EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

PUBLIC MEETING ON ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR

METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES

Room 1E-245 U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C. 20585

9:00 a.m. Tuesday, January 26, 2010

DOUG BROOKMAN, Facilitator

U.S. Department of Energy Attendees

LINDA GRAVES RON LEWIS ERIC STAS, ESQ.

Attendees

JESSICA W. FRIEND Government Affairs Advisor Steptoe and Johnson, LLP 1330 Connecticut Avenue, NW Washington, D.C. 20036-1795

MAHIMA GUPTA Navigant Consulting

TOM HARDING Vice President, Engineering Venture Lighting International 32000 Aurora Road Solon, Ohio 44139

THOMAS D. HIRT Product Safety Manager Hubbell Lighting, Inc. 701 Millennium Boulevard Greenville, South Carolina 29607EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 Attendees

JOHN D. GREEN, P.E., LC Principle Engineer Cooper Lighting 1121 Highway 74 South Peachtree City, Georgia 30269

DR. S. PEKKA HAKKARAINEN, M.A., Ph.D. Vice President Lutron Electronics Co., Inc. Coopersburg, Pennsylvania 18036

OINDRILA HAZRA Lighting Engineer Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Energy and Efficiency Division 15 New England Executive Park Burlington, Massachusetts 01803

PAMELA K. HORNER Director, Industry Relations & Standards Osram Sylvania General Lighting 100 Endicott Street Danvers, Massachusetts 01923

BARBARA ATKINSON Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory MS9R4000, 1 Cyclotron Road Berkeley, California 94710

ROBERT ERHARDT Phillips Lighting Electronics 10275 West Higgins Road Rosemont, Illinois 60018

JOANNA MAUER ASAP 529 14th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C.

COLLIN WEBER Navigant Consulting 815 North Oakland Street, Apartment 303 Arlington, Virginia 22203EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 Attendees

ROBERT LINGARD, LC Lighting Scientist Pacific Northwest National Laboratory Technology Planning and Deployment 620 SW 5th Avenue, Suite 810 Portland, Oregon 97204

Michael Myer Lighting Scientist Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 15 New England Executive Park Burlington, Massachusetts 01803

REBECCA RAINER National Technical Sales Manager, Greenworks Cooper Lighting P.O. Box 820824 Vicksburg, Mississippi 39182-0824

DOUGLAS J. ROSSIN Navigant Consulting

AMANDA SLOCUM STEVENS Project Manager Energy Solutions 1610 Harrison Street Oakland, California 94612

DAVID LIS

ALVIN M. RAZON Sr. Engineering & Operations Representative National Rural Electric Cooperative Assoc. 4301 Wilson Boulevard Arlington, Virginia 22203

DALE R. SIMPSON, LC Technical Marketing Manager Business Unit Professional Luminaires Philips 1611 Clovis Barker Road San Marcos, Texas 78666

MATTHEW WALKER Navigant ConsultingEXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 JENNIFER THORNE AMANN Director, Buildings Program ACEEE 529 14th Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, D.C. 20045

Attendees

TIMOTHY BALLO, Esquire EarthJustice 1625 Massachusetts Avenue, Suite 702 Washington, D.C. 20036

BRIAN COFFEY Navigant Consulting

CHERYL ENGLISH, FIES, LC Vice President, Market & Industry Development Acuity Brands Lighting One Lithonia Way Conyers, Georgia 30012

ERIC S. ANDERSEN Mechanical Engineer, Project Manager Energy & Environmental Directorate Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 902 Battelle Boulevard P.O. Box 999, MSIN KS-22 Richland, Washington 99352

W.T. BUSCH Senior Project Manager HID Indoor and Commercial Philips 938 South Green Street Post Office Box 1687 Tupelo, Mississippi 38802-1687

ANDREW deLASKI Executive Director Appliance Standards Awareness Project 20 Belgrade Avenue, Suite 1 Boston, Massachusetts 02131

PETER FRANCK Optical Engineer Lightolier 631 Airport Road Fall River, Massachusetts 02720EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC. (301) 565-0064 A G E N D A

ITEM : PAGE :

Morning Session

Welcome 6

Introductions and Agenda Review 6 Doug Brookman

Opening Remarks 13

Regulatory History and Test Procedure 14 Mahima Gupta

Energy Conservation Standard Rulemaking 17 Overview and Scope of Coverage Mahima Gupta and Doug Rossin

Market and Technology Assessment and 49 Screening Analysis Brian Coffey

Engineering Analysis 70 Mahima Gupta

Markups for Equipment Price Determination 92 Robert Lingard

Energy Use and End-Use Load Characteristics, 96 Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis Robert Lingard

Afternoon Session

Shipments Analysis, National Impact Analysis, 121 And Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis Michael Myer

Manufacturer Impact Analysis 140 Doug Rossin

Utility Impact Analysis, Employment Impact 157 Analysis, Environmental Assessment, and Regulatory Impact Analysis Michael Myer

Other Issues and Comments; Closing Remarks 1536

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC P R O C E E D I N G S 1

(9:07 a.m. ) 2

Welcome 3

MS. GRAVES: Good morning. I'm Linda Graves. 4

I'm pleased to welcome you on behalf of the U.S. 5

Department of Energy. 6

This is a public meeting to introduce the 7

first stage of the Rulemaking on Metal Halide Lamp 8

Fixtures Standards and, as usual, we have our wonderful 9

facilitator here with us, Doug Brookman, who will 10

manage the agenda for us and keep us on target and with 11

that, I'll turn the meeting over to Doug. 12

Introductions and Agenda Overview 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Good morning, 14

everybody. Glad you could join us. Thanks for being 15

here on time. We typically start these meetings by 16

doing introductions, so we're going to do that. Please 17

say your name and organizational affiliation. Not all 18

of this will be completely recorded but we do have a 19

registration list, so we'll know who's in the room with 20

us. I'll start with Pekka. 21

DR. HAKKARAINEN: I'm Pekka Hakkarainen, 22

representing Lutron Electronics, and I'm also the Vice 23

Chair of the NEMA Lighting Systems Division. 24

MS. ENGLISH: And I'm Cheryl English. I'm 257

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC with Acuity Brands Lighting. We're a manufacturer of 1

luminaires. 2

MR. BUSCH: Bill Busch with Philips 3

Daybright, manufacturer of luminaires. 4

MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt, Philips Lighting 5

Electronics and also Chair of the NEMA Ballast Section. 6

MR. HANSEN: Dain Hansen with NEMA, the 7

National Electrical Manufacturers Association. 8

MS. HORNER: Pam Horner with Osram Sylvania 9

and also representing NEMA as the Lamp Section Chair. 10

MR. HARDING: Tom Harding, Venture Lighting, 11

manufacturer of metal halide lamp ballasts. 12

MS. RAINER: Rebecca Rainer, Cooper Lighting, 13

also the Vice Chair of the Luminaires Section for NEMA. 14

MR. HIRT: Tom Hirt with Hubbell Lighting, a 15

manufacturer of luminaires. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Let's double back this way. 17

MS. FRIEND: Jessica Friend with Steptoe and 18

Johnson. 19

MR. SIMPSON: Dale Simpson with the Lighting 20

Division of Philips, manufacturer of exterior 21

luminaires. 22

MR. SYPES: David Sypes with Philips. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: We can go over here, please. 24

MS. MAUER: Joanna Maurer, Appliance 258

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC Standards Awareness Project. 1

MR. RAZON: Alvin Razon, National Rural 2

Electric Cooperative Association. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: I guess we just -- I thought 4

we already tested them. We don't need this on the 5

record. We know who's here. 6

Please say your name and organizational 7

affiliation. 8

MR. LIS: Dave Lis, Northeast Energy 9

Efficiency Partnerships. 10

MR. FRANCK: Peter Franck with Philips 11

Lightolier. 12

MR. GREEN: John Green with Cooper Lighting, 13

a manufacturer of luminaires and controls, also Vice 14

Chair of the NEMA Ballast Section. 15

MS. SULLIVAN: Meg Sullivan, Department of 16

Energy. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, sir. 18

MR. ANDERSON: Eric Anderson, Pacific 19

Northwest National Laboratory. 20

Ms. Hazra: Oindrila Hazra, Pacific Northwest 21

National Laboratory. 22

MS. STEVENS: Amanda Stevens, Pacific Gas and 23

Electric Company. 24

MR. deLASKI: Andrew deLaski, Appliance 259

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC Standards Awareness Project. 1

MR. STAS: Eric Stas, DOE. 2

MR. LEWIS: Ron Lewis, DOE. 3

MS. GRAVES: Linda Graves, DOE. 4

MS . GUPTA: Mahima Gupta, Navigant 5

Consulting. 6

MR. COFFEY: Brian Coffey, Navigant 7

Consulting. 8

MR. ROSSIN: Doug Rossin, Navigant 9

Consulting. 10

MR. LINGARD: Bob Lingard, Pacific Northwest 11

National Laboratory. 12

MR. MYER: Mike Myer, Pacific Northwest 13

National Laboratory. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: We have one announcement here 15

at the outset. If anybody in the room's a foreign 16

national and did not yet pre-register -- you're all 17

set. You've got a badge. The department's careful 18

about these matters. So if you are a foreign national, 19

you need to see Brenda if you have not pre-registered. 20

So let me welcome you, again glad you're 21

here. 22

Linda gave you the overview, the purpose of 23

this meeting, this framework meeting. I'm going to do 24

a very brief agenda review and then we're going to 2510

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC launch right square into it. 1

Immediately following this agenda review, 2

there's an opportunity for anybody that wishes to do so 3

to make opening remarks, brief summary statements about 4

issues that are important to you. Following that, 5

we'll go immediately into a description of the 6

Regulatory History and Test Procedure, and then 7

straight into Energy Conservation Standard Rulemaking 8

Overview and Scope of Coverage. 9

We'll take a break mid-morning, around about 10

10:30 or so. Following that, a description, plus 11

discussion, Market and Technology Assessment and 12

Screening Analysis, then Engineering Analysis. We'll 13

break mid-day for lunch, around about noonish, maybe a 14

little later, and then from there, Mark-ups for 15

Equipment Price Determination, Energy-Use and End-Use 16

Load Characterization, Life-Cycle Cost and Payback 17

Period Analysis, Shipments Analysis, National Impact 18

Analysis, Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis, all of 19

those analyses described. 20

We'll take a mid-afternoon break and then go 21

into Manufacturer Impact Analysis, and you can see the 22

complement of them, Utility, Employment, Environmental 23

Assessment and Regulatory Impact Analyses, all of 24

those. 2511

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC There's another opportunity for comment for 1

anybody that wishes to do so at the end of the day, 2

you'll see it listed in your agenda, and we intend to 3

adjourn by 4:30 today. We'll try and be as efficient 4

as possible. If we get there quicker, that's what 5

we'll do. 6

That's the plan for today. Questions and 7

comments about the agenda as written? 8

(No response.) 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Let me note that there's also 10

some additional room up here at the table. If any of 11

you expect you're going to have a lot of comment and 12

would want to, you're welcome to join us up here at the 13

front table. 14

I might ask for your consideration, in the 15

span of these years doing these appliance standards 16

meetings, we would ask for your consideration. Please 17

speak one at a time. Please say your name for the 18

record. There will be a full transcript of this 19

meeting and if, each time you speak, you would say your 20

name, that will make it clear who's speaking and who is 21

not. You don't need to say your organizational 22

affiliation. Please say your name for the record. 23

I'll be queuing people by name as best I can 24

to speak. I also wish to encourage follow-on comments. 2512

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC Sometimes that follow-on comment is very useful for the 1

Department as it tries to discern the information that 2

appears here. 3

If you could keep the focus here, please turn 4

your cell phones on silent mode. Please limit the 5

side-bar conversations. These microphones now work 6

well, so we can hear you, and also there's a little 7

green LED button. If it's not glowing green, it's not 8

turned on. So if you can turn it on and off, please 9

remember to turn it on and I'll try and remind you, 10

and, finally, if you'd try and be concise, share the 11

air time. There's a lot of ground to cover here, a lot 12

of analysis, and we want to make sure we give it its 13

full due. 14

I think all of you received a packet as you 15

came in the door. The general format for this meeting 16

is that there are a whole lot of detail slides. We're 17

going to be going through them one by one. There are 18

also comment boxes for which the Department elicits 19

comment. So that's the general plan and the way we 20

intend to do this. 21

Questions, comments here at the outset before 22

we begin? 23

(No response.) 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. I see nothing 2513

