are you okay? 18 MR. ERHARDT: Am I saying too much again? 19 MR. RABA: No, you’re fine. Fine. Just 20 want to make sure that we cover it so if there’s any 21 more to draw out we can do that. Further comments, 22 questions? Follow-on? Matt. 23

TEST PROCEDURE: ALTERNATIVE METHODS 24 MR. WALKER: Right. Matthew Walker. As a 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 56

follow-on to this discussion, DOE did then begin to 1 consider some alternative methods after receiving 2 comments that the existing test procedure may have 3 some deficiencies. Before looking at alternative 4 metrics, DOE looked at improving the variation and the 5 existing lineup of base method by looking at the 6 particular specifications within this method. 7 DOE believes that some of the variation in 8 the ANSI-based light output base test procedure can be 9 reduced by further specifying some key factors. The 10 first would be to reduce the tolerance on lamp 11 measured power for a reference lamp, from plus or 12 minus 2.5 percent of rated wattage, to plus or minus 13 one percent. 14 Next, the tolerance on testing facility 15 ambient temperature can be reduced from plus or minus 16 one degree Celsius to plus or minus half a degree 17 Celsius, from 25. 18 The next three bullets provide some 19 additional clarification on the ballast factor 20 measurement. DOE could specify that a reference lamp 21 be operated at constant voltage, that electric heating 22 be used in the reference circuit for the purpose of 23 ballast factor measurement, for ballasts of all 24 starting methods that operate medium bi-pin, miniature 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 57

bi-pin, or recessed double-contact lamps. And finally 1 for ballast factor measurement, DOE could specify that 2 light output measurements be used for ballasts of all 3 starting methods. 4 And finally, in a improved light output5 based method, DOE would specify the type of lamp to be 6 the most common wattage lamp and that the ballast 7 operate the maximum it’s capable of operating for 8 testing. 9 So like any method, it has potential 10 advantages and disadvantages. The procedure would be 11 familiar to industry. The ballast does operate its 12 natural load, such that measurements of its 13 performance do reflect how it’s actually used in 14 practice. And DOE does expect that measurement 15 variation would be reduced by tightening these 16

tolerances. 17 However, the tighter tolerances will come 18 with additional burden to those who are required to 19 perform the testing, and the effects of lamp 20 manufacturing variation are not eliminated through 21 these improvements. 22 So at this time we could maybe have a few 23 comments on this improved light output-based test 24 procedure as an alternative to the existing method? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 58

MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. Could you 1 go back to a previous slide. I’m getting lost in the 2 terminology here a little bit. The second to last 3 bullet down there, ballast factor. Do you literally 4

mean "ballast factor" there? 5

MR. WALKER: I do. 6 MR. STEPHENS: Okay. 7 MR. WALKER: Maybe I can just provide a 8 little more context? 9 MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, a little more 10 explanation of that. 11 MR. WALKER: You’re talking of this one 12

here? 13 MR. STEPHENS: Yes, what are you speaking to 14

there? 15 MR. WALKER: Right. In the 2002 version of 16 ANSI C82.2, it specifies that light output 17 measurements can be used for measuring the reference 18 system and your ballast of interest for rapid start 19 and program start ballast, whereas a power measurement 20 can be used for instant start systems. And I guess 21 earlier in this rulemaking process, DOE came under the 22 understanding that it was industry practice to use 23 light output measurements for ballasts of all starting 24 methods. So this is an attempt to synchronize with 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 59

industry practice and to make sure things are 1 consistent across all test facilities. Does that 2 help? 3 MR. STEPHENS: Yes. When people use the 4 term "ballast factor" I’m -- I’m used to thinking of 5 .88 and 1.0 and 1.2 as those numbers. So is that what 6 you’re speaking about in that -- 7 MR. WALKER: That is what we’re speaking 8

about. 9 MR. STEPHENS: So you’re using the light 10 output essentially to determine that number? 11 MR. WALKER: Right. 12 MR. STEPHENS: Okay. Thank you. 13 MR. THOMAS: Ed Thomas, GE Lighting. Just 14 wanted to make a quick comment about the temperature 15 control characteristics that you mentioned. 16 Controlling a large photometric laboratory to within 17 one half of a degree C is a pretty daunting task, with 18 people and activities going on in a laboratory and 19 trying to maintain that type of temperature would be 20 somewhat of a burden, not only on my lab, but I guess 21 on everybody else’s lab too. Would be resulting in 22 upgrades of air conditioning, air handling controls, 23 so there would be some cost associated with that, 24 certainly. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 60

MR. PARISELLA: This is Joe Parisella from 1 Osram Sylvania. I would also say from a practical 2 standpoint, normally the test laboratories, as opposed 3 to the design laboratories, normally efficiency 4 measurements are taken very frequently in the design 5 laboratories, whereas there would have to be some 6 correlation factor that the designers would have to 7 use, or the manufacturing facilities would have to 8 use, because using photometric measurements would be 9 very time consuming and have to be some correlation 10 there anyway. So I just wanted to point that out that 11 traditionally in design laboratories efficiency 12 measurements are very commonly taken. 13

MR. ERHARDT: Just a short answer -- Bob 14 Erhardt, Philips Lighting and Electronics. I think we 15 would agree that tightening the tolerances on the 16 reference lamp and the temperature would improve the 17 accuracy of BEF. Holding temperature to within plus 18 or minus half a degree would likely require some 19 specialized equipment. You might have to have some 20 type of test box or something. 21 Also, I don’t know what the impact would be 22 of requiring that plus/minus one percent tolerance on 23 the lamp power. As it is, we don’t just pick up the 24 phone and order a box of reference lamps. We order 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 61

boxes of lamps and test and test and test until we get 1 a collection of reference lamps. Those reference 2 lamps also only tend to remain reference lamps for a 3 while, and then you test and test and test multiple 4 boxes of lamps until you have reference lamps again. 5 So that would of course increase the difficulty of 6 keeping a cache of reference lamps. I think we can 7 take it under consideration, but it’s practical to try 8 to take that to one percent. 9 MR. RABA: Good comments. Any further? 10 MR. WALKER: All right. Matthew Walker 11 again. So after looking at improving the light 12 output-based method, DOE then began to consider 13 alternative metrics that it could correlate back to 14 BEF. As we’ve talked about already today and Ed 15 presented on earlier, a NEMA ballast technical 16 committee has drafted a test procedure that measures 17 ballast efficiency with a lamp and ballast system. In 18 general, the lamp and ballast system is energized, 19 output power and input power are measured while the 20 system is at steady state. Ballast efficiency would 21 then be calculated as output power divided by input 22 power. And then DOE currently would plan to convert 23 this ballast efficiency to BEF using a transfer 24 equation. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 62

So again, we’ve already kind of heard this 1 directly, but some advantages to the method are that 2 it does accurately characterize the real life 3 operating conditions of the system, particularly in 4 comparison to a ballast and resistor system. The lamp 5 is a dynamic load and is able to respond accurately to 6 a different ballast factor, again in contrast to a 7 resistor, which is specifically matched to one lamp 8 impedance. 9 And the calculation of ballast efficiency 10 makes the method less sensitive to lamp power and 11 environmental conditions because these variations 12 impact both the input power and the output power, and 13 the calculation of ballast efficiency tends to 14 minimize these effects. A lamp is still involved in 15 the system, so there may be some variation from lamp 16 to lamp, so it may still be an issue. 17 We’ve already talked about this method quite 18 a bit, but if there are any additional comments on the 19 lamp-based ballast efficiency method correlated to 20 BEF, this is a good time to air some of those. 21 MR. THOMAS: Ed Thomas, GE Lighting. I’d 22 just like to point out that where you listed as 23 potential disadvantages, lamp to lamp variation is not 24 so much of an issue because any changes in the lamp 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 63

operating conditions aren’t going to be a ratiometric 1 change that would be in the ratio for ballast output 2 power divided by ballast input power. So if the lamp 3 should run slightly higher in energy or slightly lower 4 in energy due to design variation, manufacturing 5 variation, it will still come out in the ratio as not 6 really having a very large effect on the measured 7 electrical efficiency of the system. 8 MR. WALKER: Okay. Thanks. 9 MR. RABA: Charlie? 10 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. As a 11 follow-up to that, and I assume then that the 12 reference lamp becomes not dependent at all on light 13 output. It’s essentially taken into account. Would 14 you still need a reference lamp? 15 MR. THOMAS: Ed Thomas, GE. You would need 16 a reference lamp only in terms of electrical 17 characteristics. Reference lamps right now are 18 defined primarily as electrical operating point under 19 a given set of conditions on the lamp. There’s no 20 representation of what the particular luminous output 21 must be, at least in terms of an absolute scale. So, 22 in this case, if you’re using the lamps strictly as 23 electrical load, you’d just be using it as such, as an 24 electrical load. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 64

MR. RABA: Additional? 1 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, this is Bob Erhardt. 2 Again, the use of the reference lamp is to keep it -- 3 to keep the ballast at or near its design operating 4 point. It’s, you know, the differences are minimized, 5 but if you had a lamp that was running -- if they were 6 five percent higher power, then your ballast would be 7 at a different operating point than it was designed 8 for. Now, the -- by taking an efficiency measurement, 9 you are minimizing that effect, but by keeping -- the 10 point of the reference lamp is to keep the ballast 11 operating as close as possible, as practicable, to its 12 design operating point. 13 MR. RABA: I see heads nodding. Any others 14 please? 15 MR. WALKER: I’d like to ask a follow-on. 16 This is Matthew Walker from Navigant. Does anyone, 17 particularly NEMA, have suggestions or ideas on a 18 correlation method between the lamp-based BE and BEF? 19 In the proposed method, we measure both metrics, and 20 find a correlation between the two using a line of 21 best fit. Does that seem like a reasonable approach? 22

MR. ERHARDT: NEMA -- the NEMA ballast 23 companies -- sorry, Bob Erhardt, Philips Lighting and 24 Electronics. The NEMA ballast sections approach had 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 65

been -- we had intended to bring in the lamp section 1 and try to get an industry consensus, however, we do 2 agree that if you have a set of certified data points, 3 and we have done some round robin testing of -- at 4 different certified labs, for the purpose of DOE 5 rulemaking, we think the DOE could adopt something if 6 we cannot get agreement with the lamp section in time. 7 We think that’s quite reasonable. 8 I’ll also comment that, similarly, while 9 NEMA from an academic and standards point of view 10 hasn’t agreed on the efficiency method for program 11 start and rapid start, for the purpose of DOE 12 rulemaking, I think you could make an assumption that 13 filament heating is part of losses and we would take 14 that into account when we discuss what the BEF levels 15

should be. 16 MR. THOMAS: Ed Thomas, GE Lighting. 17 Earlier, in my presentation, there was a plot that 18 showed a relationship between ballast efficiency and 19 ballast efficacy factor. Again, based upon the data 20 that Bob had mentioned. We had done some work like 21 that and responding is a line of a best fit is 22 probably an acceptable method at this time. As Bob 23 mentioned as well, we’d like to get cooperation of the 24 lamp companies to look at the transfer function that 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 66

we’re thinking about, and certainly we think that 1 there would be one transfer function that would relate 2 to instant start and full cathode cut systems, and 3 other transfer functions would relate to systems that 4 utilize some level of continuous cathode heating. So 5 I don’t think it’s one transfer function. It could be 6 a couple. In my presentation, I alluded to roughly 7 two different transfer functions, just based on 8 preliminary data that I had. 9 MR. RABA: Thank you. Matt. 10 MR. WALKER: All right. The final 11 alternative that DOE considered was relative system 12 efficacy, which has already come up today. Just to 13 summarize again, RSE does use the same test method or 14 could use the same test method as the existing test 15 procedure. They also discussed that it could be an 16 output of a transfer equation, if you measure 17 something else, not just ballast efficiency. RSE then 18 normalizes the BEF for ballast of different total 19 rated lamp power or ballast loads of different total 20 rated lamp power. 21 You can see on the slide, RSE is then equal 22 to BEF divided by 100 times total rated lamp power. 23 Some advantages, as we’ve discussed, is that 24 RSE could be potentially more comparable across 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 67

different ballast types in comparison to a BEF metric. 1 It does use a familiar test procedure. I guess in 2 this NOPR, DOE found that because RSE is, if you 3 measure it directly using the BEF measurement 4 technique, it’s based on the same varied inputs and 5 doesn’t provide improvement in measurement variation, 6 which was one of the main goals of this revision. 7 So at this time we have a moment for 8 additional comments on relative system efficacy. 9 MR. RABA: State your name, please? 10 MR. deLASKI: Andy deLaski, Appliance 11 Awareness Project. Is this what you -- the 12 methodology that you propose to use for RSE or a 13 different methodology? 14

15MR. MCGARAGHAN: Mike McGaraghan, California 16 utilities. I think Matt just addressed my concern 17 that I raised earlier, or my suggestion was using RSE 18

based on a set of transfer values from ballast 19 efficiency, rather than using it based purely on BEF 20 or photometric measurements. So the disadvantages 21 shown there on the slide would not apply to the RSE 22 proposal I made, and I think Matt acknowledges that. 23

MR. deLASKI: Thanks. 24

MR. RABA: Further? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 68

MS. GUPTA: I’d like to ask a question. 1 Mimi Gupta, Navigant. So is there an advantage to 2 using RSE -- like if DOE were to use RSE as the 3 metric, it would be changing the metric. Is there an 4 advantage to using RSE over ballast efficiency? 5 MR. MCGARAGHAN: This is Mike on behalf of 6 the California utilities. The main problem that we 7 see with either BEF or BE that has -- without some 8 sort of normalization based on total rated lamp power, 9 is it’s hard to compare, and in the marketplace, I 10 think you’ll see an increased -- people will be able 11 to take advantage of more efficient ballasts in their 12 system designs. If you’re comparing a two lamp system 13 to a three lamp system, you don’t know which ballast 14 is more efficient, and in many circumstances, you 15 could specify either that two lamp system or that 16 three lamp system. So it would just be an extra tool 17 for specifiers of lighting projects to take advantage 18 of all the savings potential on the table. 19 MR. RABA: Thank you. Mike, does that help? 20

Head nod. Others? 21 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, I’ll just reiterate my 22 comment and -- Bob Erhardt, Philips Electronics. I 23 agree, RSE for a lamp type does make the numbers much 24 easier to understand. The area where you need to be 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 69

careful is that if you’re going to -- if consumers are 1 going to be comparing a T8 system with a T5 system, 2 for instance, then they’re going to be misled by an 3 RSE number, unless you have a good, high frequency 4 power number for the T8. Because the T8 is -- T8 5 lamps have high frequency, don’t have a ballast factor 6 of one at 32 watts. They have a ballast factor of one 7 at, I don’t know what the number is, 28 or something 8 like that. 9 And so if you’re comparing -- this is a 10 legacy we have of the switch from 60 hertz systems to 11 high frequency systems. All the new systems, T5, 12 CFOs, et cetera, are referenced on a high frequency 13 reference ballast. They already take into account the 14 efficacy gains in the lamp at high frequency. The T8 15 lamp is a old legacy, 60 hertz system, that -- it’s 32 16 watt power rating is at 60 hertz, and it does not show 17 the benefit of operating at the high frequency. So if 18 you start dividing everything by 32 watts for a T8, 19 and everything by 28 for T5, the T8s are going to look 20 pretty bad. Much worse than they are. 21 MR. deLASKI: Follow up for Bob. This is 22 Andrew from Appliance Standards Awareness Project. So 23 in your example here, comparing a T5 system to a T8 24 system, does BEF or BE give you comparable metrics? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 70

Metrics that enable a consumer to compare one with the 1

other? 2 MR. ERHARDT: Only when the lamp lumen 3 outputs are the same. 4 MR. deLASKI: Right. Okay. 5 MR. ERHARDT: Now, I don’t have the 28 watt 6 T5 memorized right now. I think they’re pretty close, 7 so that might actually be closer. And actually, Mark 8 Duffy, do you know off hand the lumen output rating of 9

a T8 versus a T5? 10 MR. DUFFY: Yeah, a 28 watt -- 11 MR. RABA: Speak up please -- use the 12 microphone up there if you would so we can all hear. 13 State your name, please? 14 MR. DUFFY: Yeah, Mark Duffy with GE 15 Lighting. I’ve been asked to comment on the lumen 16 output of a 28 watt T5 lamp that’s rated at 2800 17 lumens, and for an F32 T8, depending on the type, you 18 can have something on the order of 2950 lumens for the 19 highest output types. 20 MR. RABA: Okay. Thank you. Does that 21 help, Andrew? 22 MR. deLASKI: Sure. Thank you. 23 MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt. I think a 24 summary of that would be that BEF might be closer in 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 71

that case, but still wouldn’t be accurate, because of 1 the 2800 to 2900 lumen difference. So the -- you 2 would expect the BEFs to vary by the ratio of those 3 light output ratings. For similar systems, for 4 similar efficaciousness. 5 MR. deLASKI: Right. But if I could 6 summarize, it seems to me that the disadvantages -- I 7 mean there’s no approach that solves that particular 8 problem of being able to compare your T5s to your T8 9 system. There’s no metric that’s going to solve that 10 particular problem, other than having -- the higher 11 level of capacity --- 12 MR. ERHARDT: Well ballast efficiency is a 13 metric of the efficiency of the ballast, so we feel 14 ballast efficiency is a better metric of comparing all 15 systems, because that’s what we do. We can only work 16 on the efficiency of the ballast. We’re not really 17 affecting the -- well, filament heating, of course, is 18 going to be affecting the efficiency -- efficacy of 19 the lamp, if you will. But that’s one reason we’re 20 proposing ballast efficiency, because ballast 21 efficiency is the metric that rates the -- how energy 22 frugal your ballast is, if you will. I mean it’s the 23 energy efficiency of the ballast. Ballast efficiency. 24 The second effect is of course the filament 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 72

heat. Filament heat on a -- if you’re providing 1 filament heat, you’re providing extra losses. 2 Navigant has proposed that you include those in the 3 overall losses when you specify an efficiency. That 4 is an approach to consider, as long as you recognize 5 that systems that do program start are generally 6 specified for lighting systems where you’ll have 7 occupancy sensing with frequent switchings, which will 8 save significant energy. So as long as you take these 9 factors into account when you’re setting your 10 requirements, it can be a good indication of the 11 overall efficiency of the system, if you just put the 12 filament losses in with the overall losses, and use 13 efficiency as a metric. 14 MR. RABA: I saw three hands go up. First, 15 Charlie, then the back, young lady, and the gentleman 16 up there too. Charlie. 17 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens, Northwest 18 Energy Efficiency Alliance. I just wanted to throw in 19 too here, that the utility of RSE can kind of lose 20 itself if you’re actually doing lighting design 21 anyway. I mean you start getting into room cavity 22 ratio, the fixture efficiency, fixture spacing, the 23 requirements on the desk, you know, 55 lumens on the 24 desk -- I mean you have to -- once you get into that, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 73

you need so many lumens and you need it this many feet 1 off the desk, and you start taking those into account. 2 You’re not picking the fixture and the ballast and the 3 lamp combination for its most efficient combination. 4 You’re picking it, potentially, because you need that 5 many lumens spaced at that many feet apart, this many 6 feet above the desk. And you need this many of them 7 in this room to provide the illumination after X 8 number of hours of lamp degradation and everything. I 9 mean there’s all these factors that go into this 10 stuff. And in the end, you’re not really picking 11 these things on just a one or two percent difference 12 in a ballast efficiency. You’re picking a system, 13 quite frankly, and so I’m not sure the RSE is going to 14 be of that much utility to a lighting designer, in the 15 end, compared to these other methods. 16 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, I guess -- commenting on 17 that, for a lighting designer, you may very well be 18 right, the BEF is maybe the better utility because he 19 is picking a lamp for its lumens and BEF takes the 20 ballast factor, which again, tells him his lumens, and 21 then BEF tells him how much power he’s going to have 22 based on the lumens he’s chosen. And if he had RSE, 23 he’d have to do an extra conversion. 24

MR. RABA: Saw a head nod there. In the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 74

back, please. Comments, questions? Covered? 1 PARTICIPANT: Yes, basically. 2 MS. GUPTA: I have one follow-up. Mimi 3 Gupta from Navigant. Just a quick follow-up question. 4 So, in talking about metrics and comparability across 5 different ballast types, is -- using ballast 6 efficiency, could you compare a two-lamp ballast to a 7 four-lamp ballast? 8 MR. THOMAS: Ed Thomas, GE. Yes, you can 9 because the ballast efficiency is going to give you a 10 number, like say, 90 percent or 92 percent, and that 11 will enable you to understand which ballast is a 12 higher performance ballast. Now, to this gentleman’s 13 -- to Charlie’s point -- yeah, when you couple this 14 with a fixture and with a certain set of lamps, then 15 the system becomes more complicated, but we’re -- 16 we’re a couple steps back from that approach. We’re 17 at the approach where the OEM manufacturer is deciding 18 what product to put within the fixture or the ability 19 for people to say, I want a more energy efficient 20 product. I want to reduce the loads on my HVAC, and I 21 want to make sure that I’m getting -- and energy cost 22 is going to be the greatest percentage of the cost of 23 ownership. So a ballast that will run cooler is more 24 efficient, has less losses, can be expressed by 92 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 75

percent or some number that expresses the performance 1 of that ballast, notwithstanding other circumstances 2 in the system. 3

All the measurements that we’ve talked about 4 beforehand are all system-based measurements and 5 interdependencies with ballast efficiency, you have 6 the measurement of the ballast itself, then you 7 combine your system from that point. 8

MR. ERHARDT: Just a small comment -- Bob 9 Erhardt, Philips Lighting and Electronics. Just a 10 small comment and that is, from what I read of the 11 intent of the DOE to go to the max tech approach in 12 setting its guidelines, then you’re not going to have 13 much difference in efficiency -- ballast efficiencies 14 to be comparing for a given category. If you choose 15 your, even your CSL2 levels, that’s pretty much going 16 to correlate to our NEMA premium products and there’s 17 not a lot of ballast efficiency left. 18 If you consider a full range of possible 19 ballast efficiencies, might be 85 to 91, 92 or so, but 20 that’s really pushing it, you know, our NEMA premium 21 comes in around 90, and there’s not a lot of variation 22 once you start specifying a ballast efficiency of 89 23 or 90. There’s just not that much there any more. 24 MR. RABA: Okay. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 76

MR. MCGARAGHAN: Mike McGaraghan, California 1 utilities. I just wanted to respond to Charlie and 2 others. I agree that a lighting designer with some 3 degree of expertise is not picking ballasts based on 4 RSE or the efficiency value of the ballast. They’re 5 going to design a system, but I think there is a wide 6 range of expertise in practice, and I think that’s 7 actually something that will come up later when we 8 discuss standards. I know in the lamp rule, DOE 9 assumed different scenarios for level of expertise. 10 High level of expertise and none, no expertise in 11 lighting designer and retrofit situations. So that’s 12 a question that I’ll bring up later for DOE to see 13 kind of how they’re interpreting that for this rule. 14 But certainly some retrofit situations and some design 15 situations happen with less than optimal expertise., 16 and that would be an advantage for RSE to help 17 simplify it. 18

MR. RABA: Matt? 19 MR. WALKER: All right. This actually wraps 20 up the discussion of alternative methods, and it might 21 be a good time for a break. 22 MR. RABA: Sounds good to me. Ready for a 23 break? I think it’s a good time. You’ve done very 24 well so far. We’ll take a 15-minute break right now. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 77

Come back at, I don’t know, let’s make it on the hour. 1 (Whereupon, a 19-minute recess off the 2 record was taken.) 3 MR. RABA: Welcome back. Okay, Matt, you 4 want to start on the proposed procedures, that right? 5 MR. WALKER: Sure thing. 6 MR. RABA: Okay. 7

TEST PROCEDURE: PROPOSED METHOD 8 MR. WALKER: All right, the remainder of the 9 morning we’ll discuss the proposal in the NOPR for the 10 test procedure. 11 So in 2008, DOE did have a chance to 12 participate in the NEMA ballast committee’s round 13 robin and its investigation of the resistor-based 14 ballast efficiency method. In the proposal, DOE does 15 proposed this ballast efficiency measurement, using a 16 ballast and resistor system. 17 The next few slides describe some of the 18 measurements and techniques in more detail, but in 19 general ballast input power and output power are 20 measured, using a ballast and resistor system. 21 Ballast factor is then measured using a lamp and 22 ballast system so that the appropriate transfer 23 equation can be selected. And then BEF is calculated 24 from BE, using this transfer equation. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 78

At the bottom of this slide, there’s a 1 diagram that shows just what a resistor load bank 2 might look like, or does look like. In the middle, 3 you see a single resistor to the lamp arc. Then the 4 remaining four resistors are for the electrodes. Each 5 of these electrode resistors are assigned an 6 equivalent resistance equal to half that one of lamp 7 electrode. By assigning equivalent resistance to each 8 of these electrode resistors, DOE is modeling the lamp 9 arc traveling from the center of one lamp electrode to 10

the center of the other. 11 But to determine the actual resistance for 12 each of these physical resistors, DOE used a 13 combination of ANSI standard C78.81, 2005, as well as 14 some empirical methods. C78.81 provides electrode 15 resistance for all lamps while operating at any 16 frequency, and then it provides select lamp arc 17 resistances for certain operating frequencies. 18 And this is sort of the legacy thing that 19 Bob was alluding to earlier. So in the case that a 20 lamp arc resistance was unavailable, for example, high 21 frequency operation of a four-foot medium bi-pin T8 22 lamp, DOE then needed to measure this lamp arc 23 resistance empirically. 24 So we mentioned before that a resistor can 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 79

only simulate a lamp while being operated at a 1 particular ballast factor, however, a lamp can be 2 driven at many different ballast factors, and can 3 change impedance in response to this. The lamp 4 impedance tends to decrease as ballast factor gets 5 higher and higher. 6 So rather than specify multiple ballast 7 factors, specific resistors, in the NOPR DOE proposes 8 to use a single resistor for testing a ballast of all 9 ballast factor. During testing DOE found that when a 10 ballast is tested with a resistor that does not 11 exactly match its ballast factor, the measured ballast 12 efficiency is different than if it’s tested with the 13 appropriate resistor, or with a resistor that does 14 exactly match the ballast factor. 15 So to account for this change or this 16 effect, DOE specifies multiple transfer equations, 17 each one specific to a particular ballast factor bin. 18 And DOE took this approach with the effort of reducing 19 the testing burden by only requiring one resistor load 20 bank per lamp. 21 This time we have a moment for comments on 22

the use of a ballast factor measurement for 23 determining the appropriate transfer equation, as well 24 as the effect of using a single resistor value for 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 80

measuring ballast efficiency of multiple ballast 1

factor ballasts. 2 MR. PARISELLA: This is Joe Parisella from 3 Osram Sylvania. I think we’ve touched on this 4 already, but one of the biggest issues is using that 5 single resistor is that you are talking about having a 6 scaling factor, but different ballasts will react 7 differently. So if you have a single resistor, 8 certain ballasts, the scaling factors are going to 9 have to be different for different types of ballasts, 10 and I think different ballasts will react differently 11 to that same resistor value. Do depending on the 12 circuitry and the way it’s tuned and things like that, 13 so I think that could be an issue with that. 14 MR. RABA: Thank you. 15 MR. THOMAS: Ed Thomas, GE. I would just 16 like to point out that ballasts are primarily designed 17 to operate lamps, and it may not -- may not provide 18 the same level of performance on a resistor as they 19 would on a lamp. 20 MR. RABA: Okay. Thoughts? Comments? All 21 right. 22 MR. WALKER: All right. We’ll move on. 23 This slide provides a little more detail on the 24 measurements included in the proposed method. First 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 81

for ballast efficiency, the electrical measurements 1 are taken within one minute of energizing the ballast. 2 These measurements include input voltage, current, 3 power, as well as output power. In the proposal DOE 4 specifies that ballast capable of operating at 5 multiple input voltages should be tested at 277 volts 6 for a commercial ballast, and then 120 volts for a 7 residential and cold temperature sign ballast. 8 Then for ballast factor, in the proposal DOE 9 indicates ballast factors should be measured according 10 to ANSI82.2, the 2002 version. And that includes some 11 of the amendments discussed in the improved light 12 output base method, those being the additional 13 specifications, and just sort of clarifications on how 14 ballast factor can be measured to make things 15 consistent from one facility to the next, as well as 16 to specify that a ballast be operated -- operate lamps 17 of a particular wattage, this being the most common 18 wattage lamp and the maximum number of lamps the 19 ballast was designed to operate. Nd the test 20 procedure. 21 DOE does specify what this most common 22 wattage is, so that there is clarity on that issue. 23 So you have any comments on the test 24

measurements? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 82

MR. THOMAS: Yes, Ed Thomas, GE. I’d like 1 to point out that when you’re taking electrical 2 measurements within one minute, the ballast has not 3 reached an optimal operating temperature. When 4 ballasts are designed for an application, the 5 application is typically a steady state application 6 where certain electronic components achieve a rate of 7 electrical efficiency that would be more 8 representative of how they will operated during the 9 long duration of operation. Certain diodes and 10 certain magnetic materials actually become more 11 efficient actually after they’ve had a time to reach 12 the operating temperature that the ballast will be 13 designed for. 14 Taking the measurement within one minute may 15 not present the ballast in its true level of 16 performance, compared to a measurement taken after 17 some period of time, after these components have 18 reached some thermal operating point or thermal 19 equilibrium, as they would see in your normal 20 application. 21 MR. RABA: Thank you, good information. 22 MS. GUPTA: Mimi Gupta, Navigant Consulting. 23 So, Ed, would you suggest that DOE amend this to say 24 the measurement should be taken after some minimum 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 83

period of time? and what would that minimum be? 1

MR. THOMAS: Ed Thomas. In the NEMA 2 discussion that were presented, we talk about the 3 stability of measurement anywhere between a time 4 period of 15 minutes to within an hour, but it was 5 talking about an overall system stability, which is 6 the ideal characteristic. If I use this room as an 7 example, the lights went on here probably six o’clock 8 in the morning. By 11:30 now, they’ve reached, 9 certainly reached a steady state equilibrium, and 10 they’re operating in the condition that they’re going 11 to operate in for the next eight or nine hours, 12 whatever the case may be. 13 Certainly if you immediately come into a 14 room, turn them on and in one minute take a snapshot, 15 you’re operating characteristics are going to be far 16 different than if you allow them to operate and come 17 up to proper operating temperature. I think that if 18 you allow them to reach the point of designed 19 efficiency, and with modern day electronics, we do 20 understand that components operate differently at 21 different temperatures. And that’s all taken in 22 during the design consideration. 23 Again, we design a ballast to operate over a 24 long term, not for I guess momentary applications. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 84

