The National Electrical Manufacturers Statement for the April 18, 2000 DOE Public Hearing on the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts, Docket No. EE- -97-500

I am Norm Grimshaw, Vice-President of Technical Relations for Advance Transformer Company, and Chairman of the Ballast Section of the Lighting Systems Division of the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA). Today, I represent the Ballast Section ofNEMA. Our Section members produce and sell over 90% of both the magnetic and electronic ballasts under consideration in this Rulemaking. We strongly support and request that the Department of Energy adopt the proposed Ballast Rule, as submitted by the Joint Stakeholders and, as spelled out in the DOE NOPR in the Federal Register notice of March 15, 2000. The NEMA Ballast Section, and its member companies, have been extremely involved in the Rulemaking process since the initial NOPR for Fluorescent Ballasts was issued on March 4, 1994. At many times, there has been very contentious debate among our members, DOE, and other interested stakeholders. It is very gratifying that we can all come here today, and together, provide full and wholehearted support to a proposed rule that is acceptable to all of the interested parties. We would like to provide some commentary on the process, both the good parts and the bad parts, over these six years. The changes made in the DOE process during this time have been beneficial to everyone concerned. Six years ago DOE issued a NOPR, as part of the so-called "eight product rulemaking" that was technically totally unsound. These proposed standards were published without any input from, or review by, any competent professionals or stakeholders including those from the ballast industry. The philosophical differences over how this proposal should be received were moot because the proposal was technically "just plain wrong"; no products existed, or could be designed, in compliance with the proposed standards. This original unsound proposal was withdrawn and was a principal element in leading to the DOE Process Improvement Rule in 1996, which established a much more open process allowing interested stakeholders to have input at early and continuing stages of the process. These changes provided for a more open process by allowing competent professionals and stakeholders to review and provide input to the technical analysis, and allow focus on the essential elements. The NEMA Ballast Section members have cooperatively provided a great deal of data, input, and discussion into the subsequent analyses. It is very satisfying that input has been provided and accepted in the proper spirit of openness and professionalism, even when there were differences of opinion on how to interpret the results, and on what conclusions to reach regarding the ultimate rule.

April 6, 2000 1 

### TheNational Electrical Manufacturers Statement for theApril 18, 2000 DOE Public Hearing on the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products: Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts, Docket No. EE-RM-97-500

I am Nonn Grimshaw, Vice-President ofTechnical Relations for Advance Transfonner Company, and Chainnan ofthe Ballast Section ofthe Lighting Systems Division ofthe National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA). Today, I represent the Ballast Section ofNEMA. Our Section members produce and sell over 90% ofboth the magnetic and electronic ballasts under consideration in this Rulemaking.
We strongly support and request thatthe Department ofEnergy adoptthe proposed BallastRule, as submitted by the Joint Stakeholders and, as spelled out in the DOE NOPRin the Federal Register notice ofMarch 15,2000.
The NEMABallast Section, and its member companies, have been extremely involved in the Rulemaking process since the initial NOPR for Fluorescent Ballasts was issued on March 4, 1994. Atmany times, there has been very contentious debate among our members, DOE, and other interested stakeholders.
It is very gratifying that we can all come here today, and together, provide full and wholehearted support to a proposed rule that is acceptable to all ofthe interested parties.
We would like to provide some commentary on the process, both the good parts and the bad parts, over these six years. The changes made in the DOE process during this time have been beneficial to everyone concerned.
Six years ago DOEissued aNOPR, as part ofthe so-called "eightproduct rulemaking" that was technically totally unsound. These proposed standards were published without any input from, orreview by, any competent professionals or stakeholders including those from the ballast industry. The philosophical differences over howthis proposal should be received were moot because the proposal was technically "just plain wrong"; no products existed, orcould be designed, in compliance with the proposed standards.
This original unsound proposal was withdrawn and was a principal element in leading to the DOEProcess Improvement Rule in 1996, which established a much more open process allowing interested stakeholders to have input at early and continuing stages of the process. These changes provided for a more open process by allowing competent professionals and stakeholderstoreview and provide input tothe technical analysis, and allow focus on the essential elements.
The NEMABallast Section members have cooperatively provided a great deal ofdata, input, and discussion into the subsequent analyses. Itis very satisfying that input has been provided and accepted in the proper spirit ofopenness and professionalism, even when there were differences ofopinion on howto interpretthe results, and on what conclusions to reach regarding the ultimate rule.