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC additional. 1

Linda Graves. 2

Opening Remarks 3

MS. GRAVES: Okay. So the purpose of today's 4

meeting is to present the procedural and analytical 5

approaches to evaluate energy conservation standards 6

for metal halide lamp fixtures. 7

This meeting will provide a forum for public 8

discussion of the rulemaking issues. 9

We also encourage interested parties to 10

submit data information and written comments. We also 11

wish to inform interested parties and facilitate the 12

rulemaking process. 13

The public comment period for this meeting 14

ends January 29th. So besides whatever comments occur 15

during this meeting and they're on the transcript, the 16

Department will also take into account any written 17

submissions of comment. 18

I hope that all of you have downloaded or 19

have with you picked up the framework document that 20

this meeting is based upon. There are issues of 21

particular interest to the Department identified in the 22

Framework document. The Issue Boxes in your 23

presentation package correspond to those same numbered 24

issues. 2514

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC However, you are more than welcome to comment 1

on any issue that you would like to raise, whether or 2

not the Department has specifically addressed it as an 3

issue of interest. 4

And with that, I'll turn it over to Mahima 5

Gupta to present the Regulatory Background. 6

Regulatory History and Test Procedure 7

MS. GUPTA: Good morning. I'm Mahima Gupta, 8

and I'm going to start off today's presentation with 9

just a brief Regulatory History Overview and a summary 10

of the Department's latest actions on the Test 11

Procedure for Metal Halide Lamp Ballasts. 12

So EPCA, the Energy Policy and Conservation 13

Act, established the Energy Conservation Program for 14

Appliances. EISA, the Energy Independence and Security 15

Act of 2007, amended EPCA to provide several provisions 16

related to metal halide lamp fixtures and metal halide 17

lamp ballasts. 18

Firstly, it directed DOE to develop a test 19

procedure for metal halide lamp ballasts based on the 20

ANSI Standard C82.6. It also directed DOE to 21

incorporate standby mode and off mode standards in any 22

subsequent energy conservation standards rulemakings. 23

Specific to our framework meeting today, EISA 24

prescribed energy conservation standards for metal 2515

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC halide lamp fixtures by setting minimum ballast 1

efficiency requirements and directed DOE to amend those 2

standards by January 1st, 2012. 3

In addition, EISA directed DOE to conduct a 4

second rulemaking to amend the energy conservation 5

standards with which it should complete by January 1st, 6

2019. 7

In July 2009, DOE published a Notice of 8

Proposed Rulemaking, Test Procedure for Metal Halide 9

Lamp Ballasts, and the final rule will be published 10

shortly, but in that NOPR, DOE developed an active mode 11

test procedure in accordance with ANSI C82.6. It also 12

developed a standby mode test procedure which it 13

preliminarily determined that was relevant only to 14

dimming and DALI-enabled ballasts, and, finally, it 15

made the preliminary determination that off mode is not 16

a relevant mode of operation for metal halide lamp 17

ballasts. 18

And so in the context of increasing the 19

energy conservation standards for metal halide lamp 20

fixtures, DOE's requesting comment on whether any 21

additional changes need to be made to the Test 22

Procedure. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: So let's pause there. You see 24

the Issue Box that Mimi's referencing and also we want 2516

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC to provide an opportunity, the Department does, 1

opportunity for brief summary comments here at the 2

outset now. Let's do that. 3

Yes, please, Bob, you're up. 4

MR. ERHARDT: Yes, Bob Erhardt. ANSI is in 5

the process of issuing an updated method of 6

measurement, C82.6. It should be released in 2010. 7

It's our recommendation that DOE look to use the latest 8

revision of ANSI 82.6. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Do you know when in 2010? 10

MR. ERHARDT: I believe it is out for final 11

comments, so it should be out by the next months. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Pretty quickly then. 13

MR. ERHARDT: Yes. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you very much. 15

Other comments here at the outset? This is an 16

opportunity for anybody to raise the issues that are 17

important to them. 18

Yes, Cheryl. 19

MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English. Thank you. 20

Cheryl English, Acuity Brands Lighting. On the standby 21

mode, the HID Systems typically are not used with 22

dimming. However, there are systems that use wireless 23

or signal type of control where there might be some 24

minimal standby power. 2517

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC So if you choose to consider a standby power 1

consideration, I think my words of advice is just 2

making sure that we re-evaluate the ballast efficiency 3

of a ballast that's operating at a lower wattage. 4

There's tremendous energy savings versus the small 5

amount of standby power. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Other 7

comments here at the outset? 8

(No response.) 9

MR. BROOKMAN: So let me ask you, also, then 10

to direct your attention to Item 5, Comment Box, and 11

comments on whether it's necessary to update the Metal 12

Halide Lamp Test Procedure, anything additional on 13

that? 14

(No response.) 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 16

Energy Conservation Standard Rulemaking Overview and 17

Scope of Coverage 18

MS. GUPTA: So now I'd like to just give you 19

a brief Rulemaking Overview. 20

So EPCA directs DOE to consider seven factors 21

when citing energy conservation standards. These 22

factors are listed on this slide and beside these 23

factors are the analyses that DOE conducts to address 24

these factors and we'll be discussing each of these 2518

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC analyses in more detail throughout the day. 1

Here's a brief timeline of the Metal Halide 2

Lamp Fixtures Rulemaking. As you can see, we start off 3

with the framework document and the public meeting that 4

we're having today. Several months later, DOE will 5

publish a preliminary analysis which will be 6

accompanied by a public meeting in which DOE will 7

welcome public input. 8

Following that will be the Notice of Proposed 9

Rulemaking and the public meeting for that NOPR and, 10

finally, DOE plans to publish the final rule in 2012. 11

Any amended standards in that final rule will become 12

effective in 2015. 13

For the first phase of the rulemaking, the 14

framework document, DOE published the framework 15

document on December 30th, 2009, and as Linda stated, 16

the comment period for the framework document ends on 17

January 29, and the framework document and any 18

materials from this public meeting will be available at 19

the web address listed on this slide. 20

For the next phase, -- 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. We have a comment. 22

Amanda. 23

MS. STEVENS: Amanda Stevens, PG&E. Is there 24

an y way that DOE would consider extending that comment 2519

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC period which is only a few days away to give folks more 1

time to submit their written comments? 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis. 3

MR. LEWIS: We'll consider the request, but I 4

can't answer it immediately on the spot. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay, okay. 6

MS. GUPTA: Okay. So for the second phase of 7

the rulemaking, the preliminary analysis phase, DOE 8

conducts several analyses, such as the Market and 9

Technology Assessment, the Engineering Analysis, the 10

Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis, and the 11

National Impact Analysis, which will all be discussed 12

later today. 13

In the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking stage or 14

the NOPR, DOE revises the preliminary analyses in 15

response to stakeholder comments and any updated 16

resources that are available and DOE conducts several 17

new analyses, such as the Manufacturer Impact Analysis, 18

the Utility Impact Analysis, the Environmental 19

Assessment, and, finally, in the final rule stage, DOE 20

will revise the NOPR analyses in response to interested 21

parties' input. 22

So now I'll turn over the presentation to my 23

colleague Doug Rossin to talk a little bit about scope 24

of the rulemaking. 2520

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC MR. ROSSIN: Thank you, Mimi. Good morning, 1

everybody. My name is Doug Rossin. I'll be presenting 2

the discussion on Scope of today's Metal Halide Lamp 3

Fixtures Rulemaking, and I'll begin by discussing some 4

provisions from EISA 2007. I'll discuss what's the 5

current standards for metal halide lamp fixtures and 6

then I'll get into what or how DOE plans to amend these 7

standards. 8

So Section 324 of EISA 2007 defines several 9

key terms relevant to metal halide lamp fixtures and 10

these include ballast, ballast efficiency, electronic 11

ballast, metal halide ballast, and probe start and 12

pulse start metal halide ballasts. 13

EISA 2007 also defines the scope of metal 14

halide lamp fixtures broadly as light fixtures for 15

general lighting applications designed to be operated 16

with a metal halide lamp and a ballast for metal halide 17

lamp. So there's no mentioning of wattage, voltage, or 18

starting method, for example. 19

And, finally, EISA 2007 establishes standards 20

for only a subset of all metal halide lamp fixtures and 21

I'll get into this a little bit more in the next slide. 22

So what are the current metal halide lamp 23

fixture standards? Well, EISA 2007 begins by covering 24

metal halide lamp fixtures that are designed to be 2521

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC operated with lamps rated greater than or equal to a 1

150 watts but less than or equal to 500 watts. 2

Within this wattage range, metal halide lamp 3

fixtures must contain ballasts that meet minimum 4

ballast efficiency requirements set by EISA 2007. So, 5

for example, a metal halide lamp fixture that contains 6

a magnetic probe start, that probe start ballast must 7

have a minimum ballast efficiency of 94 percent. So 8

here again, we see that, depending on the type of 9

ballast included in that fixture, you will have a 10

different set of minimum ballast efficiency 11

requirements. 12

Also included in the standards are the 13

exclusions set by EISA 2007 and these include fixtures 14

with regulated lag ballasts, fixtures that use 15

electronic ballasts that operate at 480 volts, and 16

fixtures that meet these other three sets of 17

requirements to be excluded. 18

So now that we have an understanding of 19

what's currently covered and what's the current 20

standards, let's discuss how DOE plans to amend these 21

standards. 22

So although metal halide lamp fixtures may be 23

composed of the fixture or housing itself, a ballast, 24

and a lamp, EPCA sets minimum efficiency requirements 2522

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC for only the ballast component of the fixtures. So for 1

today's rulemaking that we're discussing metal halide 2

lamp fixtures, DOE has preliminarily decided to only 3

evaluate amending minimum ballast efficiency 4

requirements as to be consistent with the EPCA approach 5

and here we have our first item for comment, which is a 6

request for comments on this approach to only amending 7

the minimum ballast efficiency requirements. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Pam. 9

MS. HORNER: Pam Horner. Well, the 10

manufacturers have a few different ideas on this and 11

they will be expressed more thoroughly in our formal 12

comments on the 29th. 13

While we realize that, as lamps in this 14

category develop, the ultimate efficiency and efficacy 15

of the luminaire, shall we say, is dependent on the 16

lamp, the large point that the lamp manufacturers would 17

like to make is that with the onset of the HID 18

determination, lamp determination, I guess you could 19

say that we, in general, would prefer to keep these 20

items separate. 21

To intertwine a lamp efficacy standard with a 22

luminaire or, in this case, ballast discussion and then 23

revisit it virtually simultaneously within the HID 24

rulemaking, we think that the HID -- well, we think 2523

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC it'll become an HID rulemaking -- that the HID 1

rulemaking is the more appropriate place to address 2

this. 3

And one of the key points is that this 4

particular rulemaking affects new luminaires. Lamp 5

standards affect not just new luminaires but also 6

existing. 7

Thank you. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Just to clarify, Pam, you're 9

speaking on behalf of NEMA? 10

MS. HORNER: Well, I would say we do have an 11

additional comment from one of our members that 12

indicates that the efficacy of lamps could be 13

considered as we start to talk about dimming 14

capabilities. 15

So, in other words, there's an issue here, 16

but, in general, the lamp companies see the HID lamp 17

rulemaking as the appropriate place to determine lamp 18

efficacy. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: So I guess we'll leave that to 20

some interpretation. Bob. 21

MR. ERHARDT: Yeah. I would like to offer 22

some clarification in the -- we made a comment that the 23

DOE may wish to consider not defining efficacy of lamps 24

but defining -- but in evaluating the efficiency 2524

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC requirements of ballasts take into consideration the 1

type of lamps they are to operate. 2

This was done in California. The California 3

Energy Commission has put some allowances into their 4

latest rulemakings, such that lamps that are recognized 5

as being more efficacious, ballasts that are designed 6

to operate lamp categories that are more efficacious 7

have some allowance on their efficiency to discourage 8

the use of lamp categories that are less efficacious. 9

California also has put in some allowances 10

for slightly lower ballast efficiencies if the ballast 11

is capable of dimming. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, please. 13

MS. AMANN: Jennifer Amann, ACEEE. At thi s 14

point in the rulemaking, we would encourage the 15

Department to consider a broader range of opportunities 16

in metal halide fixtures, such as the State of 17

California in their standards, and also the Outdoor 18

Lighting Agreement that has been negotiated by indu stry 19

and the advocacy groups and is now before Congress 20

includes other elements, including the actual fixture 21

efficiency system, the full system, in different ways, 22

whether it's lamp ballast, fixture efficiency itself, 23

and potentially controls. 24

So at this early stage we would encourage DOE 2525

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC to consider all of those components and not limit their 1

analysis strictly to ballast efficiency. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Andrew. 3