MR. RABA: Answer your question? 1 MS. GUPTA: Uh-huh (yes). 2 MR. RABA: Okay. Others? Back to you, 3

Matt. 4 MR. WALKER: Okay. Let’s now move on to a 5 couple slides describing the process DOE used to 6 develop transfer equations for converting the measured 7

value of BE to BEF. 8 DOE tested both of these metrics for 9 multiple ballasts and key product classes. It used 10 the proposed resistor-based method for the measurement 11 of ballast efficiency. It then used the existing test 12 procedure, based on light output measurements for the 13 determination of ballast efficacy factor. 14 Then using this test data, DOE found a 15 linear relationship between BE and BEF. In assigning 16 this line of best fit, DOE chose to anchor the line to 17 the origin, such that when ballast efficacy equalled 18 zero, BEF would also equal zero. And in doing this, 19 the equation -- the transfer equation took the form 20 BEF equals slope of the line times ballast efficiency. 21 So DOE did have test extensive data in many 22 product classes, but for those that did not have 23 extensive data, DOE began to develop scaling 24 relationships. I should also mention that the test 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 85

data that DOE collected during the process is 1 available in Appendix 5-C of the energy conservation 2

standard. 3 So for those product classes that did not 4 have extensive testing, DOE used extensive data from 5 the four-foot medium bi-pin and eight-foot slim line 6 ballast classes to calculate relationships between 7 slopes for changes in starting method, number of 8 lamps, ballast factor, and total rated lamp power. 9 And just as an example, if you look along 10 the horizontal line on this table, you can see the 11 axis on which DOE would use a relationship for number 12 of lamps. The vertical line would indicate the 13 relationship based on ballast factor, et cetera. 14 So at this time, we’d like to seek comments 15 on the transfer equations, the actual equations used 16 to convert BE to BEF, as well as the techniques used 17 for scaling these equations. 18 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. Could you 19 go back two slides please? On your graph there, I 20 take it each little green dot is an individual ballast 21

that was tested? 22

MR. WALKER: Correct. 23 MR. STEPHENS: Can you give me a sense of 24 the order of magnitude of the variation from your nice 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 86

straight slope, to the individual green dots as far as 1 how that compares to the discussion we had earlier 2 about one and a half percent or two and a half percent 3

measurement error? 4 MR. WALKER: I don’t know if I can speak 5 specifically to that variation. We did notice, just 6 relatively speaking, at this point all I can say is 7 that BEF did have maybe more spread in the data 8 compared to BE for a particular ballast. I don’t 9 really have my hands on the particular numbers. 10 MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, I’m trying to get a 11 sense of, you know, are we worried about two and a 12 half percent in our measurements only to wash all that 13 out in a slope that really doesn’t come all that close 14 to the actual performance of individual ballasts by 15 the time you’re done. 16 MS. GUPTA: Yes, this is Mimi Gupta, from 17 Navigant Consulting. I think you bring up a good 18 point, that one aspect of this methodology is the 19 correlation, and, you know, using the test data from 20 four foot medium bi-pins, you see a fairly good 21 relationship, but definitely for some ballast 22 categories, that relationship was not so great. So 23 it’s one drawback to this proposal and DOE seeks 24 comment on whether doing this correlation is bringing 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 87

us backward. 1 I think that though the resulting BEF may 2 have some -- some error associated with it, I think 3 using the ballast efficiency and correlating to BEF 4 insures that manufacturer to manufacturer, test to 5 test facility, you’re going to get a consistent 6 measurement. MR. STEPHENS: This is Charlie 7 Stephens. True, but you -- I think we were talking 8 about an accurate representation about the efficiency 9 of individual ballasts being selected by designers or 10 whoever, manufacturers of fixtures in the marketplace. 11 And I’m not sure that the accuracy or the consistency 12 of those measurements is important if you’re going to 13 wash it out by twice as much when they use the factor, 14 whatever factor you use in the scaling here. 15 MR. RABA: Response over here? 16 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, Bob Erhardt, Philips 17 Lighting and Electronics. I guess I’m not sure I 18 understand what your two-to-one concern is. I mean, 19 this is a little bit of a confusing way to look at it 20 because, I have to sit here and think about what we’re 21 going through with it. What you’re really comparing 22 is -- this slope, if I’m interpreting it correctly, 23 and I had to think about it for about five minutes to 24 convince myself, is that you’re getting kind of an 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 88

average BE over an average BEF by putting that slope 1 through there, to get a conversion factor. 2 And because what you really need to know is 3 when you’re -- what we would have compared would have 4 been, instead of putting all these plots on the same, 5 do an individual by individual and then take an 6 average, but that’s in effect what they’ve done by 7 doing the fit. Because it’s going to be -- the BEF is 8 light output over ballast efficiency -- I’m sorry, 9 light output over watts, watts in, and BE is watts out 10 over watts in. So when you take the ratio of them, 11 you’re -- should be canceling out the watts out, and 12 getting light -- I’m sorry, you should be canceling 13 the watts in, and so your slope should then be light 14 per ballast factor over watts out, is what this slope 15 should be representing. Trying to do this in my head, 16 I think that’s what you’ve got there. 17 MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, this is Charlie 18 Stephens. Let me just make it a little more clear. 19 Look at the furthest right there at a BE of .92, plus 20 or minus, it says its ballast efficiency or ballast 21 efficacy factor is 1.55. It will, according to that 22 slope, it would receive a rating of about 1.57, not 23 1.55. My question is, if you -- if the accuracy of 24 your measurement delivered a BE of .92, if the actual 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 89

BE was, you know, .907 or .909 or whatever, how much 1 worse is that than the .02 going from 1.55 to 1.57 in 2 its delivered rating via this equation? 3 MR. RABA: I think a response in the back. 4

MR. ERHARDT: It would be 1.5 -- 5 MR. RABA: Sorry, go ahead Bob, sorry. 6 MR. ERHARDT: It would -- okay, so you’re 7 looking at one point and you’re saying what would be 8 the error on that one point, and you’re saying it 9 would be -- and I guess you’ve done the calculation, 10 it would be 1.57 -- 11 MR. STEPHENS: No, I’m just looking at the 12 graph, it’s rating, based on that nice average line 13 would be 1.57. Direct graphically, I’m seeing a BEF 14 of 1.57 -- 1.566 and -- the fact is, I’m trying to 15 interpolate between the lines there. But what I’m 16 saying is there’s an error in the reported BEF at any 17 given BE -- and I’m trying to compare the magnitude of 18 that error on this, using these transfer equations. 19 MR. ERHARDT: Okay. And I guess I -- again, 20 Bob Erhardt. I guess our response to that is two 21 points on 1.55 is one and a half percent. Okay. The 22 BEF measurement itself has a five percent error. So 23 the one and a half percent is kind of a wash when you 24 -- and the idea is we’re trying to cancel the five 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 90

percent by taking an overall average of all these BF 1 measurements using light, okay. 2 We’re going to try to come up with a 3 correlation factor. We’ve done round robin testing of 4 at least three labs, maybe it was four or five, I 5 don’t remember actual certified testing organizations, 6 CSA, TL, UL, et cetera. I think LRC. And we’re going 7 to compare their measurements, their BEF measurements 8 for the same sets of lamps and try to get a 9 correlation based on the average of all these, so to 10 get a wash out of this plus/minus five percent. And 11 then we’re going to put that in -- and so then we’re 12 going to take that correlation factor. 13 Now, using that correlation, which in effect 14 may be -- they’ve done here, some of these were high, 15 some of them are low. Although they might have done 16 this on one testing lab. Was this all done all on 17

LRC? 18 MR. WALKER: It was all in one testing lab, 19 and actually each of these points represents an 20 average of three samples of a particular ballast. 21 MR. ERHARDT: In any case, the idea is we’ve 22 tried to wash out the five percent tolerance by taking 23 averages of many BEF measurements, many light output 24 measurements, we’re trying to wash out that error by 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 91

taking an average that we can agree to, and then 1 coming up with a correlation factor that then is 2 applied to a metric that has a two and a half percent 3 error, instead of one that -- and use it instead of 4 taking the five percent error. 5 MR. RABA: The gentleman in the back has 6 been very patient. Go ahead, sir. 7 MR. COOK: Keith Cook from Philips Lighting. 8 I guess maybe expanding upon this a little bit. Matt 9 touched upon it. Is, what is the repeatability of 10 this test setup? I mean if you have a particular 11 ballast and a particular lamp, and you put it all 12 together and you run a test, then you tear it all 13 down, and you have a different operator come in and he 14 puts it all together, did you run any testing to see 15 how consistent this approach is using even the same 16 ballast and lamp? 17 MS. GUPTA: So -- this is Mimi Gupta from 18 Navigant Consulting. We had the Lighting Research 19 Center do all these tests for us, and unfortunately we 20 don’t have a representative of them here. But as I 21 understand it, and I think manufacturers, you probably 22 know this better, the Lighting Research Center is a 23 certified lab, so I think they do continuous tests 24 like on the calibration -- 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 92

MR. COOK: That has nothing to do with my 1 question. My question -- I agree that their test 2 results may be very accurate, but there’s still the 3 way you set it up and the way you take the readings is 4 inducing another amount of error. And that can have 5 an effect upon, you know, the test results. And 6 that’s what I’m trying to understand, is how 7 repeatable is the test setup. 8

MR. RABA: Bob? 9 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, this is Bob Erhardt, and 10 we’ll be given a more detailed response in our written 11 response, but we have done -- we have tried exactly -- 12 to deal exactly that effect, Keith, by doing round 13 robin testing of multiple test labs, with the same 14 lamps and the same ballasts. So we are actually 15 looking at the repeatability of the test, and the 16 average of the test, and that’s how we come up with 17 our five percent number for this BEF accuracy. And we 18 want to use the average correlations from these 19 multiple test labs, multiple certified test labs, on 20 the same ballast and the same lamps, to come back with 21 a formal response to your question on a correlation 22

factor. 23 MR. RABA: Was that helpful? 24

MR. COOK: Yes. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 93

MR. RABA: Thank you. And you can always 1 submit your questions or comments later on in written 2 statements and all too. Thank you, and likewise to 3 you, Bob. Further? Yes, sir. 4 MR. PARISELLA: Joe Parisella, Osram 5 Sylvania. I’d just like to get some further 6 clarification on the graph here. Is this -- this was 7 done with a normal ballast factor ballast. Did you do 8 the same test with a low ballast factor and a high 9 ballast factor, ballast with the same resistor, and 10 did you get the same slope, or not? 11 MR. WALKER: Right, so we -- we would do the 12 same test using the same resistor and ballast with 13 different ballast factors, and you would actually get 14 a different slope. And that sort of comes -- due to 15 the fact that the resistor is not the exact match for 16 the ballast factor of the ballast. So the different 17 slope attempts to account for that effect. 18 MR. PARISELLA: And that’s where the scaling 19 factor comes in? 20 MR. WALKER: Well, so we actually -- we 21

would have -- let’s see. 22 PARTICIPANT: Go to the next slide. 23 MR. WALKER: Yeah, I’ll just point to this 24 table here. For example, this slope and this one were 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 94

all based directly on test data. And then we would 1 establish a ratio between the high and normal to 2 establish a ballast factor scaling ratio. 3 MR. PARISELLA: Okay. 4 MR. WALKER: So there was an initial test 5 based on test data directly used to develop the 6 scaling ratio. Does that help? 7 MR. PARISELLA: Yep. Thank you. 8 MR. WALKER: Okay. 9 MR. THOMAS: Ed Thomas, GE. Matt, I’m just 10 curious if any effect of the lamps under -- when doing 11 the BEF measurements, if you looked at efficacy of the 12 lamps under full power loads versus low light level 13 loads, did you find that the efficacy of the lamp 14 varied between a normal light level and a low light 15 level ballast, or a normal light level and a high 16 light level ballast, given the watts loading in the 17

tube? 18 MR. WALKER: I don’t think we -- I don’t 19 think we have data that answers that. 20 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, just one comment. I’m 21 sorry, Bob Erhardt, Philips Lighting and Electronics. 22 And one comment concerning scaling factors. We agree 23 that scaling factors can be valid. We will be 24 supplying in our written report, in our written 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 95

comments, again I said -- and I have in front of me, 1 but it’s much too much to put on the screen. I’ve got 2 -- I took 400 medium -- I took from the California 3 Energy Commission, 400 medium bi-pin test data. I 4 looked at the, from the four major manufacturers, I 5 took the highest BEFs for each category in your 6 matrix, and I did averages of those, and I developed 7 some correlation factors that are pretty close to what 8 you came out with, but you may wish to analyze the 9 further data if you haven’t done so, and I will be 10 supplying it to you. 11 MR. RABA: Thank you. Matt? 12 MR. WALKER: All right. We’ve move on to 13 the transfer equations. So this is the final content 14 side for the ballast test procedure. And I think it’s 15 come up earlier today, it is the case that during 16 testing we did find that some ballasts did not operate 17 resistors. We then confirmed that the ballast did 18 properly operate lamps, and while this wasn’t a 19 widespread problem, ballasts that operate different 20 types of lamps -- well, what am I trying to say? This 21 phenomenon was observed for different ballast types. 22 It was only a few, it wasn’t a widespread problem. 23 But in the case that a ballast is unable to 24 operate a resistor, DOE is proposing that the light 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 96

output base test procedure described in Appendix Q of 1

the CFR be used for these ballasts. 2 In the issue box, you can see number six, 3 DOE is seeking comment on why some ballasts may not 4 operate a resistor load bank while they are able to 5 properly operate a lamp. We also invite comments on 6 other approaches for testing these ballasts. 7 DOE is also seeking comment on the 8 effectiveness of the proposed resistor-based method, 9 as well as comment on its assessment of anticipated 10

test burden. Bob. 11 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, we’ve already made some 12 comment on the resistor requirements and having to 13 have one for each category. Concerning your issue 14 six, it’s not uncommon for some self-oscillating 15 ballast to not have enough drive if you load them at 16 start up, and so would not be uncommon for a ballast 17 that had a self-oscillating output stage to not start 18 if you had it resistively loaded. We accommodate this 19 in production because we do resistive loads to test 20 our ballasts in production -- my company does anyway - 21 - by starting the ballast without the resistive load, 22 and then introducing the resistive load. 23 But again, NEMA does propose that -- and you 24 would not have this issue with lamp loads either, so 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 97

again, NEMA prefers a lamp load efficiency 1

measurement. 2 MR. RABA: Comment, Ed? 3 MR. THOMAS: Ed Thomas, GE. If we’re going 4 to use a system where some equivalent ballasts are 5 tested on the BEF method, and some are going to be 6 tested on the resistive method, is there going to be 7 some means of denoting which methodology is used? 8 Because, as we saw a couple slides earlier, there is 9 some variation between what the outcome will be. This 10 may be favorable or unfavorable to certain 11 manufacturers. So how does the department intend to 12 address that particular issue? 13 MS. GUPTA: Mimi Gupta, Navigant Consulting. 14 I think the current proposal is not to denote whether 15 the ballast has been tested with one procedure or the 16 other, and both would be subject to the same standard. 17 So if stakeholders have comment on this issue of 18 whether it should be denoted and any modifications 19 that need to be made, DOE would definitely be 20 receptive to that. 21 MR. THOMAS: Well, I think there needs to be 22 some sort of indication, because we’ve seen that test 23 methodologies that utilize the photometrics tend to 24 have a larger percentage of error than test 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 98

methodologies that utilize either a resistive load or 1 a lamp load relating to ballast efficiency. So I 2 think there is going to need to be some delineation of 3 the test method used for a particular ballast if 4 alternate methods like this can be used. 5 The suggestion would be to utilize lamp 6 loads and thereby eliminating this problem entirely. 7 MR. deLASKI: This is our last round on this 8

method? 9 MR. WALKER: This is the last slide. 10 MR. deLASKI: Okay. I just want to come 11

back to -- 12 MR. RABA: Andrew deLaski. 13 MR. deLASKI: -- the issue that was raised 14 earlier on about DOE choice of metrics. Mike raised 15 this earlier in his remarks about the authority to go 16 to an RSE metric, and Betsy, I appreciate that you 17 look into this further. But I think Matt, in this 18 docket, we’re working under the assumption that we 19 were stuck with the BEF. So if the department now 20 thinks we are not stuck with the BEF, it would really 21 help in preparing our comments to know that. And I 22 think a lot of what you just saw in the previous slide 23 is some -- a lot of work going on, Bob, what NEMA’s 24 been doing and what the department’s been doing to try 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 99

to work within this BEF construct. But yet it seems 1 that quite possibly the department’s not stuck in that 2 construct, of that particular metric. So I don’t know 3 if there’s a method for that. 4 But I guess I’ll just make a couple more 5 comments is that it strikes me that ... some other 6 dockets that the department, for example, with clothes 7 washers, the initial statutory requirement was energy 8 factor, and it was changed to modified energy factor. 9 So the department has changed requirements for the 10 metric by which things are measured in other dockets, 11 and we’re having a conversation in another docket, 12 which Betsy, you know very well, about the air 13 conditioner test method. And we think the department 14 has wide discretion in that docket as well to use 15 other than those that are named in the statute. 16 But in this case, the particular barrier 17 that the department has identified as being a 18 potential concern in that docket isn’t one in this 19 docket. So it strikes me that it would really help 20 the commentors to know, you know, does the department 21 think you’re stuck with BEF or do you think that there 22 may be more discussion. 23 MR. RABA: Follow comment? Tim Ballo with 24 EarthJustice. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 100

MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo from EarthJustice. 1 Second a lot of what Andrew said, and from reading the 2 TSD it’s not clear, at least in the language I’m 3 looking at in 2.4.1.2, that the department has 4 expressed that it is compelled to stick with BEF, that 5 seems to be one reading that one could take of the 6 language that you’re using for consistency with ... 7 statute, DOE preliminarily determined that it cannot 8 change their point of metric. That seems to be a 9 legal conclusion, but there’s no rationale, there’s no 10 explanation of how the department arrived at that 11 conclusion and why the department feels -- believes 12 that the statute compels them to stick with BEF. 13 I’m not saying that should be the 14 department’s conclusion. I would argue just the 15 opposite. But there has to be some rationale for 16 commentors to comment on, and here all we have is just 17 a facial conclusion of the statute -- it seems to be 18 saying that the statute compels this, but we don’t 19 know why. 20 MS. KOHL: This is Betsy Kohl from DOE. I 21 think the proposal was written the way it was for 22 consistency with the Congressionally laid out 23 standards for these lamps in 6295. 24 MR. RABA: Speak up, Betsy. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 101

1MS. KOHL: And seven -- it’s in the 2 document that you were reading from, but I don’t think 3 that necessarily means that we have concluded that we 4

therefore have to use BEF forever. So send us comment 5 on that issue, and then you can also send us comments 6 on what it should be if it were not. 7 MR. deLASKI: This is a follow up -- Andrew 8 deLaskiv. Betsy, is there any mechanism for the 9 department to give a view prior -- we have comments to 10 the end of June, I think. Is there a mechanism for 11 the department to express a view on this during -- 12 MS. KOHL: It would probably be another 13 Federal Register notice, to let the world know. But I 14 don’t know whether we have plans to do that. It 15 certainly is something we can think about though. 16 That would help commentors. 17 MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt, Philips Lighting 18 and Electronics. Just a small clarification -- a 19 small correction to one of my earlier statements, now 20 that I’ve had my coffee and my esteemed colleague here 21 has brought it to my attention. 22 I had the RSE BEF relationship for T5 And T8 23 inverted. It is the T5 that comes up looking of poor 24 quality when compared with an RSE compared to a T8. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 102

MR. RABA: Good catch. Yes, Mike. 1 MR. MCGARAGHAN: Mike McGaraghan. I just 2 wanted to point out that the comment deadline is June 3 7th, as far as I can see from the NOPR on the test 4 procedure. 5 MR. RABA: Further comments on this? Yes, 6 sir. 7 MR. DUFFY: This is Mark Duffy from GE 8 Lighting. If you could back up a couple slides to the 9 scaling transfer equations -- right there. If you 10 take a careful look at this, and you realize that 11 ballast efficiency is output watts divided by input 12 watts, the fact that the scaling factors are different 13 for high, normal and low ballast factor is going to 14 create a bias that’s going to force high ballast 15

factor or low ballast factor ballast to have more 16 efficient operation, if you lay a line on ballast 17 efficiency factor. So I thin you should be careful to 18 realize that while you get a lot of variation when 19 you’re measuring with ballast efficiency factor, and 20 so those scaling factors could have a lot of variation 21 to them. The reality is, if you’re going for watts 22 out divided by watts in as a figure of merit for 23 ballasts, then those number should be uniform across 24 the vertical direction. Thank you. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 103

MR. RABA: Mike. 1 MR. WALKER: I think your comment makes 2 sense. I just wanted to point out one thing about -- 3 maybe one reason for why the scaling relationships are 4 different between ballast factor. Because a ballast - 5 - any ballast factor is tested with the same resistor, 6 a low ballast factor ballast, or a high ballast factor 7 ballast measured ballast efficiency is not the same as 8 if it was measured with the appropriate resistor. 9 So for that reason, we try to scale -- we 10 try to bring the ballast efficiency to the correct BEF 11 using a different number, does that help? 12 MR. DUFFY: Yeah, that helps clarify, 13 Matthew, I appreciate that. And I guess it makes one 14 more statement that the use of lamps as a load is -- 15 would take that factor out of the picture. 16

MR. RABA: Yes. 17 MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt, Philips Lighting 18 and Electronics. If you like I can give you a couple 19 of quick indications of what I found when I looked at 20 larger populations of lamps. I found that the -- 21 going from a one lamp to a two lamp is about a two 22 percent -- I’m sorry here. Can be as high as a three 23 percent BEF with the two lamp being three percent 24 higher efficiency than the one lamp. And going up to 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 104

a four lamp, the four lamp can actually be more 1 efficient than the two lamp by about two percent. 2 So actually here, I have a lot of data here. 3 I have program start, instant start, two lamp to four 4 lamp, low wattage to high wattage. These are based on 5 average BEFs of the four highest BEF models from the 6 four major manufacturers of each category. And the 7 average overall is three and a half percent lower BEF 8 for a one lamp compared to a two lamp, and about two 9 percent higher for a four lamp compared with a two 10 lamp. 11 Going from low to high, the overall average, 12 it’s about plus or minus -- about plus or minus one 13 percent, relative to a two lamp. A low wattage is 14 about one percent less efficient, and a high wattage 15 is about one percent higher efficiency. 16 MR. RABA: Thank you. Yes, sir, in the 17

back? 18 MR. ANDERSEN: Eric Andersen, Pacific 19 Northwest National Laboratory. Matt, if you’d go back 20 to issue 11, I just want to make sure we don’t skip 21 over that. I heard it mentioned a little bit earlier 22 that there were some concerns about perhaps having to 23 do some facility modifications in order to conduct 24 some of this testing, and I’m wondering if there are 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 105

other things that are of concern with regard to 1 implementing this test procedure and the burden 2 imposed by that? 3 MR. THOMAS: Ed Thomas, GE Lighting. 4 Certainly the need to acquire multiple banks of 5 precision resistors would be a concern. The resistors 6 utilized in the NEMA testing were between one and 7 $2000 a set. And that was for one specific load bank. 8 We may need multiples of that, depending upon what the 9 final outcome of the rule is, and these resistors will 10 be basically in a closet until they’re needed for 11 testing, and then with different ballast types and 12 different lamp times still in development. Additional 13 resistors will need to be purchased as different types 14 of systems come on to the market. Again, it’s a case 15 for lamp utilization. 16 And I think also, a little bit on issue 12, 17 if existing BEF measurements are still required, the 18 ability to control the temperature is going to be a 19 costly proposal. 20 MR. RABA: Okay. More on burden? Anything 21

else. Matt? 22 MR. WALKER: I think we’re all set. Thank 23 you for your attention. Thank you. 24 MR. RABA: So, as you note, the comment 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 106

period test procedures closes June 7th. We’ve got a 1 lot of good information here to think about. Go back 2 and formulate and submit to the department your 3 comments, anything else, you can contact the project 4 manager as well, Linda Graves, for any questions you 5 might have along the way. 6 We’re pretty much right on schedule here. 7 Well, actually a little ahead. So let’s do this. 8 Take a lunch break right now. There are two places 9 you might go for lunch, again, down below, the ground 10 floor, there’s a Dunkin Donuts and a Subway. Or to 11 the West Building, on the ground floor and just follow 12 the crowd, I would say, to the far end, past the 13 auditorium, up the escalator, the second level and 14 there’s a cafeteria there. You have to go out of the 15 building, so to speak, check in with the card, check 16 in again. So take your visitors passes with you. 17 And we’ll return -- start -- we’ll say we’ll 18 give you one hour. Promptly at 12:45, so keep on 19

schedule. We’ve a lot more to cover on standards. 20 Any questions so far? Yes, sir. 21 MR. HAKKAHANEN: May we leave our -- this 22 will be locked? 23 MR. RABA: Yes, we’ll keep this room secure 24 for you. I would say if you leave the building, the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 107

campus, it’s kind of hard to get back in, you’d have 1 to have someone like us to bring you back in, so stay 2 in the building somewhere, if you would, just for your 3 own convenience’s sake 4 Again, thank you very much, good round of 5 comments, and discussion. See you back in an our. 6 (Whereupon, at 11:45 p.m., the meeting was 7 recessed, to reconvene at 12:45 p.m., this same day, 8 Monday, April 26, 2010.) 9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 108

A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N 1 12:48 p.m. 2

MR. RABA: Welcome back. I’ve been asked to 3 start again. People who are missing will probably get 4 back shortly. 5 Is there anyone here who is new in this half 6 of the public meeting, this part being Standards, or 7 who hasn’t introduced him or herself earlier in the 8 day. 9 Yes, sir. Say your name, please, for the 10 record, and your organization and affiliation. 11 MR. CARPENTER: Yes, Fred Carpenter with the 12 Acuity Brands Lighting. 13 MR. RABA: Thank you very much. Thank you. 14 Anybody else? 15 MR. GALLANT: Pierre Gallant, Natural 16

Resources Canada. 17 MR. RABA: Say again, please? 18 MR. GALLANT: Pierre Gallant, Natural 19

Resources Canada. 20 MR. RABA: Thank you. And you gave -- 21 Brenda’s got your information? 22 MR. GALLANT: Oh, yeah, I was here from the 23 beginning. Maybe just a couple minutes after everyone 24 presented themselves. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 109

MR. RABA: Okay. And thanks for catching up 1 with us. Or are we catching up with you. 2 To start this out is Energy Efficiency 3 Standards and preliminary analysis view point. And to 4 lead off is Ali Lehr. Ali. 5 MS. KOHL: Okay. Thank you. I’m sorry. 6 This is Betsy Kohl from DOE. Just to clarify on an 7 issue that we were talking about. 8 MR. RABA: Betsy Kohl. 9 MS. KOHL: The metric issue that we were 10 talking about before we broke for lunch. I just kind 11 of wanted to reiterate again that we’re still 12 reconsidering what the appropriate metric would be. 13 So I don’t know that another Federal Register notice 14 on that issue would be of any use. So I just wanted 15 to let you guys know that that issue is still under 16 consideration so if you can let him know it would be 17 great. 18 Thank you. 19 MR. RABA: Thanks for filing us in. 20 Yes, please. 21 MR. HAKKARAINEN: Pekka Hakkarainen from 22 Lutron. Betsy, when would we expect a decision on 23 that issue? 24 MS. KOHL: Well, I mean, that’s part of this 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 110

rulemaking. I mean, you can supplement if you want. 1 But in the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for the test 2 procedure we laid out the BEF, but then we laid out 3 the BE, we laid out the RSE, so, I mean, that’s why 4 you guys submit comments and we consider them and then 5 for the final test procedure, which is the next step, 6 that’s when it would come out. Okay? 7 MR. HAKKARAINEN: It might be June of next 8 year then? 9

MS. KOHL: Yes. 10 MR. RABA: Yes, please. 11 MS. MAUER: Just a clarification. 12 MR. RABA: Your name, please? 13 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. I think part of 14 the question was just whether DOE thinks it can 15 establish a metric that’s different from BEF even 16 though there are several different options for what 17 that alternative metric could be. 18 MS. KOHL: Yeah, and I think those 19 statements from the TSD we need to clean those up, but 20 we are still considering what the appropriate metric 21 would be. We proposed them as BEF for consistency 22 with the standards that Congress had set. But we are 23 still looking at what the best metric would be. 24 MR. RABA: And Joanna, with the Appliance 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 111

standards project? 1

MS. MAUER: Yes. 2 MR. RABA: Okay. Thank you. 3 Anyone else? Good follow on, Betsy. Thank 4

you. 5 Anything else? 6 Okay. Now, Allison, if you would please. 7

MS. LEHR: Thanks. 8

ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARD INTRODUCTION, 9

STATUTE, AND CONTEXT 10 MS. LEHR: All right. This afternoon we are 11 going to be talking about the preliminary analysis 12 stage for the fluorescent lamp ballasts standards 13 rulemaking. 14 Okay. So I’m going to start by giving an 15 overview of the standards rulemaking to date and then 16 we’ll talk about each analysis in more detail. And 17 finally we’ll end by talking about the analysis for 18 the NOPR and the next steps in the rulemaking process. 19 There are typically four major stages in a 20 DOE standards rulemaking. The framework document, 21 preliminary analysis, notice of proposed rulemaking 22 and final rule. 23 Each stage includes a Federal Register 24 notice to place information in public view. At 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 112

multiple points in the process DOE invites both oral 1 and written comments on its analysis. These comments 2 can be in response to not just the Federal Register 3 notice, but also any technical support document and 4 analytical spreadsheets that may be posted on line. 5 Stakeholders are invited and even encouraged 6 to participate during each of the public meetings and 7 comment periods. 8 This rulemaking started I early 2008 with 9 the publication of a framework document. Just last 10 month DOE published a notice in the Federal Register 11 announcing the availability of the preliminary 12 analysis and the date of this meeting. 13 Later this year DOE plans to publish a NOPR 14 and hold another public meeting to receive comments on 15 that proposal. 16 Six months after that DOE plans to publish a 17 final rule. Any amended standards would take effect 18 three years after the final rule is published which 19 DOE estimates to be June 2014. 20 So now we’ll start to talk in more detail 21 about the analyses. As I mentioned, we are currently 22 in the preliminary analysis phase. This slide 23 summarizes all the analyses conducted during this 24 stage. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 113