April 6, 2000 1By 1999 the process had reached the point where the differences in opinion on the

technical and economic data and calculations were small enough to allow the discussions to begin to focus on the outcome and the proposed rule itself. A new rule based primarily on the use of electronic ballasts would have: Provided significant national energy savings; Resulted in significant economic harm to manufacturers of magnetic ballasts, their suppliers and some other trade allies; Resulted in Life Cycle Cost savings to the majority of users (although the extent of the majority depends on a few still disputed elements in the LCC analysis); Resulted in some system performance and maintenance problems for owners of existing magnetically ballasted systems and some installations especially sensitive to electronic equipment compatibility issues. This state of affairs led Dan Reicher to suggest at the June 1999 workshop that DOE would like to see the interested stakeholders negotiate a common proposal to provide to DOE. In response to this suggestion, NEMA invited all interested stakeholders to participate in a negotiation, under the observation of DOE. This very intense, two-day negotiating session took place in October. All parties had an opportunity to fully air every one of their problems, concerns and issues, and to understand well the other party's problems, concerns and issues. We believe that all of the important interests affected by the ballast rule were represented at the negotiation. 

### In the end, the Joint Stakeholders reached a consensus on a rule proposal that is an equitable balance of the various advantages and disadvantages. The spirit of the negotiations was very good, with everyone present truly focusing on resolving all areas of contention in a positive manner. A rule proposal was developed that allowed solutions to all of the unique applications, limited the negative financial impacts on ballast and allied manufacturers to a tolerable level, and still resulted in virtually the maximum possible energy savings. We would like to thank and applaud all of the participants in this negotiation for their attitudes. The rule proposal agreed upon by the Joint Stakeholders in this negotiation is exactly as presented in the March 15, 2000 Federal Register NOPR. The Joint Stakeholders have already provided detailed comments and support for this proposal in our joint comments submitted in December 1999

. The agreed-to proposed standards comply fully with the standards criteria in NAECA, the intent of the process improvement rule, and have been By 1999 the process had reached the point where the differences in opinion on the technical and economic data and calculations were small enough to allow the discussions to begin to focus on the outcome and the proposed rule itself. A new rule based primarily on the use ofelectronic ballasts would have:
Provided significant national energy savings;
Resulted in significant economic harm to manufacturers ofmagnetic ballasts, their suppliers and some othertrade allies;
Resulted in Life Cycle Cost savings tothe majority ofusers (although the extent ofthe majority depends on a few still disputed elements in the LCC analysis);
Resulted in some system performance and maintenance problems for owners of existing magnetically ballasted systems and some installations especially sensitive to electronic equipment compatibility issues.
This state ofaffairs led Dan Reicher to suggest at the June 1999 workshop thatDOE would like to see the interested stakeholders negotiate a common proposal to provide to DOE.
In response to this suggestion, NEMA invited all interested stakeholders to participate in a negotiation, under the observation ofDOE. This very intense, two-day negotiating session took place in October. All parties had an opportunity to fully air every one of theirproblems, concerns and issues, and to understand well the otherparty's problems, concerns and issues. Webelieve that all ofthe important interests affected by the ballast rule were represented at the negotiation.
In the end, the Joint Stakeholders reached a consensus on a rule proposal that is an equitable balance ofthe various advantages and disadvantages.
The spirit ofthe negotiations was very good, with everyone presenttruly focusing on resolving all areas ofcontention in a positive manner. A rule proposal was developed that allowed solutions to all ofthe unique applications, limited the negative financial impacts on ballast and allied manufacturers to a tolerable level, and still resulted in virtually the maximum possible energy savings.
Wewould like tothank and applaud all ofthe participants in this negotiation for their attitudes.
The rule proposal agreed upon by the Joint Stakeholders in this negotiation is exactly as presented in the March 15,2000Federal Register NOPR. The Joint Stakeholders have already provided detailed comments and supportfor this proposal in ourjoint comments submitted in December 1999. The agreed-to proposed standards comply fully with the standards criteria in NAECA, the intent ofthe process improvement rule, and have been

April 6, 2000 2set to achieve the maximum energy savings that are technologically feasible and

economically justified. We of the NEMA Ballast Section believe this proposed rule, when promulgated, will result in the maximum possible energy savings consistent with minimizing potential user disadvantages and will mitigate some of the negative financial impacts on manufacturers. Specifically, the proposed rule will: Result in energy savings of between 1.2 and 2.3 quads of energy over the next 30 years, as indicated in the NOPR. The range of savings is a result of varying estimates of electronic ballast market penetration in the base case; Allow an orderly transition to mitigate the financial burdens imposed on ballast and allied manufacturers by having an effective date of 2005 for ballasts for new installations and 2010 for replacement ballasts; Reduce the negative impacts on existing users of magnetically ballasted systems, who otherwise would have been faced with undesirable options to replace individual end-of-life ballasts by having an effective date of 2010 for replacement ballasts; Continue the availability of magnetic ballasts for T8 lamps in installations with electronic equipment compatibility problems; Restrict to a very narrow classification of ballasts the exemption for ballasts for 96-inch High Output lamps for use in outdoor signs. The requirement to use only high-efficiency magnetic ballasts for all two-lamp 96 inch T12HO lamp applications will result in energy savings greater than what would have been achieved by requiring electronic ballasts, but not changing the exemption; Provide lower life cycle costs with electronic ballasts for the majority of users although the extent of this majority varies between about 60% and 95+%, depending on some detailed factors in the LCC analysis presented in the TSD with which we take some issue. These issues were raised in comments previously submitted to DOE regarding this matter. We now turn to the assumption in the DOE preamble that the Joint Comments supersede our previous comments