MR. deLASKI: I guess I have a follow-on 4

question for Pam or a comment or question maybe to help 5

clear up because I didn't sit through the California 6

proceedings which many of you did, and I guess my 7

question to you is typically we like to look at the 8

system because it gives the manufacturers more 9

opportunities to optimize the system according to their 10

various strengths and to do it at the lowest cost and 11

deliver the efficiency, as Pam has educated me on many 12

instances, getting the light where people want it, and 13

so I guess I'd ask the question, you know, in this 14

instance, you know, why not do something that is more 15

at getting the light where people want it as opposed to 16

taking it piece by piece for the components of the 17

system? 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Pam. 19

MS. HORNER: Pam Horner. Now, again, I 20

haven't asked all 16 members of the NEMA Lamp Section, 21

so allow me a little latitude here. 22

I would say the general feeling is we are 23

onboard with the system approach. What I was getting 24

at here is that to isolate the lamp within this 2526

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC rulemaking and give, you know, thou shalt have this 1

efficacy for this lamp and that efficacy for that lamp 2

seems out of place here. 3

I hope -- generally, we are certainly onboard 4

with the systems approach. We talk about it all the 5

time at NEMA amongst all sections, but for lamp people 6

the system is the luminaires. So I'm gong to have to 7

turn this over to the luminaire folks to see how they 8

would think about it. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Additional comments how you 10

might suggest this differs from a system approach? 11

Yes, Cheryl. 12

MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English, Acuity Brands. 13

You know, I think we can certainly look at the system 14

approach. We believe that's the smartest way to energy 15

efficiency, but I think after last year we all realize 16

that it's not simple and what ends up happening when we 17

start getting into describing the distribution of a 18

luminaire, we start having to talk about applications 19

rather than products which makes it much more difficult 20

to craft something that can be enforced and so, you 21

know, if we choose to look at those things, we're 22

talking about a much more complex analysis, a lot of 23

analysis of lamp and ballast combinations. 24

Luminaire manufacturers do not always sell a 2527

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC fixture with a lamp included. If we look at requiring 1

through Federal regulation to include a lamp, we're now 2

putting our products in a class where we have to deal 3

with hazardous substance because the lamps do contain 4

mercury and then we have additional burden in terms of 5

labeling, notification, reporting, and transportation 6

issues related to hazardous substances. 7

So it's more complicated. We all, you know, 8

have lived through that last year and I think it's 9

really what is DOE's appetite relative to the 10

complexity and the analysis and your ability to enforce 11

the regulations. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: thank you. 13

MR. deLASKI: So just to follow on, I think, 14

Cheryl, in your reference to last year, are you 15

referring to the outdoor lighting negotiations and to 16

their recommendation which is now before Congress, and 17

the approach taken in our -- that we all came up with, 18

advocates in the industry together, was this notion of 19

a table of standard lamps as a way to address the 20

problem that you -- as Acuity, you don't make lamps. 21

You don't package lamps in your products. So we needed 22

this outcome of table of standard lamps. 23

Is an approach along those lines plausible 24

for this kind of product or, I mean, given your 2528

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC experience or is it something -- or is this market 1

different from the outdoor lighting that that approach 2

wouldn't work? 3

MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English. The approach 4

could certainly work. We would have to establish some 5

kind of mid-level thresholds for the lamps to determine 6

the overall fixture performance. So we wouldn't want 7

to take the lowest common denominator because we're all 8

trying to promote energy efficiency, but we have to be 9

very careful that whatever that assumption is does not 10

exclude some new technologies that might have favorable 11

energy impacts. 12

What we worked on last year for Congress was 13

specifically a class of outdoor lighting. It didn't 14

include all outdoor lighting. What this regulation 15

deals with is any luminaire that my company makes that 16

can use a metal halide lamp. So we're now talking 17

about, you know, indoor and outdoor, in some cases some 18

very specialized types of applications. 19

If we go that route, then we may want to 20

choose to define a narrow segment of product 21

applications, much like we did in the outdoor 22

regulation for Congress covered, area lighting, 23

streets, pole-mounted luminaires. It didn't include 24

wall-mounted which is included in this current EISA 2529

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC bill. So there's some reconciliation. 1

I'm a little concerned about if Congress does 2

pass the outdoor bill, we've got to be very careful 3

that we don't create a dual standard that makes 4

additional challenges for luminaire companies. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, Pekka. 6

DR. HAKKARAINEN: Pekka Hakkarainen. I would 7

also comment that since it is complicated to define the 8

system, perhaps we should give the legislation that's 9

before Congress right now a chance and see how well it 10

works before we expand from the area of outdoor 11

lighting regulation to other areas where we may run 12

into difficulties. 13

MR. deLASKI: I'm sure it's going to work 14

great, Pekka. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Having been negotiated in its 16

normal fashion, it's a breeze, right? Okay. 17

Additional comments on this subject? Yes, 18

Bob Erhardt. 19

MR. ERHARDT: Yeah. Bob Erhardt. I think 20

there's an opportunity to comment further on this later 21

on, but one thing to take into consideration when 22

looking at ballast and ballast efficiency, in effect 23

perhaps driving towards electronic ballast, is the 24

impact on the overall redesign of the luminaire and the 2530

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC impacts of the overall costs of redesigning the whole 1

luminaire to accommodate electronic ballasts. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Pam, did you have additional 3

comment? 4

MS. HORNER: Yes, Pam Horner. I just wanted 5

to echo from the lamp perspective a phrase that Cheryl 6

just stated and not to let it get lost among DOE and 7

the consultants and that is that the last thing the 8

lamp industry needs is two sets of standards. 9

So as we move forward with the HID lamp 10

determination/rulemaking that does include metal halide 11

and I just want to caution that that would be untenable 12

for us should that happen. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. Yes, 14

Amanda. 15

MS. STEVENS: Amanda Stevens for PG&E. So 16

following on Andrew and Jen's comments on maybe looking 17

a little bit broader than just ballast efficiency, 18

specifically I was wondering and maybe the 19

manufacturers could comment specifically on metrics, 20

such as TER or FTE that's being used in the ENERGY 21

STAR® Program. 22

I saw that for when setting the ENERGY STAR 23

criteria for some outdoor LED luminaires, DOE had 24

evaluated several hundred HID luminaire photometric 2531

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC files in order to establish the baseline in order to 1

then set the ENERGY STAR criteria level. So that may 2

be one source of data that DOE might already draw upon 3

when looking at some of these other metrics, but, you 4

know, I recognize that there is potentially a lot of 5

complexity associated with going that route. 6

So if the manufacturers or DOE had any 7

specific comments on FTE or TER, that might be helpful. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: I guess we'll look to the 9

manufacturers first. Cheryl English. 10

MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English. I believe that 11

actually ENERGY STAR has a different metric than FTE 12

because there were a number of comments about the 13

applicability of the FTE metric and I think it's also 14

important that we're here talking about a regulatory 15

approach, not a market transformation. 16

If you use something like that in regulatory, 17

you will obsolete some niche products that are very 18

critical to certain applications. So my opinion on 19

behalf of Acuity Brands is that that would be a very 20

problematic approach for a regulatory process. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Please say your name and 22

organizational affiliation. 23

MR. SIMPSON: Dale Simpson with 24

Philips/Gardco. Just a comment on the comment about 2532

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC FTE and the ENERGY STAR regulation. 1

There's currently a task force within NEMA 2

working with DOE to potentially look at an alternate 3

metric and there is some concern, some serious concern, 4

I believe, on the part of NEMA members about the fitted 5

target efficiency metric. 6

So just in general, the other question I have 7

is whether within the scope of EISA is to really go 8

into the level of detail all the way to pure luminaire 9

efficiency or whether the scope really is proper to 10

look at perhaps lamp and ballast efficiency together or 11

just ballast efficiency. That's just a question that I 12

would have. 13

And the complexity, I would echo that the 14

complexity of trying to get into a targeted measure for 15

each of what could be 20 or more applications that 16

would have to be defined. We learned just in trying to 17

define one subset of applications in outdoor lighting 18

that it's pretty difficult. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Appreciate that. 20

Yes, Rebecca. 21

MS. RAINER: Yes. Just to echo those 22

comments, you had talked about the outdoor legislation 23

and the photometric data that we reviewed. 24

My company just for the outdoor, just for 2533

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC that small section that we looked at, reviewed almost 1

7,000 photometric files, and just to echo the 2

complexity of the situation, we would be looking at 3

somewhere over 20,000 photometric files to pull in all 4

the data. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks for that. That's 6

useful. Okay. 7

So additional comments on this stream? Mimi 8

Gupta. 9

MS. GUPTA: I just wanted to ask a follow-up 10

question to Bob. Either today or in your written 11

comments, could you provide more detail on what kind of 12

luminaire redesign would be necessary as you increase 13

ballast efficiency? 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 15

MR. ERHARDT: Yes, I think NEMA's going to be 16

giving more detail further on. In principle, we had 17

some comment and that's why I made the comment at this 18

point, but later on when we start talking about 19

technologies, we have some further detail. 20

In principle, the form factor and thermal 21

requirements of an electronic ballast are significantly 22

different than that of an electromagnetic ballast and 23

therefore it is generally the case that when a 24

luminaire manufacturer wishes to use an electronic 2534

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC ballast, that there is a luminaire redesign or a new 1

design associated with it. It is not a drop-in 2

replacement and that's what I was referring to. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, please. 4

MR. SIMPSON: Dale Simpson. I'd like to 5

amplify Bob's comment just a little bit and 6

specifically to exterior luminaires, a change, say, 7

from electromagnetic to electronic ballast creates a 8

different form and thermal characteristics which may 9

necessitate larger housings, sometimes even larger 10

poles to hold those larger housings up in an exterior 11

environment. 12

So it is, in our opinion, improper to just 13

look at the difference of acquisition costs between 14

ballast A and ballast B. You also have to look at the 15

whole effect it has on the system switching from 16

ballast A to ballast B and that cost sometimes in our 17

analysis can be as much as 10 times the additional cost 18

of the ballast alone. So going from A to B may inflate 19

the system cost by up to a 10-time multiplier. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Are we all 21

set? We're going to move on here. Okay. Let's go. 22

MR. ROSSIN: Okay. So also part of amending 23

energy conservation standards, DOE is looking to expand 24

the scope of the energy conservation standards for this 2535

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC rulemaking. 1

So DOE is considering expanding to include 2

metal halide lamp fixtures that are designed to operate 3

with lamps rated below a 150 watts and above 500 watts. 4

DOE is also considering including fixtures that were 5

specifically excluded by EISA 2007 and here we see a 6

graph which is snapshot of the metal halide lamp 7

ballast market prior to 2009 and this data that you see 8

there was taken from the manufacturers' catalogs and 9

the efficiencies were calculated based on that 10

information. 11

The shaded blue box, I guess, that you see 12

there is the wattage range that EISA prescribes 13

standards for. Now DOE, by considering expanding the 14

scope to include all these other units, sees the 15

potential to have significant energy savings. 16

So here we have the other two items for 17

comment. Specifically, if DOE should include the metal 18

halide lamp fixtures rated below 150 watts and above 19

500 watts and also to include the fixtures that were 20

excluded by EISA. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob Erhardt. 22

MR. ERHARDT: NEMA recognizes that currently 23

the rulemaking only looks at one slice of the range, 24

but while the total number of SKUs, if you will, or 2536

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC ballast models indicates a high number of products 1

outside the current covered range, in actuality, more 2

than half or I think our numbers indicate 60 percent of 3

the total energy usage of metal halide luminaires falls 4

within the range specified. 5

Furthermore, while, at the lower end, there 6

does on a percentage basis, if you look at the range of 7

ballast efficiencies, it does represent the highest 8

range of ballast efficiencies, the total energy use of 9

the sector is very low, is rather low, and there is 10

already a pretty strong market transition already to 11

the higher-efficient product and so we recommend that 12

the DOE take this into consideration when determining 13

the energy impact of further rulemaking. 14

At the higher power levels, there is 15

significant power being used but these generally are 16

rather highly-efficient ballasts to begin with and it 17

may be questionable if further gains in ballast 18

efficiency can be realized. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Do you have a specific 20

recommendation with respect to these lower-powered 21

units? 22

MR. ERHARDT: I'm sorry? 23

MR. BROOKMAN: I didn't understand your 24

comment. It's useful to tell the Department what you 2537

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC think it should do. 1

MR. ERHARDT: Well, as NEMA, companies, 2

various companies have their opinions and so -- 3

MR. BROOKMAN: This is not a unified 4

position. What is your position? 5

MR. ERHARDT: Philips Lighting Electronics 6

does not think the impact of energy savings at the 7

lower power levels warrants additional rulemaking. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, okay. Thanks for that 9

clarity. So additional thoughts, comments on these two 10

issue boxes here? Yes, Pam. 11

MS. HORNER: Pam Horner. From a lamp 12

perspective, we simply have a question. We sort of ran 13

into this issue when we dealt with mercury vapor lamps. 14

So ahead of the game, we want to make certain 15

we understand that this is for general lighting 16

applications. What can happen and the reason I'm 17

questioning this is what can happen inadvertently with 18

these types of rulemakings is one can snag the dolphins 19

with the fish and so you end up with, for example, 20

specialty projector lights and display lights getting 21

swept in to this without concern. 22

So I wanted to clarify today for the lamp 23

section if those lamps and systems are included or 24

excluded from this rulemaking. 2538

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC MR. BROOKMAN: Mimi Gupta. 1