I’m going to start by talking about the 1 market and tech assessment, screening analysis and 2 engineering analysis. These analyses serve as the 3 foundation for the life cycle cost analysis and 4 national impact analysis which we’ll be discussing 5 later on today. 6 In the market and technology assessment DOE 7 determines the scope of coverage for this rulemaking. 8 DOE also characterizes the fluorescent lamp ballast 9 market, identifies several measures to improve the BEF 10 of a ballast, known as technology options, and 11 establishes product classes for all covered products. 12 The screening analysis considers the technology 13 options and determines whether they meet the four 14 screening criteria described by EPCA. 15 Technology options that meet the screening 16 criteria are called “design options” which are input 17 for the engineering analysis. 18 EPCA defines a fluorescent lamp ballast as a 19 device which is used to start and operate fluorescent 20 lamps by providing a starting voltage and current and 21 limiting the current during normal operation. 22 Several fluorescent lamp ballasts are 23 already subject to energy conservation standards and 24 they are summarized in the table on this slide. In 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 114

general, only T12 ballasts that operate four-foot 1 medium bi-pin, eight-foot single pin slimline and 2 eight-foot high-output lamps are included in coverage. 3 There are currently three types of ballasts 4 exempt from standards. And these exemptions include 5 dimming ballasts, residential ballasts, and ballasts 6 designed for use in cold-temperature outdoor signs. 7 As part of this rulemaking DOE considered 8 expanding the scope of coverage to include addition 9 fluorescent lamp ballasts. When expanding the scope 10 DOE considered three main criteria. The first was the 11 potential for a ballast type to demonstrate 12 significant energy savings. As part of this criteria, 13 DOE also considered ballast types whose shipments may 14 not currently be high volume but have the potential to 15 grow such as in the case that they become a substitute 16 for a regulated ballast. 17 And, finally, DOE considered improving the 18 BEF of a certain ballast type was both technologically 19 feasible and economically justified. 20 DOE concluded that several additional 21 ballast types met the criteria to be included in the 22 scope of coverage. 23 This slide summarizes all the ballasts in 24 the preliminary determination of scope. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 115

In general DOE is extending coverage to 1 ballasts that operate additional lamp types such as 2 four-foot T5 lamps, ballasts that operate additional 3 lamp diameters such as T8, four-foot medium bi-pin 4 lamps in addition to T12 and ballasts that operate 5 additional numbers of lamps. 6 Please note that DOE did not include dimming 7 ballasts in this preliminary determination of scope. 8 However, DOE invites comment on all aspects of the 9 expanded scope of coverage including those ballasts 10 that DOE chose not to include. And DOE also reminds 11 stakeholders that any expansion of scope from that 12 presented in this preliminary analysis would require a 13 modification to the test procedure presented earlier 14 today. 15 A test procedure must exist for any covered 16 product and therefore DOE asked stakeholders to 17 comment on appropriate test procedures for any ballast 18 that they wish to include in an expanded scope. 19 MR. RABA: Thoughts on the scope that’s been 20 presented? Charlie. 21 MR. STEPHENS: I’m Charlie Stephens. Could 22 you tell me how one knows an outdoor -- well, lamps 23 that are designed to operate in cold temperature for 24 outdoor signs? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 116

MS. LEHR: Sure. They in general have a 1 designation that they’re able to operate and they’re 2 usually referred to as “sign ballasts” and they would 3 say that they’re able to operate down to negative 20 4 degrees Fahrenheit. 5

MR. STEPHENS: What about a ballast that’s 6 just labeled “outdoor”? I mean, I have -- 7 MS. LEHR: All right. Someone behind you 8 can answer the question. 9 MR. RABA: Yes, please? 10 MS. ANDERSON: Susan Anderson, Osram 11 Sylvania. If it’s just labeled “outdoor” it’s 12 probably that the case is moisture resistant. 13 MS. LEHR: Okay. 14 MS. ANDERSON: As opposed to the cold 15 temperature which means that it can start at a lower - 16

- 17 MR. RABA: Wait, wait, stop. Forgive me. 18 My bad. Would you please use the stand up microphone 19 so we can all hear you. Thank you very much. 20 MS. ANDERSON: Certainly. If a ballast is 21 labeled “outdoor” it means it can be exposed to 22 moisture or is moisture resistant. As opposed to cold 23 temperature starting might still need to be enclosed - 24 - suitably enclosed, but it can start the ballast at 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 117

colder starting -- start the lamps at colder starting 1 temperatures. Typically minus 20 degrees Fahrenheit. 2 MR. RABA: Thank you. 3 MR. STEPHENS: Okay. Charlie Stephens back 4 again. So that would mean that if it was simply 5 labeled “outdoor” but not labeled to start at minus 20 6 Fahrenheit, then it would be covered? 7 MS. LEHR: Right. 8 MR. STEPHENS: And if it’s labeled to start 9 at minus 20 then it’s not covered? 10 MS. LEHR: No, well -- 11 MR. STEPHENS: It’s not supposed to be 12 covered, but is not covered now? 13 MS. LEHR: Right. I guess what we’re 14 looking for is any suggestions you would have. These 15 ballasts are currently exempted from the scope of 16 coverage. And so there’s language in the Code of 17 Federal Regulations for which type of ballasts are 18 exempted. And so for including them the scope of 19 coverage for any future phase we would need to have 20 suggested regulatory language for how to define what’s 21 covered and what’s not. If you had recommendations 22 for how we should define this -- I guess this part, 23 this ballast type, we would be willing to take any 24 suggestions. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 118

MR. RABA: Suggestion here? 1 MR. ERHARDT: I’m just commenting that 2 Navigant has proposed that they do include outdoor 3 ballasts. They’re only giving them a different level 4 to meet. And they are specifying the cold temperature 5 rating with that. All they’re proposing is that they 6 make some allowance for cold temperatures starting in 7 the BEF requirement. 8 MR. STEPHENS: Okay. Charlie Stephens 9 again. I’m just having trouble with language as I try 10 to translate this and then I don’t know how many 11 people here in the room have bought a ballast in the 12 last six weeks or so, or six months through the 13 system. I do. I buy them fairly regularly. I 14 haven’t succeeded recently in buying one that isn’t 15

labeled “outdoors”. But I don’t know what that means. 16 And I don’t know what electronic means anymore either. 17 So I’m trying to get straight on what is and isn’t 18 covered. It’s hard to make recommendations on what to 19 cover if I’m not straight on what is covered. So -- 20 MR. RABA: Can you help us? 21 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah. There are UL safety 22 ratings for outdoor and there’s Type 1 outdoor, Type 2 23 outdoor and they are based on moisture resistance 24 whether you need just a basic enclosure around them or 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 119

if you need some kind of hermetic enclosure that will 1 keep all moisture away from them, et cetera, whether 2 they’re fully encapsulated or not. 3 That, as I understand, is not the 4 eliminating factor in these proceedings. When they 5 talk about outdoor, they are giving an allowance for 6 cold temperature starting for sign ballasts and that 7 when you do have cold temperature starting you have 8 higher VAs in your product and you -- you know, it’s 9 harder to meet the BEFs. So, as I understand the 10 general Type 1 or Type 2 outdoor rating as applied to 11 all products is not an eliminating factor only on the 12 sign ballasts. 13 MR. RABA: Okay. That last comment was from 14

Bob Erhardt. 15 MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt, Philips 16 Electronics. 17 MR. RABA: Philips. And Charlie I see you 18 nodding? 19 MR. STEPHENS: Yeah. The second one is that 20 in the Federal Register notice DOE used the term 21 “electronic” in a lot of cases. And I can’t tell if 22 you are using that to refer to a high frequency 23 ballast or just a ballast that has electronic 24 components. Because I’ve bought -- when I’ve gone in 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 120

and asked for an electronic ballast I’ve been handed a 1 60 Hertz ballast and I’ve been handed a high frequency 2 ballast and it’s not always the same thing. Though 3 you can tell if it’s a program start ballast it’s got 4 some electronics to it. So I’m not sure when DOE uses 5 that term what they’re referring to, but I wish it 6 were consistent and that I understood what it was. 7 MR. ERHARDT: My only comment is that that 8 hasn’t been a factor in setting the requirements, the 9 electromagnetic or cathode cutout semi-electronic, if 10 you like, or the full electronic all have to meet the 11 same BEFs. So in the end I don’t think it’s 12 important. I think they use those terms to describe 13 ballast types. And as I read the report, it would 14 appear that they are talking about high frequency 15 versus low frequency given that high frequencies pick 16 up efficacy in the lamp and therefore when they’re 17 talking about a given regulation only being able to be 18 met by an electronic they’re talking about a BEF that 19 is high enough that if they don’t have the extra 10 20 percent efficacy pick up from the lamp you’re not 21 going to be meeting it. That was my interpretation 22 from reading the report. 23 Again, Bob Erhardt, Philips Lighting 24 Electronics. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 121

MR. RABA: Mimi, are you turned on? 1 Microphone turned on. 2 MS. GUPTA: Oh, it’s out of batteries. 3 MR. RABA: Give it a moment to warm up, 4 please. 5 MS. GUPTA: Mimi Gupta, Navigant Consulting. 6 Bob is correct. When we say “electronic” we do mean 7 high frequency in the literature. But your comment is 8 well taken about the terminology and we will 9 definitely try to be clearer moving forward. So, 10 thank you. 11 MR. STEPHENS: And I would just suggest that 12 if you mean high frequency that you say high 13 frequency. Because when you look at the ballasts that 14 are out there, it’s not consistent. 15 MR. RABA: Thank you. 16 MR. deLASKI: Andrew deLaski Appliance 17 Standards Awareness Project. We had commented at the 18 framework stage in favor of expanding the scope of 19 coverage. And I think the Department has, by and 20 large, gone in the direction in which we recommended 21 at that time in covering both residential ballasts and 22 low temperature ballasts. So we certainly applaud 23 that correction and support it very strongly. 24 I think as I read through the analysis here 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 122

it strikes me -- I’m really struck that the energy 1 savings in this docket is in the newly covered 2 products. And the analysis shows that even though the 3 sales were relatively small, the savings are in these 4 things that are newly covered. So it is in this area 5 in coverage at the very beginning of this presentation 6 today that we’re seeing the decisions that actually 7 drive the savings in this docket so. We can make 8 decisions here. 9 I do have a question which is your rationale 10 for not covering the dimming? So what’s driving that 11 particular -- because we had recommended the framework 12 stage covered dimming as well. So I’m curious as to 13 why you came to a different conclusion on that one 14 relative to say the outdoor or the residential? 15 MS. LEHR: It was predominantly the low 16 market share that we were able to detect for dimming 17 ballasts. It was less than 1 percent. The market we 18 were looking at was the primary driver. 19 MR. ERHARDT: This is Bob Erhardt, Philips 20 Lighting Electronics. I’ll also point out in the 21 report they were commenting that, you know, dimming 22 ballasts because of their expense are not going to 23 represent a loophole that people aren’t going to be 24 buying them as a way to not have to meet efficiency 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 123

levels because a dimming ballast is significantly more 1 expensive. 2 I will also comment that NEMA has commented 3 asking that dimming ballasts not be covered in the 4 rulemaking given that when a dimming ballast by its 5 specification is there to be part of a high-efficiency 6 system that can realize much higher energy savings 7 than a fixed output ballast on its own. 8 The other issue that NEMA wishes to bring up 9 concerning dimming ballasts are that rating a dimming 10 ballast at its full output can be misleading because 11 dimming ballasts, if they are specified, are generally 12 not operated at their full output and a means of 13 determining the overall energy efficiency of a dimming 14 ballast has not been well defined in our opinion and 15 will be quite cumbersome. You’ll find dimming 16 ballasts, especially if they’re used with -- 17 especially if they’re used with daylight harvesting 18 and can realize savings of 30, 40, even 50 percent on 19 energy if you have significant daylight available. 20 And it’s when you’re operating in these dim modes that 21 we’re not covering their efficiency. And there are 22 significant differences in the efficiency of dimming 23 ballasts in these dim modes. And we haven’t come up 24 with a practicable, if you will, method of looking at 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 124

the overall efficiency of a dimming system. 1

MR. RABA: That covers a lot. Good 2 question, Charlie. Go ahead. Thanks bob. 3 MR. deLASKI: So just a follow-on. You 4 know, I think we’re -- 5 MR. RABA: deLaski. 6 MR. deLASKI: -- going to address the new 7 ballast in our written comments. But I hear both the 8 arguments, both in terms of the sales volumes and in 9 terms of the measurement issues. 10 MR. RABA: Yes, in back please. 11 MS. ANDERSON: (Off mike.) 12 MR. RABA: Can you speak up. 13 MS. ANDERSON: (Off mike) might want to talk 14 about the New York Times Building and the actual 15 energy use there as opposed to the design -- 16 MR. RABA: We can’t hear you up front, 17 please. 18 MS. GUPTA: Susan, do you want to come up to 19

the table? 20 MR. RABA: Yeah, come on up. Yeah, please. 21 Thank you. Good call. Welcome. 22 MS. ANDERSON: Susan Anderson, Osram 23 Sylvania. I speak a lot for NEMA. And one of the 24 examples that we give people in proposing that they 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 125

consider the idea of dimming ballasts is one of the 1 Lutron success stories which is the New York Times 2 Building which is actually operating at less than 40 3 percent of its designed watts per square foot because 4 of the fact that they are using dimming ballasts 5 incorporated as part of a daylight -- day lighting 6 system. 7 So I think they’re at something like .38 8 watts per square foot. And it was supposed to have 9 been around 1.2, 1.29. They’re operating at about 70 10 percent less than what they had anticipated in the 11 designed watts per square foot. 12 MR. RABA: Very interesting. Thank you. 13

Further? 14 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, Bob Erhardt, Philips 15 Lighting Electronics. One comment on exemptions that 16 we just actually talked about last night at dinner. 17 And we haven’t had a full vetting of the discussion, 18 but we’re not -- we don’t even have necessarily a 19 proposal that maybe hopefully we will for our written 20

comments. 21 Currently for EMI sensitive environments 22 electromagnetic ballasts are used. And the proposals 23 for efficiency levels that are being made here will 24 not allow electromagnetic ballasts. And we would like 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 126

to propose some type of consideration and I would know 1 how it would be worded, but somehow can we come up 2 with some kind of a rating for EMI sensitive -- I 3 understand the difficulty of enforcement and, you 4 know, you don’t want people filling their whole 5 building with electromagnetic, but from what we know 6 there is still common practice -- the normal practice 7 for hospital environments to be using electromagnetic 8 product. 9 MR. RABA: Good point. Go ahead, sorry. 10 MR. THOMAS: Ed Thomas, GE Lighting. I 11 would just like to further the point that Bob just 12 made. Occasionally there are situations in critical 13 care suites, surgery suites of hospitals, also areas 14 that will be critical in the life support function, 15 let’s say a control tower of an aircraft landing or an 16 airport rather. We certainly have situations where 17 ballasts that generate no or low EMI are needed. 18 I got an inquiry from one of the research 19 labs at Princeton about ballasts for their nuclear 20 medicine laboratories. They wanted to see if they 21 could still maintain with magnetic systems for 22 specialized applications. Certainly not for general 23 lighting, but, again, for specialized applications 24 there should be some exemptions involved. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 127

MR. deLASKI: Andrew DeLaski, Appliance 1 Standards Awareness Project. I think Bob put his 2 finger on, you know, the challenge here which is how 3 do you define the exemption in a way that it prevents 4 a loophole. And this has been a problem with lighting 5 standards in particular. You know, because the market 6 buys what you offer, or has the opportunity to buy 7 whatever you offer, and you don’t necessarily control 8 who buys which products as manufacturers. So I think 9 the challenge is in finding that. So I would really 10 put it back to you guys to think about how are you 11 going to define -- how can we define the exemption -- 12 an exemption in a way that prevents it from becoming, 13 you know, the new energy saver. You know, we had -- 14 we thought we had to revise the law in 2005 to deal 15 with the energy saver ballasts. And you know, we have 16 to -- we are still wrestling with the BR lamp 17 exemption and condenser reflector lamp docket. So, 18 you know, one docket after the other with lighting 19 products we find the market kind of -- you squeeze it 20 in one way and it comes out somewhere else. So we 21 have to define these in ways that are really bullet 22 proof. 23 MS. GUPTA: Mimi Gupta, Navigant Consulting. 24 So I have a question. It was my understanding that 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 128

coming standards for fluorescent ballasts were going 1 to eliminate -- no these ones that we’re talking 2 about, but the ones that are coming effective I think 3 in 2010 or something like that. 4 MS. LEHR: Like July 2010? 5 MS. GUPTA: Yeah. They were going to 6 eliminate most electromagnetic ballasts except for 7 maybe the high output variety; is that not your 8 understanding? 9 MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt, Philips Lighting 10 Electronics. We’re going to have to look at this 11 because this came up over dinner last night and this 12 is the first time we’re, as NEMA companies, addressing 13 it. We are going to have to take a look at this 14 situation. We don’t know, maybe this is something we 15 missed. And we my have to try to correct it. But 16 this is something that, you know, we’ve been very 17 wrapped up in the shift to electronic product and 18 focused on it and then the shift to control systems 19 and this is something we may have overlooked. We’ll 20 try to address it in our written comments. 21 MR. RABA: Written comments, remember that. 22 Thank you. 23 Anybody else, please? 24 Ali? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 129

MARKET AND TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; SCREENING 1

ANALYSIS 2 MS. LEHR: So DOE establishes separate 3 standards for different groups of products called 4 “product classes”. To do this DOE considered the type 5 of energy used, the capacity, and any performance6 related feature that would require a different 7 standard level. Of these criteria DOE focused on the 8 last one where a difference in the BEF of a ballast 9 was accompanied by a difference in consumer utility. 10 Using this methodology DOE established 11 product classes based on these six factors: Lamp 12 length, number of lamps, lumen package, lamp diameter 13 for T5 lamps, starting method and market sector. 14

DOE found that features that affected the 15 input power of a ballast also affected its BF. In 16 general longer lamps tended to have higher wattages 17 than shorter lamps. And therefore a ballast that 18 operated in longer lamps had lower BEFs. Similarly 19 the more lamps a ballast operated, the larger the 20 ballast input power and the lower the BEF. 21 DOE believes that both lamp length and 22 number affect the ability of a lamp and ballast system 23 to be used in a particular fixture. For example, 24 ballasts operating eight-foot lamps would require 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 130

physically larger fixtures than ballasts operating 1 four-foot lamps. Additionally ballasts operating six 2 lamps would require more physical space than ballasts 3 operating two lamps. 4 Because of this impact on both BEF and 5 consumer utility DOE established separate product 6 classes for ballasts that operate different maximum 7 numbers of lamps and ballasts that operate four8 versus eight-foot lamps. 9 DOE also considered features that affected 10 the lumen output of a lamp and ballast system. DOE 11 found that high output systems tended to have higher 12 input powers and therefore lower BEF’s compared to 13 standard output systems. Similarly DOE found that 14 ballasts with high or low ballast factor had lower 15

BEFs than normal ballast factor ballasts. 16 DOE believes that consumers use systems with 17 different lumen packages for different applications. 18 For example, high lumen output systems may be 19 installed in a high ceiling or outdoor applications 20 where large quantities of light are needed. 21 Alternatively, low-lumen package systems might be 22 installed in lower ceiling applications such as 23 offices or hospitals where the distance between the 24 light source and the illuminated surface is not as 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 131

large. 1 Given the impact on both BEF and consumer 2 utility DOE established separate product classes for 3 standard versus high output systems and ballasts that 4 operate low, normal, and high ballast factor. Similar 5 to the test procedure DOE created three bins to 6 delineate ballast factor with divisions at .78 and 7

1.1. 8 DOE also considered lamp diameter as a 9 potential class setting factor. Because the most 10 common wattage lamp associated with each lamp 11 diameter, T12 ballasts typically have lower BEFs than 12 T8 ballasts which in turn have lower BEFs than T5 13 ballasts. However, DOE did not establish product 14 classes based on lamp diameter alone because not all 15 lamp diameters provide a unique consumer utility. 16 For example, DOE kept both T8 and T12 17 systems in the same product class because they are 18 direct replacements for each other. However, because 19 T5 systems offer a similar total lumen package as T8 20 or T12 systems, but over a much smaller surface area, 21 DOE believes these lamps are not suitable for direct 22 lighting applications. 23 For this reason DOE established a separate 24 product class for ballasts that operate T5 lamps. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 132

This approach is consistent with the July 2009 final 1 Rule that amended energy conservation standards for 2 general service fluorescent lamps. 3 DOE also considered starting method as a 4 potential class setting factor. DOE found that both 5 program start and rapid start ballasts have lower BEFs 6 than instant start ballasts due to electo heating. 7 Even though there is a difference in BEF, DOE did not 8 establish a separate product class for rapid start 9 ballasts because rapid start and instant start 10 ballasts are commonly used as substitutes for each 11

other. 12 However, occupancy sensors are almost 13 exclusively used in combination with program start 14 ballasts. For this reason DOE feels there’s unique 15 utility associated with program start ballasts. 16 Because of this utility and the associated decrease in 17 BEF DOE established a separate product class for 18 program start ballasts. 19 Last, DOE considered features related to the 20 market sector or application in which the ballast was 21 used. DOE noticed that residential ballasts had more 22 stringent EMI requirements and less stringent power 23 factor requirements than ballasts that operate in the 24 commercial sector. Due to the EMI requirements, a 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 133

commercial ballast cannot be used as a substitute in 1 the residential market. 2 According to test data the more stringent 3 EMI requirements seem to result in lower BEFs than 4 commercial ballasts. For these reasons DOE 5 established a separate product class for ballasts that 6 are designed for use in the residential sector. 7 Last, DOE noticed that ballasts designed for 8 use in cold temperature outdoor signs have lower BEFs 9 than ballasts that are not designed for cold 10 temperature environments. Because regular ballasts 11 cannot be used as substitutes DOE established a 12 separate product class for ballasts that are used in 13 cold temperature outdoor signs. 14 So, in total, for the entire scope of 15 coverage DOE established 70 product classes. This 16 slide just shows an example of the product class 17 structure for ballasts that operate four-foot medium 18 bi-pin lamps in the commercial sector. You can see 19 that after accounting for divisions in starting 20 method, ballast factor and number of lamps there were 21 36 product classes for ballasts that operate this lamp 22 type. 23 DOE requests comment on the factors it used 24 to establish product classes especially the ranges 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 134

identified for high, low and normal ballast factor. 1 MR. RABA: Charlie? 2 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. Could you 3 go back over the residential list there? I mean, I’m 4 somebody whose house is full of high frequency 5 ballasts for four-foot and three-foot T8. So I’m kind 6 of trying to figure out what the problem is here. 7 MS. LEHR: I guess I’m not sure what you 8 mean by what the problem is. 9 MR. STEPHENS: You have more stringent EMI 10 requirements in the residential sector? 11

MS. LEHR: That’s correct. It’s an FCC 12 requirement. 13 MR. STEPHENS: Okay. But I’m not sure I 14 understand those. I mean, do they just -- what’s the 15 purpose of those? 16 MR. RABA: I think we have a comment over 17

here from -- 18 MR. ERHARDT: I’ll respond. 19

MR. RABA: Bob Erhardt. 20 MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt, Philips Lighting 21 Electronics. FCC has differing requirements for 22 residential and for commercial. As my shorthand 23 description which might not be entirely accurate, but 24 in residential -- in commercial it’s assumed if you’re 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 135

disturbing yourself, that’s fine. But in residential, 1 if you’re in an apartment and you don’t want to 2 disturb your neighbor. In any case, there are more 3 stringent requirements for residential EMI than there 4 are for commercial as an FCC regulation. 5 So, yes, you should find that class B FCC 6 rating for your residential ballasts that are in your 7

home. 8 MR. RABA: Charlie, you look puzzled. 9 MR. STEPHENS: Well, only because I don’t 10 understand the FCC requirement. But, you know, if 11 it’s an FCC requirement that’s fine. You know, like I 12 said, I don’t -- I don’t know when that was set, but 13 there’s no evident impact that I can detect. 14 MR. ERHARDT: The more stringent FCC class B 15 requirement does require a more sophisticated EMI 16 filter which will result in slightly higher losses. 17 Although the lower power factor requirement more than 18 offsets it. So you’re probably not noticing much of 19 an impact on your residential efficiencies, if you 20 will, because the -- when you can allow a .6 power 21 factor and 200 percent THD, you can eliminate a whole 22 stage of your ballast which has a much bigger impact 23 than the addition of one more EMI component. 24 MR. RABA: Mimi. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 136

MS. GUPTA: Yes, Mimi Gupta. 1

MR. RABA: Turn on. 2 MS. GUPTA: Mimi Gupta, Navigant Consulting. 3 So, Bob, are you saying that residential ballasts can 4 actually achieve a higher efficiency than commercial 5 ballasts due to the power factor requirement? 6 MR. ERHARDT: I’ll be supplying my -- you 7 know, you can go to the California Energy website -- 8 California Energy Commission website as well and a 9 dedicated residential ballast that has a low power 10 factor can have higher efficiency than a full 11 communication ballast. 12 MR. RABA: Charlie, is that helpful? 13 You could always send a written comment or 14

concern about that too later on. 15 MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, I’ll have to do a 16 little digging. 17 MR. RABA: Thank you. Bob? 18

MR. ERHARDT: I’ll make some other comments 19 in the request for comments. 20 On your subdividing of product classes for 21 low, normal, and high ballast factor, I would say the 22 industry for T8 will typically talk about a normal 23 ballast factor is about a .85 to generally .995. For 24

a T5 a normal ballast factor would be a ballast factor 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 137

of one. We’ll supply written comments. But I think 1 that having the normal range extend all the way down 2 to .78 is on the low side and having it go all the way 3 to 110 by -- for T8, certainly, that’s pretty high. 4 If you have a 1 or a 105, you may wish to consider if 5 that’s going to be -- well, you may wish to see how 6 products break out in your analysis. 7 Also, on low and high ballast factor 8 ballasts both having lower BEFs than normal ballast 9 factor, as we commented earlier during the measurement 10 phase, I think some of this is based on your 11 measurement procedures where you’re using the same -- 12 as I understand you’re using the same resistors for 13 low, normal and high. And that likely might -- will 14

have affected the results. We have some comments that 15 we’ll be giving that, again, I have -- we’ll be 16 supplying my analysis of the California Energy 17 Commission database and not that we don’t appreciate 18 it, but high ballast factor ballasts don’t necessarily 19 have lower efficiency. They tend to have higher 20 efficiency. 21 But the low ballast factor may have -- we 22 may look for some additional relief on that side. The 23 same thing with one versus four ballasts -- four lamps 24 on a ballast. The one lamp ballasts tend to be 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 138

trended towards low efficiency. And that’s just an 1 empirical observation. But they do. And the higher - 2 - the four lamps have slightly higher efficiency than 3 the two lamps. 4 MR. RABA: Thank you. Thank you. 5 MS. GUPTA: Can I just ask one follow on. 6 Mimi Gupta, Navigant. So, Bob, when you say 7 “efficiency” just for clarity, do you actually mean 8 ballast efficacy factor? 9 MR. ERHARDT: I’m talking about ballast 10 efficiency. 11 MS. GUPTA: You’re talking about ballast 12 efficiency? 13 MR. ERHARDT: Ballast efficiency. Which 14 will translate to BEF. 15 MS. GUPTA: Okay. 16 MR. ERHARDT: Because, you know, if the 17 ballasts are operating the same lamps then ballast 18 efficiency will, you know, translates to BEF. 19 MS. GUPTA: Okay. 20 MR. ERHARDT: Well, actually, okay, let me 21 back off. The data I analyzed was BEF though 22 actually. So I should -- I’ll leave it at -- I will 23 withdraw my statement. I’ll say this data was based 24 on BEF. I don’t know if the lamps are going to move 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 139

in one way or another based on a .88 versus 1.1 1 ballast factor. There may be some contribution there. 2 But the analysis -- the California Energy Commission 3 numbers are BEF numbers, actual light output BEF 4 numbers that I analyzed. 5 MR. RABA: A lot to think about. Good 6 comments. Thank you. 7 Anything else, please? 8 MR. deLASKI: Andrew deLaski, Appliance 9 Standards Awareness Project. And this is a question 10 for the industry or for Navigant. For a non-technical 11 person can you just give me a brief description of 12 what is it about a cold temperature ballast that makes 13 it more difficult for it to reach a given efficiency 14

level? 15 MR. ERHARDT: This is Bob Erhardt, Philips 16 Lighting Electronic. Higher ignition voltages. So 17 you’re going to need more VAs in the -- you know, more 18 turns on the secondary transformer, more I squared R 19 losses. VAs volt amps, it’s the throughput of the 20 product. VAs affect efficiency. If you have -- for 21 the same power, if you have more VAs you have lower 22 efficiency. So if you have two HO ballasts and one 23 has a higher open circuit voltage than the other, the 24 one with the higher open circuit voltage will like -- 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 140

can be expected to have lower efficiency. 1

MR. deLASKI: Thanks. 2 MR. RABA: Further on the scope? 3 (No response.) 4 MR. RABA: Back to you, Ali. 5 MS. LEHR: So in the technology assessment 6 DOE identifies all possible technology options that 7 can improve the BEF of a ballast. To do this DOE 8 looked at commercially available ballasts, 9 manufacturer literature, patents research papers, and 10 considered input from both stakeholders and technical 11 experts. As a result DOE identified several 12 technology options to improve the BEF of covered 13 ballasts. Some of these options included using an 14 electronic ballast instead of a magnetic one. Within 15 the same product class using a T8 instead of T12 16 system. Improving the efficiency of internal 17 components such as transformers, diodes, capacitors 18 and transistors. And finally improving the circuit 19 design such as incorporating cathode cutout technology 20 or using an instant start instead of a rapid start 21

ballast. 22 DOE invites comment on all of the technology 23 options identified to improve the BEF of the ballasts. 24 MR. RABA: So comments on these options, any 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 1 41

additional ones? Anybody? Please. 1 MR. PARISELLA: This is Joe Parisella from 2 Osram Sylvania. Some of the comments made regarding 3 the components as in -- there seemed to be a tradeoff 4 between efficiency and cost. With the active 5 rectification you would have a higher cost to get 6 about a 1 percent savings in efficiency that would 7 probably be prohibitive in why the industry isn’t 8 doing that right now. And especially at higher 9 voltages that will be measured at 277 the impact of 10 efficiency would be much less. They mentioned using 11 silicon carbide Schottky diodes. 12 Typically in the input section it would be 13 cost prohibitive. In other parts of the circuit like 14 the PFC, the power factor correction circuit, 15 typically ballasts that we’re talking about are in the 16 range of about 100, 120 watts or so. And these would 17 be much more effective at higher power levels using 18 different types of power factor correction circuits. 19 Transformers, what I saw there, they were 20 mentioning -- it looked like they were talking about 21 laminations used in older style ballasts. And if they 22 were mentioning ferrites or something, then I think 23 that in the higher frequency, different material would 24 be more effective, but the frequency range to be using 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 142

right now seem like materials appropriate. 1 So I think my main point is that I think the 2 suggestions were really good, but I think it’s a 3 tradeoff between costs and efficiency and it seems 4 like some of these suggestions might be cost 5 prohibitive. 6

