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 of NEMA. 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This original unsound proposal was withdrawn and was a principal element in leading to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

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99CC

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-RM-97-500 

I am Nonn Grimshaw, Vice-President of Technical Relations for Advance Transfonner 

Company, and Chainnan 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 
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 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

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99CC

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 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 

April 6, 2000 2 
set 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 thereof may 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.

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99CC

set 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 orderiy 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 20 1 0 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 tum 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 thereof may 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. 

April 6, 2000 3 
The 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.

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99CC

The 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 LCe. 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 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 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. 

April 6, 2000 4 
The 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.

EE-RM-97-500 COMMENT 99CC

The 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. NEMA 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. 

April 6, 2000 5