MS. GUPTA: I don't think that the statute 2

specifically excludes any applications. If there are 3

specialty applications in the wattage ranges or 4

exclusions of EISA that the manufacturers or any 5

interested parties believe DOE should exclude, then I 6

would encourage you to submit those comments. 7

MS. HORNER: Okay. Thank you. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 9

comments on these two issue boxes, particularly related 10

to expansion of the scope? Andrew. 11

MR. deLASKI: So we support the approach the 12

Department's taking on this. I kind of quibble a 13

little bit with the phrasing of Item 2. They're in the 14

scope, the statute, but this isn't a question of the 15

discretion of the agency to consider the scope. 16

I think Bob put it right. It's the question 17

of where does the analysis take you in terms of, you 18

know, do the sales and the savings merit a standard I 19

think is a separate question, but they're clearly in 20

the scope under the statute. So I think there's an 21

obligation for the Department to evaluate the products 22

as you've scoped them. 23

And then I think to Pam's point, if certain 24

products need to be excluded, then that calls for, I 2539

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC think, coming up with specific narrow exclusions that 1

address those niche applications that need the 2

exclusion, but I think the statute, I think, speaks for 3

itself in terms of the scope being broad. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Mimi Gupta. 5

MS. GUPTA: Actually, I was completely 6

incorrect. So the statute does say that it's for 7

general lighting applications, but I would note that 8

the definition of general lighting application is not 9

extremely crisp and clear. So if NEMA has 10

recommendations on how to specify that definition. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Mimi. Thank you. 12

Yes, Jennifer. 13

MS. AMANN: Jennifer Amann, ACEEE. Actually, 14

I think the general lighting application definition 15

would address the issue that you raise, Pam, as it has 16

in previous rulemakings. It is the term "general 17

lighting application" means lighting that provides an 18

interior or exterior area with overall illumination. 19

So it could be tightened but at least for projectors or 20

other, you know, devices, I think it might be. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Andrew. 22

MR. deLASKI: This is maybe a question for 23

the Department. If stakeholders and the Department 24

decided that further clarification was needed in 2540

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC regulatory language, you could enhance that definition 1

to give folks more comfort that what was excluded and 2

what's not based on -- I see nodding. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: I see some heads nodding. Do 4

you wish to respond affirmatively for the record? Eric 5

Stas. 6

MR. STAS: Eric Stas, DOE. DOE can always, 7

you know, put different definitions in the CFR, as long 8

as it's not violating the statutory definition. We can 9

certainly clarify it. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Thank you. That's 11

useful. Okay. Are we ready? Ron Lewis. 12

MR. LEWIS: One other recent practice in the 13

last year to two years has been where things have come 14

out after the fact where we are directed by the 15

statutes which are not always crisp and clear, I think 16

as Mimi indicated. 17

Where there are times of confusion and 18

there's some comment given to us, there's some dialogue 19

that takes place in these meetings, there's some 20

comment from the stakeholders that helps to clarify, we 21

have been posting Frequently Asked Questions on our 22

website for a lot of the rulemakings where there has 23

been confusion. 24

So I think doing it upfront and doing what we 2541

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC can within the CFR language is certainly our 1

preference, but even afterwards, if there are points of 2

confusion and somebody has something that they believe 3

substantially contributes to the clarity, please get 4

those to us and even later on we can put those up as 5

Frequently Asked Questions. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: To clarify, yes. Okay, okay. 7

So we're going to move on now. 8

MR. ROSSIN: Okay. And finally, we can 9

discuss standby mode and off mode standards. 10

As previously stated, EPCA directed DOE to 11

incorporate standby mode and off mode standards into 12

all of its rulemakings that are to be completed by July 13

2010. 14

In the 2009 NOPR, Metal Halide Lamp Ballast 15

Test Procedure, DOE preliminarily found that while it 16

was possible for metal halide lamp ballasts to operate 17

in the active mode and standby mode, the off mode 18

conditions were not applicable. Therefore, in this 19

rulemaking, DOE is only considering the active mode and 20

standby mode energy use provisions from EISA 2007 and 21

here we have another item for comment, specifically if 22

DOE should take into consideration these standby mode 23

and active mode only and also on which metal halide 24

lamp fixtures operate in the standby mode, and 2542

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC additional comments that you see there in the list. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 2

MR. ERHARDT: In general, very few. I'm not 3

aware of any currently luminaires that are using power 4

in the standby mode. It can be moving forward some 5

electronic ballasts, if they're using the digital 6

protocol, the DALI system, they will have some power 7

consumption in the standby mode. So it is possible 8

that some luminaires using dimming or controls may use 9

some power in standby mode, but, generally speaking, 10

metal halide luminaires currently, for the most part, 11

aren't using power in the standby mode. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Additional comments on 13

these two issues? Yes, Pekka. 14

DR. HAKKARAINEN: So following up to what Bob 15

was saying, I think it's premature to define standby 16

mode limits for a class of products that doesn't yet 17

really exist in the marketplace. I think we need to 18

let that product class develop a little bit to see what 19

happens. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. You wish to 21

follow on? No. Okay. Andrew. 22

MR. deLASKI: Yeah. This is a follow-on. 23

I'm not sure if it's for Pekka or Cheryl who commented 24

earlier. I think the gist of the earlier comment was 2543

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC that the -- I think it was Cheryl, that the savings, 1

you know, that you're going to get from controls are 2

going to dwarf what you might consume in standby mode, 3

and I'm wondering if you could comment on, you know, 4

when you -- looking ahead to sort of products that 5

might be coming down the pike using controls 6

approaches, what kind of savings, you know, are you 7

talking to your -- are you hoping that those kind of 8

products will deliver? 9

MS. ENGLISH: Okay. Cheryl English, Acuity 10

Brands. To reiterate Bob's comment, it's very few 11

today that actually use a type of control system that 12

would utilize standby power, typically wirelessly13

controlled luminaires, and speaking only for my company 14

but that is a class of kind of emerging roadway 15

products. 16

The wireless controls not only allow a 17

utility to tune the lighting relative to the 18

demographics or traffic patterns but they provide a 19

very significant utility to electrical utilities 20

relative to safety. They can monitor outages, address 21

those outages much more quickly than they can without 22

the centralized management systems. 23

So I don't really have enough data on it at 24

this time because it's not a widely-used technology. I 2544

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC just would caution that if we include a standby power, 1

we'll want to look specifically at that class of 2

products that have the potential between now and 2015 3

to provide significantly more energy savings through a 4

centralized energy management system by tuning the 5

lights down by 40 or 50 percent or even off in some 6

cases. 7

There's a potential for large areas, like 8

stadium parking lots, where a centralized control can 9

be at various levels of power or off to really provide 10

significant energy savings. 11

Any small amount of standby power is going to 12

be dwarfed in comparison. So that just needs to be 13

included in that analysis if we choose to address this. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Bob Erhardt. 15

MR. ERHARDT: Yeah. To elaborate a little 16

bit on Cheryl's, metal halide lamps can be dimmed, 17

generally speaking, up to 50 percent. The typical 18

systems will dim them by 45 percent to have some 19

margin. 20

Depending on the application, as Cheryl says, 21

parking lots in the evening that may have little or no 22

usage, warehouses where various rows of product may see 23

a forklift once or twice a day can be dimmed for 24

significant periods of time. 2545

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC There's some usage in roadway where, during 1

the periods from, let's say, midnight until 4 a.m. or 2

something or 11 to 4 a.m., you may dim the lamps a bit 3

when there's not the high usage and while they're 4

dimmed you can see power savings of 30 or 40 percent, 5

30 to 50 percent, actually, which, on, for instance, a 6

400-watt metal halide results in dramatic energy 7

savings. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, Dale. 9

MR. SIMPSON: Dale Simpson. We'd just like 10

to request some clarification. I presume or I'm 11

presuming that standby mode would mean the amount of 12

power consumed when the luminaire is producing 13

absolutely no light or the amount of power consumed 14

when it's producing light at the lower of two levels. 15

Which is defined as standby mode? 16

MR. STAS: Well, there is a statutory 17

definition of off mode. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Eric Stas. Michael, do you 19

know? 20

MR. MYER: Michael Myer, PNNL. It's more 21

towards the first answer of it's not producing light 22

but the statutory definition doesn't say those specific 23

words and the Test Procedure specifically removed the 24

no-producing light because of a fault load issue if the 2546

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC lamps failed and the ballast is active. 1

So, in essence, it's when it's not producing 2

any light, what is the power draw there, but the actual 3

definition has some other words in it that deal with 4

the fault load issue but that's the idea, yes. It's 5

performing one or more functions that is not the main 6

function is the technical word. You know, the main 7

function, of course, is powering the lamp. In this 8

case, it would be possibly powering a clock or a 9

wireless signal or something else. That's a secondary 10

function but that's the gist of it. 11

MR. STAS: Eric Stas, DOE. And if you want 12

to just check when you go back, it's 42 USC 13

6295(gg)(1)(3) is the statutory definition and when the 14

Test Procedure final rule comes out, you'll get more 15

clarification. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Dale, yes. 17

MR. SIMPSON: Just so I'm understanding, so 18

standby mode is that when it's not supposed to be 19

producing light? 20

MR. MYER: Yes. 21

MR. SIMPSON: But may be consuming power? 22

MR. MYER: Yes. Michael Myer, PNNL, again. 23

In the roadway instances everyone's been talking about, 24

at 4 o'clock in the afternoon in the summer when you're 2547

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC not expecting any light, it's probably drawing a little 1

power to talk to central control system. That's the 2

power we're talking about, yes. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Michael. Thank 4

you. Okay, okay. Yes, Amanda. 5

MS. STEVENS: Amanda Stevens for PG&E. So 6

when we're talking about the standby load of the 7

luminaire, I'm assuming we're talking about the standby 8

load of the ballast as well as any other component or 9

sensor that's in the luminaire, is that correct, or are 10

we just -- or is DOE Test Procedure measuring the 11

standby load that's associated with just the ballast? 12

Just kind of a point of clarification, I think. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Mimi Gupta. 14

MS. GUPTA: In the NOPR, since the NOPR Test 15

Procedure only addresses the ballast, it only provides 16

test procedures for the standby mode of the ballast, 17

but DOE's required to look at standby mode for metal 18

halide lamp fixtures, so if an interested party 19

believes that we should look at standby mode in the 20

fixture context the please comment. 21

MS. STEVENS: Yeah. I don't have any data 22

and so maybe the manufacturers have a better sense, but 23

I would be curious to just know what the standby load 24

is from the other components outside the ballast, as 2548

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC well, just to know if that's significant, receivers or 1

different occupancy sensors, things like that. I don't 2

have a sense, but it would be worth -- I would 3

recommend that DOE at least look for some data on that 4

to assess if it's significant. 5

MR. MYER: This is Michael Myer, PNNL. In 6

related work and I'd like the manufacturers to comment, 7

we're seeing it around two watts or possibly less. It 8

depends on a couple of devices, but two watts or around 9

there is what we've found. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: For those parts she listed? 11

MR. MYER: Yes, extraneous devices, like 12

photo-sensor or occupancy sensor, other devices that 13

are being controlled, that are being somewhat powered 14

by the ballast. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you, Michael. 16

Thank you. Okay. I'm eager for us to move on. Yes, 17

let's go. 18

MR. ROSSIN: And that concludes the Scope. 19

So I think we had a break or -- 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Let's keep going another 20 21

minutes. 22

MR. ROSSIN: So I'll pass along to my 23

colleague, Brian Coffey, who will present the next 24

stage that talks about Market and Technology 2549

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC Assessment. 1

Market and Technology Assessment and Screening Analysis 2

MR. COFFEY: Market and Technology Assessment 3

is the first of nine parts of the Preliminary Analysis 4

and its purpose is to get information about markets, 5

manufacturers, and ways that one could think about 6

improving equipment efficiency. 7

So that would include, for example, learning 8

about manufacturers, shipments, market shares and 9

trends, both regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives 10

intended to improve efficiency and opportunities for 11

technological improvements in design and manufacturing. 12

The Market and Technology Assessment is 13

important because it serves as a basis for later 14

analyses yielding, as you can see, technology options 15

for the Screening Analysis that themselves become 16

design options in the Engineering Analysis and also 17

equipment classes directly to the Engineering Analysis. 18

Of course, we'll talk about both of these analyses 19

later. 20

So in Item 6 and 7 here, DOE asks for comment 21

on the key inputs to the Market and Technology 22

Assessment, market shares, equipment features, 23

efficiency trends, manufacturers and distribution 24

channels for covered equipment. 2550

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC MR. BROOKMAN: Comments on that listing of 1

variables? 2

MS. HORNER: Just a second. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 4

MS. HORNER: Let me get the notes. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob Erhardt. 6

MR. ERHARDT: Are you asking market shares of 7

luminaire classifications? 8

MR. COFFEY: It's an open-ended question. 9

Any information relating to that. 10

MR. ERHARDT: Okay. NEMA will be supplying a 11

detailed formal response, but if one weights the sales 12

and power usage by classification, the 150-to-500-watt 13

range represents about 54 percent of the energy usage, 14

the over-500-watt range represents about 40-41 percent 15

of the energy usage, and the less-than-150-watt range 16

represents about six percent of total energy usage. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Pam, please. 18