MR. RABA: Yes. 7 MR. ERHARDT: This is Bob Erhardt again. I 8 also have a comment. There was a discussion to use 9 some Schottky diodes on the input. Unless there’s 10 been some development I’m not aware of, I don’t think 11 you have shock key diodes in the voltage ranges that 12 are used on the input. Shock key diodes tend to be 13 low voltage devices and input voltage diodes you’re 14 going to want something on the order of 600 to 1,000 15 volts for input rectifiers. 16 Integrated circuits, I agreed with the 17 Navigant observations that topologies that use 18 integrated circuits can have higher efficiencies. 19 It’s not the integrated circuit itself that is 20 providing the efficiency, but it’s the topology that 21 uses an integrated circuit. 22 There are some issues with that though in 23 that generally the integrated circuits are used with 24 series lamp topologies and when you go to a parallel 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 143

lamp operation and you want to use a resonant topology 1 the control becomes much more complicated and it’s not 2 clear that -- well, it’s not -- again, as Joe says, 3 there’s going to be some significant cost 4 considerations when you want to go from a self5 oscillating to a resonant type design and keep the 6 same functionality. The market has a strong 7 preference for independent lamp operation. We’re 8 finding that out with dimming products where the 9 market is pushing us towards independent lamp 10 operation when it becomes quite complicated to do so 11 in a dimming application. So it’s not -- it’s not an 12 easy analysis to look at the effectiveness of -- cost 13 effectiveness. 14 MR. RABA: Thank you. 15

Comment? 16 MR. McGARAGHAN: Mike McGaraghan, California 17 Utilities. I just wanted to dig a little bit deeper 18 on some of the technologies that Navigant identified 19 that may be currently in use in power supplies. I 20 know active rectification was one of them. It sounds 21 like that should be cost prohibitive in ballasts, but 22 has there been any analysis into sign or power supply 23 technology and the differences that might exist there 24 that has allowed it to make its way into that 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 144

technology? Or do you intend to look into that at 1

all? 2 MR. RABA: Takes a moment to warm up. 3 MS. GUPTA: Mimi Gupta, Navigant. So let me 4 just be clear, your question is, have we looked into 5 other types of like power supplies and the 6 technologies used in those not ballasts that can be 7 utilized potentially in ballasts; that’s correct? 8 MR. McGARAGHAN: Yeah. And if they can be 9 cost effective. 10 MS. GUPTA: Right. I think that’s a great 11 question. Well be asking for a comment on this issue 12 later today. I think we tried to put together a 13 technology option list that was comprehensive. Later 14 when we get into the engineering analysis with regards 15 to MaxTech, I think we have a comment to ask for a 16 comment from stakeholders on what is the maximum 17 technologically feasible level for this technology 18 because our engineering analysis right now caps out at 19 commercially available. So, that’s what we want to 20 know from industry and from you folks. 21 MR. ERHARDT: This is Bob Erhardt again. I 22 can make a general comment. I think there’s more 23 specific questions coming up later, but when you look 24 at the -- what we’ve delineated as our NEMA premium 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 145

type products, you’re getting to the point of 1 diminishing returns if you’re going to try to go much 2 beyond that when you’re talking about efficiency. 3 Active rectification on the front end to pick up an 4 extra 1 percent on ballast efficiency we feel it does 5 not justify the engineering resources. 6 And as I stated in my opening comments, we 7 feel that the fixed output ballast is a mature 8 technology. We agree with Navigant’s conclusion that 9 the state-of-the-art product on the market today does 10 represent a high performance product that is cost 11 effective. 12 Going beyond that, I would say considering 13 the engineering resources that would be pulled from 14 things like control systems and solid-state lighting 15 and new light sources would not justify the return and 16 we request -- we agree with Navigant’s conclusions and 17 we would like the DOE to look very strongly at writing 18 regulations that the existing high performance 19 products can meet. 20 MR. RABA: Okay. Anybody else to hear? 21 (No response.) 22 MR. RABA: That cover that. Ali. 23

24

25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 146

ENGINEERING ANALYSIS 1 MS. LEHR: In the screening analysis DOE 2 considers whether technology options meet the four 3 screening criteria outlined on this slide. 4 The screening criteria include technological 5 feasibility, practicability to manufacturer install 6 and service, adverse impacts on product utility or 7 availability to customers and adverse impacts on 8 health or safety. As a result of this analysis DOE 9 screened out one option using laminated sheets of 10 amorphous steel to improve transformer efficiency. 11 DOE found that this option would increase the size and 12 weight of the ballast which would affect its ability 13 to be installed. DOE also believes that increasing 14 the size and weight would affect consumer utility 15 because it may limit the places a consumer could use 16 the ballasts in a building. 17 DOE invites comment on this technology 18 option that was screened out. 19

MR. RABA: Or was screened out -- was 20 screened in. Thoughts and comments perhaps. 21 MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt, Philips Lighting 22 Electronics. I think Joe said it quite succinctly. 23 This would be an option for an electromagnetic 24 product, electronic product going through an amorphous 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 147

steel is a step down in efficiency compared with 1 ferrite. And if I’m clear that amorphous steel would 2 even bring electromagnetic up into the range that 3 you’re looking for given that you’re limited to the 60 4 hertz and you’re starting it at 10 percent efficacy 5 handicap already due to the low frequency. 6 MR. RABA: Okay. That was good. Comment, 7 Earthjustice? 8 MR. BALLO: Tim BALLO with Earthjustice. 9 I’m sorry if this displays my ignorance of the 10 product, but when talking about the amorphous steel 11 and how it would affect size and weight, did you look 12 into what are the sort of size and weight constraints 13 within which you operate when you’re putting lights in 14 a building? It seems like there would probably be a 15 substantial amount of space, you know, surrounding the 16 fixture. How much of an increase are you talking 17 about in size and weight? 18 MS. LEHR: I guess all increase is relative. 19 We looked at -- we considered whether or not it would 20 require essentially the ballast to step outside of its 21 existing footprint. That in general the trend in 22 industry is to get smaller and smaller and to have 23 smaller ballasts instead of larger. And so we were 24 just looking at things that would require enlarging of 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 148

the existing ballast footprint. 1 MR. BALLO: Are you saying that the 2 footprint would affect the fixture it goes into? The 3 screw holes would match up, for example? 4 MS. LEHR: Right. I mean, there could be 5 additional changes that go along. I guess if you had 6 any comments on what you felt was appropriate to look 7 at for changes in size we would welcome those. 8 MR. BALLO: I was just getting at it seems 9 odd to talk about size and weight constraints unless 10 you define, you know, the constraints that you are 11 actually operating in. I understand you may affect 12 the size or the weight -- 13 MS. LEHR: Right. 14 MR. BALLO: -- but at what point does it 15 become a problem? 16 MR. RABA: Charlie, follow-up? 17 MR. STEPHENS: I’m Charlie Stephens. I’ve 18 been doing, like I said, a lot of ballast work lately. 19 And all of the ballasts that I’ve been installing are 20 all quite a bit smaller as a package than what they -- 21 than the one I removed. They still fit in the same 22 slot, they’re designed to fit in the same space, but 23 the newest ones are quite a bit smaller and lighter 24 than the old ones. It’s not to say that you couldn’t 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 149

put them back toward the size of the one I replaced 1 was. And I’m only talking about four-foot, you know, 2 and eight-foot fixtures here, for the most part. It’s 3 different in the small compact fluorescent type 4 fixtures, of course. But I don’t know that you 5 couldn’t expand the size of the package at least 6 somewhat and still have it be smaller than what I’m 7 taking out of the fixture now. 8 MS. LEHR: Okay. 9 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, I have -- Bob Erhardt, 10 Philips Lighting Electronics. I have a response for 11 that, yes. On retrofits, if you’re talking about 12 luminaires from 10, 15 years ago, they were designed 13 around the -- what’s called the “old style” ballasts. 14 The newer ballasts have a cross-section that have 15 allowed luminaire manufacturers to reduce the size of 16 their luminaires and use less material and in some 17 cases have better optics. And, no, you may not 18 increase the cross-section. Length luminaire 19 manufacturers tend to be able to accommodate, but the 20 cross-section is what generally determines, you know, 21 it’s the width and the height. And I know we had a 22 big industry discussion on whether or not the new 23 standard should be 1.1 inch or 1.18 inches or one inch 24 because this affects the ballast cover design in the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 150

luminaire. Maybe Fred Carpenter can comment. 1 MR. CARPENTER: Fred Carpenter, Acuity 2 Brands Lighting. Everything that Bob said is 3 completely accurate. If you’re talking about, you 4 know, retrofitting a product that was made five, ten, 5 15 years ago, then there was plenty of room. As the 6 ballasts have gotten smaller, the luminaires have 7 gotten smaller, there have been optical efficiency 8 gains in doing that. And, you know, as Bob pointed 9 out, there are a number of luminaire designs that can 10 accommodate, can increase in length of the ballast, 11 but many of the luminaire designs out there now are 12 designed around the current smaller size of the 13

ballasts. 14 MR. RABA: Yes, comment in the back? 15 MR. COOK: Keith Cook from Philips Lighting. 16 Even on the length you have to be careful because we 17 have run into considerations for luminaires that have 18 emergency ballasts also in there. And so you do end 19 up with a constraint sometimes for that accommodation 20

also. 21 MR. RABA: Interesting point. Thank you. 22 Ali. 23 MS. LEHR: Okay. So now we’re going to move 24 on to the engineering analysis. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 151

The purpose of the engineering analysis is 1 to develop a relationship that identifies the 2 manufacturers’ selling price necessary for achieving 3 increased BEF. The results of this analysis are then 4 used downstream for the lifecycle costs and payback 5 period analysis and the national impact analysis. 6 This slide shows step-by-step the general 7 methodology DOE used for the engineering analysis. 8 DOE began by looking at all 70 product classes and 9 choosing a few representative product classes to 10 analyze in more detail. Within those representative 11 product classes DOE identified baseline models which 12 generally represented the lowest BEF, most common 13 ballast in that product class. DOE then selected 14 higher BEF substitutes for the baseline models while 15 trying to maintain similar light output. 16 For both the baseline and higher BEF 17 substitutes, DOE calculated manufacturer production 18 costs using teardown information when possible. After 19 developing candidate standard levels for 20 representative product classes, DOE then scaled those 21 levels to product classes that were not directly 22 analyzed. 23 Of the 70 total product classes DOE selected 24 ten to be representative. DOE bases its selection on 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 152

those product classes with the highest volume 1 shipments. DOE selected a representative product 2 class for ballasts that operate each lamp type and 3 within the most popular category which were ballasts 4 that operate four-foot medium bi-pin lamps in the 5 commercial sector. Doe selected four representative 6 product classes. 7 After selecting these representative product 8 classes DOE then selected a baseline ballast. 9 Typically the baseline ballast either just met the 10 existing energy conservation standard or represented 11 the most common lowest BEF ballast available in that 12 class. In some cases DOE selected multiple baseline 13 ballasts to ensure consideration of different ballasts 14 and their associated consumer economics. 15 For example, for ballasts that operate two, 16 four-foot, medium bi-pin lamps in the commercial 17 sector DOE selected both a T12 rapid start and T8 18 instant start ballast as baselines. 19 After identifying baseline ballasts DOE then 20 selected higher BEF substitutes. This slide shows an 21 example of the baseline and higher BEF units for the 22 ballasts that operate two, four-foot, medium, bi-pin 23 lamps in the commercial sector. As you can see, 24 there’s both the T8 and T12 baseline and both BEF and 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 153

ballast deficiency increase with increasing CSLs. 1 For ballasts for which DOE did not have test 2 data for the measured BEE or BEF, DOE intends to 3 conduct additional testing for the NOPR. 4 DOE invites comments on its selection of 5 representative product classes baseline ballasts and 6 higher BEF substitutes. By statute DOE is required to 7 evaluate the maximum technologically feasible level in 8 each product class. DOE recognizes that commercially 9 available ballasts may not include the max tech level. 10 DOE conducted manufacturer interviews to see if any 11 working prototypes existed that had higher BEF’s than 12 commercially available ballasts. Although there were 13 no prototypes there was some indication that the BEF 14 could be improved by using improved components. 15 DOE invites comments on the max tech level 16 which represents the highest CSL identified for each 17 product class. 18 MR. RABA: Comments on product classes, 19 representative product classes, baseline ballasts and 20 the systems chosen? 21 MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt, Philips Lighting 22 Electronics, Chairman of the NEMA Ballast Section. 23 Actually in our discussions in the NEMA Ballast 24 Section, we felt Navigant did a pretty good job with - 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 154

- a very thorough job with defining product classes 1 and we think they did a good overall analysis of the 2 industry. 3 We have some comments, again, as we said, 4 about scaling factors. And now that I understand that 5 your scaling factors and some of your levels came from 6 using the same resistor for BEE measurement thing 7 become a little clearer and we’ve already commented on 8 using lamps for differing resistors. But overall we 9 thought that the overview of the industry was quite 10 thorough and balanced. Our only question, and we’ll 11 get into that in the next sections are, you know, do 12 some of the volumes of some of the areas justify 13 having 72 classes? 14 We do understand though that reducing them - 15 - the number of classes will be difficult. We may 16 actually be asking you to increase the number of 17 classes when you get to HO and say, you’ve lumped T8s 18 and T12s into the same category on the HO level, 19 although we don’t object to having T8s and T12s in the 20 same category on medium bi-pin. 21 But, overall, we feel that Navigant did a 22 good job. 23 MS. GUPTA: Mimi Gupta, Navigant Consulting. 24 I just wanted to make a clarification when it comes to 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 155

the use of the same resistor over multiple valve 1 factor ins. There’s two scalings that we’re dealing 2 with here. For the test procedure one resistor was 3 used for all three ballast factor bins. But then in 4 the correlation from BEE to BEF, that we tried to 5 account for that fact so that we ended up with a BEF 6 that was representative of a low and high ballast 7 factor. So, if the scaling that you see and we’ll 8 talk about later in the preliminary analysis energy 9 conservation standard doesn’t look representative of 10 low, medium -- or low, normal, and high ballast factor 11

ballasts then that should be -- because of the -- 12 MR. ERHARDT: All right. Bob Erhardt again. 13 I think your scaling factors are pretty close. I 14 didn’t find big differences. Like I said, I think you 15 had plus/minus 2 percent on one of them and when I did 16 an analysis of actual product I had minus 3.5 and plus 17 1. That’s pretty close considering there were two 18 different approaches taken to the analysis. So 19 overall we think that the analysis was pretty close 20 and we’re just going to have some comments on some 21 small areas where we would like to tweak things a 22 little bit. 23 Oh, and I’ll make this comment again. I 24 don’t think I can make it enough. To redesign a 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 156

product line is a significant undertaking. And we 1 strongly recommend that you try to accommodate. We do 2 have lines -- all of the major manufacturers have 3 lines of premium products that are pretty close, I 4 guess we would call them your max-tech. We can argue 5 with they can be increased another percent or so in 6 efficiency, but we really question the return on 7 investment there. Because of the -- you know, it 8 could cost a million dollars to redesign a whole 9 product line by the time that you put the engineering 10 resources into it, and you put your -- the disruption 11 to your factor when you do engineering builds and your 12 testing. And, as I say, we’re -- we consider this a 13 mature technology. We don’t think there are big gains 14 to be made beyond our quote/unquote “max-tech”. And 15 we hope you will take a good look at our existing 16 premium products and try to accommodate existing 17 products on the market with the regulations. 18 Again, I think all of us are looking at 19 controls. You’ve just heard how a building is saved 20 60 percent energy savings by using building -- by 21 using dimming controls. You know, don’t make us go 22 after another 1 or 2 percent when 30 to 50 percent and 23 even 60 percent energy savings are out there for us to 24 go after. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 157

MR. RABA: Go ahead. 1 MR. McGARAGHAN: Mike McGaraghan, California 2 Utilities. I wanted to find out a little bit more 3 about testing that DOE did of these products that 4 resulted in the various CSLs proposed. My 5 understanding is that DOE conducted its own testing 6 because values from catalogues or CEC database or CEC 7 database are often not accurate enough for your 8 purposes. But we aren’t able to translate. We don’t 9 know which ballasts you tested. So it’s hard for us 10 to comment on whether you’ve captured the most 11 efficient products. 12 The tables that you provide in the Appendix, 13 I think it’s 5C, there’s actually some formatting 14 issues in them. And in one of the columns it’s 15 supposed to show the number of lamps. It doesn’t. 16 And the numbers have gotten mixed up in a different 17 column, I think. So that would be one thing that 18 would be really helpful is just to see that 19

reformatted. 20 Another thing that would be very helpful is 21 to see that table with the catalogue BEF values. 22 The best we can do is take a look at the 23 existing product lists and catalogues and databases 24 out there. And from everything that we’ve seen, the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 158

values are much higher than the CSLs proposed here. 1 For example, for the main product class, two-lamp 2 normal ballast factor instant start, the CEC database 3 has several models there that are up at 1.64, 1.65 and 4 even one at 2.0. And that may be an outlier, but your 5 max-tech is, I think, 1.55. So that would be one 6 thing that we would appreciate. 7 In addition, I think what we found is a 8 bigger range of efficiencies in the existing product 9 databases. So even if the numbers are just shifted 10 down a little bit, it still seems like maybe you 11 haven’t captured as much of the market as you could 12 have potentially. I think in some of the product 13 classes the range of even the CEC list which is 14 supposed to be just efficiency products, the range 15 inefficiency in that product class is often bigger 16 than the range that DOE has provided from their 17 baseline to their one CSL. So maybe various people 18 have comments on why that’s happened or the background 19 behind that. 20 MR. RABA: Bob. Thank you. Thank you, 21 Mike. 22 MR. ERHARDT: There are -- you have a 23

reference to a 1.64 -- there’s a 1.64 BEF on a two 24 lamp normal on the CEC database. And it’s shown four 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 159

times by the same manufacturer under four different 1 names. It’s one ballast. And we can question other 2 than that it drops down to then if you go after the 3 next product you’re dropping down to 1.6 and the CSL 3 4 number that DOE has talked about is 1.56. Well, the 5 difference -- it’s only a 2.5 percent difference 6 between the 1.56 and the 1.6. It’s not a dramatic 7 difference. We do think that Navigant did a pretty 8 good job. 9 When you look at the -- when you look at 10 what the top four manufacturers can supply in a two11 lamp normal output, the range is from -- these are the 12 highest efficiency ballasts offered on the California 13 Energy Commission website from the four major 14 manufacturers that ranges from 1.525 to 1.64. Those, 15 again, that’s the highest from the four major 16 manufacturers. So if you’re going to try to set 17 something -- and one of those numbers doesn’t even 18 meet, and it’s from a high-efficiency series from that 19 manufacturer, that doesn’t even meet the 1.56 that DOE 20 is requiring. So I think if you look at -- in general 21 -- the numbers proposed by Navigant, they do represent 22 the state-of-the-art of what’s on the market today. 23 MR. RABA: I think it would be most helpful 24 -- I know you’re both are familiar with visual things 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 160

that we can’t see here in the room. 1 Any other thoughts or comments? And perhaps 2 in your written comments you might want to illustrate, 3 with your comments, your concerns, your questions, and 4 likewise, Bob, what you found too, and in your finding 5 as well. Some visual presentation because we can’t 6 imaging this in our heads what you’re looking at 7 there. I think it would be good content both, but I 8 just can’t visualize it. 9 MR. deLASKI: I think the question is really 10 one for Navigant or for the Department which is that 11 we observe, looking at published data, BEFs higher 12 than what you have shown to be the highest possible. 13 I’m asking the Department how did you screen out or 14 how did you eliminate? Bob is giving one hypothesis 15 but I’m interested in the Department’s view on how you 16 got rid of those values that are higher than what are 17 in the document. 18 MR. RABA: I’ve got four hands here coming 19 up right away. Let’s go around. 20 MS. LEHR: If I can just make an initial 21 comment, I guess. 22 MR. RABA: Fine. 23 MS. LEHR: We didn’t take any steps to 24 eliminate values that we thought might be too high. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 161

All the data that we obtained for this analysis is 1 provided in that TSD chapter and if the formatting is 2 incorrect, then we’ll correct it. 3 We, in general, found from our testing that 4 the tested values were lower than the catalogue 5 values. And we also found that the range of values 6 was much smaller than what the catalogue value showed 7 there was. So I guess your observations are similar 8 to ours and we tried to provide the test data so that 9 everyone would have access to what we had access to. 10 MR. deLASKI: So, as a follow-up, could you 11 check on that table and find out if it is formatted 12 improperly so we just find that out today? That would 13 help us to be able to evaluate the data. 14

MS. LEHR: Sure. 15 MR. McGARAGHAN: Can I add just real quick 16 that there’s two sides to that question. One is the 17 formatting of the table. The other is providing the 18 BEFs, the catalogue BEFs of those products so that we 19 could see. Otherwise we have no frame of reference so 20 we don’t know which products were tested and we don’t 21

know whether to recommend or how to comment on whether 22 you’ve captured the whole market or not. 23 And this is just for setting up a max-tech 24 level. Not even talking about standards yet, just 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 162

establishing max-tech. 1 MR. RABA: Follow-up, Bob? 2 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah. I am puzzled. I have 3 another important comment I wanted to make. The 4 California Energy Commission website and the CEC 5 websites should, by definition, be test data from 6 certified laboratories, catalogues are not. You know, 7 we have a long history of we talk about commercial 8 data and we talk about certified data. 9 And I can comment a little it about what I 10 think was going on with Navigant because when I see 11 their max-tech, what do they have, a 1.56. Well, I 12 see a product on the CEC website from actually the 13 largest ballast manufacturer that is coming in at 14 1.58. Well, that’s pretty darn close and I think what 15 they did was try to take products from their 16 representative categories of max-tech products and 17 different manufacturers on their max-tech lines, one 18 will be higher than the other in this model and one 19 will be higher than that model in the other model. 20 There are also some differences even on the certified 21 measurement with the -- between labs. And remember, 22 we are still saying you’re going to have a 3 percent 23 difference. You have a plus/minus 3 percent 24 difference even using the ballast deficiency test 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 163

method. 1 Our experience is that our testing is, we 2 think, conservative. We compare our test data. We 3 benchmark against other manufacturers. And, for 4 instance, we talked earlier about whether you allow a 5 one-minute warm-up or whether you allow 15 minute to a 6 half hour warm-up. When we do our measurements, we do 7 them one-minute warm up which, actually, to our 8 surprise was making us very conservative because the 9 ballasts do pick up another percent or two when you 10 run them for 15 minutes or a half hour or an hour. 11 So there are still some differences on the 12 test data, but if you’re going to be looking at the 13 data, again my approach was to look at the highest 14 technology products form the four major ballast 15 manufacturers and draw some conclusions from that 16 because that is the maximum technology. I mean, it is 17 the filament cut out, it is the -- you know, when 18 you’re talking about these program starts and it is 19 the -- this is the NEMA premium stuff. And so this is 20 what the four major manufacturers have for their high21 end product. 22 There’s going to be -- you know, yes, there 23 are a couple percent, three -- you know, 3 percent 24 difference between manufacturers in measurement method 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 164

and maybe in their technology. But, again, is that 1 worth redesigning product lines for, I guess, is our 2 question? Or, you know, is it going to -- is the 3 market better served by getting rid of the other 80 4 percent of the product that don’t meet the high tech 5 level of the major manufacturers premium product 6 lines. 7 MR. RABA: Mimi? 8 MS. GUPTA: Mimi Gupta, Navigant Consulting. 9 So, just to respond to your questions. The way the 10 analysis was conducted is that we did purchase the 11 highest efficiency products from the major 12

manufacturers and tested them. And of those that we 13 tested, we chose the highest efficiency one as our 14 highest standard level. 15 I mean, another -- we’ve discussed a couple 16 of possible sources of why the data is different than 17 CEC than catalogue. Another one is that we 18 implemented a different test procedure. We used the 19 ballast efficiency test procedure and correlated it to 20 ballast efficacy factor which might account for some 21 of that change depending on how good the correlation 22 is. 23 In terms of the appendix, unfortunately, my 24 version of the TSD is before it was PDFed. So the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 165

appendix looks fine in my version. You’re welcome to 1 come and take a look at it. But if it looks 2 incorrect, the web will definitely fix that. I see no 3 problem with including the catalogue BEFs as the 4 source of reference is that would be helpful. 5 MR. McGARAGHAN: What about, as Bob 6 mentioned, the catalogue BEFs are provided by the 7 manufacturers, the CEC lists have to go through a 8 certified lab, could you provide those CEC values 9 instead, or does that create more -- 10 MS. GUPTA: So you mean do a cross-reference 11 to the CED database? We’ll have to look into that. I 12 can’t answer that right now. 13 MR. McGARAGHAN: I guess just as long as 14 whatever you provide is labeled if it’s from catalogue 15 or if it’s from CEC -- 16

MS. GUPTA: Sure. 17 MR. McGARAGHAN: -- that would be helpful. 18 Thank you. 19 MR. RABA: I’m sorry. Heading on back there 20 to you, sir. Comment? 21 MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon, GE Lighting. 22 MR. RABA: Use the microphone, please? 23 MR. PLASKON: I think I can talk loud 24 enough. Jeff Plaskon, GE Lighting. Just as a 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 166

benchmark from our round robin testing that we did 1 validating the BEE metric, five major manufacturers 2 were tested and the test results were anywhere between 3 89.8, I believe, up to 92 percent for that two-lamp 4 normal. So the highest being the 92 percent listed 5 for max-tech. So I think what’s important is to look 6 at ballast efficiency as a good benchmark of where 7 that BEF should be as opposed to our catalogue ratings 8 of backing into a ballast deficiency. 9 I think that’s one of the reasons why we’re 10 trying to lead to a more accurate measurement with 11 ballast efficiency to get moved back up the ladder to 12 BEF. Because we’re avoiding that error measurement 13 with the lamp. 14 MR. RABA: Did you get that? Most of it. 15 Okay. 16 MR. PARISELLA: Joe Parisella, Sylvania. 17 Yeah, I want to elaborate on what Jeff said. 18 Basically I think the problem lies here with a 19 correlation between the ballast efficiency and BEF. 20 And there’s some distribution that goes around that. 21 So if, let’s say the nominal value at 90 percent was 22 1.58 as we might expect from CEE, but if you have a 23 distribution on one side of the BEF and then in the 24 efficiency measure was on the other side, you could 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 167

see some type of variation here. You might even see a 1 variation in the other direction. 2 So, I don’t know if we have a good 3 correlation right now of BEF versus ballast efficiency 4 but, you know, I think that’s something that we have 5 to take into consideration. 6 MR. RABA: Charlie. 7 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. Yeah, I 8 think this is a real important set of issues to get 9 around. I can understand why the catalogue values 10 might be different. But just speaking about CEC 11 numbers and CEE numbers, and correlations, I mean, if 12 you get a .05 difference in BEF that is kind of what 13 we’re talking about here, you know, the difference 14 between 1.58 and 1.53, say, something like that, 15 you’re kind of implying that several 2.5 percent, 2 16 percent difference in ballast deficiency here, we’re 17 arguing over whether we should talk about 1 percent 18 increase in the ballast efficiency. So there’s -- we 19 really need to get this straightened out and find out 20 whether the correlation is a problem or what the 21 problem is. Because I hate to be arguing over 1 22 percent ballast efficiency improvements when we can’t 23 even get the correlation straight within 3 percent or 24 4 percent. So, somewhere along here I would like to 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 168

know what numbers we’re working with for regulatory 1

purposes. 2 MR. RABA: Can you respond? 3 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, I don’t think it was -- 4 this is Bop Erhardt again. I don’t think it was a 5 correlation that gave -- well, maybe we can have an 6 off-line discussion. But, again, Navigant found a 7 1.56. I see a product that is listed in the CEC site 8 at 1.58 that from our testing has the highest BEF, 9 higher than the one that is on the CEC website at 1.64 10 from our testing. Again, we benchmark -- the 1.58 is 11 our product. We benchmark it against our competitors 12 and when we test one against the other in the lab our 13 1.58 was higher than the 1.64. And Navigant says the 14 highest one they found, if it was us, they came up 15 with 1.56. Well, 1.56 to 1.58 is pretty darn good 16 correlation, if you ask me. If that’s indeed what 17 happened. 18 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. 19 MR. RABA: Wait. 20 MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, I want to follow-up on 21

that. 22 MR. RABA: Okay. Follow-up on that Charlie. 23 MR. STEPHENS: Yeah, but again we’re getting 24 it down to where we’re talking about a percent or two 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 169

on the ballast deficiency side within those two or two 1 and a half points. 2

MR. ERHARDT: The BEF measurements. 3 MR. STEPHENS: Right. And if I take a 2.5 4 point what you were talking about, I mean, it equates 5 over to a 1 percent or so -- 6 MR. ERHARDT: 1 percent. 7 MR. STEPHENS: BE difference which is what 8 we’re arguing potentially about. So I don’t want to 9 just understand where it comes from and I’m thinking 10 it might come from the way -- you aren’t using diodes; 11 right? 12 (Simultaneous conversation.) 13 MR. STEPHENS: -- using resistors to do your 14 testing? 15 MR. ERHARDT: No, this was a real ANSI BEF 16

measurement. 17 MR. STEPHENS: And were you using resistors 18 to do your testing or the proposed method or -- 19 MS. LEHR: Right. The BEF numbers that are 20 reflected in these tables are based on the test 21 procedure being discussed this morning. 22 MR. STEPHENS: Being proposed. 23 MS. LEHR: So they would be a ballast 24 efficiency measured with a resistor and then using the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 170

correct slope to translate that to BEF. 1 MR. STEPHENS: Okay. So maybe that’s 2 something of what we’re seeing here. But whatever it 3 is, I would love to see it get resolved. Thank you. 4 MR. RABA: In the back first, please? 5 MS. GUPTA: Can I just make one comment 6 related to this, Jim? Sorry. 7 MR. RABA: There you are. 8 MS. GUPTA: Mimi Gupta. In the appendix 9 when you guys can actually read it properly, there’s 10 also the measured BEF for the ballasts for which that 11 was tested based on the light output measurements. So 12