. 65 FR at 14136, col. 1. We are concerned that in the NOPR, DOE did not address any of the previous comments on the technical analysis raised by NEMA. In the Joint Comments, we stated that " [w]hile the joint stakeholders or subgroups thereofmay not agree with all data, analyses, or conclusions contained in these analyses, the Joint Stakeholders do agree that the economic analyses support the Proposal, and the conclusion that the Proposal , if promulgated as a standard, results in benefits that exceed the burdens to the greatest extent practicable ." Joint Comments at 6 (emphasis added). Thus, neither NEMA nor the other Joint Stakeholders withdrew their prior critiques of the economic analyses. set to achieve the maximum energy savings that are technologically feasible and economicallyjustified.
We ofthe NEMABallast Section believe this proposed rule, when promulgated, will result in the maximum possible energy savings consistent with minimizing potential user disadvantages and will mitigate some ofthe negative financial impacts on manufacturers. Specifically, the proposed rule will:
Result in energy savings ofbetween 1.2 and 2.3 quads ofenergy over the next 30 years, as indicated in the NOPR. The range ofsavings is a result ofvarying estimates ofelectronic ballast market penetration in the base case; Allow an orderiy transition to mitigate the financial burdens imposed on ballast and allied manufacturers by having an effective date of2005 for ballasts for new installations and 2010 for replacement ballasts;
Reduce the negative impacts on existing users ofmagnetically ballasted systems, who otherwise would have been faced with undesirable options to replace individual end-of-life ballasts by having an effective date of201 0 for replacement ballasts;
Continue the availability ofmagnetic ballasts for T8 lamps in installations with electronic equipment compatibility problems;
Restrictto a very narrow classification ofballasts the exemption for ballasts for 96-inch High Outputlamps for use in outdoor signs. The requirement to use only high-efficiency magnetic ballasts for all two-lamp 96 inch T12HO lamp applications will result in energy savings greaterthan what would have been achieved by requiring electronic ballasts, butnot changing the exemption;
Provide lower life cycle costs with electronic ballasts for the majority ofusers although the extent ofthis majority varies between about 60% and 95+%, depending on some detailed factors in the LCC analysis presented in the TSD with which wetake some issue. These issues were raised in comments previously submitted to DOEregarding this matter.
We now tumtothe assumption in the DOEpreamble thatthe Joint Comments supersede ourprevious comments. 65 FR at 14136, col. 1. We are concerned thatin the NOPR, DOE did not address any ofthe previous comments on the technical analysis raised by NEMA. In the Joint Comments, we stated that" [w]hile thejoint stakeholders or subgroups thereof

### maynotagree with all data, analyses, or conclusions contained in these analyses, the Joint Stakeholders do agree that the economic analyses supportthe Proposal, and the conclusion thattheProposal, ifpromulgated as a standard, results in benefits that exceed theburdens tothe greatest extent practicable." Joint Comments at 6 (emphasis added). Thus, neitherNEMAnor the otherJoint Stakeholders withdrewtheir prior critiques ofthe economic analyses.

April 6, 2000 3The submission of the Joint Comments thus does not and should not supersede previous

comments made on the TSD. The prior comments disagreeing with certain aspects of the Life Cycle Cost (LCC) analysis in the TSD should be acknowledged and addressed by the Department. Addressing these comments are primarily relevant to preserve the robustness of the open process established by the Process Improvement Rule. While NEMA has agreed with our fellow Joint Stakeholders that the TSD is sufficient support for the rule as proposed, we respectfully maintain that the Department should acknowledge our prior critique. In particular, the following is a list of items that will be discussed in our written comments: End-user ballast prices are not observable as market prices, because end-users rarely purchase stand-alone ballasts. Commercial and industrial purchasers more typically purchase ballasts as a component of an integrated lighting system or as a component of a service contract. The derivation of the unobservable end user ballast prices is still not acceptable. The unobservable end user ballast prices distort the LCC calculations and in the derivation of Total Benefit; DOE has used the same electricity prices for all users of ballasts in the LCC. We believe that magnetic ballast users, on average, pay lower electricity prices than electronic ballast users, when factors such as geography, electricity market costs, and other conditions are considered. Electricity price is one of many economic factors that influence the choice of what type ballasts and lighting systems are used in a given installation. This subject needs to be reviewed further in any future ballast/lighting rulemakings; DOE has still compared T12 systems to T8 systems. This should not be performed when calculating LCC for a component (ballast) rulemaking. T8 systems should not be compared with T12 systems for LCC economic justification for replacement ballasts in existing installations. A user has a T8 system or a T12 system and LCC justification should not depend on an associated system change. Prior to late 1998, this had not been DOE procedure; DOE has compared a fixture that uses one ballast to a fixture that uses more than one ballast per fixture. This should not be done in LCC analysis. These fixtures do not provide the same functionality to the user. NEMA is not requesting that DOE revise the TSD. We are, however, requesting that DOE acknowledge that there are differences of opinion regarding the derivation of certain inputs to the TSD. This should be accomplished in the preamble section of the Final Rule. 