MS. HORNER: Pam Horner. I was just reading 19

some notes from my ballast lady. She indicated, and, 20

Bob, please correct me if I'm wrong, but in a recent 21

call among NEMA to express cooperation with DOE to 22

provide this information, that they desired to provide 23

it as two lists, one from the ballast manufacturers and 24

one from the luminaire manufacturers, is that correct? 2551

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC MR. BROOKMAN: So I see Cheryl nodding yes 1

and Rebecca nodding yes, also. So that's your desire 2

from NEMA. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. 3

Additional comments? You see the comment 4

boxes there. 5

MR. LEWIS: Doug? 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Ron. 7

MR. LEWIS: This is the early stage of this 8

rulemaking, but we end up many times further down the 9

road where we've been waiting for data and there have 10

been difficulties in getting data. We have a couple of 11

them right now where we've been greatly disappointed on 12

how long it took us to get data and, in fact, sometimes 13

there were things presented to us very late in the 14

ballgame where people said they couldn't present it 15

when the expectancy was there to get it. 16

So it's really important that we get data 17

quickly, but, secondly, the disaggregation of things to 18

the degree that it can be disaggregated, if there's 19

information that is like pulse start versus probe 20

start, if there are things that would help us since 21

there are going to be impacts on the efficiency, things 22

that would be noteworthy that we should be considering, 23

things that you would want to make sure that we're not 24

with a broad brush setting requirements on products 2552

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC that don't have those capabilities because they're 1

confined to a certain technology. 2

To the degree that you can give us 3

disaggregated information that would be very helpful. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, okay. 5

Cheryl English. 6

MS. ENGLISH: As you know, Ron, you know, 7

through NEMA we can consolidate data and prepare 8

information for you and really try to customize it 9

relative to this rulemaking. 10

Where we start to get into challenges of 11

disaggregating is when we start talking about 12

applications. So if we can talk about lighting 13

technologies, we do not track sales based on ballast 14

efficiency. We don't track sales based on photometric 15

performance, but we can try to distil that down and I 16

fully appreciate where you're trying to get to is that 17

data will help us define where is an energy savings 18

potential and where are we really focusing a lot of 19

effort but we're not going to get the energy savings. 20

So I think through NEMA, you know, we can 21

start to craft what a framework of that data would be, 22

make sure upfront that it's going to make sense for the 23

analysis, and then go back and try to aggregate or 24

disaggregate that data for you. 2553

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay, okay. 1

MR. COFFEY: So with Slide 34 here, we launch 2

into a discussion of equipment classes for each of 3

which DOE may establish separate conservation 4

standards. 5

The equipment is divided into classes based 6

on the type of energy used and, maybe more 7

interestingly, capacity and other performance-related 8

features that affect consumer utility. 9

In the case of metal halide lamp fixtures, 10

DOE considered using a number of features to set 11

equipment classes which we'll briefly touch on, but a 12

review of manufacturer catalog data led DOE to 13

initially use only rated lamp wattage and input voltage 14

in setting equipment classes. So that can mean, as you 15

see here, using one of two different approaches. 16

In the case of rated lamp wattage, for 17

example, one could split the equipment range into bins 18

and set a separate standard for each. Alternatively, 19

on the right is the option just to set efficiency 20

requirements based on a continuous function of wattage. 21

So here's one possible way to set equipment 22

classes using both wattage and voltage. The wattage 23

numbers come straight from EISA 2007 with the obvious 24

expansion of coverage above 500 watts and below 150 2554

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC watts. The voltage divisions reflect the fact that 1

different utility could exist at different levels of 2

electrical service. 3

DOE has also identified a number of 4

characteristics that at least initially don't appear to 5

provide both unique consumer utility and inherently 6

lower efficiency and because of that, DOE is not 7

initially considering using them to set equipment 8

classes. 9

For example, most ballasts that DOE came 10

across in its preliminary catalog review were designed 11

to operate a single lamp. A handful of those could 12

operate more than one lamp, but they didn't appear to 13

have notably different efficiency. 14

The next three, starting method, electronic 15

configuration and circuit type, absolutely did seem to 16

correlate to efficiency, although it wasn't obvious 17

that the different choices there provided unique 18

consumer utility and they seemed in many cases to be 19

used as direct substitutes for one another. 20

Finally, there are a number of ballasts that 21

are able to operate at two or more input voltages or a 22

range of input voltages and initially DOE does not 23

understand that to provide unique consumer utility. 24

So at the end of the market portion of the 2555

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC Market and Technology Assessment, DOE requests comment 1

on equipment classes and how to define them, how 2

ballast efficiency correlates to both lamp wattage and 3

input voltage, information useful in setting the number 4

and range of wattage bins, and as we just mentioned, 5

how best to address the case of universal voltage 6

ballasts. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: That was a good summary. 8

Comments? Bob Erhardt. 9

MR. ERHARDT: Yes. We do challenge the 10

assumption that the product classes are directly 11

interchangeable. As we stated earlier, electronic 12

ballasts are not direct replacements for electro13

magnetic products and do require a dedicated luminaire 14

for them to operate properly. 15

Also, as far as utility of multiple voltages, 16

it is the norm and not the exception for ballasts to be 17

operating either for an electromagnetic as multi-tap or 18

if it's an electronic it's universal input. 19

In the case of electromagnetic ballasts, for 20

instance, there is additional utility. A ballast 21

running at 277 volts or 480 volts will generally have a 22

120-volt tap that will operate on auxiliary equipment. 23

It's not expected that this product is going to be 24

operating at a 120 volts, and also while it's not a 2556

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC true utility function, it does have an impact on the 1

cost because by decreasing total number of SKUs and 2

improvement of distribution, having multiple voltages 3

off of a given product do aid in allowing a wider 4

variety of products to be distributed in the 5

marketplace and at a lower cost than would be the case 6

if there were dedicated voltages. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Jennifer. 8

MS. AMANN: Jennifer Amann. Yes, in reading 9

through and looking at the proposal to eliminate 10

starting method in electronic configuration, one of the 11

concerns that came up for us in our review is that, 12

given the existing standards set out in EISA, depending 13

on the levels established in this rulemaking, it could 14

run afoul of the rollback provisions. 15

If you look, the standard for magnetic probe 16

start is a 94 percent ballast efficiency and so 17

establishing any lower standard that covered those 18

products would violate the rollback provision, in our 19

understanding. We'd certainly appreciate any insight 20

on that. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. Yes, Pam 22

Horner. 23

MS. HORNER: Pam Horner. I have a question 24

for Bob Erhardt. 2557

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC MR. BROOKMAN: Do you want to take this out 1

of the room? 2

MS. HORNER: No. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead. 4

MS. HORNER: To take your statement further 5

which we agree with that you use multi-tap for lots of 6

reasons, universal voltages for lots of reasons in the 7

market, they're the most common, would you also further 8

state that any standards that might be set should be 9

based upon those types and not on the single voltage 10

type? 11

MR. ERHARDT: Yeah. I think that -- yes. 12

MS. HORNER: Okay. Because I was going to 13

say while that is all true, would you then further 14

recommend -- 15

MR. ERHARDT: My assertion didn't imply we 16

would -- 17

MS. HORNER: Thank you. 18

MR. ERHARDT: We do not agree with separating 19

into voltage bins as has been proposed. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob, thank you. So the answer 21

is yes. 22

MR. ERHARDT: Yes. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Great. Let 24

me see. 2558

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC MR. HARDING: Tom Harding. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Tom, please. 2

MR. HARDING: Just a comment about the bins 3

that were proposed where you have separation of lower 4

than 150 watts and then you have 150, 250, 250, 500, 5

and you separate them by line voltages. 6

Based on our experience with California Title 7

20, don't make more bins than you have to. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 9

MR. HARDING: And if there's no energy 10

savings by different taps on a ballast, let's not make 11

up one watt and call it significant, and there was a 12

comment about 250 watt being an easy break. I don't 13

see an easy break there. I don't know where that came 14

from, but just when you do your study make sure you 15

don't add more. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: And I'm assuming the 17

Department would appreciate you, based upon your 18

California experience, to give detailed comments on how 19

to bend these things, where the breakpoints would be. 20

Dale. 21

MR. deLASKI: Just a follow-on to that. If 22

you could flip back to Slide 35, so as a general 23

matter, we like curbs. You know, I think when you have 24

a step function kind of function like that with bins, 2559

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC you're going to see a clustering of products at the 1

foot of the stair, at the foot of the step, and, you 2

know, we saw this with the general service lamp 3

standard that California established and I think you'll 4

see it, you know. 5

So if we can find a relationship that defines 6

the continuous relationship, that's one that's going to 7

prevent products being marketed -- products moving to 8

take advantage of these breaks in the standard. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Gotcha. Thank you, Andrew. 10

Dale. 11

MR. SIMPSON: Dale Simpson. Just wanted to 12

amplify a little bit about the universal voltage 13

question and challenge a bit the notion that it offers 14

no utility. 15

I would venture to say that the presence of 16

universal voltage, particularly in electronic ballasts, 17

has been an element in their adoption and has allowed 18

their movement into the marketplace much quicker than 19

if single voltage were required and a movement in 20

general or any standard that penalized universal 21

voltage would, in essence, penalize current electronic 22

ballast technology. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Additional 24

comments on this series of factors and the Department's 2560

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC preliminary thinking on it? Okay. Andrew. 1

MR. deLASKI: If I could just follow up with 2

Dale? Dale, is there typically an efficiency penalty 3

that the product would have universal voltage or 4

relative to applying to single voltage? 5

MR. SIMPSON: At some times, yes. Is it 6

significant? You'd have to look at individual cases to 7

say whether or not it's significant. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: I see Bob may have a comment. 9

MR. ERHARDT: Yeah. I can amplify on Dale's 10

comment. There can be at some voltages in a multi-tap, 11

you may have some voltages that don't have -- aren't 12

optimized for efficiency in order to get the same 13

layer, the same turns per layer, etcetera. Electronic 14

ballast, there could be some small penalty, as well, in 15

having the higher VA ratings, ranges, but I would say 16

it's probably on the order of half a percent to a 17

percent. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 19

MR. COFFEY: Okay. Great. This brings us to 20

the technology portion of the Market and Technology 21

Assessment which serves as sort of a brainstorming 22

where DOE attempts to identify all the ways one could 23

improve ballast efficiency which those are called 24

technology options and start with moving from a 2561

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC magnetic to an electronic ballast. 1

There may even be further gains associated 2

with high-frequency operation, but even in the case of 3

low-frequency electronic, there appear to be efficiency 4

benefits from switching from discrete components to 5

integrated circuits. Of course, in both cases you can 6

always use higher-grade components, whether that's 7

improved semiconductor materials or, say, higher-grade 8

electrical steels, and then at the systems level, also 9

in both cases, there can be gains associated with 10

improved circuit design. 11

DOE welcomes comments on these preliminary 12

technology options and whether there are others. In 13

doing so, please discuss impacts on safety, performance 14

and consumer utility. 15

MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt. 16

MR. ERHARDT: Please. 17

MR. ERHARDT: Concerning electronic ballasts, 18

while there is some trends that high-frequency 19

electronic ballasts can be -- are often slightly more 20

efficient than low-frequency electronic ballasts, it's 21

not the frequency itself, it's rather the ballast 22

configuration. The low-frequency electronic ballast is 23

typically a three-stage design versus a two-stage 24

design for high-frequency ballasts. 2562

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC So it's not the frequency of operation of the 1

lamp necessarily that gives the improvement in system 2

efficiency. So we would discourage any rulemakings 3

that tried to specify technology on the basis of 4

frequency. 5

Similarly, with integrated circuits, while 6

integrated circuits can allow optimization of a 7

product, the integrated circuit itself does not have 8

any direct impact on ballast efficiency. 9

I guess higher-grade components, we do agree 10

you can use higher-grade components at a cost and the 11

cost impact would have to be evaluated. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: So the Department is 13

specifically seeking comment on safety, performance, 14

and consumer utilities. So if you could weave that in. 15

Dale. 16

MR. SIMPSON: Dale Simpson. I would just 17

reiterate my earlier comment briefly, that when you 18

think of -- if a standard were to mandate electronic 19

ballasts, for instance, you need to consider the cost 20

beyond just the difference between ballast A and 21

ballast B. There's form, there's thermal, and there 22

may in fact be some consumer utility issues in that a 23

wattage might be available in magnetic but not in 24

electronic purely because of form and thermal. 2563

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Jennifer. 1

MS. AMANN: Jennifer Amann. Just as we were 2

encouraging DOE to expand the scope to look beyond just 3

ballast efficiency, that would entail looking at 4

additional technologies for improving system efficiency 5

or fixture efficienc y and so forth, and we'll provide 6

further comment on that in our written comments. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So final comments on 8

this comment. You see the list of technology options 9

there and the Department's request for specific 10

comments on safety, performance, and consumer utility 11

as they relate. 12

Additional comments? Yes, Cheryl English. 13

MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English. Just one final 14

comment is relative to electronic ballasts and we've 15

talked about the thermal issues. 16

We personally consider it still very much of 17

an emerging technology because of the thermal 18

management issues. We find, especially for fixtures 19

that are used in hot environments, that they fail very 20

frequently. That, of course, can present a safety/ 21

security concern and electronics don't perform well 22

when there's not good power quality. 23

So for outdoor lighting, where the power is 24

not quite as regulated or controlled, the failures have 2564

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC a much higher percentage and the safety issue is much 1

more significant in the outdoor environment. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Bob, yes, 3