-- 13 MS. LEHR: Right. So the appendix -- 14 (Simultaneous conversation.) 15 MS. LEHR: The appendix would have ballast 16 efficiency according to the resistor based test method 17 and BEF according to the current test procedure which 18 is the using the lamp to measure BEF. 19 MR. RABA: I saw a big not and a thumbs up 20 from Charlie Stephens. You can’t see that in the 21 record, you know. 22 MR. STEPHENS: Now you can. 23 MR. RABA: Yeah, sure. 24 In the back, sir, you had a comment? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 171

MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon. I was just 1 going to make -- 2 MR. RABA: We can hear you here, but the 3 court reporter is kind of hiding back here and having 4 difficulty. 5 MR. PLASKON: Thank you. Jeff Plaskon, GE 6 Lighting. I was just going to use as an example the 7 normal ballast factor with the CEE ratings of 1.58 for 8 the ballast efficacy factor. Using the slope that 9 would equate to 93.1 percent efficiency. And in our 10 round robin testing that we’ve done, we didn’t find 11 any valves that operated at 93 percent efficiency. So 12 there’s obviously an error or a measurement error 13 associated with the lamp aspect of it. So, again, 14 important to reference back to ballasts electrical 15 efficiency as a practical measurement that we should 16

focus on. 17 MR. RABA: Okay. Good. Thank you. 18 Some more comments over here, follow-on? 19 MR. McGARAGHAN: Just one more that I just 20

have 21 MR. RABA: And you are, sir? Mike? 22 MR. McGARAGHAN: Sorry. Mike McGaraghan. 23 MR. RABA: Thank you. 24

MR. McGARAGHAN: I want to make sure the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 172

discussion stays on max-tech. I understand that we 1 would likely not land at a standard level that 2 couldn’t be met by the major four manufacturers. But 3 if DOE is attempting to identify that max-tech 4 commercially available, there would be no reason to 5 limit yourselves to just the major four. So that may 6 explain why there are certain values that were above 7 the round robin -- values that came out of that. 8 MR. RABA: Follow-on? Thank you. Follow9

on? 10

MR. PLASKON: Follow-on. 11

MR. RABA: Jeff Plaskon 12 MR. PLASKON: The alternative to -- 13 alternatively there’s a compliance problem, you know. 14 And that came up the first thing this morning, but, 15 you know, that’s something else that, you know, I 16 think folks in this room should have an interest in 17 bringing to the Department’s attention. If there’s a 18 compliance problem people out there claiming 19 efficiencies that aren’t being achieved in the 20 marketplace, let’s know about it. I mean, you’ve seen 21 that the Department has been much more enthusiastic 22 over the past several months and worrying about 23 compliance problems, so, please, you know, let’s get 24 it out in the open so that these folks who aren’t 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 173

complying can be identified and brought into 1 compliance. 2 I have a follow-on, but on a different 3 topic. So -- 4 MR. RABA: Okay. 5 MR. PLASKON: -- I’ve got some arms up. 6 MR. ERHARDT: This is Bob Erhardt. This is 7 exactly the point that we are bringing up. Why we 8 bring up measurement accuracy, the CEC website data 9 has a plus/minus 5 percent accuracy. So it’s not to 10 say that -- and we want to bring up this point because 11 we feel it’s important that the Department of Energy, 12 when they set these limits, don’t take the highest 13 claimed measurement that you’ve seen and say that 14 everyone has to meet that. Because you have this 15 measurement accuracy you have to deal with. When I 16 say that this 1.64 that we saw that’s compared with 17 1.58, that’s -- okay, that’s 4 percent difference. If 18 you are looking at a plus/minus and you’re looking at 19 a life output, it’s within the measurement error. 20 It’s not that they’re out of compliance. And we want 21 the DOE to consider this that when you’re either in 22 setting the limits or in determining compliance, you 23 know, that if you’re going to use the published data 24 and we would recommend you then take some averages or 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 174

something, you know, worst case of -- I’ll call it 1 “worst case max-tech” is what I would like to 2 encourage, but consider either in writing the 3 regulation either then if it’s a 5 percent measurement 4 write in an extra 5 percent. Well, maybe you don’t 5 want to do that, but at least put it into the 6 compliance that you’re only going to say they’re 7 noncompliant if they’re up more than 5 percent. 8 Because there is this -- this is real variation in 9 measurement. This is lab to lab people -- diligent 10 people trying to do the right job. This was in our 11 round robin too, we found these differences. And it’s 12 real. It’s just, you know, how long -- in this case 13 it was -- like I said, we turn ours on and measure it 14 one minute and low and behold we find, oh, yeah, you 15 leave it on for 15 minutes or an hour and you pick up 16 an extra couple percent. Then that gap closes quite a 17 bit. And it’s one person’s equipment versus another. 18 And there’s -- we’re trying to bring up how difficulty 19 it is to do these measurements and to take this into 20 consideration when you’re looking at compliance and/or 21 setting a limit. 22 MR. RABA: Reemphasize this morning’s test 23 procedure discussion with accuracy. 24 Yes, sir. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 175

MR. COOK: Keith Cook from Philips Lighting. 1 I guess I need a little clarification. I’m a little 2 confused. For your CSLs that you’ve got here, are you 3 proposing these as being minimum values or average 4

values? 5 MS. GUPTA: Well, we need to hear from 6 Navigant. They would be minimum values that you would 7 have to comply with. So whatever average -- yeah, you 8 have to test four ballasts and then you report 9 something like that, is it the 95th percent confidence 10 interval? Yeah, you use some equation with those four 11 tests of the ballasts to determine the reported 12 ballasts efficacy factor. Currently that’s the way it 13 is. And then this would be the minimum standard you 14 need to meet with that. 15 MR. RABA: Thank you. Charlie. 16 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. Half of my 17 working life is centered on statistical analysis these 18 days. And I’ve got to say, I mean, there’s got to be 19 some sort of statistically valid method for how you 20 report these things. Because if what we are seeing 21 out there is not plus or minus 5 percent, but minus 22 zero plus 10, then we’ve got a problem. And I don’t 23 know if that’s what we’re seeing. But if there is 24 any statistical validity to what’s being reported, and 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 176

that’s what I look for in my business, then it should 1 bill plus of minus 5 or plus or minus 2.5. It 2 shouldn’t be minus zero plus 10 consistently. So, I’m 3 hoping that we’ll come out with some sort of what was 4 referred to earlier as an average value statistically 5 valid also. 6 MR. RABA: Over here first and then in the 7

back second. 8 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, what I just heard from 9 Navigant actually has me concerned if we’re supposed 10 to have a 95 percent -- this Bob Erhardt -- if we’re 11 supposed to have a 95 percent confidence level that 12 all our products meet this. Because these numbers 13 that you’re working from are, we consider, nominal 14 representative numbers. And when you look at the 15 California Energy Commission compliance, somebody help 16 me here, I think I recall that you test five ballasts 17 and three have to comply. So it is a nominal that 18 you’re nominal product has to meet this minimum 19 requirement. And it’s not a 95 percent confidence 20 level that all of your product is going to meet this 21 requirement. If that’s the case, then we really have 22 strong objections to the levels that you’ve come up 23 with. 24 MR. RABA: Interesting. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 177

More on that is subject and topic? 1 MR. PARISELLA: Joe Parisella, Osram 2 Sylvania. 3 (Simultaneous conversation.) 4 MR. RABA: Yes, Earthjustice? Forgive me. 5 Sorry, Joe. 6 MR. BALLO: This is Tim Ballo, Earthjustice. 7 I think I’m asking the same question maybe. But I 8 take it the Department didn’t actually follow the 9 compliance testing parameters when it tested ballasts 10 to come up with the numbers that it used in the 11 preliminary TSD for CSLs or for the baseline rather? 12 MS. GUPTA: Mimi Gupta, Navigant Consulting. 13 These do represent average numbers. That’s correct. 14 So, I mean, if stakeholders feel that DOE should use 15 that same equation in developing the standard levels, 16 then we welcome that comment and we’ll consider it and 17 revise if necessary. 18 MR. RABA: Go ahead, Bob. 19 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, you can’t use average 20 values I setting a limit and then say 95 percent of 21 the product has to meet it. There needs to be some 22 consistency. And to develop a 95 percent confidence 23 level you need a significant sample size to get the 24 statistics from it and recognize that this is a test 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 178

that each time you test one ballast it might take you 1 two hours to test one ballast. So if you’re going to 2 have to do 10 or 20 ballasts to get some statistically 3 significant data out of it -- out of multiple 4 production lots out of -- et cetera, this is a highly 5 burdensome requirement. I mean, you’re going to have 6 70 categories and you’re going to require us to do 10 7 or 20 three-hour tests for each category. This is 8 highly burdensome. 9 MR. RABA: Follow-on, please? 10 MR. PARISELLA: Yeah, Joe Parisella, Osram 11 Sylvania. What Bob just said is really what I was -- 12 something very similar to what I was going to say. 13 Thank you. 14 MR. RABA: Yes, thank you. 15 Yes, sir. 16 MR. THOMAS: I would just like to go on 17 record -- Ed Thomas of GE -- as agreeing with both Bob 18 and Joe in the matter that this would be extremely 19 burdensome to require this statistical significance 20 like this. 21 MR. RABA: Good to know that. Thank you. 22 Both sides. 23 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. I just had a 24 specific question on the previous slide, the table. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 179

Is there a reason on the CSL3 level why the input 1 power and therefore the annual energy consumption is 2 actually higher for CSL3 than CSL2? 3 MS. LEHR: Sure. There’s a small difference 4 in ballast factor. And so if you normalized the input 5 power based on ballast factor the CSL3 would be less 6 than the other levels. This is an abbreviated version 7 of a table to fit on the slide. 8 MR. RABA: And there’s more detail in the 9 TSD, you’re saying? 10 MS. LEHR: Yeah, there’s more detail in 11 Chapter 5 of the TSD. 12 MR. RABA: Mike? 13 MR. McGARAGHAN: Mike McGaraghan. Is there 14 also going to be more discussion on this later in the 15 presentation? 16 MS. LEHR: On normalized input power? 17 MR. McGARAGHAN: Yeah, on normalized input 18

power. 19 MS. LEHR: I believe that later slides cover 20 that, yes. 21

MR. McGARAGHAN: Thanks. 22 MS. GUPTA: Mimi Gupta, Navigant. John 23 actually just mentioned something to me that is 24 important to mention. So it does use -- the current 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 180

reported value calculation does use some sort of 1 confidence interval. I don’t have it by memory. But 2 then it also divides it by a number which bumps that 3 number up a little bit. So I would encourage you all 4 to look at that equation in the regulations. And make 5 comment on whether you feel like the standards 6 represented represent what those ballasts comply and 7 if not how they should be shifted. 8 MR. ERHARDT: I guess I’ll -- this is Bob 9 Erhardt. I guess I’ll turn that back and say how does 10 Navigant see their proposals when they’re testing. In 11 the case of T5 your report said you tested one 12 ballast. And you generated eight categories out of 13 it. Is that what the report said? 14 MS. LEHR: I don’t think so. 15 MR. ERHARDT: Okay. I’ll look for it. But 16 the sample size that Navigant used is not 17 statistically significant. It’s just a -- you know, I 18 think I heard a sample size of three. That’s not 19 going to -- that’s not a statistically significant 20 sample size, especially when you bought it from one 21 location with one date code. And so if you’re going 22 to require compliance with a statistical confidence 23 level, then, yes, we would like to know how you’ve 24 come up with requirements that show what products can 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 181

meet with that confidence level, how you’re basing 1 your requirements and saying that they can be met with 2 that confidence level. 3 MS. GUPTA: Mimi Gupta. For the preliminary 4 analysis I believe we tested three ballasts of each 5

model that we tested. And then these numbers 6 represent an average of those. If stakeholders 7 believe that that number should be increased, the 8 number of ballasts tested per model should be 9 increased in order to set a minimum efficiency 10 standard, then I would encourage you to submit 11 comments saying that and how many it should be. 12 MR. RABA: Much to think about; written 13 comments, please, we welcome those. Most helpful. 14 We’ve captured what we’ve spoken about today so far. 15 And additional thoughts as you think about it when you 16 go home. 17 But is there more on this discussion for 18 this particular topic? 19 (No response.) 20

MR. RABA: Should we move on? Let’s do 21

that. 22 Ali. 23 MS. LEHR: After CSLs were developed DOE 24 calculated manufacturer production costs. These costs 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 182

were calculated from a tear-down analysis. In a tear1 down a ballast is taken apart so that all the 2 components can be identified. With this information 3 DOE then estimates the material and labor costs 4 required to assemble the ballasts. However, DOE is 5 not able to tear down all ballasts due to potting. 6 For those ballasts that were not able to be torn down, 7 DOE developed manufacturer production costs by 8 comparing retail prices to tear down results. 9 After determining manufacturer production 10 costs DOE then used publicly-available information to 11 determine manufacture mark-ups. DOE found the average 12 manufacturer mark-up to be 1.5 and therefore applied 13 this mark-up to calculate manufacturer selling price. 14 Calculations were verified with confidential prices 15 provided by manufacturers. 16 The following table shows the manufacturer’s 17 selling price associated with each CSL for ballasts 18 that operate two, four-foot, medium, bi-pin lamps in 19 the commercial sector. As you can see, the MSP for T8 20 ballasts was determined using tear down information. 21 However, the MSP of the T12 baseline ballast was 22 determined using the retail price scaling method 23 because this ballast was potted. 24 As you can see, the prices of the two 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 183

baseline ballasts are significantly different 1 indicating different economics for these two 2 consumers. This difference is consistent with 3 information from manufacturers and trends observed in 4 retail prices. 5 Similar to the fact that DOE could not tear 6 down the T12 baseline ballasts there were five 7 representative product classes for which all ballasts 8 were potted. For these classes DOE used the retail 9 price scaling method to determine manufacturer 10 production costs. DOE requests comment on the scaling 11 method and also it requests comments on its estimates 12 for overhead and manufacturing markup. 13 MR. RABA: Scaling techniques, markup? 14 Comments? Questions? 15 (No response.) 16 MR. RABA: Wow. Last call. Quickly. 17 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, we commented -- this is 18 Bob Erhardt, Philips Lighting Electronics, NEMA 19 section chair. 20 We find that using teardown analysis to 21 develop end product costing to be very difficult even 22 when we’re doing competitor analysis and we know what 23 our production costs are and we know what we pay for 24 components. And we feel that Navigant has taken on a 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 184

very ambitious undertaking by trying to come up with 1 accurate cost analysis using teardown analysis. 2 NEMA -- we appreciate the difficulty and the 3 reason we haven’t been able to give you data before 4 and we know the reason you had to do this was because 5 we didn’t give you the data. We are attempting to 6 come up with some confidential sanitized 7 differentiation numbers for our written comments. 8 It’s not clear we’re going to be able to accomplish 9 this but through our confidential NEMA business unit 10 we’re going to try to supply from each company, at 11 least on the -- you know, at least where we see some 12 issues such as more efficient ballasts are cheaper to 13 build than less efficient ballasts. We’re going to 14 try to come up with some better representation of 15 those numbers for you. 16 MR. RABA: Thank you. Let’s keep moving. 17 Quickly, Andrew. 18 MR. deLASKI: I think that’s great. I think 19 it’s really valuable to have the industry provide that 20 kind of data and we see it in other dockets both with 21 NEMA and with other trade associations have been very 22 helpful in providing that kind of data. 23 I also think it’s critical that the 24 Department continue with the teardown approach as 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 185

well. Because having both I think is a robust way to 1 approach the docket. Especially given that you’re not 2 sure you’re going to be able to get the data. 3 MR. RABA: That was Andrew deLaski. 4 Okay. Let’s just move on now. 5 MS. LEHR: No more request for comment. 6 In response to framework document, DOE 7 received comments that upcoming safety and hazardous 8 material regulation could affect the price and 9 efficiency of commercially available ballasts. So DOE 10 requests more information on the specific impact these 11 regulations might have so that DOE can assess how the 12 requirements may affect payback calculations? 13 MR. RABA: Safety requirements, system 14 requirements? 15 MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt, Philips Lighting 16 Electronics. Yeah, I think this comes from our 17 comments from two years ago. There has been some 18 progression and it’s still not clear to us if there’s 19 going to be impact from some of this safety 20 regulation. The IEC which is the international 21 standards body for -- and it has a lighting section, 22 has just adopted requirements for end-of-life 23 circuitry on T8 lamps. Previously it had only been on 24 T5 and narrower diameter lamps. At this time we don’t 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 186

know if it’s going to be a U.S. requirement. 1 Now, ANSI has not -- American National 2 Standards Institute -- the T8 lamp in this country is 3 not an IEC lamp. So by one interpretation we would 4 not have to add end-of-life circuitry to the T8 5 ballasts. End-of-life circuitry especially for a 6 parallel lamp product is costly and will affect 7 efficiency. The reason it has not been a requirement 8 in the United States is our lamps run at half the lamp 9 current, our T8 lamps and the European lamps. And so 10 there is a lower risk of overheating at end-of-life. 11

But we don’t have the formal statements and 12 regulations in place where we know that we won’t be 13 needing that meet lists. We do know that both CSA and 14 UL have adopted the IEC requirements for the narrower15 diameter lamps for end-of-life. If they were to adopt 16 the IEC requirements for T8 lamps, then it would 17 become a U.S. requirement and we would have to start 18 redesigning our products to accommodate it. 19 MR. RABA: Thank you. Yes, sir. 20 MR. COOK: Keith Cook from Philips Lighting. 21 Under the hazardous materials portion another thing 22 that may be coming about is Rohaus compliance. And 23 that does drive up capital costs, and it also drives 24 up some component costs. And right now that’s being 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 187

considered as part of a NEMA call to action initiative 1 which may be included in the Tosca Bill this year. 2 MR. RABA: I missed some of that only 3 because I don’t know the subject. But you can make 4 written comments, if you wish, the bill and all. 5 Thank you. 6

Yes. 7 MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt. I don’t know if 8 it’s in this question or if it’s in another. We’ve 9 also had discussions that some of the RoHS 10 requirements, lead-free solder, for example, will have 11 an impact -- well, can have an impact on product 12 reliability and we just don’t have enough experience 13 to know how significant that impact is and how it 14 would affect the payback analysis. 15 We do know that, you know, we’re in a 16 learning curve for lead-free solder. We do know that 17 lead-free solder has this effect called “dendrite 18 formation” which can cause shorts between different 19 parts of ballast circuitry. So there is a potential 20

for lead-free solder to have an adverse effect on 21 ballast reliability and life time. 22 Manufacturers are in a learning curve. Our 23 European sister companies are on the leading edge, 24 shall we say, and we’re learning about this. But it’s 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 188

still not known if there will be an impact on lifetime 1 significant enough to affect the payback analysis. 2

MR. RABA: That was a RoHS amendment to a 3 bill, did you say? 4 MR. ERHARDT: Well, the world is moving to 5 elimination of hazardous materials. 6 MR. RABA: Right. And -- 7 MR. ERHARDT: Lead-free solder is probably 8 the most significant impact to ballasts. And lead9 free solder can have an effect on ballast lifetime. 10 MR. RABA: Okay. Thank you. And the bill’s 11 name is? 12 MR. COOK: It’s called TSCA. It’s Toxic 13

Substances Control Act. 14 MR. RABA: Ah, thank you. 15 MR. PARISELLA: Joe Parisella, Osram 16 Sylvania. Yeah, stricter EMI requirements will also 17 affect efficiency as well. 18 MR. RABA: Electromagnetic interference? 19

MR. PARISELLA: Yes. 20 MR. RABA: Thank you. 21

More? 22 (No response.) 23 MR. RABA: Okay. Move on, please? All 24

done? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 189

MS. LEHR: Almost. 1 MR. RABA: Okay. Keep going. 2 MS. LEHR: So after developing CSLs for 3 representative product classes DOE then had to scale 4 these levels to product classes not directly analyzed. 5 To do that DOE needed to develop a relationship 6 between ballasts that operate different numbers of 7 lamps, have different starting methods and have 8 different ballast factors. To develop these scaling 9 factors DOE focused its effort on the large amount of 10 test data obtained for ballasts that operate four-foot 11 medium bi-pin lamps in the commercial sector. 12 Using this data DOE found a strong 13 correlation between BEF and total rated lamp power. 14 DOE used the equation outlined on this slide to scale 15 from ballasts that operate two or four lamps to 16 ballasts that operate one, three, five, or six lamps. 17 DOE also found an average increase in BEF associated 18 with program start ballasts and DOE therefore uses 2.2 19 percent reduction to scale the program start ballasts 20 when necessary. 21 And last, DOE found an average decrease in 22 BEF associated with high or low ballast factor 23 ballasts and therefore DOE use a 3.4 or 1 percent 24 reduction when scaling to high or low ballast factor 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 190

product classes. 1 So DOE requests comment on the methodology 2 used to scale the nonrepresentative product classes. 3 MR. RABA: Yes, sir. 4 MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt, Philips Lighting 5 Electronic. We’ve commented a couple times already. 6 We will be supplying data. I have done some analysis 7 and will be providing it in our written response from 8 California Energy Commission data. I do find some 9 minor differences. The averages that I used showed a 10 3 percent difference between instant start and program 11

start rather than the two. The low ballast factor and 12 high ballast or one lamp and the four lamp we found 13 3.5 and 1 instead of 2.2 and 2.2. And we’ll be 14 reporting on this. 15 On this comment again, and maybe I’m 16 misinterpreting it and maybe you can clarify for me 17 because I just asked a question about sample size for 18 T5 HO. I’m reading now from page 5-49, 5.10.1. It 19 says, “For the two lamp, four-foot, mini bi-pin and 20 T5HO normal BF product class designated by product 21 class 44 in Table 5.10.1 hereafter referred to as the 22 four-foot T5 mini bi-pin HO representative product 23 class, DOE chose to analyze one baseline ballast.” 24

What does that mean? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 191

MS. LEHR: That means it selected one 1 baseline for that product class instead of two. So, 2 for example, for the four-foot medium bi-pin product 3 class we chose both a T12 and T8 baseline. And so 4 what that is saying is that there’s just one baseline 5 from which to measure improvements and energy 6 efficiency. 7

MR. ERHARDT: And then what was that three 8 samples of that one model? 9 MS. LEHR: Well, there was additional 10 testing done, but we have one representative unit we 11 are showing for the baseline. 12 MS. GUPTA: Right. Mimi Gupta, Navigant. 13 The baseline -- the purpose of the baseline is to feed 14 that into analyses like the life-cycle cost in NIA 15 where you’re saying, well, what’s the energy 16 consumption of my baseline? What’s the cost of my 17 baseline? And let me compare it to a higher 18 efficiency unit. So in terms of that T5, we took the 19 lowest efficiency T5 we saw during tests and said, 20 that’s our baseline. And then we took the higher 21 efficiency ones to compare against that baseline. 22 MS. LEHR: And in the T5 specifically the 23 baseline is actually magnetic. So that wasn’t a 24

ballast we tested. That was a ballast that we 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 192

essentially created to show what could enter the 1 market if standards didn’t exist. 2 MR. RABA: Was that helpful? 3 MR. ERHARDT: Well, I still don’t see 4 anywhere in the report what -- how you developed your 5 CSL numbers. You’ve given some verbal comment, but -- 6 MS. LEHR: I would say in general for the 7 report product classes we had a large number of 8 ballasts that we tested within that product class. 9 And in general the CSLs reflects natural divisions in 10 the test data. So, you know, the three CSLs were 11 four-foot mini bi-pins would reflect three natural 12 divisions in what we observed in the test data. 13 MR. ERHARDT: Okay. All right. I’ll have 14 to look in more detail at the report, I guess. 15 MR. RABA: Okay. Last, go ahead. 16 MR. McGARAGHAN: Mike McGaraghan. I just 17 wanted to ask, and I apologize if this was covered 18 earlier, but did the product classes that you chose as 19 the representative product classes, were those based 20

on market share? 21 MS. LEHR: Right. Shipments. 22 MR. McGARAGHAN: And so all two-lamp and 23 four-lamp fixtures basically the ten product classes 24 that you analyzed were the ten highest shipment 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 193

products? 1

MS. LEHR: Correct. 2 MR. McGARAGHAN: Okay. 3 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. Was there 4 anything -- did you focus any testing on -- based on 5 where the savings from the standards are? Like the 6 products that will deliver the most savings so that 7 they’re well defined and well tested and well -- and 8 somewhat rigorously analyzed? 9 MS. LEHR: I guess I believe those would be 10 included in the ballasts that we chose to test. We 11 chose ballasts from a range of efficiencies, not just 12 the low end of the market, but also the very high end 13

of the market. 14 MR. STEPHENS: I was just thinking about, 15 more, you know, focused on the stuff that’s not 16 covered right now and that, you know, is -- you 17 focused on -- I know you focused on this heavy 18 shipment stuff which if you set a significant increase 19 in the standard would deliver significant savings, but 20 my concern is that you’ve focused a lot of analysis on 21 something that will maybe increment a standard a tiny 22 bit and deliver a few savings and you may not have 23 rigorously analyzed some of the other product that has 24 much lower shipments but where significant savings are 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 194

because -- 1 MS. LEHR: I guess we have testing for, for 2 example, sign ballasts as well, which shipments wise 3 might not have huge shipments, but have some of the 4 largest energy savings of what we’re looking at. So 5 we have testing done for them as well. 6 MR. STEPHENS: Okay. Thank you. 7 MR. RABA: All good. All good. Let’s move 8 on now to the next -- thank you very much Ali. 9 I don’t want to fall too far behind because 10 it’s all good discussion. Good things are bringing 11

out. 12 I think the next thing now is Energy Use and 13 Markup Analysis. And we have Bob Lingard, PNNL, 14 Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Bob. 15