### DOE has requested specific comments on two issues in the NOPR. The first is on the validity of the analytical methods used to determine the net national demand for labor; and second is on how the proposed rule could be written to make it easier to understand. The submission ofthe Joint Comments thus does not and should not supersede previous comments made on the TSD. The prior comments disagreeing with certain aspects ofthe Life Cycle Cost (LCC) analysis in the TSD should be acknowledged and addressed by the Department. Addressing these comments are primarily relevant to preserve the robustness ofthe open process established by the Process Improvement Rule. While NEMA has agreed with our fellow Joint Stakeholders that the TSD is sufficient support for the rule as proposed, werespectfully maintain thatthe Department should acknowledge ourprior critique. In particular, the following is a list ofitems that will be discussed in ourwritten comments: End-user ballast prices are not observable as marketprices, because end-users rarely purchase stand-alone ballasts. Commercial and industrial purchasers more typically purchase ballasts as a component ofan integrated lighting system or as a component ofa service contract. The derivation ofthe unobservable end user ballast prices is still not acceptable. The unobservable end user ballastprices distort the LCC calculations and in the derivation ofTotal Benefit;
DOEhas used the same electricity prices for all users ofballasts in the LCe. We believe that magneticballast users, on average, pay lower electricity prices than electronic ballast users, when factors such as geography, electricity market costs, and other conditions are considered. Electricity price is one ofmany economic factors that influence the choice ofwhat type ballasts and lighting systems are used in a given installation. This subject needs to be reviewed further in any future ballastllighting rulemakings;
DOE has still compared T12 systems to T8 systems. This should not be performed when calculating LCC for a component (ballast) rulemaking. T8 systems should not be compared with T12 systems for LCC economic justification for replacement ballasts in existing installations. A user has a T8 system or a T12 system and LCCjustification should not depend on an associated system change. Priorto late 1998, this had not been DOE procedure;
DOEhas compared a fixture thatuses one ballastto a fixture thatuses morethan one ballastperfixture. This should not be done in LCC analysis. These fixtures do not provide the same functionality to the user. NEMAis not requesting thatDOE revise the TSD. We are, however, requesting that DOE acknowledge that there are differences ofopinion regarding the derivation of certain inputs tothe TSD. This should be accomplished in the preamble section ofthe Final Rule.
DOEhas requested specific comments on two issues in the NOPR. The first is onthe validity ofthe analytical methods used to determine the net national demand for labor; and second is on how the proposed rule could bewritten to make it easier to understand.

April 6, 2000 4The analytical methods used and the interpretation and use of the results of the analysis to determine the impacts on net national labor demand are inaccurate at best

. In the discussion on the methodology , even DOE doubts it and the results generated from the analysis. NEMA believes that it is extremely difficult to make predictions regarding how sectoral expenditures will result in labor demand 10-30 years in the future. The NOPR is well written and easy to understand if the party reading it has technical knowledge of the subject. NENIA believes that the style is an improvement over past federal register notices. In conclusion, we believe that the current Proposed Rule satisfies all of the legal requirements and adequately addresses all of the stakeholder concerns. We urge DOE to adopt this Proposed Rule as a Final Rule and adequately respond to all comments. The analytical methods used and the interpretation and use ofthe results ofthe analysis to determine the impacts on net national labor demand are inaccurate at best. In the discussion on the methodology, even DOE doubts it and the results generated from the analysis. NEMAbelieves that it is extremely difficult to make predictions regarding how sectoral expenditures will result in labor demand 10-30 years in the future.
The NOPRis well written and easy to understand ifthe party reading ithas technical knowledge ofthe subject. NEMA believes thatthe style is an improvement overpastfederal register notices.
In conclusion, webelieve thatthe current Proposed Rule satisfies all ofthe legal requirements and adequately addresses all ofthe stakeholder concerns. Weurge DOEto adopt this Proposed Rule as a Final Rule and adequately respond to all comments.

April 6, 2000 5