Bob. 4

MR. ERHARDT: Yeah. Concerning consumer 5

utility, if you are redesigning a luminaire for an 6

electronic ballast, as Dale commented, the luminaire 7

may -- will change its form factor and that can affect 8

its utility. 9

To elaborate a little bit on Cheryl's 10

comment, especially in outdoor power quality, if you're 11

using an electronic ballast, you likely will have to 12

add some additional line transient protection within 13

the luminaire beyond what the ballast itself is capable 14

of. 15

Electromagnetic ballasts typically can 16

withstand well in excess of 10,000 volt transients and 17

electronic ballasts are typically rated for 6,000 volt 18

transients. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Final 20

comments on this subject matter? 21

(No response.) 22

MR. BROOKMAN: So I'm going to suggest we 23

take a break now. It's now 10:30 almost, 10:29 or so. 24

We'll resume at 10:45. While you're in the Forrestal 2565

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC Building, you've got to wear your visitor's badge. 1

(Recess.) 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Can you return to Slide 27? 3

At the break, someone approached me and said that they 4

didn't get a chance to fully cover Item Number 3 which 5

is on Slide 27. So we want to return to that and 6

provide that opportunity. Tom. 7

You can see DOE welcomes comments on the 8

expansion of the scope of this rulemaking to include 9

all metal halide lamp fixtures currently excluded under 10

42 USC 6295(h)(h)(1)(B). Tom. 11

MR. HARDING: Tom Harding. So I just noticed 12

that we missed that item and we had a couple of things 13

to say about it. In fact, Bob Erhardt was going to say 14

some things about it. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Bob, are 16

you ready? 17

MR. ERHARDT: Yes. 18

MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. Also at the break, if 19

you could make sure that the microphone is somewhat 20

close to your face and you're directing your comments 21

into it. Please, Bob. 22

MR. ERHARDT: Okay. I've never been accused 23

of not being heard. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: We'll try and make sure it 2566

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC never happens here. Keep going. 1

MR. ERHARDT: Okay. Concerning the 150-watt 2

exclusion, we'd like to point out the 150-watt 3

exclusion does promote the use of a more efficacious 4

lamp compared with the 175-watt that it replaces and it 5

was put in place in principle so that this large market 6

had a place to go while saving energy and -- excuse me. 7

I don't have my notes in front of me, so I'm ad libbing 8

a little bit. 9

And concerning the regulated lag, that's a 10

very small percentage of the market and we encourage 11

you to keep these exemptions in place. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Do you want to find your 13

notes? Do you want to refer specifically to them? 14

Yeah. Let's use prepared comments for yourself. Let's 15

make sure you get a chance to say them. 16

MR. ERHARDT: Okay. Yes. The 150-watt and 17

again the outdoor exclusion, we talked about outdoor 18

already, about how the requirements for line 19

transients, etcetera, are more stringent and so the -- 20

and a 150-watt ballast -- 150-watt lamps compared with 21

a 175-watt lamps are an energy-saving replacement and 22

that was the rationale for putting this exclusion in to 23

begin with. 24

The 480-volt electronic ballast, to my 2567

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC knowledge, I don't think there are any on the market 1

today, 480-volt electronic ballasts. There's a small 2

market for indoor applications, but the semiconductors 3

needed for 480-volt ballasts are already kind of put to 4

their limits for indoor application. If you had to add 5

additional transient protection, it would be very 6

difficult for outdoor, and the regulated lag, this 7

again is a rather small market but it's outdoor with I 8

transients and we don't feel that the small number of 9

products out there represents a significant energy 10

savings. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 12

MR. LEWIS: Bob, are you going to be 13

submitting those in your comments, written comments? 14

MR. ERHARDT: Yeah. NEMA -- this is -- 15

MR. LEWIS: Okay. 16

MR. ERHARDT: -- part of the NEMA comments 17

that we'll submit formally. 18

MR. LEWIS: Okay. Thank you. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Thanks very much. Okay. Now 20

we're going to go back to where we had left off just 21

prior to the break, which is Slide Number? 22

MR. COFFEY: 41. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 24

MR. COFFEY: So now we find ourselves at the 2568

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC Screening Analysis which takes as inputs to the 1

technology option we mentioned and screens them on the 2

basis of four criteria which you see right here: 3

Technological Feasibility, Practicability to 4

Manufacturer Install and Service, Impacts on Equipment 5

Utility or Availability to Consumers, and Impacts on 6

Health and Safety. 7

Technology options that meet all four of 8

these criteria are known as design options and carried 9

through to the Engineering Analysis. 10

DOE welcomes comment on how any of these 11

criteria might pertain to these or other technology 12

options. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Go back to Slide 42, just 14

leave it there. Technological Feasibility, 15

Practicability to Manufacturer Install and Service, 16

Impacts on Equipment Utility or Availability to 17

Consumers, Impacts on Health or Safety. Andrew. 18

MR. deLASKI: This is more just a cautionary 19

note than, I think, -- the lighting market in this 20

largely international market with international 21

companies that compete mostly globally. So I think 22

it's important that DOE look internationally at 23

technologies and I think that one of the things that 24

we've observed in some other dockets is the tendency to 2569

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC say, well, if it's not available in the U.S. market 1

today, then that's not practical to manufacture in the 2

U.S. market which I think is a leap that is not 3

justified. 4

So I think DOE needs to be cautious or needs 5

to look expansively at the lighting, what's happening 6

globally in lighting to assess the second criteria 7

there and not limit itself to an assessment of what's 8

happening domestically. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Bob Erhardt. 10

MR. ERHARDT: Yeah. Just a small response to 11

that. Generally, we're multinational companies and I'm 12

not exactly aware of what technology -- as a matter of 13

fact, I just came back from Europe. I spent a week in 14

London and a week in Frankfort at IEC meetings which is 15

the International Standards Group and I'm not 16

particularly aware of any metal halide technology 17

that's available outside the United States that isn't 18

available inside the United States. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you for that. 20

Thank you. Yes, Cheryl. 21

MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English. I guess one 22

comment on the international and global perspective is 23

it probably embeds in what you've defined here on 24

practicability to manufacture, but there may be some 2570

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC need to consider trade agreement issues and stimulus 1

funds have certain requirements related to Buy American 2

that could be very problematic if we shift this 3

regulation to forcing us to look at foreign-sourced 4

components. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 6

MR. COFFEY: So that brings us to the end of 7

the Screening Analysis and I'll turn it over to a 8

colleague, Mimi Gupta, for the Engineering Analysis. 9

Engineering Analysis 10

MS. GUPTA: Okay. So after developing the 11

equipment classes and the Market and Technology 12

Assessment and the design options from the Screening 13

Analysis, DOE uses those inputs in the Engineering 14

Analysis and the Engineering Analysis determines the 15

relationship between costs and efficiency. Cost, 16

specifically the manufacturer's selling price, and 17

efficiency relationship. 18

That cost-efficiency relationship is then fed 19

into the downstream analyses that DOE conducts, such as 20

the Life-Cycle Cost Analysis and the Manufacturer 21

Impact Analysis and Employment Impact Analysis. 22

To conduct the Engineering Analysis, DOE goes 23

through several steps. The first is choosing 24

representative equipment classes to be analyzed in the 2571

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC Engineering Analysis. Then it defines baseline models 1

for each representative equipment class from which DOE 2

assesses the impacts of standards. 3

DOE then identifies higher-efficient 4

substitutes to those baseline models and develops 5

manufacturer selling prices for both the baselines and 6

the higher-efficient substitutes. DOE then develops 7

candidate standard levels that span the full range of 8

ballast efficiencies from the baseline to the maximum 9

technologically-feasible level and, finally, DOE scales 10

the results of the representative equipment classes to 11

those equipment classes not directly analyzed in the 12

Engineering Analysis. 13

So DOE will choose a subset of equipment 14

classes called representative equipment classes to 15

analyze the Engineering Analysis and the Life-Cycle 16

Cost Analysis. These equipment classes are chosen 17

generally based on what DOE believes to be the highest 18

volume and here on this slide you can see that the 19

framework document presents several proposals for 20

representative equipment classes, one in each wattage 21

bin, and in the voltage bin that DOE believes to be 22

most common. 23

And DOE welcomes comments on these 24

representative equipment classes. 2572

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC MR. LEWIS: Doug? 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Ron Lewis. 2

MR. LEWIS: If we can go back to Slide 45 3

just for a second, Mimi? 4

MS. GUPTA: Mm-hmm. 5

MR. LEWIS: Okay. 6

MS. GUPTA: Sorry. 7

MR. LEWIS: That first bullet, it states, "A 8

key factor in setting standards considers the increased 9

cost of more efficient products." I think Phil and Bob 10

both brought up the potential complications with form 11

factor and with pole size, things of that nature that 12

aren't normally a consideration. 13

So to the degree -- we went over that pretty 14

fast, but to make sure that you give us input, you 15

know, and any specifics you can give us that help us to 16

best understand that in this stage, but I heard you, 17

but this is the stage where that really fits and if you 18

can make sure and give us as much education on that as 19

possible, that would be really appreciated. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Rebecca. 21

MS. RAINER: I'd also like to add that, along 22

with the thermal factors and the redesign of product, 23

you also need to consider in the cost the longevity of 24

electronic ballasts, along with the reliability of 2573

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC electronic ballasts versus the electromagnetic. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Ron Lewis. 2

MR. LEWIS: One of the things for us to 3

consider is having supporting information and data. So 4

if you have data that shows that, that would be very 5

helpful. 6

MS. RAINER: Understood. We'll have that. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: And to be specific, the 8

Department, I'm certain, would love to hear from NEMA 9

as a whole. However, if individual companies could 10

supply the specifics, that would also be very, very 11

helpful to the Department. Okay. Thank you. 12

Okay. We're going to press on. 13

MS. GUPTA: Than for each representative 14

equipment class, DOE defines a baseline model that will 15

serve as reference points to assess changes due to 16

energy conservation standards. 17

Typically for equipment classes that have 18

existing standards, the baseline model just meets the 19

current energy conservation standards. However, as 20

discussed earlier, DOE's considering expanding its 21

scope of coverage beyond current EISA regulation and 22

therefore for equipment classes where DOE's considering 23

expanding coverage, DOE generally selects a baseline 24

model that represents the most common lowest-efficiency 2574

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC product on the market. 1

And on this slide we see the plot that Doug 2

presented earlier that shows what we see as the -- what 3

DOE took from catalog literature as the market for 4

metal halide lamp ballasts. 5

The black lines on the plot indicate the EISA 6

levels and as presented in the framework document, DOE 7

proposes some initial baseline models as ballasts that 8

operate a 70-watt lamp, 250-watt lamp, 400-watt lamp, 9

and a 1,000-watt lamp. 10

And now I'd like to pause to invite comment 11

on the baseline models. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Dale. 13

MR. SIMPSON: Dale Simpson. I just wanted to 14

comment in general that with metal halide, we know that 15

it's true that typically the higher you go in wattage 16

within a certain range, the higher the efficiency, and 17

specifically there is a wide range of efficiency 18

between 100- and 150-watt metal halide and 20-watt 19

metal halide and over that range, and we would express 20

a concern that lower-wattage metal halide may get 21

precluded from the standard and that lower-wattage 22

metal halide is often used to replace much less 23

efficient incandescent and fluorescent. 24

So I would urge caution as you look at that 2575

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC range to recognize that potential. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Bob. 2