ENERGY USE AND MARKUP ANALYSIS 16 MR. LINGARD: Thanks, everybody. I’m Bob 17 Lingard with PNNL. 18 I’m going to talk about the energy use 19 characterization and the markup analysis. These form 20 sort of a bridge between the engineering analysis and 21 the economic analyses. The LCC and the NIA analyses 22 that my colleague Gavin McCormick will discuss 23 shortly. 24 So specifically the markup -- the markups 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 195

analysis and the energy use examining two basic 1 questions. One, what is the annual energy consumption 2 of our representative systems that we’ve evaluated in 3 the engineering analysis? And, two, what are the 4 typical markups that are applied to the manufacturer 5 selling prices that were also developed in the 6 engineering analysis? 7 Let’s take a look at energy use first. It’s 8 a rather simple equation to get to annual energy 9 consumption. It’s the system input power times the 10 annual operating hours. And we take a look at two 11 different system power ratings in our analyses. I 12 think this will get to an earlier question. One of 13 them is the rated -- the rated system input power. 14 The other one would be the normalized system input 15 power. We’ll take a look at each of these. 16 We have an example table here on this slide. 17 In the fourth column of this table you’ll see what 18 we’re calling the system input power. This would 19 correspond with the measured input power for 20 representative lamp and ballast systems developed in 21 the engineering analysis. 22 Here we have a baseline system and we have 23 an energy efficient substitute. You can see we have 24 different system input powers. The CSL1 uses less 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 196

input power than the baseline. And they have 1 different light outputs. 2 The next column over, the system mean lumen 3 or mean light output. Basic criterion that applied to 4 most of the representative lamp and ballast systems 5 evaluated in the engineering analysis was that they 6 had similar light output, generally within about 10 7 percent. Now, there were some exceptions to that, but 8 that was the general rule. 9 So we have two scenarios that we would apply 10 this measured system input power and normalize system 11 input power to. The first would be a replacement 12 scenario. And this is where much like this conference 13 room you have a fixed layout of fixtures in the 14 ceiling. And you don’t have the option of moving 15 fixtures around, so it would be important to you that 16 you have similar light output between a baseline and a 17 substitute system. So therefore again we chose 18 representative systems that generally had light output 19 within 10 percent. In this case we would use the 20 measured system input power. 21 The other scenario we examined in the 22 economic analysis was a new construction renovation 23 type scenario where you’re not married to a fixed 24 lighting layout in the system and you can actually 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 197

look at things on an equal lumens basis. So if you 1 look over to the right-hand side of this table you’ll 2 see where we’ve normalized the light output for the 3 baseline system and the substitute system based on the 4 baseline system’s light output and have normalized the 5 system input power. So obviously the story here is 6 for equal lumens the standards system is consuming 7 less or it has a lower input power rating. 8 So those are the two input powers we used 9 for that first part of our annual energy consumption, 10 the system input power. 11 Now, looking to annual operating hours. DOE 12 developed annual operating hours data from a number of 13 DOE surveys, some of which I’m sure you’ll recognize 14 as the lighting market characterization study, the 15 commercial buildings energy consumption, the 16 manufacturer energy consumption and residential energy 17 consumption surveys. The LMC gave us annual operating 18 hours by building type, lamp type, and different 19 applications within these building types. We would 20 marry that with data from the energy consumption 21 surveys, the CBECS, the other energy consumption 22 surveys which basically provide a distribution of U.S. 23 buildings across census divisions in large states. We 24 merged these data types, the operating hours by 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 198

building type, lamp type application along with the 1 distribution of building types and this allows us to 2 develop an operating hours distribution by census 3 division and by large states. 4 Now, presented on this slide you see 5 weighted average values and these are what we used in 6 our preliminary analyses. However, as we’ll discuss 7 with the LCC and the NIA, we also have the capability 8 of doing a variability or a Monte Carlo analysis which 9 would allow you to tunnel into the different building 10 types, lamp types, applications represented in this 11 source data. So based on DOE’s analysis of this data, 12 we came up with the following weighted average annual 13 operating hours for different sectors of use, 14 commercial, industrial, and residential. 15 What I would like to bring your attention to 16 on this slide is a subset of the commercial operating 17 hours where for our preliminary analyses we took a 18 look at the impact of lighting controls on operating 19 hours in the commercial sector. Based on our 20 preliminary literature review, we arrived at a value 21 of approximately 30 percent energy savings based on 22 lighting controls. Now, we’ve already heard some 23 examples here today that Susan brought up and Bob 24 echoed as well with the New York Times Building. So 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 199

there’s obviously a range of possible energy savings, 1 there’s some exceptional cases such as the New York 2 Times Building with 60 percent-plus energy savings. 3 Based on our literature review we developed 4 a 30 percent energy savings or assumed 30 percent 5 energy savings. And we basically translated this into 6 a 30 percent reduction in operating hours. So that 7 would explain the difference you see in the 3400 hours 8 and the approximately 2400 hours you see for program 9 start ballasts on occupancy sensors. And that leaves 10 the remaining operating hours for industrial and 11 residential. 12 This leads us to a couple of requests for 13 comments. For issue number 11, we would seek your 14 comments, no only the basis and the assignment of 15 these end-user profiles which are detailed in 16 considerable detail in the TSD. And in a related 17 issue we also invite comments on the use of lighting 18 controls. And that has been a conversation topic 19 today and would certainly welcome your input on the 20 scale and the timing of penetration of lighting 21 controls and their effects on annual operating hours. 22 MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt, Philips Lighting 23 Electronics. The NEMA discussion on this, our 24 consensus was we have no objection. We have no better 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 200

analysis than what you’ve proposed. We think it’s 1

reasonable. 2 MR. deLASKI: Andrew deLaski. The biggest 3 savings when you get to the NIA are in the sign 4 ballasts. What did you use for hours -- operating 5 hours on the sign ballasts? 6 MR. LINGARD: We ran both the commercial and 7 the industrial scenarios and my colleague Gavin will 8 detail that in the discussion of the NIA, recognizing 9 that they would occur in -- that they could possibly 10 occur in those two sectors. 11 MR. deLASKI: So you did some weighted 12 average, we’ll get to that, I guess, but you did some 13 weighted average. 14 MR. RABA: And NIA is National Impact 15 Analysis? 16 MR. LINGARD: You’re correct, sir. 17 MR. RABA: Okay. Thank you. Further? 18 (No response.) 19 MR. RABA: Wow, that was good. Keep going. 20 MR. LINGARD: Next, to speak about our 21 markups analysis. This is where we bridge the 22 manufacturers’ selling price with an assumed or an 23 estimated end-user ballast prices. And there has been 24 some discussion of the manufacturer markups. We’re 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 201

going to focus here on the distribution chain. This 1 happens after the manufacturer lets the ballast go. 2 You’ll see a diagram on the left representing two 3 potential distribution chains for fluorescent lamp 4 ballasts. One being for fixture ballasts, the other 5 being for replacement ballasts. The main distinction 6 being that the fixture ballast distribution chain will 7 involve an OEM fixture manufacturer. So basically add 8 another step and another markup. 9 We looked at distribution channel 10 percentages for our preliminary analyses we based on a 11 breakdown used also in the 2000 ballast rule. As 12 you’ll see, we’re assuming approximately 63 percent 13 through the OEM distribution chain and 37 percent 14 through the wholesaler chain. The actual markups were 15 based upon an evaluation of publicly available SEC 16 Form 10K data. This is a pretty standard method for 17 evaluating financial data for publicly traded 18 companies. Such variables as net sales, cost of 19 sales, gross profit. 20 A small version of this analysis was done to 21 develop the manufacturer markup for the manufacturer 22 selling price. Based on that analysis, what you might 23 find of interest is the markups for the OEM 24 manufacturer are 1.51. I believe that’s pretty 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 202

similar to what was found for the ballast 1 manufacturers, somewhere around 1.5 and then as you go 2 down the distribution chain through electrical 3 wholesalers lower values approximately 1.4 for the 4 electrical wholesalers and a standard assumed value of 5 1.13 for electrical contractors. And you’ll see 6 baseline and incremental markups. The baseline, being 7 basically a manufacturer -- a multiplier to take you 8 from the manufacturers’ selling price to the end user 9 selling price for a baseline product. The incremental 10 as it relates to higher efficiency products is 11 generally lower because it’s assumed certainly within 12 the distribution chain that fixed costs such as labor 13 and occupancy would not change significantly between 14 efficiency levels that the labor required to 15 distribute an energy-efficient ballast would be 16 similar to that for a baseline ballast. So as you 17 would expect, these incremental markups are slightly 18

lower. 19 And the sales tax was based on a survey of 20 national and local and state sales taxes weighted by 21 census data. So this is basically a weighted national 22 average. But we also have this data on a state-by23 state and a census division level for use in more 24 detailed variability analyses. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 203

And that finally resulted in the weighted 1 overall baselines markup and the weighted incremental 2 markup that you see at the bottom of that table. And, 3 again this flows into our LCC and our NIA analyses. 4 And as we kind of previewed, as Bob Erhardt 5 indicated earlier, NEMA is going to try to provide 6 more detailed sanitized manufacturer price data. We 7 would also seek input on typical distribution chain 8 markups as well as detailed pricing data. You’re 9 going to hear this echoed in our economic analyses 10 discussion particularly with shipments any detailed 11 data that you can supply will help us further refine 12 our preliminary analyses as we head into the NOPR 13 phase. 14 So, with that I’ll open the floor for issue 15

13. 16 MR. RABA: Are there any confidentiality 17 agreements on that last statement? 18 MR. LINGARD: Very good question. We do 19 currently have a confidentiality agreement in place 20 with NEMA and there were some obstacles leading up to 21 this. But we would like to continue that discussion 22 and see if we -- actually it was in place for 23 shipments data. I’m getting ahead of myself. 24 So to your point with the price data, we’ll 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 204

certainly welcome that to help us validate pricing 1 assumptions and markup assumptions. 2 MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt. Philips Lighting 3 Electronics. Are you indicating that we could have a 4 confidentiality on price as well? 5 MR. LINGARD: I would need to get back to 6 you on that. I was -- my head jumped ahead to 7 shipments and I was -- and my mouth was saying 8 pricing. So I’ll get back to you on that. 9

MS. LEHR: Hello? 10

MR. RABA: Hello. Go. 11 MS. LEHR: Just in terms of the manufacturer 12 selling price data that you referenced back, as much 13 data as you can give in the public sector would be 14 helpful because then we can actually use that data in 15 our analysis. In terms of confidential data we’re 16 willing to take whatever data you have is great. 17 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, this is Bob Erhardt. 18 We’ve discussed -- we’ve put out a solicitation for 19 the data to the manufacturers. What we are suggesting 20 that we supply is without giving the absolute levels 21 that we give you the incremental. And that can help. 22 We thought that’s what you would need for the payback 23 analysis. So that’s what we’re attempting to pull 24 together. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 2 05

MR. RABA: Okay. Susan. 1 MS. ANDERSON: Susan Anderson, Osram 2 Sylvania. Something that we also discussed in looking 3 at the wholesalers -- electrical wholesalers, very few 4 of them are publicly traded companies. So you find 5 very little of the SEC formed data out there for the 6 majority of the electrical wholesale distributors. 7 And when we did look up -- looked on line to see what 8 we could find, for instance, we looked at Westco, 9 that’s one that I looked at, and they appeared to be 10 one of the ones that was included in the analysis 11 based on their percentage. But the market was across 12 all their product lines. They had absolutely nothing 13 specific to lighting much less to ballasts. 14

MR. LINGARD: You’re correct. 15 MS. ANDERSON: So it could be very 16 misleading information. And our suggestion was that 17 you go to the National Association of Electrical 18 Distributors and see if through some of their members 19 you could get some more accurate information in terms 20 of wholesaler markups. 21 MR. LINGARD: Thank you. That’s excellent - 22 - excellent suggestion. 23 MR. RABA: Thank you. More on this? 24 MR. HAKKARAINEN: Can I go back to issue 12? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 206

MR. RABA: Quickly. 1 MR. HAKKARAINEN: Quickly. 2 MR. RABA: Quickly. Thank you. 3 MR. HAKKARAINEN: Pekka Hakkarainen, Lutron. 4 Bob, on the issue of use of lighting controls, there 5 is some data available that I’m aware of for 6 commercial buildings on energy savings. And 7 specifically to the use of occupancy centers that you 8 cited in the previously slide, we have reports that 9 indicate savings anywhere between 17 to 60 percent on 10 occupancy centers depending on the application in 11 commercial buildings. So your 30 percent sounds 12 reasonable as an average. 13 As an industry I need to comment that we 14 have -- you’re asking for the residential sector, we 15 don’t have good data for the energy savings data 16 currently. We are trying to develop it in residential 17 applications. 18 MR. LINGARD: We would welcome that input. 19 Certainly we were focused on the commercial sector at 20 this point. 21 MR. RABA: That was very helpful. Thank you 22 very much. 23 Anything further? 24 MR. deLASKI: Just a little follow-on. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 207

Andrew deLaski. 1 You know, I agree it would be great to go to 2 get additional data from the manufacturer or from the 3 wholesalers. Public data is best, obviously. We like 4 the SEC data because it’s been filed with the SEC and 5 it’s on public record and I guess folks do lie to the 6 SEC sometimes, but we hope they don’t. And I think 7 it’s good solid data in which to work the analysis. 8 So to the extent that we get concerned about data 9

that’s black-boxed to stakeholders other than those 10 who actually have submitted it. So, we want to urge 11 you to try to get that data out on the record as you 12

have. 13 MR. RABA: SEC is Security and Exchange 14 Commission? 15 MR. LINGARD: Yes, sir. 16 MR. deLASKI: Think so. 17 MR. RABA: Okay. Great. Thank you. 18

Last call? 19 (No response.) 20 MR. RABA: Well, good discussion, good give 21 and take, good back and forth. Let’s take a break, 22 please. We are running a little behind now. So we’re 23 going to speed up a little bit more. But keep your 24 comments coming, they’re very good. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 208

We’re going to be back at a quarter past 1 three, by that clock. Let’s see, my watch is 2 different. Fifteen minutes, Linda? Is that enough, 3 too much? Fifteen minutes. 4 (Brief recess taken at 3:04 p.m.) 5 MR. RABA: Okay. Let’s get started. Thank 6 you. The fun is over. 7 You should find two things at your place, 8 one the evaluation sheet, pull out -- the Department 9 is most interested in your comments about today’s 10 public meeting and also you should each have a copy of 11 the attendance here by business card or otherwise. 12 You didn’t hear that? I’ll repeat. 13 Thanks for coming back from break. We have 14 a lot to cover yet this afternoon. You’ll find at 15 your places a comment sheet. You know, what can I 16 say, they call me a lot of things, but lower the 17 volume, I never heard, thank you very much. 18 And also you’ll find, and hopefully if don’t 19 let me know. We’ll give you this attendance record 20 here for everyone who is in the room to identify. 21 Okay. 22

Let’s move on now. 23 Our next presentation coming up is about the 24 life cycle cost and payback with Gavin McCormick, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 209

PNNL. Gavin. 1

LIFE-CYCLE COST AND PAYBACK PERIOD ANALYSIS 2 MR. McCORMICK: Yes, I’m Gavin McCormick 3 from PNNL here to present some of the economic 4 chapters today starting with the life-cycle cost and 5 payback period analysis. So the LCC and payback 6 period analyses are two different ways of combining 7 the information from the markups and energy use 8 characterization sections. And essentially what they 9 both do is take a look at the first costs of a more 10 efficient unit coming out of the markups section and 11 combine that with the cost over time coming out of the 12 energy use time characterization. More energy use at 13 a given price is of course the major component of cost 14 over time. 15 The economic evaluation in the LCC and 16 payback period analysis both take place from the point 17 of view of a single consumer. Later the national 18 impact analysis will take place from the point of view 19 of all consumers in America. And, again, there are 20 two different ways of calculating the same 21 information. So, the lifecycle cost analysis is 22 essentially the sum of all costs that a ballast 23 consumer would pay over the life of one ballast. And 24 the key input or the key output, excuse me, of that, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 210

is the lifecycle cost savings that you might or might 1 not experience between a base case and standards case 2

ballast. 3 The way that the LCC is calculated is a 4 fairly straightforward input. You sum up the costs in 5 each year in the base and standards case for costs 6 that occur in the future, you convert them to present 7 value at a discount rate. I’ll cover that more in a 8 moment. And then you simply subtract the difference 9

between the base and standards cases. 10 The payback period analysis is only slightly 11 more complicated. It’s essentially dividing the first 12 cost of the more efficient unit into the operating 13 costs. And both of those, excuse me, are the delta 14

between the base case and the standards case. So 15 classic example in the payback period would be if you 16 spend 50 extra dollars to buy a more efficient ballast 17 and it saves you $10 a year, the payback period is 50 18 over 10 or five years. 19 The payback period that we use in this 20 analysis is known as a simple payback period because 21 it does not take into account a discount rate. So you 22 could imagine other ways to calculate it, but this is 23 simply the increasing costs divided by essentially a 24 single year’s operating cost change. And both of 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 211

these are just two different ways of getting at the 1 same problem which is if in the typical situation a 2 more efficient unit costs more money initially, but 3 costs less money over time, is that or is that not a 4 good deal for a consumer? And you can imagine 5 different ways to answer that question. That’s why we 6 have two independent analyses on the same subject. 7 So, the most important input probably to the 8 LCC and payback period analysis are electricity 9 consumption. And we get the energy use straight from 10 the energy use characterization so that’s nothing 11 novel there. But then electricity prices are a very 12 important section here. DOE actually calculates 13 electricity prices for this purpose by combining two 14 different sources of estimates. 15 The first is EIA, Energy Information 16 Administration form 861 data and that essentially is a 17 record of prices that people have actually paid in 18 different sectors in different states in recent 19 record. So we go back 12 months and we combine the 20

most recent form 861 data. 21 You can see in this slide here we, for the 22 preliminary analysis actually just stuck with the 2007 23 form 861 data. We will update that to the very most 24 recent available 12 months of most recent information 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 212

for the next stage and for the final rule. 1 So that very precise high detail data from 2 recent historical information is then combined with 3 estimates of growth in electricity prices over time. 4 And for that we turn to EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook 5 which is one of the more sophisticated models of the 6 entire U.S. energy economy over the next 30-year 7 period. And the reason that we do this combination is 8 that the form 861 data can be pulled very, very high 9 detail and very recent information. But the annual 10 energy outlet numbers from NEMs are typically more, 11 rather are the only source for long-run energy 12 estimates. So what we do is we take the recent 13 electricity prices by state and grow them by the 14 percentage growth rates coming out of the AEO. 15 Once we have electricity prices another 16 important cost input to the LCC and payback periods 17 are insulation costs. And we actually just calculate 18 those at the moment in the same way as the 2000 19 ballast rule and the 2009 lamps rule. Those are based 20 on that information as well as RS means and labor 21 statistics data. And the basic method for that is 22 that we find a certain number of minutes that it takes 23 to relamp a ballast and lamp system or to actually 24 swap out the ballast and lamp and add up the cost of 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 213

so and so many minutes of time for an electrician and 1 one electrician’s assistant. 2 The ballast lifetime is another very 3 important input to the LCC. And actually even more so 4 later to the shipments analysis. As I’ll cover in a 5 minute. 6 The ballast lifetime information that we are 7 using is the same as the 2000 ballast rule and the 8 2009 lamps rule. So we have not found a reason to 9 change that information. But we did independently 10 rederive it. And one interesting result is that 11 because of the much longer operating hours in the 12 industrial sector that my colleague Bog Lingard had 13 mentioned in the energy use characterization, because 14 of that many more hours per year, although you can see 15 the commercial and industrial sectors, both share a 16 large number of hours lifetime. You do not actually 17 see that the commercial and industrial have the 18 longest lifetimes in terms of years. Because you’re 19 using the lamps in the industrial sector much more 20 intensively. So they last more hours, but that 21 translates into fewer years. And the reverse is true 22 in the residential sector. The lamps actually are not 23 typical -- I keep saying lamps, excuse me, that’s not 24 right. The ballasts have shorter lifetimes in the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 214

residential sector, but actually end up lasting more 1 years because in the residential sector you typically 2 use your lamps and your ballasts for fewer hours in a 3 year. They’re off a lot more. 4 One important thing that we do with our 5 lifetimes is that we have a fairly narrow band of 6 assumed lifetimes. One could imagine great variation 7 in ballast lifetimes. And we have a pretty narrow set 8 of assumptions that we have found around these average 9 ballast lifetimes. So something that we are looking 10 into and would be interested in input on is sources of 11 variation in estimates of ballast lifetimes. 12 But, for the most part, we are assuming that 13 all ballasts last either the average lifetime, one 14 year or two years less than that. We don’t have 15 variation of ballasts lasting two years or 30 years. 16 Another very important source of input data 17 for the LCC and PBP analyses are the discount rates. 18 There are different ways to trade off current money 19 for money in the future. And the form of discount 20 rate that DOE uses in the LCC and PBP analyses is the 21 actual rate at which you could trade money now for 22 money later. So, for the commercial and industrial 23 sector, that comes to the weighted cover cost of 24 capital which is to say, a company that actually had a 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 215

million dollars at the moment could trade that for, 1 for example, $1,700,000 next year based on the 2 interest rates that they are currently paying and 3 receiving on their own money. 4 So this is different from placing less value 5 on the future. This is a discount rate which is your 6 actual ability to trade money intertemporally. 7 And in the residential sector, the way we 8 make an analogous calculation is by looking at the 9 sources of money that residential consumers have both 10 that they are borrowing from and lending to. So, for 11 example, we have credit card rates and mortgage rates 12 which have particular rates of interest. And we look 13 at the share of money that your average residential 14 consumer has in different sources of income and 15 savings and we calculate an average rate that they are 16 either saving or spending on interest. 17 So why are we doing this? This is all a 18 calculation that lets us know, what is the rate at 19 which consumers are currently trading money now for 20 money later. This is a good way to determine the 21 tradeoff between operating cost savings that occur in 22 the future and increased costs that occur in the 23 present. 24 I’m seeing a confused look or two. Should I 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 216

clarify something there? 1 (Simultaneous conversation.) 2 (Off microphone.) 3 PARTICIPANT: Well, I’ll take 1.7 million 4 next year if you’re going to give it to me. 5 (Laughter.) 6 MR. McCORMICK: I meant to say 1.07. I 7 apologize, yes. 8 (Laughter.) 9 MR. McCORMICK: Thank you for clarifying 10 that. So, the key to this section is very much the 11 methodology, but I’m going to present three different 12 results and these are cherry picked to show the three 13 different sorts of outcomes we can have here. And the 14 results you actually see here have been updated. So 15 if you’re going to start looking at the precise 16 numbers, you’ll want to look at the handout you 17 received today. Don’t have a copy in front of me. 18 So a couple of the lifecycle cost numbers 19 turned out to have just a cell reference error in the 20 EXCEL spreadsheet that was calculating them. And so 21 you can see if you’re going to follow the exact 22 details here, an updated table for the life cycle cost 23 information has been provided to you in today’s 24 handout. And that will all be available in the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 217

technical support document. 1 MR. deLASKI: And just to follow-up, you’re 2 going to post a new revised chapter to the TSD, or 3 what’s going to happen? So we know when to look and 4

what to look for. 5 MR. McCORMICK: Right. I believe actually 6 the answer to that is for the NOPR stage we’ll be 7 publishing the latest numbers. 8 Did you have something to say, Bob? 9 MR. RABA: That last question was from 10 Andrew deLaski. 11 Go ahead Bob Lingard. 12 MR. LINGARD: This is Bob Lingard with PNNL. 13 The answer to your question is, yes. We’ll have 14 revised TSD materials posted shortly that correspond 15 with these revised materials you have in hard copy 16 today. 17 MR. McCORMICK: And as long as we’re on that 18 subject although it’s a different chapter, one of the 19 tables in the executive summary to deal with the 20 national impact analysis results disagreed with the 21 equivalent table in Chapter 10 and the Chapter 10 22 table was correct. And we are updating the executive 23 summary table to all agree. And that will happen in 24

the same document. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 218

MR. deLASKI: If I could just request -- 1

MR. McCORMICK: Uh-huh. 2 MR. deLASKI: -- this is Andrew deLaski -- 3 when you do that, can you somehow just mark that as 4 “revised” because those of us who downloaded the prior 5 one, you know, it would be helpful to track, this 6 thing has been changed. And I would even request that 7 if you could e-mail your list to let us know when 8 you’ve done it that way we know to go check that the 9 document has been revised. The LCC chapter is a 10 critical chapter for those of us. 11 MR. McCORMICK: Certainly. I’m seeing some 12 nods that that’s doable. So, great. 13 Yes, apologies for that and that is just a 14 simple cell reference error in the EXCEL spreadsheet 15 unfortunately. But the methodology is unchanged. And 16 the key result that I am focusing on here are the 17 three possible outcomes of an LCC analysis. So in the 18 top bullet what we are seeing is the sort of standard 19 expected outcome from more efficient equipment that 20 the installed cost, the installed price of the 21 equipment is higher as the efficiency increases. So 22 as you go from the baseline or CSL0/1 row on this 23 table here, to higher CSLs your efficiency is 24 increasing and the installed price is increasing. So 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 219

this is a very common and expected result. 1 The flip side of that is that the operating 2 costs are decreasing. So we have here operating cost 3 savings. They’re marked in dollars and they should 4 actually be marked in dollars per year. The operating 5 cost savings also will increase although not 6 necessarily monotonically. So you’re going to see 7 lower operating costs with more efficient equipment is 8 a typical outcome. It’s not a necessary outcome as 9 I’ll explain in a moment. 10 But a typical outcome of an LCC analysis or 11 a PBP analysis is that you have higher installed 12 costs, lower operating costs, and you can determine 13 the number of years for your PBP that it would take to 14 earn the money back that you spent in the first year. 15 And it may or may not be depending on the discount 16 that you use that you ultimately have lifecycle cost 17 savings. You could imagine a case where the installed 18 cost is so much higher that you never end up making 19 your money back. And you could imagine other cases 20 where you make quite a bit of money back from the 21 savings. 22 So that is the most standard case. We also 23 encountered the sort of two less likely cases. And we 24 encountered both of them in our preliminary results 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 220

for this rule which is quite interesting. 1 On the lower half of this same slide, you 2 see a result of negative payback period of values. 3 And that is the result that we’ve already heard NEMA 4 refer to today in which the installed price is lower 5 for more efficient equipment. So this is certainly 6 not theoretically impossible, but it’s considered 7 pretty unusual. And so we’ve already heard comments 8 that it will be helpful to get more access to cost 9 data to confirm, validate or possibly reexamine these 10 outputs. So in this case what we are seeing is the 11 installed price is going down as the ballasts become 12 more efficient, which, if true, is fantastic. And if 13 untrue needs to be reexamined. 14

And then -- 15 MR. deLASKI: Just a follow-up question. Do 16 you know what’s going on there? What’s happening in 17 the engineering? 18 MR. McCORMICK: Uh-huh. I actually don’t. 19 I’m an economist by training. I believe that -- I’m 20 going to not answer that question. Is there someone 21 else who could jump in there? 22 MS. GUPTA: This is Mimi Gupta from Navigant 23 Consulting. That’s just the outputs from the 24 teardown. We looked at the teardown results trying to 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 221

locate exactly which part of the components or which 1 components might be more expensive, but we couldn’t 2 find any trends in terms of what makes that -- I mean, 3 so for the T12 baseline we found in retail prices that 4 the T12s are actually more expensive than T8s being 5 sold. So that part is consistent in terms of the fact 6 that, no, maybe a CSL2 T8 is less expensive than a 7 CSL1 T8, that’s just the result of the teardown. And, 8 you know, we were hoping to get some input from 9 manufacturers on why -- why those results came out and 10 I think hopefully we’ll get some data. 11 MR. deLASKI: Okay. Thanks. 12 MR. McCORMICK: I would agree. And then an 13 additional comment on that is that if this is the case 14 you would expect to see that the market would 15 gradually shift away from the baseline technology in 16 this case, not necessarily instantaneously, but that 17 would be the direction. And that’s exactly the 18 assumption that we make in the shipments analysis, 19 that although it would not happen instantaneously or 20 completely, even in the base case with no regulation, 21 the market would tend to shift away from this baseline 22 equipment because from purely cost perspective there 23 is no upside of this type of equipment given the 24 assumptions that feed into this model. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 222

We also saw the third possible case of a 1 payback period or LCC analysis in which the operating 2 cost does not decrease with increased efficiency. And 3 so in this case you pay a higher installed price for 4 more efficient equipment and never earn your money 5 back. So the payback periods are effectively 6 infinite. And it’s worth pointing out that the only 7 case in which we saw this is a fairly particular case. 8 This is the case in which more efficient ballasts lead 9 to many more lumens. So if you are seeing a ballast 10 that produces quite a bit more light given the 11 appropriate lamps, you could imagine that you are more 12 efficiently producing more light but that actually 13 means that you are using slightly more power. 14 And so in this case we have the two 15 different purchasing events that you can imagine. My 16 colleague Bob Lingard spoke already about normalizing 17 costs and in a case where you can normalize the lumens 18 and the costs. So for example, in new construction if 19 a ballast produces 50 percent more light, you could 20 have fewer of those ballasts. And recoup your costs. 21 But, for example, if we were to try to retrofit this 22 room with more efficient ballasts, you wouldn’t 23 necessarily reduce the number of lamps that you were 24 using and so you might end up using more energy, but 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 223

having a much brighter room. And that’s the case in 1 which we see higher operating costs. And from a cost 2 alone perspective never getting sort of your 3 additional price back. 4 And so -- were there any questions on that 5 before I proceed? 6 (No response.) 7

MR. McCORMICK: Great. Issue number 14 has 8 to do with demand load profiles and peak shaving. The 9 costs that I have spoken to you about so far are all 10 using average electricity prices over the course of a 11 year. But you could imagine that lamps are used at 12 particular times of day in which electricity prices 13 have particular patterns, or that there are impacts on 14 market electricity prices from the savings of more 15 efficient ballasts. And DOE is interested in any 16 comments that stakeholders might have on this effect. 17 MR. RABA: Comments on load profiles or 18

demand? 19 (No response.) 20

MR. RABA: No comments? 21 Okay. That’s good. We have one from Mike, 22 please? 23 MR. McGARAGHAN: This is Mike and I actually 24 did want to go back to the last slide. And wondered 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 224

if we could just get a little more information perhaps 1 from your engineering team on this retrofit and are 2 they -- have they determined that it’s impossible to 3 maintain light level in certain situations or just 4 likely that there will be an increase in light level? 5 Provide a little more detail, please? 6 MS. LEHR: This is Ali from Navigant. This 7 product class in particular was pretty difficult. 8 This is four-foot medium bi-pin lamps in the 9 residential sector. And the reason you’re seeing the 10 difference in light level was because we found 11 significant differences in ballast factor. And it’s 12 also difficult to try and figure out what correct 13 representative units to use because the majority of 14 ballasts in the residential sector are shipped already 15 in fixtures. And a lot of these come from offshore 16 suppliers and it’s been very hard to find catalogue 17 information about these ballasts and to figure out 18 which ones are truly the most popular representative 19 units to use because I guess we don’t have 20 accompanying fixture information right now. And if 21 you have any suggestions about how to remedy that 22 problem we would welcome any suggestions. 23 MS. ANDERSON: Yeah, I think here the real 24 question is, are there going to be equal lumen 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 225

replacements available? I think when we looked on the 1 market we didn’t find that. We found, you know, 2 varying ballast factors with differences in efficiency 3 that resulted in engineering analysis in which, you 4 know, we got different lumen outputs. So is this 5 something, you know, should we expect given -- if 6 these products were regulated that manufacturers would 7 start to develop products that maintain lumen output 8 with a higher efficiency and that’s just not what we 9 see on the market right now. 10 MR. RABA: I saw Charlie up first and Bob. 11 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stevens. As I look 12 at the residential stuff here, it occurred to me that 13 I hadn’t heard anything earlier or I didn’t notice 14 earlier that there’s nothing in the markup analysis 15 about the residential channel. So I’m kind of 16 wondering where the numbers are coming from for the 17 purchase price and everything here especially since as 18 absurd as it sounds, Home Depot and Lowe’s have 50 19 percent or more of the home improvement retail market 20 combined and so they have a pretty big influence over 21 this thing. And I’m not sure the notion of 22 replacement versus new is as relevant there when in 23 the residential market. 24 I mean, I’m not sure too many people will 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 226

replace the ballast. I think they tend to just 1 replace the whole fixture. And, again, 50 percent of 2 them or more, probably come from Home Depot and 3 Lowe’s. And so I’m kind of trying to figure out how I 4 should be understanding your analysis here in that 5

context. 6 MR. LINGARD: This is Bob Lingard with PNNL. 7 You’re correct that we didn’t break out a separate 8 distribution chain for residential products in the 9 preliminary analysis. I think probably the closest 10 fit we have at this point is that distribution chain 11 that includes the one on the right, the replacement 12 ballast market versus the OEM distribution chain. 13 Looking at the publicly available finance 14 data we did -- I think we did have at least one big 15 box retailer in that. But to your point, no, we 16 didn’t specifically contemplate that. But that 17 replacement ballast distribution chain is, at least 18 for the preliminary analysis, the closest we came to 19 addressing your particular question. 20