MR. ERHARDT: Yeah. This is Bob Erhardt. 3

Just in general concerning the -- and I apologize. I 4

guess I missed it. We were commenting on Item 13 and 5

we do wish to reiterate the non-reoccurring costs of 6

developing new luminaires for some of the technologies, 7

specifically electronic ballasts, and to the 8

requirements for increased transient protection, 9

etcetera, that are required often with an electronic 10

ballast in comparison with the electromagnetic ballast. 11

In general, also, we talked a little bit 12

about how the rule rather than the exception is the 13

multi-tap or universal voltage and we do find the 14

equipment classes to be rather complicated and, as Tom 15

Harding commented earlier, we prefer that we not have 16

an overly-complex set of rulemaking to make it easier 17

to understand compliance and enforcement. 18

So then we have commented on -- well, again, 19

that reflects again with the baseline models and this 20

whole process of choosing one power level at one 21

voltage. We're not necessarily objecting to this idea 22

of having a continuous function or to have, you know, 23

representative wattage levels, but we do find the 24

existing -- the proposed classification of products to 2576

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC be rather complex, overly-complex. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: So we covered this a few 2

slides back, but the Department asked for comments on 3

the equipment classes, and as you see on Slide 47, do 4

you wish to comment further on that? 5

MR. BUSCH: Bill Busch. I have a comment on 6

that. I think you could greatly simplify those by 7

making one class less than 300 volts and the second 8

class greater than 300 volts because, as Bob has 9

mentioned, the multi-tap is 120 basically through 277 10

and that's where most of your volume is. Above that 11

you have 480 volts. So it would be much simpler to do 12

that. 13

While the 150-watt may predominantly be 120 14

volts because of the small size and usage, it would 15

just be much simpler to have two classes in each of 16

those categories. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, Dale. 18

MR. SIMPSON: Just to amplify on that, that 19

would also serve the utility of continuing the 20

universal voltage which we believe does in fact 21

encourage adoption of more efficient electronic 22

technology. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So additional comments 24

-- well, I guess we've returned to equipment classes 2577

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC here for a moment. Additional comments on that before 1

we move on? I want to make sure that -- I'm trying to 2

make sure that we are efficient, but we sure don't want 3

to diminish your opportunity for comment here. 4

So if you need time to find your notes or 5

whatever it is, let's make sure we do that. Pam. 6

MS. HORNER: Pam Horner. I just put on my 7

Osram Sylvania hat, if you want to note that. 8

I'm not looking at the voltage column now, 9

I'm looking at the wattage column. So we have a 10

recommendation that amplifies Dale's point and that is 11

that when you have a huge range of efficiencies in this 12

150 all the way down to 20 watts which is common now 13

for a lot of applications, our lamp folks are 14

recommending a stop at the 50-watt. So it's a 15

recommendation to look at instead of having a big 16

barrel of less than a 150, have it 150 down to 50 17

because anything below that (a) is low wattage and (b) 18

is part of that huge range issue in this category. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Huge range in application? 20

MS. HORNER: Efficacies. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Cheryl. 22

MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English. I guess to tag 23

on to what Pam's saying is that, as you get into your 24

Engineering Analysis, within that class of 50 to 150 2578

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC and you do see that variability, the 150 as the 1

baseline is probably not the appropriate baseline for 2

those lower wattages, so probably looking more at the 3

50 to 70 watts being the baseline for that class, if 4

you choose to even address that. 5

We had commented earlier that we believe that 6

there's a very small percentage of sales in that low7

wattage range anyway and then the energy impact is 8

small because of the small wattage, but if you do 9

consider addressing that, then the 150 as the baseline 10

is probably not representative. 11

The other comment I wanted to make is on 12

Slide 50 where you show your scatter plots of lamp 13

wattage versus ballast efficiency. I know at NEMA, you 14

guys are very good at doing these types of analyses, 15

but those represent a product that is made but perhaps 16

not even sold and so we'll want to work with you to try 17

to do some kind of sales rating to make sure that we 18

don't have a single spot up there that looks like a 19

great promising technology but its application is very, 20

very limited. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: So it's mostly on the high22

efficiency end where that issue might show itself? 23

MS. ENGLISH: Correct. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, okay. So I'm sure the 2579

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC Department would really appreciate that data. Yes, 1

Bob. 2

MR. ERHARDT: Yeah. Now that I'm looking at 3

your scatter plot, I would also ask that the Department 4

of Energy take a very good look at the, shall I say, 5

certification of those test results that put those 6

points on the chart? I'm pretty confident you're not 7

going to find a 98-percent efficient ballast. I don't 8

think you can build a 98-percent efficient ballast, and 9

when we've gone through this before, we've found that 10

when you really dig into specifications, some 11

manufacturers, for instance -- if you're looking at 12

Internet results, for instance, some manufacturers will 13

define lamp-rated wattage and input power and they may 14

be running at lower than a 100-percent ballast factor. 15

So you may find that a manufacturer may be 16

running two-to-five-percent lower lamp power and then 17

specifying the rated lamp wattage. I have seen that in 18

at least one case in analyzing Internet results. So I 19

strongly recommend that you look at only using results 20

that are submitted by some type of certified lab and I 21

believe California has a requirement, for instance, in 22

their submissions that you have a certified lab doing 23

measurements. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Jennifer. 2580

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC MS. AMANN: I'm Jennifer Amann. I just had a 1

quick question, Cheryl, to follow on with your comment 2

about the 150-watt not being an appropriate baseline. 3

As I'm looking at it, DOE's proposing looking 4

at 70 watts as the baseline for the below 150 watt and 5

I wonder if you could comment if that's appropriate, if 6

you think 70 would be the appropriate model. 7

MS. ENGLISH: I probably am not prepared to 8

answer that here today. I think collectively we need 9

to go back and look at the data and see what would be 10

most representative. 11

If that class is covered, we may have to have 12

multiple baselines within that range of product to 13

address it. 14

MS. AMANN: Okay. It would be very helpful 15

for us to know your input on the baseline models 16

proposed for all the different wattage bins. Thanks. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Is that in the TSD? It's not 18

in the slides, right? 19

MS. AMANN: Yeah. It's on Page 28. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. I missed it. Okay. I 21

want to make sure that you get the chance to comment on 22

defining the baseline models. That's the current issue 23

box that the Department's pushing up for your 24

consideration. 2581

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC (No response.) 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. No additional comments 2

on this. Okay. 3

MS. GUPTA: After defining the baseline 4

models, DOE will then identify more efficient 5

substitutes and DOE intends to begin doing this by 6

utilizing a database of commercially-available ballasts 7

and as was discussed at length earlier, DOE recognizes 8

that the ballast does not work in a vacuum and that it 9

works with a lamp and therefore DOE intends on looking 10

at the entire system in evaluating total energy 11

consumption and light output and ballast system 12

substitutions will be made such that the light output 13

of the higher-efficiency systems maintain the light 14

output within 10 percent of the baseline system. 15

After developing the baseline models and the 16

higher-efficiency substitutes, DOE will then develop a 17

manufacturing selling price for each of the models. To 18

do this, DOE will calculate a manufacturer production 19

cost by disassembling multiple manufacturers' ballasts 20

that span a range of efficiency levels. 21

From these tear-downs, DOE will develop a 22

bill of materials that describe the equipment in 23

detail, including manufacturing steps and material 24

costs. Then DOE will apply manufacturer mark-ups to 2582

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC the manufacturer production costs to calculate the 1

manufacturer's selling price and ultimately construct 2

the industry cost-efficiency curves. 3

For equipment for which bill of materials are 4

not generated, DOE will consider using retail prices to 5

help develop manufacture selling prices for those lamps 6

or for those ballasts. 7

DOE will develop candidate standard levels 8

that span the range of ballast efficiencies from the 9

baseline to the maximum technological feasible level. 10

As discussed earlier, the construct of the candidate 11

standard levels will obviously depend on DOE's 12

decisions on equipment classes, whether it decides to 13

bin lamp wattages or provide a continuous equation. 14

Also, DOE is required to analyze the maximum 15

technological feasible level and is aware that that 16

level might not correspond to the highest-efficiency on 17

the market. Therefore, as part of the Engineering 18

Analysis, DOE will conduct engineering interviews which 19

in part is to help us determine what the max-tech 20

efficiency for metal halide lamp fixtures is and we 21

seek input from all interested parties on this issue. 22

Here we have the actual items for comment 23

which ask for comment on the approach that I've 24

discussed in developing the cost-efficient relationship 2583

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC for metal halide lamp fixtures and DOE's proposed 1

approach to use commercially-available lamp ballasts in 2

its analysis. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: For each of the baseline 4

models. Dale. 5

MR. SIMPSON: Dale Simpson. Question. It 6

isn't clear to me in reading through these slides or 7

the documents whether the cost is going to be developed 8

on the ballast, the more efficient ballast alone or on 9

the complete luminaire containing the more efficient 10

ballast. Which is actually going to happen on this 11

process? Thank you. 12

MS. GUPTA: Well, I think, given your 13

comments earlier on how higher-efficiency ballasts 14

might affect luminaire costs, I think it would be 15

prudent to look at both -- like the entire luminaire, 16

including the ballast. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Go ahead, Dale. 18

MR. SIMPSON: Follow-on then. So you're 19

actually going to not just calculate manufacture 20

production costs by disassembling multiple 21

manufacturers' ballasts, you're going to have to go and 22

look at multiple manufacturers' luminaires. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis. 24

MR. LEWIS: First of all, I apologize. I was 2584

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC looking at Phil before and I was addressing you, Dale. 1

Sorry. I think I called you Phil earlier. 2

We're open for input at this time on things 3

that you're recommending and observations and we're 4

proposing things here that as a starting base and 5

taking input of recommendations or things that you 6

think are not going to capture what we need to capture. 7

So your input is important to us at this stage. So 8

we're not committing to what we're doing at this point. 9

We're not going to give you a final resolution, but we 10

are very anxious to make sure that we get your input so 11

we consider all the factors. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Bob. 13

MR. ERHARDT: Again, to reiterate what we 14

said earlier, we think that the non-reoccurring costs 15

are going to be -- should be considered, as well, 16

because if you're talking about redesigning luminaires 17

for electronic ballasts, these costs are significant 18

and you should also in your impact analysis take into 19

account the effect that a more expensive luminaire will 20

have on the future sales of that power level. 21

There is -- we've already seen, and I think 22

we're commenting at another point, we've already seen, 23

for instance, in California a shift in technology. If 24

you start raising the cost of metal halide luminaires, 2585

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC you're going to see higher adoption of high-pressure 1

sodium and I'm not sure if that's your intent. There 2

is -- you know, a metal halide lamp is a higher3

performance luminaire, but it is a very cost-sensitive 4

market. 5

Also, in talking about -- I'll reiterate when 6

you start talking about max-tech ballast technology, 7

please don't rely on just manufacturer claims. We 8

strongly recommend that you verify claims of 9

performance because it's very difficult to -- 10

especially when you're talking about electronic 11

ballasts, especially high-frequency electronic 12

ballasts, the equipment needed to accurately measure 13

ballast efficiency is rather expensive and it's likely 14

that companies -- it has been -- I have seen where even 15

prestigious organizations, such as Lawrence Berkeley 16

Laboratory, have issued a report measuring efficiency 17

and their equipment didn't have the specification to 18

accurately measure efficiency. 19

When you're talking about a ballast running 20

at 100 kHz and higher, you need a 300 kHz bandwidth or 21

more for your power measurement. The accuracy of these 22

measurements can be off by three to five percent and 23

when you're talking about ballast efficiencies and 24

you're trying to delineate efficiency levels between 92 2586

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC and 95 percent and a five percent error on your output 1

power is dramatic. 2

So we strongly recommend that you take a good 3

look at the certification of the results that you're 4

taking into account when you're looking at these 5

various power levels, efficiency levels. 6

MR. LEWIS: Bob, in response to your issue 7

about non-recurring expenses, there was a phase in this 8

called the Manufacturer Impact Analysis that is done 9

where they actually will be visiting and discussing 10

things with you to look at those kinds of impacts, and 11

on the tolerances and the actual testing and 12

certification of the accuracy of the testing, is that 13

in the ANSI Standard right now? Is there a -- when 14

you're talking about the testing, do you have something 15

you can point to that shows specific requirements that 16

you're quoting there? 17

MR. ERHARDT: The 2005 that you are citing 18

does not have a method of measurement for electronic 19

ballasts. It's something that is being developed for 20

the 2010 version and, you know, that should have the 21

requirements. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Tom. 23

MR. HARDING: Tom Harding. Bob's right. The 24

2010 version of these refer to it, but it is going to 2587

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC have electronic but at this stage only low-frequency 1

ballasts, less than 400 hz. The high-frequency one 2

that Bob referred to, 100 kHz, will not be in that 3

particular document, though it is an ongoing issue, but 4

it won't be in that one. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Let's see. Michael, go ahead. 6

MR. MYER: This is Michael Myer, PNNL. Just 7

a clarification regarding the ANSI Standards we keep 8

talking about. 9

When you say it's been addressed, low10

frequency electronic ballasts, are you talking C82.6 or 11

C82.14 because doesn't C82.14 already address some of 12

that? 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Tom. 14

MR. HARDING: Yes. C82.14 is the low15

frequency ballast standard. What Bob's referring to is 16

C82.6. It's the method of measurement standard and it 17

is only going to deal within this year the low18

frequency. The high-frequency will wait till some 19

other future time. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob Erhardt. 21