MR. RABA: Bob? 21 MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt, Philips Lighting 22 Electronics. I did look at your analysis of 23 residential and the reason the numbers come out like 24 this was the electromagnetic product has a .58 ballast 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 227

factor. And if you’re running an instant start T8 you 1 can’t run that low, the lamp life will just take a 2 nosedive. And so if you’re talking about -- and that 3 is the -- the typical low-cost electronic replacement 4 for a residential. I did see a comment in there 5 though where they thought that you could change 6 luminaire spacings in a residential to utilize the 7 extra lumen output and I highly question that because 8 I think you have one luminaire in your kitchen and 9 you’re not changing spacings or you have one luminaire 10 over your work bench or in your garage and so I don’t 11 know that you’re going to make up that -- you’re going 12 to come up with anything other than more light output. 13 If you go to a -- you know, if you go to a 14 rapid start electronic for the residential market, 15 then you open up some possibility of lower ballast 16 factor product. 17 MR. RABA: Thank you. 18 Okay. Anything on the forecasting part? 19 Mike, have something? 20 MR. McGARAGHAN: I just wanted to clarify. 21 You’re saying that the ballast factor that would be 22 needed to maintain that light level with a T8 system 23 is too low to operate on? 24 MR. ERHARDT: Certainly too low for instant 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 228

start. 1 MR. McGARAGHAN: Thank you. 2

MR. RABA: Yes. 3 MS. ANDERSON: Or you could sell dimming 4

ballasts. 5 (Laughter.) 6 MR. RABA: Susan. Okay. 7 Comment, Joanna? 8 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. I had a question 9 on table 8.5.6 which is the eight-foot RDC high output 10 product class with a T12 baseline. I was just 11 confused. It looks like there are two different CSL1 12 levels, one with a BEF of 0.5 and one with a BEF of 13

0.55. 14 MR. RABA: Which slide was that, please? 15 MS. MAUER: It’s actually -- it’s not in the 16 slides, it’s in the updated LCC tables that we were 17 given this morning. 18 MR. RABA: Okay. Thank you. 19 MR. McCORMICK: Yes. And so if you look 20 through those tables you’ll actually see several 21 different product classes in which there is more than 22

one CSL0 or more than one CSL1. When there’s more 23 than one CSL0, it’s a fairly straightforward case that 24 you have different baselines that you might be 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 229

considering. So from certain kinds of T12 and certain 1 kinds of T8 ballasts you can actually imagine 2 upgrading into the same more efficient equipment. 3 For the case that you’re referring to in 4 which there’s more than one CSL1, I believe that is 5 due to an expected change in the T12 market. But I 6 would want to get back to you with the specifics on 7 that. I think that DOE will have write a written 8 response to that. 9 MS. ANDERSON: And just a follow-up question 10 also. CSL2 has a slightly lower BEF than CSL1 so 11 CSL2’s BEF was 0.549 and then one of the CSL1’s is 12 0.55, so I was just confused about that as well. 13 MS. GUPTA: I think I can respond to that. 14 That’s coming out of the engineering. This is Mimi 15 Gupta from Navigant. So, yeah, I think that eight16 foot high output product class as Ali mentioned 17 earlier this morning is one of those that we’ve 18 identified for further testing. 19 We didn’t have test data for all of those 20 ballasts that have been indicated. Actually the only 21 one that was actually tested was the CSL2 ballast. 22 And the reason why you have this interesting behavior 23 is that the CSL2 ballast actually had a catalogue 24 efficiency of .560. And when it was tested, it was 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 230

tested at .549. So the expectation and hopefully will 1 be validated through further testing is that, you 2 know, when analyzing a .55 which is a catalogue BEF, 3 so that also should have been, I think probably 4 detailed a little better. But that BEF will also be 5 lowered. So, we look forward to seeing the results of 6 that analysis. 7 Any -- 8 MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt, Philips Lighting 9 Electronics. Just, again, I made a comment to begin 10 with on the eight-foot HO and you do have here that 11 the mean lumen output is lower. And when you look at 12 system efficacy, a T12 with a -- I forgot what my 13 numbers were, but something like a BEF of .52 has a 14 higher system efficacy than a T8 with a .55. And if 15 you’re talking -- especially if you’re talking about 16 replacement market, if you have a shop -- a small 17 business that is running T12s, if he started with 110 18 watt T12s and went to 86’s he already took a small cut 19 in light output. Are you justified in cutting his 20 light output for his workspace? And so I think you 21 should take into consideration a 13 percent higher 22 lumen output of the T12 lamps or the T8 in that case. 23 MR. RABA: Thank you. 24 Nothing further, I presume on the methods 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 231

and other data sources. Can we go on to the next 1 discussion question the general trend to smaller 2 fixtures? And ballast enclosures at issue? 3 MR. McCORMICK: Fifteen. 4 MR. RABA: Okay. 5 MR. McCORMICK: Yes. So issue 15 revolves 6 around the comments that we have heard, that more 7 efficient ballasts may operate at a cooler temperature 8 and therefore have longer lifetimes. And for the 9 preliminary analysis what DOE assumed is that given 10 the general trend towards smaller fixtures, the 11 operating temperature would not fall by as much as you 12 would expect. The smaller unit is roughly assumed to 13 be offsetting the slightly lower heat output giving 14 similar temperatures and therefore no particular 15 change in lifetimes with more efficient units. And we 16 would request any input on this assumption. 17 MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt, Philips Lighting 18 Electronics. In our NEMA discussions we agree with 19 Navigant’s conclusion that you’re not going to see 20 appreciably better lifetime because exactly is what 21 you say, there’s miniaturization in the luminaire 22 field to take advantage of the smaller ballasts and if 23 anything we are constantly being asked to operate at 24 higher temperatures. Our hotspot temperature 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 232

specification has traditionally been 70C or so and now 1 they’re asking for 80C and 90C hotspot temperatures. 2 So we agree with your conclusion. 3

MR. RABA: Great. Shall we move on then? 4 One more from Andrew deLaski. 5 MR. deLASKI: So this is a question on the 6 LCCs the part that you haven’t shown today. And I 7 want to focus in a little bit on the products where 8 the savings are the greatest, you know, in the docket. 9 And I’m looking at the sign ballasts, you know, which 10 based on the Department’s preliminary analysis the 11 potential savings are over three quads. So it’s huge. 12 It’s a rulemaking unto itself in terms of looking at 13 other opportunities for the Department and for energy 14 savings. 15 So I’m curious if somebody questioned from 16 industry the Department is showing savings on the 17 order of a third on those products. 18 MR. RABA: Where is that coming from, 19 please? 20 MR. deLASKI: It’s from the LCC analysis. 21 MR. RABA: Okay. In the TSD. Thank you. 22

MR. deLASKI: I don’t have a table 23

reference. 24 MR. RABA: Okay. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 233

MR. deLASKI: Do you have a table reference? 1 MR. McCORMICK: One could see that in table 2 8.5.15 on today’s handout, I believe. 3 MR. deLASKI: So this drives, you know, 4 enormous national savings and I’m wondering if the 5 industry has any input on that? I’m curious, you 6 know, are these numbers -- do they corroborate with 7 what you’re seeing in the marketplace? 8 And as you go through here, you know, you 9 see that, you know, for many of the ballast types 10 being evaluated there’s savings of 2 to 6 percent, you 11 know, as Bob pointed out, the savings aren’t that big, 12 you know, on a percentage basis. 13 (Simultaneous conversation.) 14 MR. deLASKI: -- here where we’re seeing 15 really big savings. 16 MR. ERHARDT: Okay. This is Bob Erhardt. 17 On sign ballasts, electronic sign ballasts are a 18 relatively new development and you do pick up efficacy 19 when you run at high frequency. I have -- we didn’t - 20 - there weren’t any sign ballasts in the CEC data that 21 I was analyzing and so I -- we only looked at the 22 levels and saw if we had any heartburn over that. 23 In principal you will see an improvement in 24 efficacy running a T12 HO lamp on electronic ballasts 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 234

compared with electromagnetic just going form 60 hertz 1 to 50 kilohertz you will pick up automatically on the 2 lamp. You get about 10 percent better efficacy. And 3 so it is reasonable. I don’t know if it’s 20 percent 4 when you consider the ballast efficiency, but it is 5 possible. 6 We were focusing primarily on our big 7 runners and in our written comments we’ll address it. 8 (Simultaneous conversation.) 9 MR. deLASKI: By “big runners” you mean 10

those that sell a lot? 11 MR. ERHARDT: Right. 12 MR. deLASKI: We have this unusual 13 rulemaking where the savings are looking like they’re 14 where you have things you sell fewer of. It’s really 15

uncommon. 16 MR. ERHARDT: Well, yes. And we will -- 17 well, it’s a high power product. In our written 18 response we will give a more accurate response than 19 I’ve just given you, but there is energy to be saved 20 and I’m going to electronic sign ballasts, yes. 21 MR. RABA: Thank you. Comment in the back, 22 please. 23 MR. COOK: Keith Cooks from Philips 24 Lighting. I guess I’ve got a concern though with this 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 235

significant savings in sign ballasts. My concern is 1 the fact that did you account for the conversion we’re 2 seeing to solid state lighting in signs? Because we 3 do see a significant conversion here, rather rapid, 4 because of the fact that there’s significant 5 improvement in maintenance and they operate much, much 6 better at low temperatures than conventional 7 fluorescent signs do. And so has that been accounted 8

for? 9 MR. McCORMICK: The Department’s treatment 10 of solid-state lighting is to displace fluorescent 11 lamps entirely in many cases. So where you would see 12 that is in the shipments chapter. You would see just 13 fewer shipments of signed ballasts that are 14 fluorescents. With solid-state lighting sign ballasts 15 are not covered in this rulemaking. Did that answer 16 your question? 17 MR. COOK: Well, I guess I’m not sure what 18 you’ve forecast. The shipments is only history. 19 Right? 20 MR. McCORMICK: Oh, sorry. The shipments 21 chapter will also include forecasted future shipments. 22 And that takes into account assumed rates of 23 penetration for solid-state lighting. 24 MR. COOK: And what are you showing then for 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 236

penetration of solid-state lighting in signs? 1

MR. McCORMICK: I don’t know the number off 2 the top of my head, but I can direct you to the 3 technical support document which has those numbers. 4 MR. LINGARD: This is Bob Lingard with PNNL. 5 I know we did address emerging technology penetration 6 in a number of product classes in the shipments NIA. 7 To your point I would need to verify this, but I don’t 8 -- yet we did not -- we did not address solid-state 9 lighting specifically in the sign ballasts. So your 10 comment is timely and welcome. Thank you. 11 MR. RABA: All good. All good. 12 Let’s move on now. Let’s continue and move 13 forward. We are going to start slipping here. 14 National Impact Analysis, let’s move on to that, 15 please? 16

NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS 17 MR. McCORMICK: So the section entitled 18 here, National Impact Analysis also includes the 19 shipments analysis which is very much part of that so 20 the two are hand in hand. And as you can see here, 21 the sort of a way to think of it is that the lifecycle 22 cost analysis provides cost information for one 23 typical ballast and the shipments analysis basically 24 tells us how many of these we need to account for, for 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 237

the national impact analysis which, to put it crudely, 1 more or less multiplies those to get the total 2 national impact. 3 So I’m going to talk about the shipments 4 analysis first. And it’s worth pointing out that 5 that’s also a stock analysis. So, to know the 6 incremental costs of purchasing more efficient 7 ballasts, you need to know the number of shipments 8 going forward, but to know the energy cost associated 9 with that you need to know the number of more 10 efficient units that will be on the market, not just 11 sold in any given year. 12 So the primary source of information DOE had 13 to estimate either shipments or stock was the U.S. 14 Census Industrial Reports information which covers 15 historical ballast shipments. The Department’s 16 current estimates of historical stock are based 17 entirely on extrapolations from numbers about 18 historical shipments and lifetimes. So we would 19 certainly welcome any data that were available on 20 historical stock numbers, the number of ballasts in 21 operation at any given time in the United States. 22 Given this data source, however, we first 23 disaggregated historical ballast shipment numbers 24 according to product classes and efficiency types. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 238

One very important assumption that was made there 1 that’s worth highlighting is the assumption that 69 2 percent of all ballasts in any given product class are 3 at the baseline efficiency level. We had very little 4 data to go on in terms of distribution by product 5 class, what share of ballasts are more efficient, so 6 we would welcome any information available about the 7 share in the market of more or less efficient ballasts 8 already in place in the base case. And the reason for 9 that is that for the national impact analysis we need 10 to know what the baseline share of efficient units 11 would be in order to know the impact of the rule. 12 So, DOE extrapolated from the lifetimes and 13 the shipment numbers stock estimates using a pretty 14 simple accounting framework that if you count, for 15 example, 15 years of an average ballast lifetime in 16 the commercial sector you can simply count 15 years 17 after those units ship, they’re no longer in use. So 18 if you have 15 years of shipments data, you can know 19 how many units are in use at any given time in the 20

market. 21 So DOE’s method was to first estimate 22 historical shipments by product class and efficiency 23 level based on the U.S. Census information. And we’ve 24 already heard today we might, from NEMA, get 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 239

additional data on shipments which would be most 1 welcome if possible. And other sources would be very 2

welcome. 3 From that we extrapolate stock and then we 4 use the historical stock records to estimate future 5 shipments and stock records -- excuse me, stock 6 numbers based on growth rates and replacement trends. 7 So, the primary growth rate we assume is the same as 8 the growth rate of the buildings stock in the Energy 9 Information Administrations NEMS model and the Annual 10 Energy Outlook. The major source of ballast shipments 11 in future then is replacements of current ballasts as 12 they expire. And there’s also a certain amount of 13 growth. 14 We also have a number of scenarios, for 15 example, the emerging technology scenario covers the 16 aforementioned question of emergence of solid-state 17 lighting. The emerging technology scenario assumes 18 simply fewer shipments of fluorescents as the years go 19 on as the market is penetrated by other forms of 20 lighting which may or may not have to be LED lighting. 21 But that is certainly the most obvious example. 22 We also assumed two different scenarios in 23 terms of shipments; the rollup or shift scenarios. 24 The rollup scenario essentially says that if the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 240

requirement is some particular efficiency level, for 1 example, efficiency level two, then no one in the 2 market would manufacture or sell a less efficient 3 ballast. And that would be the only change. 4 The shift scenario assumes that those who 5 are currently purchasing ballasts that are more 6 efficient than the minimum baseline might choose to 7 become -- to purchase more efficient ballasts that are 8 still more efficient than a new standard. 9 So, for example, someone who is currently 10 purchasing a ballast that’s roughly equivalent to CSL1 11 if the standard went to CSL1 might actually decide to 12 go CSL2 equivalent as a way of staying slightly ahead 13 of the market. And DOE provides both of those 14 scenarios and does not pick one as more likely than 15

the other. 16 So we have emerging versus existing 17 technology scenarios that cover different possible 18 rates of penetration for LEDs and other technologies. 19 And we have shift versus rollup scenarios that cover 20 whether those who purchase highly efficient ballasts 21 now might increase their efficiency in the presence of 22

a standard. 23 One of the most important results from the 24 preliminary analysis is that replacement ballasts 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 241

dominate the shipments in the future. And a very 1 interesting pattern showed up. The cyclical shipments 2 pattern here which NEMA has already referred to in its 3 comments the pattern that you see here is roughly 4 equivalent -- is in fact, almost precisely equivalent 5 to the historical growth rate in the shipments of 6 ballast numbers that the Department was able to find. 7 So, approximately every ten to 15 years you see the 8 market having a spike or a valley which refers to what 9 was happening one lifetime ago. And you could imagine 10 different factors explaining this of which the most 11 important is that the Department assumes ballast 12 lifetimes that do not vary around an average very 13 much. So we assume, for example, that in the 14 commercial sector where ballasts last about 15 years 15 that almost every ballast lasts almost exactly 15 16 years rather than two to 30 years. 17 And what this would mean is that the every - 18 - every lifetime of a ballast the market would 19 experience a similar pattern to what happened 15 years 20 ago as a bunch of ballasts fail at the same time, 21 they’re all replaced at the same time. So if you see 22 a very strong growth or fall in shipments, you would 23 see that repeated over time. And so the driving 24 effect on this -- this somewhat unusual outcome is the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 242

striking growth that DOE observed in historical 1 ballast shipments. So, we certainly do welcome any 2 other information on ballast shipments or stock in the 3 historical period, but what we have indicates a very 4 strong growth rate in the period, I believe it’s 1992 5 to 2005 which does not seem entirely consistent with a 6 mature market. This is approximately on the order of 7 12 percent growth per year in ballast shipments which 8 seems although possible in shipments, very unlikely 9 that the number of installed ballasts in the country 10 was growing at approximately 12 percent a year. And 11 so in the current absence of other data, DOE’s best 12 explanation for this phenomenon is the swap out of 13 older ballast types with newer ballast types. So what 14 we have assumed for the preliminary analysis is that 15 the stock from the period 1992 to 2005 was not growing 16 as fast as the shipments numbers. 17 The graph you see here, the higher line is 18 the total shipments observed in the historical period 19 that we have data for. And the Department has assumed 20 that 12 percent growth in stock is just not consistent 21 with what you would expect in a mature market. And we 22 would certainly welcome comments in a minute about -- 23

from stakeholders about that effect. 24

And so we’ve assumed that at most the stock 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 243

must have been growing by only about 2 percent a year 1 which is only slightly higher than the rate of 2 installed building space in the country. And so we 3 have essentially assumed that a large share of all 4 ballasts shipped in the historical period 1992 to 2005 5 were due to replacements of existing ballasts that had 6 not yet failed. If we did not make this assumption, 7 the shipments oscillations, that you see here, would 8 be even more dramatic. So this is a very interesting 9 issue that we would love any additional input on. 10 And I’ll get to that in a moment. But one 11 of the key inputs to this unusual cyclical effect is 12 the lifetime. So DOE assumed that the average ballast 13 lifetime is a pretty good approximation of the actual 14 ballast lifetime and that there is a relatively low 15 variation around that. 16 We are certainly seeking comment on that in 17 part because if this assumption were not true, then 18 this striking cyclical pattern would be less 19 pronounced. 20 MR. THOMAS: Ed Thomas, GE Lighting. I 21 think the historical data is probably good. However, 22 predictions about what is going to happen in the near 23 future with the advent of the lead-free solder and we 24 still don’t know quite what the lifetimes are going to 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 244

be on these types of products, so we’re a little bit 1 concerned about large projections for life beyond, you 2 know, the rated guidelines that we have test data for 3 at this time. 4 MR. RABA: Thank you. Bob. 5 MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt, Philips Lighting 6 Electronics. This is a very large document and I saw 7 some conflicting data on historical. The graph you 8 showed here did not account for electromagnetic 9 ballasts. In 1992 our company alone shipped more 10 electromagnetic ballasts than what you showed there 11

for the total market. 12 MR. McCORMICK: That’s very interesting to 13

know. 14 MR. ERHARDT: So when you showed the T8s 15 going from, I don’t know, 30 million to 100 million, I 16 think it more likely that the electromagnetics went 17 from 100 million to 30 million in the same period. I 18 don’t think there’s been a large fluctuation. 19 Concerning ballast lifetime, I can tell you 20 that I had a question come up -- this is -- okay, this 21 is going back two years ago, but I had called out an 22 electromagnetic ballast model and I had to go all the 23 way back to 1969 to even find a reference for that 24 ballast model because it was obsolete in 1969. It 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 245

turned out the ballast was older than I was. It was 1 over 50 years old. Electromagnetic ballasts, it’s 2 still not uncommon for me to hear about ballasts from 3 the ‘60s that are over 40 years old. We don’t have 4 30, 40, 50 years experience with electronic ballasts. 5 They’ve only been around for about 30 years and the 6 ones we built 30 years ago weren’t very good. 7 It’s only within the last 25 years, I think, 8 that we’ve had a rather consistently reliable product 9 and so 25 years of historical experience doesn’t give 10 you a lot of data on how much the variation is around 11 the 15-year lifetime. But there are installations, I 12 think, that are over 15 years old. 13 Now, another factor that you should be 14 taking into account is not everybody waits for the 15 luminaire to die to change out -- the ballast to die 16 to change out the luminaire. 17 In the commercial sector when a building 18 space changes ownership often they’ll do a redesign, 19 redecorating, and it’s not uncommon to have luminaire 20 changed out at ten years just as part of renovations 21 of buildings as new tenants take occupancy in 22 buildings. 23 Maybe Fred can say something if he knows 24 something about luminaire lifetimes. But I think 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 246

there will be significant variation. You do have the 1 installations where people have left the same 2 luminaires in place for, like I say, up to 50 years. 3 And then you have others where they’re changed out 4 before anything fails at ten years or so. 5 MR. RABA: Additional data on the shipments. 6 Thank you very much. Addition data on the shipments 7 will be very helpful, written comments, and the other 8 things, but the magnetic as well, if you could. 9 Follow-on. Charlie? 10 MR. STEPHENS: Charlie Stephens. Yeah, 11 there’s a few things that I think you -- and I would 12 echo what Bob said. I absolutely agree. I’m finding 13 magnetic ballasts that are 35 and 40 years old that 14 are being changed out. I think they have an economic 15 lifetime rather than a physical lifetime. They get 16 changed out, as Bob suggested, because the fixture 17 gets changed or the occupant of the space gets 18 changed, or whatever. 19 In that regard there were a couple of things 20 that were going on in the ‘90s and past 2000 that are 21 absolutely reflected. I think you will find there’s 22 an enormous correlation in your curves between utility 23 energy efficiency programs that were ramping up and 24 paying people to change their fixtures. And that ramp 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 247

is still going on. I don’t know how long it will go 1 on, but it is going on now. 2 The company I work part-time for is now 3 working with twice as many utilities in the United 4 States as it was three years ago in developing these 5 programs and implementing these programs. So you can 6 continue that ramp. 7 The other thing is that it’s absolutely 8 consistent and I think you’ll find an excellent 9 correlation with the real estate bubble. 10 MR. RABA: Fred, do you want to follow on 11

also? 12 MR. CARPENTER: No, I didn’t have anything 13

to add. 14 MR. RABA: Okay. Great. That’s good. 15 Fine. 16

Yes. 17 MR. NEUMANN: Justin Neumann of NEMA. There 18 are a few things I want to share in a kind of analysis 19 our NEMA biz group did over at NEMA. 20 NEMA concedes that the great difficulty 21 involved in forecasting economic variables over the 30 22 years, however NEMA disagrees with some of the 23 assumptions and methodology that DOE utilizes in 24 obtaining historical and projected ballast shipments. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 248

NEMA believes these factors are critical since DOE’s 1 installed ballast stock estimates projections under 2 the various CSL scenarios are influenced by these 3 assumptions and methodological choices and ultimately 4 have an appreciable impact on the net energy savings 5 that stem from the rulemaking change. 6 DOE’s choice of attributing the substantial 7 growth in ballast market shipments between 1990 and 8 2005 largely to retrofits rather than to absolute 9 growth in the stock of ballasts is questionable. 10 Several new technologies did evolve over 11 this 15-year time period and new federal regulatory 12 changes contributed to a significant increase in 13 retrofits. But the 1990-2005 time period also 14 contained very robust growth in non-residential 15 construction activity that would explain the larger 16

share of the new ballast demand than DOE assumes. 17 DOE should also examine how changes in this 18 assumption will affect both its historical estimates 19 and forecast projections. Variations are present in 20 the historical fluorescent ballast market data as one 21 would expect driven by economic forces and replacement 22 rates. However, DOE shipments projections show a much 23 more pronounced up and down pattern than can be 24 attributed to these factors. Even if one assumes 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 249

slower growth overall in ballast market demand going 1 forward as DOE does, such a wavelike pattern of 2 shipments driven almost entirely by product failure 3 replacement is unlikely and not supported by the past 4 performance of ballast data or similar product 5

markets. 6 An example that NEMA Biz gave is the base 7 case existing tech scenario for four-foot T8 MBPs 8 predicts a 50 percent drop in shipments between 2017 9 and 2021. And only to return to 90 million shipment 10 units by 2030. 11 While shipments could register a decline 12 like that predicted in Figure ES2.2 it would largely 13 occur as a result of dramatic declines in commercial 14 construction activity or a significant amount of 15 business retrofitting their existing lighting systems 16 neither of which has been observed to this degree in 17 the historical ballast data. 18 MR. RABA: Are those the written comments 19 that you’ve submitted? 20 MR. NEUMANN: No, these are some NEMA -- we 21 have a kind of economic business department at NEMA. 22 MR. RABA: Okay. 23 MR. NEUMANN: That prepared -- 24 MR. RABA: Will you submit them for the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 250

record, then? 1

MR. NEUMANN: Yeah. 2 MR. RABA: Okay. Thank you. 3 MR. NEUMANN: -- that prepared some comments 4 for us to share today. 5 MR. RABA: Okay. 6 MR. NEUMANN: Are you okay if I continue? 7 There’s a little bit more. 8 MR. RABA: Briefly. Quickly. 9 MR. NEUMANN: Okay. Sorry. They gave us a 10 lot of economic info here. So -- shipments rebounding 11 to their prior levels after experiencing such a major 12 decline would also be improbable. The majority of 13 existing building owners with T8 lamps will likely 14 keep these systems in place for obvious reasons. In 15 that regard DOE’s assumption about replacement demand 16 driving future shipments is correct. However, energy 17 efficient T5s are already commercially available and 18 can be more easily retrofitted into many existing 19 lighting systems without installing entirely new 20 fixtures. Consequently retrofits to T5s and other 21 existing technologies will likely dampen any 22 rebounding in future T8 shipments. 23 NEMA agrees with DOE’s methods of 24 calculating lifecycle costs net present values, 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 251

rebound rates and evaluation of environmental benefits 1 stemming from the proposed rulemaking. If it proves 2 feasible DOE should examine the applications of higher 3 discount rates on the projected values of net energy 4 savings. When consumers, businesses, or households 5 are faced with the savings that occur over a longer 6 time horizon, they will discount future benefits 7 heavily and place a much larger weight on the 8 products’ first costs. 9 MR. RABA: That’s very beneficial. Thank 10 you and welcome those -- 11 (Simultaneous conversation.) 12 MR. NEUMANN: We are gathering more 13 information on this stuff and others. 14 MR. RABA: Excellent. Thank you. Thank you 15 very much that was well said. 16 Moving on, please? 17 I’m sorry, one more quickly. Andrew? 18 MR. deLASKI: I have a question about 19 shipments. If you can go back to your graph. So 20 you’re showing that the bottom line, the dotted line 21 across the bottom shows that T12 ballast shipments go 22

to zero? 23 MR. McCORMICK: That’s right. So that’s 24 another important element of this. There are on top 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 252

of the replacement rate assumptions and the relatively 1 small growth assumptions for the total market certain 2 assumptions DOE makes about transitions between types 3 of product classes of which the most pronounced that 4 you’re seeing is that magnetic T12 ballasts will have 5 shipments that fall very rapidly compared to their 6 current level. And those are all documented in the 7

TSD. 8 MR. deLASKI: That’s due to the lamp rule 9 that the -- or just to the 2000 -- 10 (Simultaneous conversation.) 11 PARTICIPANT: (Off microphone.) 12 MR. deLASKI: Right. That’s what I thought. 13 So what I’m puzzled by is I’m looking at the results 14 for that national impact analysis which shows in Table 15 ES.2.9 a substantial savings for T12 baseline as the 16 baseline. So I’m having trouble reconciling, you 17 know, large savings for a product category that is 18 being predicted to go away in the base case. 19 (Simultaneous conversation.) 20 MR. deLASKI: What I’m looking at is Table 21 ES.2.9 and in the third -- no, in the first box in the 22 third column -- third row down, two lamp -- ballast 23 factor for four-foot medium bi-pin and instant start 24 and rapid start T12 baseline predicting a large 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 253

savings from a product that shows no sales. So I’m 1 trying to understand, what am I misinterpreting? 2 MR. McCORMICK: Sure. It’s first of all 3 worth pointing out these are preliminary results. But 4 more importantly, there are very large numbers of 5 shipments of that category which includes many T8s. 6 So although the baseline is T12s, the various other 7 CSLs are not T12s in that product class. So, for 8 example, CSL1, I believe is a T8. So you can imagine 9

-- 10 MR. deLASKI: Let me just follow. Let me 11 stop you there. But if a consumer has a T12 today, if 12 there is no new standard when they replace it, they’re 13 going to put in a T8 because they can’t get a T12. 14 MR. McCORMICK: That’s right. That’s 15 exactly what we assume. 16 (Simultaneous conversation.) 17 PARTICIPANT: That’s not true. You can get 18 an electronic T12. 19 MR. deLASKI: So the base case is a T12 20 electronic? 21 MR. McCORMICK: I’m trying to remember this 22 off the top of my head. I believe the base case is a 23 T12 magnetic. But the logical replacement will be the 24 next level up. I would want to check whether that’s a 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 254

T12 electronic or T8. 1 MR. deLASKI: But correct me if I’m wrong, 2 but the T12 electronic is more expensive than T8 3 electronic in the market? 4 MR. RABA: Who are you addressing your 5 question to, across the table to Susan? 6 MS. ANDERSON: Yes, in general that would be 7

correct. 8 MR. deLASKI: So I guess it’s important, you 9 know, maybe we’re not going to get to this today, but 10 that it’s not clear to me that in this the base case 11 needs to model what the consumer would do absent, you 12 know, regulation. So I’m just not clear on how that’s 13 been captured here. 14 MR. McCORMICK: Perhaps it is best to get 15 back to you in writing given time constraints. But 16 the essential overview I would suggest to you is that 17 if the consumer is assumed not to go to that precise 18 CSL level, they might not necessarily go to the 19 highest alternative CSL level. And the table you’re 20 looking at, ES.2.9, I believe was calculated at the 21 max-tech. So there is actually a lot of “wiggle room” 22 if you will, between CSL1 and CSL3 for additional 23 savings. Given the large volume of shipments in that 24 product class, it doesn’t take an enormous incremental 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 255

efficiency between those to get fairly substantial 1 savings. 2 MR. deLASKI: I guess what I’m suggesting is 3 that it strikes me given the realities in the market 4 today that the baseline is a T8 ballast. You know, 5 because a T12 electronic -- a T12 magnetic doesn’t 6 exist anymore. That’s what I just heard. And a T12 7 electronic is more expensive than T8 electronic. So 8 the market is going to move to T8. 9 MR. McCORMICK: Sure. And we will consider 10 that as an alternative. 11 MR. RABA: We may have had some 12 enlightenment over here from Mimi. 13 MS. GUPTA: Yeah. I think -- I think 14 something was misspoken before. The baseline is a T12 15 electronic. So we analyzed two baselines for this 16 product class, a T12 electronic and a T8 electronic 17 and maybe you, Bob, can explain a little bit more 18 about the base case shipments. But the lamps rule in 19 June -- July proposed standards that could potentially 20 eliminate the T12 lamp which is why, you know, we 21 think that -- which is why we basically analyzed two 22 because we don’t know if it will for sure eliminate 23 the T12 lamp. So that’s why we kept a T12 baseline 24 electronic ballast. I’m not explaining this very 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 256

well. But am I -- 1 MR. deLASKI: It’s helping. 2 MS. GUPTA: Are you understanding? So, that 3 was my clarification. 4 MR. RABA: Thank you, Mimi. 5

Bob? 6 MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt, Philips Lighting 7 Electronics. I think you make a very good point 8 though that T8 instant start is becoming the baseline 9

ballast. NEMA has some data where we can show -- and 10 actually, I think you showed in one of your graphs. I 11 saw two sets of data in two different parts of this 12 document where one did have the magnetics declining 13 and the electronics coming up which is what the 14 industry has observed. And then another that I think 15 results in this where you said electromagnetic has 16 always been 10 million or 7 to 10 million the whole 17 time. 18 Yes, it is true that the magnetic did start 19 probably at around 100 million and came down to 20 something today of 5 million or 10 million. And 21 electronic has gone from 92 probably 30 million up to 22 the 100 million. And as far as T12, T8, by far T8 23 electronic instant start is the dominant ballast sold. 24 It is the baseline, I would say, sold. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 257

MR. deLASKI: Then just to follow-up on 1 that. I mean, from the rulemaking last summer, you 2 know, the prediction is that, sure, there may be some 3 T12 lamps available in the market but they’re going to 4 be expensive. And a T12 ballast also is going to be 5 expensive. You know, so really the cheap -- the low6 cost option is a T8 system. You know, so it strikes 7

me as -- 8 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, I think you’ll have a 9 situation where if somebody has a T12, they could -- 10 it’s going to get more and more expensive for them to 11 maintain a T12 system. And somewhere along the line 12 it will pay them back to retrofit with T8. And it’s 13 just a matter of what the sensibilities of the 14 business are and what their cash flow is that will 15 determine if they get nickeled and dimed by the T12 or 16 if they take the plunge and switch over to T8. 17

MR. RABA: Susan Anderson. 18 MS. ANDERSON: Well, there will be some low19 cost T12s left in the market in terms of lamps. The 20 problem with them is that they are very low lumen 21 output lamps. So, it will -- where they might be 22 suitable in a residence -- 23 MR. deLASKI: Okay. 24 MS. ANDERSON: -- I think a commercial 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 258

establishment would find them too low output. And the 1 fact does remain that based on the 2000 ballast ruling 2 -- 2005, electronic T12 ballasts do meet those 3

standards. 4 MR. deLASKI: Okay. Thanks. 5 MR. RABA: Comment in back? Follow-on? 6 MR. COOK: Keith Cook from Philips. This 7 does require very careful analysis though. Because 8 what’s going to happen is a lot of these T12s are in 9 residential. They’re in basements and shop lights and 10 things like that. And a person is not going to 11 replace the ballasts. A residential person will not 12 do that. And it’s going to come back through the Home 13 Depot and Lowe’s channel in which case the ballast is 14 going to go through the OEM. It’s going to be going 15 through acuity and those kind of places and so it’s 16 not going to show up as just a replacement ballast 17 only. And if they replace them with a T8, they 18 definitely are going to be coming through with the OEM 19

channel then. 20 Whereas you got the ESCOs on the industrial 21 and commercial side which will replace a ballast only. 22 So you will see them taking the T12s and replacing 23 them with a T8. Totally different market. You need 24 to look at them independently to get a good analysis 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 259

here. Because now all of a sudden you’re payback is 1 going to change significantly when you replace the 2 entire luminaire as opposed to a ballast only for 3 residential. 4 MR. RABA: Valuable. Thank you. Susan 5

Anderson. 6 MS. ANDERSON: So basically we would say 7 when you look at the residential market the only 8 scenario you should look at is a new luminaire? 9 MR. deLASKI: I think in the -- this is 10 Andrew again -- in the standards in the lamp analysis, 11 this was the standards in retrofit. I mean, the 12 standard is driving, you know, you replace the 13 luminaire. 14 MR. RABA: Yes, in the back, please? 15 MR. PLASKON: Jeff Plaskon with GE Lighting. 16 I don’t know if I quite agree. I do have a little 17 evidence that there’s millions of ballasts being sold 18 in the residential channel and the split through in 19 home center could be up to about 50/50 split between 20 T12 and the T8 systems. So I would argue that many of 21 those or a portion of those are being transferred from 22 T12 to T8 systems or purchased by contractors. But it 23 is probably added up to an estimate of probably over a 24 couple million ballasts. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 260

MR. RABA: Back to you, Susan Anderson. 1 MS. ANDERSON: The one thing you have to 2 remember about especially when you look at the DIY 3 channel, there are a lot of small contractors that buy 4 based on credit cards with Lowe’s or Home Depot or 5 Menards or whomever it is that quite frankly can’t get 6 credit at the electrical wholesale distributor and 7 they buy -- or someone that’s an electrician that does 8 freelance work over the weekend outside of their 9 normal job working for a contractor and, I mean, that 10 does happen that you have a lot of that particularly 11 in your Main Street, small business owner, the 12 contractor that’s servicing him is very likely to buy 13 through Home Depot. So you have a good bit of 14 commercial business through Home Depot, Lowe’s 15 Menards, et cetera. 16 MR. RABA: Thank you. Thank you. We should 17 move on, please. 18 We’ve done well on this subject. Let’s keep 19 going. 20 MR. McCORMICK: The next two issues, I 21 believe have been more or less covered so far. The 22 sub-issue -- starting on the bottom here actually is 23 the relationship between historical shipments and 24 historical stock. I believe we’ve covered that well 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 261

enough. 1 MR. RABA: She nods yes. Okay. Move on. 2 MR. McCORMICK: And now moving to the one on 3 top. DOE’s method relied on disaggregating the U.S. 4 Census Bureau information according to product classes 5 and efficiency levels as best we could. And we would 6 most certainly welcome any additional data or input on 7 that approach. 8 MR. RABA: Written comments will be very 9 valuable at this point with that approach as well. 10 Next issue. Next. 11 MR. McCORMICK: The next issue is one that 12 we’ve also sort of touched on already. The impact of 13 other regulatory processes going on at this time or 14 about to happen or that have just happened that would 15 influence our ballast shipment projections. So of 16 which the most interesting one is perhaps the T12 17 discussion we were just having. 18 Are there any other comments any 19 stakeholders would like to make about impacts of other 20 regulation on ballast projections? 21 MR. RABA: Cumulative effect perhaps. 22 (No response.) 23 MR. RABA: Good regulations; right? 24

Joanna. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 262

MS. MAUER: I actually just had a question 1 about one of the shipment tables in the TSD and how to 2 interpret the numbers. 3

MR. McCORMICK: Sure. 4 MS. MAUER: So Table 9.5.1 which is the 5 cumulative ballast shipment impacts. And it explains 6 in the text above it, it says that it’s the cumulative 7 shipments impacts caused by each of the three 8 standards cases for each of the four shipment 9 scenarios. But it looks to me that both the rows and 10

the columns are labeled as CSL levels. I don’t know 11 if you could help me about how to interpret the 12 numbers that are in that table. 13 MR. McCORMICK: Yes, I could. The two types 14 of CSLs that we’re referring to there are the one CSL 15 is for types of equipment. So you can imagine that an 16 individual ballast could be the baseline or CSL1, 2 or 17 3. The other form of CSL is the standard that DOE 18 could set. So it could require all ballasts to be of 19 the baseline only or CLS1 or 2 or 3. 20 I don’t think I have the table in front of 21 me to clarify which is which though, which is probably 22 the most important information to you. Do you have -- 23 thank you, Bob. 24 (Pause.) 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 263

MR. McCORMICK: I believe the CSLs going 1 from left to right are types of equipment and CSLs 2 going from top to bottom are standards. But I would 3 want to clarify that by looking back at the origin of 4

the table. So we’ll have to -- 5 MS. MAUER: This is Joanna again. Could you 6 say what you mean by “types of equipment”? 7 MR. McCORMICK: Yes. So, there are two 8 different ways to think about the word “CSL”. One is 9 an individual ballast, what type of equipment is it? 10 What efficiency level is that ballast? The other is 11 what is the efficiency level that -- for the purpose 12 of the analysis we are assuming DOE was requiring in 13 that scenario. So it’s examining the impact of DOE 14 setting an efficiency level of CSL1 or of CSL2. 15 MR. LINGARD: Gavin, this is Bob Lingard 16 with PNNL. I think to clarify what you were just 17 saying, I believe the ones across the top underneath 18 the shipment scenarios those CSLs describe the 19 shipments. The standard scenarios that you were 20 speaking of and that the ones going down the left-hand 21 column are the product specific CLSs that you referred 22

to. 23 MR. McCORMICK: Thank you, Bob. That’s 24 exactly right and that’s very helpful. So you can see 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 264

that from top to bottom zero, one, two, three are your 1 options. That’s types of equipment. And since the 2 baseline scenario there’s no point in presenting the 3 impacts of a baseline scenario. Going from left to 4 right where it’s only one, two, three are your 5 options, those are the three possible standard levels 6 that DOE could adopt. 7 MR. RABA: That was in the TSD, Table 9.5.1 8

and 2. 9 Okay. 10 MR. McCORMICK: Great. Any other questions 11 on issue 18? Or comments on issue 18? 12 (No response.) 13 MR. McCORMICK: So that was the shipments 14 analysis which is by far the more complicated part of 15 the national impacts analysis. And the rest of it is 16 a quite straightforward calculation. Given that we 17 now have estimates of shipments and stock in the 18 future, and given that we have now gathered all the 19 economic information about the costs, one can simply 20 add up the expected costs and the expected consumer 21 financial benefits of this regulation. And you can do 22 that to get the net present value which is taking into 23 account the increased costs of many consumers 24 purchasing more efficient ballasts. And the savings 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 265

of many consumer using more efficient ballasts and 1 therefore paying less in electricity costs and other 2 costs over time. That’s your net present value. 3 The other output of the national impacts 4 analysis is the national energy savings which is 5 simply what is the reduced amount of energy used by 6 these more efficient ballasts over time. 7 And the only original input in the national 8 impacts analysis that does not flow directly out of 9 other chapters is the discount rate. This analysis 10 also uses discount rates to assume that savings in the 11 future are less valuable than savings now. But they 12 do not use the same discount rates that are in the LCC 13 analysis. That is because the discount rates that are 14 in the LCC analysis are for individual consumers, the 15 rate at which individual consumers can borrow or loan 16 money. The discount rates used for the national 17 impacts analysis are 3 and 7 percent and those are 18 considered to be society’s discount rates. So they 19 are not linked to particular costs of capital. They 20 are linked to society’s preference for savings now as 21 opposed to the future. And those 3 and 7 percent 22 rates are interagency rates that are use for many 23 forms of regulation. They are not specific to this 24 rule, and they are not calculated for this rule. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 266

Given time pressure, I don’t think I need to 1 go into great detail, but this graph is a typical 2 shape that you see of net present value and national 3 energy savings. They rise over time as you have more 4 ballasts that are covered, and then they fall over 5 time due to the impacts of discounting. Meaning that 6 you value the future less than you do immediate 7 savings. 8 Having hurried through that a little bit, 9 DOE acknowledges that there may be certain 10 externalities associated with energy savings that are 11 not covered by the financial savings to consumers. 12 Environmental and energy security related benefits of 13 saving energy are often cited examples. And we invite 14 comment on the nature and magnitude of any such 15 externalities. 16 (Pause.) 17

MR. RABA: Comment? 18 MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt, Philips Lighting 19 Electronics. A small comment and it comes to the T5 20 lamps and ballasts pointing out the T5 lamps and 21 ballasts and systems use significantly less raw 22 materials and less mercury than the T8 and that can be 23 a beneficial factor. 24 MR. McCORMICK: Thank you, that’s very 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 267

helpful. 1 MR. RABA: Thank you. Small comments, big 2

comments? 3 (No response.) 4 MR. RABA: Next issue. 5 MR. McCORMICK: The next issue is the 6 translation of candidate to standard level CSLs into 7 trial standard levels TSLs. A quick summary would be 8 that DOE will move from having many candidate standard 9 levels to possibly fewer trial standard levels for the 10 next round of the analysis. We are essentially 11 winnowing down the different possibilities. And we do 12 invite comment on the best method to select TSLs from 13

the current CSLs. 14

MR. deLASKI: Just a comment. 15 MR. RABA: Andrew deLaski. 16 MR. deLASKI: That you can’t do much 17 winnowing because you don’t have many levels. You may 18 be relative to other dockets, you may have done 19 winnowing in other dockets, but in this one you’ve 20 only got three CSLs, and for most products you have 21

one. One or two. 22

MR. McCORMICK: Thanks for the comment. 23 MR. deLASKI: I hope that we will find more 24 -- I hope there are more CSLs out there, but that 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 268

depends on what you come up with through the 1 engineering. 2 MR. RABA: Mimi Gupta. 3 MS. GUPTA: Mimi Gupta, Navigant Consulting. 4 I think an important point that the Department request 5 comment on related to this is how the combinations of 6 standard levels and how -- so the national impacts 7 analysis looks at the national impacts of setting 8 standards for all the products being considered. But 9 we’ve established different standard levels for each 10 product. So, how to pare them, you know, should the 11

standard level three on T8s be or on four-foots be 12 paired with candidate standard level one with, you 13 know, T5s or -- I don’t know, there’s many different 14 permutations that you can make. 15 MR. deLASKI: Yeah, I think the Department - 16 - this is Andrew deLaski, I think the Department’s 17 approach in the past has been an effective one which 18 is, you know, look at one CSL consist of the maximum 19 cost effective and -- and you gap fill. I think that 20 approach has been an effective approach in the past 21 and would work for this docket too. 22 I think the gap fill ones are important too, 23 to make sure that we’re capturing what’s in between. 24

MR. RABA: All set? 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 2 69

MR. deLASKI: So on that, I do have another 1 follow-up question, Jim, before Gavin goes away. How 2 do you do shipments on sign ballasts? You know, sign 3 ballasts, as I said before is a huge piece. 4 MR. McCORMICK: Right. And you’re referring 5 to the commercial versus industrial -- 6 MR. deLASKI: Shipments. The shipments -- 7 how many are shipped? How did you come up with that 8

number? 9 MR. McCORMICK: Right. So we approached it 10 the same way that we did with the other product 11 classes. And so the main source of shipments for sign 12 ballasts is replacements. And we also looked at 13 growth in the sectors in which they are installed, 14 commercial and industrial. The growth rate of the 15 building stock assuming a roughly constant intensity 16 of sign ballasts per -- I’m saying building in terms 17 of square feet, but it’s really the building type is - 18

- 19 (Simultaneous conversation.) 20 MR. deLASKI: Let me ask the question more 21 precisely which is, how did you get historic 22 shipments? How do we know what the shipment is 23 assigned by? Is there census data on that or is that 24

from the manufacturers or -- 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 270

MR. McCORMICK: That’s a question for -- 1 MR. LINGARD: This is Bob Lingard with PNNL. 2 That was also disaggregated from the U.S. Census data 3 based on an assumed percentage of those magnetic HO 4 type ballasts. So, again, our starting point was the 5

census data. 6 MR. deLASKI: And it gave you enough of a -- 7 you were able to tell from the census data that 8 something is a sign ballast? There’s data in there? 9 MR. LINGARD: That was based on preliminary 10 assumptions. No, it wasn’t identified -- it was not 11 identified in the census data as sign ballasts. So we 12 had to make some assumptions. 13 PARTICIPANT: Where did you get your 14 percentage? 15 MR. LINGARD: That was compiled from looking 16 across manufacture interviews. However, we do, again, 17 we request more precise data, suggestions. Again, we 18 were starting from a pretty broad brush with the 19

census data. 20 MR. RABA: This being preliminary data 21 analysis throughout, this sort of data, comments are 22 most welcome at this point and very valuable to look 23 at more thoroughly as we go through the rulemaking 24 process over time. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 271

Thank you. Let’s continue, please. 1 That’s all. Thank you very much, Gavin. 2 And Rob Carmichael will present now on the 3 preliminary manufacturing impact analysis. Rock and 4

roll. 5 MR. CARMICHAEL: Ninety minutes? 6 (Laughter.) 7

PRELIMINARY MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS 8 MR. CARMICHAEL: Okay. Good afternoon. My 9 name is Rob Carmichael. I’m with Navigant Consulting 10 and I’m going to go over two topics today. The first 11 is DOE’s normal procedure for conducting the 12 manufacturer impact analysis. And the second is a 13 review of a preliminary MIA. So our initial round of 14 interviews with manufacturers. 15 So obviously the purpose of the manufacturer 16 impact analysis with the MIA is to qualitatively and 17 quantitatively assess the impacts of amended energy 18 conservation standards on manufacturers of ballasts. 19 DOE normally does this in three phases. 20 In the first phase DOE creates an industry 21 profile that builds on the market and technology 22 assessment and uses that to inform its interviews with 23 manufacturers in subsequent discussions. And also 24 uses it to identify the key levers that will go into 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 272

the industry cash flow analysis. 1 And that brings in phase two which is when 2 DOE conducts -- builds a strawman industry cash flow 3 model. We use the government regulatory impact model 4 or the GRIM to forecast free cash flows in the 5 industry throughout the entire analysis period and 6 then discount them back both on the base case and in 7 the standards case to calculate an industry net 8 present value or an INPV and use the comparison of 9 those two values as the output of the main output of 10 the manufacturer impacts analysis. 11 Also in phase two, DOE uses what we’ve 12 learned here today and in your written comments to 13 inform and develop an interview guide that DOE will 14 use to guide its subsequent discussions with 15 manufacturers in the full-blown MIA interviews. And 16 those being in phase three. And in those interviews I 17 just want to make one point on the interviews, first 18 of all we’ll begin scheduling them rather soon. And 19 also second, those are nearly always conducted under a 20 nondisclosure agreement so no proprietary information 21 is disclosed throughout the course of the rulemaking. 22 And so following the manufacturer interviews 23 DOE completes its analyses in the end of -- in phase 24 three and looks at also some qualitative analyses 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 273

including manufacturer capacity, employment impacts, 1 and impacts on competition. 2 So, switching from process to content, this 3 is a summary. This slide shows a summary of the four 4 main issues that came up during the initial round of 5 preliminary MIA interviews. There were manufacturers 6 in general related these concerns. First there’s 7 impacts on profitability from energy conservation 8 standards. That can be due to several reasons, one 9 being an inability to pass on some or all of the 10 incremental costs associated with a new standard. The 11 second being it may eliminate an up-sell opportunity 12 in the product mix of the manufacturer. And the third 13 being that it could cause some consumers to switch 14 from fluorescent technology to some other lighting 15 type, thereby reducing sales and revenue. 16 The second is a similar concern, one of the 17 diminishing returns to consumers. It’s been raised 18 here today dealing with the tradeoff between a small 19 increase in efficiency versus some high conversion 20 costs that manufacturers might face. 21 And the third reason also has been raised 22 today deals with the impact on product innovation. 23 Essentially it’s the opportunity costs that 24 manufacturers would lose as they devote resources to 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 274

upgrading existing product lines rather than putting 1 those resources into product development. 2 And then lastly, regulatory burden, part of 3 the MIA is to look at the cumulative regulatory 4 burden. So those other regulations that impact 5 manufacturers of those specific products, few of those 6 have been mentioned today, RoHS, hazardous material 7 regulations and then also other international 8 standards, electromagnetic requirements as well. 9 So at this time DOE requests comment on its 10 characterization of the key issues in here and as well 11 in more detail in the TSD. 12 MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, this is Bob Erhardt 13 again. And I wish to reiterate on the industry is in 14 the middle of a market conversion, if you will, and 15 the NRE, nonrecurring engineering costs on redesigning 16 fixed output ballasts, the payback -- we expect the 17 volumes of these to be going down and there is going 18 to be significant impact in being able to recover 19 these costs because the market is shifting to control 20 systems that are different ballast type and the market 21 is shifting to solid-state lighting which is a 22 different lighting type. And unlike other more 23 constant markets, this is a market that’s in a 24 dramatic transition right now. Much more so than in 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 275

the 25 to 28 years that I’ve been in this business. 1 And so you’re traditional models of payback on 2 development costs probably aren’t going to fit because 3 this is a mature -- I would call it an “end-of-life” 4 product category. This is a product category that in 5 the next 20 years is going to be minimized to almost 6 nothing. And the opportunity for getting payback on 7 investment is going to be severely diminished. 8 So, again, we encourage you to take into 9 consideration the costs of having to develop new 10 products to meet rules because you really need to look 11 at -- there are projections that, you know, in 20 12 years are in much less -- in five to ten years, solid13 state lighting could have 50 percent of the market. 14 And controls could have the other 45 percent. So, 15 where’s the -- I’m pulling these numbers out of the 16 air. But if you combined everybody’s projections for 17 alternative technologies, there’s a negative market 18 for this product in ten years. It’s probably not 19 going to be the case, but it will be a significantly 20 diminished market in the ten to 20 year time frame. 21 PARTICIPANT: Wait and see. 22 MR. RABA: Thank you. Very interesting 23 comment. Any others, please? 24 (No response.) 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 276

MR. RABA: Wow. Okay. That was too easy. 1 We’re going to start wrapping up here. We 2 have the NOPR analysis, Bob Lingard is coming back 3

from PNNL. 4

NOPR ANALYSES 5 MR. LINGARD: Yeah, we spent all day talking 6 about what’s happened already, now we get to talk 7 briefly about what’s to come in the NOPR stage of the 8 rulemaking. In addition to refining and revising the 9 preliminary analyses there are a number of analyses 10 unique to the NOPR phase. I’m going to give you, in 11 the interest of time, and agenda, a quick review of 12 these different analyses. 13 The first being the LCC subgroup analyses. 14 Basically a focus or a specific LCC analysis for 15 identifiable consumer subgroups and business types 16 that could be disproportionately affected by standard 17 levels. This could vary with ballast type and the 18 subgroups of energy prices. Operating hours could 19 vary from subgroup to subgroup. So, again, this is 20 well, literally what it says, a subgroup of the LCC 21 analysis. 22 The manufacturer impact analysis will 23 continue. The utility impact analysis, these are 24 effects on electric utilities. You’ve heard reference 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 277

to the NEMS, the National Energy Modeling System model 1 today looking for interactions between supply and 2 demand and forecasting how efficiency levels or 3 standards could affect capacity generation, sales and 4 prices of electricity. Another modeling analysis. 5 The employment impact analysis, we touched 6 on the MIA which speaks more to the direct effects on 7 employment. The employment impact analysis here will 8 focus more on the indirect effects on national 9 employment. This would be outside of the 10 manufacturers who are regulated, the net jobs created 11 or eliminated, looking to substitution effects, income 12 effects, that’s just another way of saying, how 13 expenditures might shift among goods or how overall 14 expenditures may be affected by efficiency or standard 15

levels. 16 The environmental assessment. This is also 17 using the NEMS model. Quantifying and monetizing 18 reduced power plant emissions as a result of reduced 19 energy use. This is also the subject of an appendix 20 in this rulemaking and interagency report on the 21 monetization on the social cost of carbon. So this is 22 an emerging area and I would invite you to take a look 23 at that appendix and that we will also be requesting 24 some comment or input on monetization of reduced 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 278

emissions. 1 And finally, regulatory impact analysis. 2 Again, where the manufacturer impact analysis would be 3 looking at existing or pending regs and their impacts. 4 This analysis will look to non-regulatory approaches. 5 To offer an example, consumer or manufacturer tax 6 incentives, rebates, bulk government purchases, and 7 these will become the basis for essentially 8 alternative scenarios, standard alternative scenarios 9 in the NIA model. And that is a very quick summary of 10 the NOPR analysis. 11 We have one specific request for comment. 12 This regards the environmental assessment. We do plan 13 on monetizing emission reductions that could result as 14 a matter of this rulemaking. You’ll see some of the 15 more recent dollar per metric ton figures assigned for 16 CO2. And, again, this was the subject of the 17 interagency report and study on the social costs of 18 carbon which is part of Appendix EA-SCC in this 19 particular docket. 20 DOE invites comments on the approaches for 21 monetizing. And with that I will open the floor 22 again. 23

MR. RABA: Comments from the floor? 24 (No response.) 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 279

MR. RABA: Written comments are welcome on 1 that. I think that’s good for now. 2 Thank you, Bob. 3 Great. Last, but not least, we have Linda 4 Graves to request your final comments, questions and 5 invite final discussion on any topic we’ve had today. 6 Linda. 7 FINAL QUESTIONS/DISCUSSIONS AND CLOSING 8 MR. GRAVES: You’ve been a great group. 9 You’ve been really cooperative, that back and forth 10 from especially among different groups stakeholders 11 has been especially appreciated. This is your last 12 chance. We’ve covered a lot of specifics. This would 13 be the last chance for any other points of view you 14 want to express, any overarching comments. We’re just 15 about out of time, but if there’s still something you 16 would like to say, please do. 17 MS. MAUER: Joanna Mauer. Just a quick 18 question. Do you know when the analytical 19 spreadsheets might be posted to the website? 20 MR. GRAVES: Really soon. 21 MR. LINGARD: This is Bob Lingard with PNNL. 22 Those were -- the preliminary models were posted late 23 last week. So they should be available to you the 24 next time you log on. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 280

MR. GRAVES: Anyone? 1 MR. STEPHENS: Yes, Charlie Stephens. The 2 comment period closes in two weeks on something that I 3 think based on our conversation today is a little 4 slippery. We’ve still got some ground here that looks 5 more like quicksand when it comes to trying to 6

understand what we have to chew on and whether -- and 7 how much of it is accurate and well-founded and all 8 that. And the test period comment period ends in 9 June. And that isn’t firm either. Is there some 10 reason why you’ve got the standards rulemaking on May 11 10th and the test procedure rulemaking, which is 12 arguably simpler, sometime in the first week in June 13 instead of the other way around? 14 I would argue it would be really helpful to 15 us if it were the other way around. 16 MR. GRAVES: Those dates -- this is Linda 17 Graves. Those dates are driven by the requirements 18 that apply to regulatory requirements, that apply to 19 public comment period. Otherwise, we might be doing 20 May 10th for everything. 21 But the point being that we’re on a 22 schedule, we postponed the date of this public meeting 23 to accommodate scheduling issues. That’s how we ended 24 up with this date rather than an earlier date. And in 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 281

order for that teams to make the final rule dates and 1 have the test procedure and standards come together, 2 we really do need the comments as soon as possible. 3 And so, it’s changing the dates that have been 4 published in the Federal Register is not a fun thing 5 to try to do. 6 MR. STEPHENS: Okay. I guess I will just 7 have to tell you then that based on the fact that I 8 doubt we’re going to get the information back from 9 USDOE, and perhaps some better information from other 10 sources, I don’t think the comments you’re going to 11 get by May 10th on this particular issue are going to 12 be very complete or potentially very accurate given 13 that later will get information that would perhaps 14 cause us to want to change our comments fairly 15 substantially. So I’m not sure you’re helping 16 yourselves here by having it that near in the future 17 without -- while we’re missing so much information. 18 MR. GRAVES: I would just say it is a 19 preliminary analysis stage. 20 MR. RABA: Preliminary there’s far more to 21 do, certainly, but thank you, Charlie. We have 22 certain constraints we can’t avoid. We’re aware of 23 that, we’re going to work on it. Thank you very much. 24

Good comment. 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 282

Mike? 1 MR. McGARAGHAN: Mike McGarahan, first of 2 all just on behalf of California Utilities, thanks for 3 the opportunity to provide comment today and written 4

comments as well. 5 And last clarification I just wanted to make 6 that the next meeting would only address the 7 standards, NOPR and that the test procedure would not 8 be covered until the final rule is issued the 9 following year. Is that correct? 10 MR. RABA: A response to that? 11 MR. McGARAGHAN: Sure. Since we’re at the 12 NOPR stage for the test procedure now, will the next 13 meeting cover the test procedure at all or will it 14 just focus on standards and we’ll see a final rule for 15 test procedure -- 16 MS. GUPTA: Yeah, unless DOE decides to 17 issue a supplemental NOPR test procedure. If it 18 decides it wants to change its approach beyond the 19 scope that was discussed today, then you’ll just be 20 seeing a final rule. 21 MR. RABA: Final? 22 All right. Considering you’ve accomplished 23 a lot today, this has been really two days worth into 24 one. A lot of good information has passed across the 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 283

table. Written comments are invited to our 1 preliminary analyses and DOE welcomes anything more 2 you have to add. 3 Please, the court reporter says -- a bright 4 spot, the transcript will be available this week, 5 later on. So contact Linda Graves for further 6 information on that if you wish, or just kind of watch 7 for it later either on the website or from the Court 8 Reporter. They can provide copies on the website as 9

well. 10 A couple things to wrap up before Linda’s 11 closing remarks, please. Turn your comment sheets in 12 to Brenda on the way out. And also, when each of you 13 who brought laptop computers came into the room, into 14 the building, you were issued, I presume, a receipt, 15 some piece of paper saying that was your computer. 16 You can’t leave that building with that machine 17 without showing the security guard that receipt you 18 got for your computer. So, make sure you have that 19 piece of paper, it’s a very important valuable 20 document. Okay. Got that? 21 Final comments? Linda. 22 MR. GRAVES: I think I already made them, 23 Jim, but thank you very much everyone. And please do 24 fill out your survey forms. We very much appreciate 25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 284

your feedback on whether this compressed format is 1 working for you. 2 I’ll ask my boss if he wants to say anything 3

further. 4 MR. CYMBALSKY: Yes, it was kind of my idea 5 to try to get all of this done in one day. So if it 6 felt rushed or anything like that, it’s my fault. 7 But, you know, I think everyone made good comments and 8 we’re going to take them all into consideration and 9 we’ll move on from there. And thanks for coming. 10 MR. RABA: Thank you. Give yourself a round 11 of applause. 12 (Whereupon, at 5:03 p.m., the meeting was adjourned.) 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25Executive Court Reporters (301) 565-0064 285

**REPORTER ’**  **S CERTIFICATE**

This is to certify that the attached proceedings

before:

**U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY**

In the Matter of:

**PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS AND TEST PROCEDURE NOPR FOR**  **FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLASTS**

Were held as herein appears and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Department, Commission, Board, Administrative Law Judge or the Agency. Further, I am neither counsel for or related to any party to the above proceed ings.



### Wendy Greene Official Reporter

Dated: April 27, 2010