MR. ERHARDT: Yeah. We'll also comment that 22

currently there are only lamp ballasts compatibility 23

standards for low-frequency electronic ballasts. When 24

you start looking at high-frequency electronic ballasts 2588

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC where some of the higher ballast efficiencies are 1

realized, there are no ANSI Standards for it. 2

Each lamp ballast compatibility has to be an 3

agreement between manufacturers of the ballasts and 4

each specific lamp manufacturer which complicates the 5

adoption of these types of ballasts immensely. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Just want 7

to make sure we've got all the comments that we want to 8

get on Item 17 and 18 before we move on. 9

(No response.) 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, okay. 11

MS. GUPTA: As a final step in the 12

Engineering Analysis, DOE then scales the analyses 13

conducted on the representative equipment classes to 14

the other equipment classes and on this slide, you can 15

see some initial approaches to how DOE intends to scale 16

mostly across the different voltage bins that were 17

initially proposed as product classes. Obviously if 18

the equipment class structure changes, DOE's scaling 19

approach will also change. 20

Initially, DOE proposes scaling by using 21

ratios and catalog data or extrapolation to other 22

equipment classes, and I'd like to pause here to invite 23

comment on the approach to scaling and DOE also 24

welcomes comments on how ballast efficiency varies with 2589

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC lamp wattage, voltage, or any other ballast parameter. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: So I think the slide gives a 2

good illustration of the Department's approach. 3

Comments on that? Bob. 4

MR. ERHARDT: When the NEMA companies met, we 5

didn't generate -- we don't have strong opinion on the 6

scaling factors because we'd like to see the scaling 7

factors before we comment on them. 8

There are some general trends that, yes, it's 9

generally true that higher-power products have better 10

efficiency than lower-power. This has somewhat to do 11

with the lamp voltages. Lamp voltages get higher, the 12

ballast efficiencies can get better. 13

Again, we are reserving the right to comment 14

further when we see the actual scaling factors. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: For now, noting that you want 16

more specific scaling as an approach that's okay with 17

you. 18

MR. ERHARDT: As we discussed earlier, having 19

some kind of curve-defining ballast efficiency 20

requirements as a function of wattage, we think that 21

can be reasonable. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So additional comments 23

on this? 24

(No response.) 2590

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 1

MS. GUPTA: So just on some supplemental 2

points related to the Engineering Analysis, DOE will 3

evaluate all design options that are commercially 4

available or present in working prototypes, including 5

proprietary designs and technologies. However, 6

proprietary designs will only be considered if they do 7

not present a unique path to a given efficiency level, 8

and any information provided on proprietary designs 9

will be held in strict confidentiality. 10

Item 20 highlights DOE's request for comment 11

on any proprietary design issues that might be used in 12

commercially-available ballast or metal halide lamp 13

fixtures. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: And also in that comment box, 15

the Department asks about cost data, how that might be 16

acquired. Pam. 17

MS. HORNER: Pam Horner. This is just an 18

obvious answer, but ask us during the manufacturer 19

interviews and we'll be happy to talk to you about it. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: There are proprietary designs 21

that need to be described and costed, I'll reiterate on 22

behalf of the Department. Thank you. Okay. 23

Rebecca, do you want to follow on here? 24

MS. RAINER: No. 2591

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. You're all set. Okay. 1

Dale, yes, you're with it? Okay. Same thing. Okay, 2

okay. 3

Please take another look at that comment box, 4

see if there's anything else to be said. 5

MS. GUPTA: And on the final issue related to 6

the Engineering Analysis, DOE takes into consideration 7

the effects on manufacturers of other regulatory 8

changes outside the standards rulemaking process that 9

might affect the Engineering Analysis and DOE welcomes 10

comments on any of these regulatory burdens and any 11

general comments related to the Engineering Analysis. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Dale. 13

MR. SIMPSON: Dale Simpson. On the 14

regulatory burdens just in general, I think DOE should 15

take into consideration the proposed outdoor lighting 16

bill because it does have specific things requiring 17

labeling and other things for an outdoor luminaire 18

manufacturer. 19

As far as the comment about other things that 20

might affect the Engineering Analysis, it hasn't come 21

up yet, but later in the document there's a statement 22

by DOE that essentially says that they presume or 23

assume that metal halide luminaires are disposed of at 24

end of ballast life and I believe I speak for all NEMA 2592

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC members when I say emphatically that is not the case. 1

The average metal halide luminaire has its 2

ballast replaced at least once and in the case of 3

exterior luminaires the life ranges from 20 to 25 years 4

or longer with multiple ballast changes occurring 5

during the life of the luminaire. So that would 6

affect, of course, your Engineering Analysis. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. That's helpful. 8

And does that vary by model type or application or the 9

specifics I think would be very helpful to the 10

Department. 11

MR. SIMPSON: We would be happy at another 12

time to, I think all of us from NEMA, to go into the 13

details of what information we would have available on 14

that subject, but it does very by application and also 15

by class of luminaire and a variety of other things, 16

but the general assumption that metal halide luminaires 17

are disposed of once the ballast has failed is just all 18

wrong. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, thank you. 20

Additional comments on these issues? 21

(No response.) 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 23

Mark-ups for Equipment Price Determination 24

MR. LINGARD: Good morning. I'm Bob Lingard 2593

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. 1

Doug, I had a quick question for you. I 2

think in our agenda, we show us going to the Mark-ups 3

Analysis, whereas the slides go to Energy Use. So I 4

was going to see if people would mind skipping forward 5

a few slides, if they wouldn't mind going forward, then 6

coming back to stay with the agenda. I think in terms 7

of presentation order, it makes good sense. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: Sure. That makes sense to me, 9

too. Let's make certain we return to it. 10

MR. LINGARD: So, folks, if you wouldn't mind 11

skipping forward to Slide 64? Here's where we're going 12

to talk about the Mark-ups for Equipment Price 13

Determination. We're going to begin to talk about the 14

inputs for the economic analyses. 15

The purpose of this analysis is to use 16

manufacturer customer mark-ups to convert the 17

manufacturer selling prices that come out of the 18

Engineering Analysis to customer prices which are then 19

used in the Life-Cycle Cost and the Payback Period 20

Analyses as well as the Manufacturer Impact Analyses. 21

The method that's used here is by applying 22

manufacturer to customer mark-ups. These consist of 23

distribution channel mark-ups and sales tax to the 24

manufacturer's selling price estimates that come out of 2594

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC the Engineering Analysis. So to do this, we must 1

identify the distribution channels. We have an example 2

for you here. A distribution channel consisting of the 3

ballast manufacturer to the OEM fixture manufacturer, 4

then to the electrical wholesaler or distributor on to 5

the contractor and finally to the end user of the 6

lighting system. 7

Now once we have confirmed these distribution 8

channel or channels, DOE will rely on economic data 9

from public sources and industry input to determine how 10

the equipment is marked up from this path from the 11

ballast fixture manufacturer to the customer. That 12

leads us to our items here that we request comment. 13

First, regarding the distribution path, we 14

request comments on the planned distribution path for 15

metal halide lamp fixtures covered under this 16

rulemaking and whether we should consider any 17

additional paths. 18

We also request information on the relative 19

fraction of shipments that go through this path or 20

other paths that you identify. 21

We also request in Item 25 feedback on the 22

overall mark-ups that would be reflected in these mark23

ups paths for metal halide lamp fixtures. 24

And finally, we seek comments on other 2595

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC sources of relevant data that we could use to 1

characterize mark-ups for metal halide lamp fixtures in 2

this rulemaking. 3

So with that, I'll pause for comment. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Pam. 5

MS. HORNER: Pam Horner. On Item 24, the 6

distribution path is typical. So you've identified it 7

well. Item 25, I think that's a case for individual 8

manufacturer interviews, and I believe that our 9

colleagues in the luminaire group have stated that 10

other sources which they may identify to you in the 11

individual manufacturer interviews, but there are 12

municipalities that do purchase certain of these 13

luminaires, say on contract basis or whatever, but 14

again I think your consultants are well aware of those 15

paths and would certainly know to ask about them, if 16

that's clear. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. So, Bob, please. 18

MR. ERHARDT: I think the general comment was 19

there are publicly-available price lists for most of 20

our products. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: This distribution channel 22

that's listed here, it's typical. Are there atypical 23

distribution channels, as well, or is this the great 24

majority of it? Yeah. The great majority? Yes, 2596

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC Rebecca. 1

MS. RAINER: This is typical, but there are 2

other instances. Utilities may buy direct. Some 3

municipalities or cities may buy direct. 4

I'd also like to make a comment on the 5

overall mark-ups for the metal halide fixtures. My 6

instance is a little bit different maybe than most 7

because I am a ballast manufacturer and I'm also a 8

fixture manufacturer. So there are other issues that I 9

will have to consider during the whole process, such as 10

loss of jobs, if we consider the electronic. I do not 11

manufacture electronic ballasts. 12

So I have a lot of issues that may not be 13

with every luminaire manufacturer. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Do you see 15

the comment boxes? We're going to keep moving ahead 16

here. Yes, okay. Here we go. 17

Energy Use and End-Use Load Characterization, Life18

Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis 19

MR. LINGARD: Well, actually, to move ahead, 20

we're going to step back a few slides. How often in 21

life does that occur? 22

If we would go back to Slide Number 60, 23

please? 24

Here's where we're going to speak about the 2597

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC Energy Use and End-Use Load Characterization. This is 1

an input to the Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 2

Analysis. 3

The purpose of this analysis is to identify 4

how consumers use the equipment and thereby we can 5

identify the energy savings potential of energy 6

efficiency improvements. DOE analysis will focus on 7

how end users install and operator these fixtures. 8

Now the method we use here, Number 1, is 9

operating hours. How many operating hours are users 10

using these fixtures? We will obtain data to develop a 11

distribution of operating hours from a number of data 12

sources, including the 2002 U.S. Lighting Market 13

Characterization, this is the Volume 1 Report, as well 14

as the Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey, 15

CBECS, 2003, as well as the 2007 version when it's 16

completed, and, finally, the 2002, Energy Information 17

Administration's 2002 Manufacturing Energy Consumption 18

Survey. 19

We'll correlate the electricity price 20

distribution and sales price distribution with the 21

operating hour distribution by census division. 22

Finally, multiply system power by the number of 23

operating hours per year, this will give us our system 24

energy use, and conduct a sensitivity analysis for the 2598

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC estimates of the high and low operating hours. 1

These two inputs or these two variables, the 2

system input power, we will look to manufacturer 3

information verified by catalogs, and we give you an 4

example of an operating hour distribution here. Here's 5

an example of a commercial sector distribution for 6

metal halide lamp fixtures given below. This is an 7

example of the kind of data that we will draw upon to 8

develop these representative operating hours. 9

We have an opportunity for input here. Item 10

23. We welcome comments on DOE's use of planned 11

operating hour profiles for metal halide fixtures. DOE 12

also welcomes comments on whether the end-use operating 13

profiles are different for the various types of metal 14

halide lamp fixtures covered under this rulemaking and, 15

if so, how. 16

I'll pause for comments here. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Pekka. 18

DR. HAKKARAINEN: Pekka Hakkarainen. So 19

small comment here. The CBECS 2003 data became 20

publicly available in 2008. So I'm just curious as to 21

how you're going to be able to use the 2007 data in 22

time for this rulemaking. If you do, then it's at a 23

time when it's not publicly available. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Well, that's a big lag, isn't 2599

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC it? Do you know when the CBECS data -- 1

MR. LINGARD: I don't have a date for you, 2

but it would be fair to say we will use the most recent 3

data available. 4

MR. LEWIS: Good answer. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Pam. 6

MS. HORNER: Pam Horner. I have a question 7

that I asked last year. We all have our dog-eared 8

copies of the 2002 Lighting Market Characterization 9

Study and it's fabulous and at the time we got a hint 10

that it might be updated. Could you -- Ron's going 11

eek. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis. Ron Lewis is going 13

to repeat that comment into the record. 14

MR. LEWIS: I don't have any information as 15

far as activity that's underway to update that, but we 16

will look into it and pass along your encouragement to 17

do so. 18

MS. HORNER: Yeah. We like that study. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: How would that information be 20

transmitted, if it was, as it was being completed? 21

Would you send out a blast e-mail? 22

MR. LEWIS: I don't think it's underway. So 23

as far as telling somebody it's completed. Okay. 24

After a slight sidebar, as you're aware, the Regulatory 25100

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC Program is part of the Building Technologies Program 1

and the R&D Program for Buildings Equipment is also 2

under that. So there's some functions that sometimes 3

are going on where we're not always fully aware of what 4

the other parts of the office are doing. 5

There may be activity that's getting started. 6

So where we have an inquiry here, we will ask the 7

people that are in charge of that to get back to the 8

parties and let them know the status. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: That's helpful. Thank you. 10

Okay. Dale, do you have a comment? 11

MR. SIMPSON: Yes. Dale Simpson. As far as 12

the request for comment on the operating hour profiles, 13

yes, there are by various applications a wide range of 14

operating hour profiles. 15

I can only speak here to exterior lighting 16

which my division is involved in. The extremes are 17

typically your 12-hour night or approximately 4400 18

annual hours for your typical exterior luminaire, and 19

then the other end of it is your parking garage which 20

is typically continuous burn. 21

So I do think it's important that you profile 22

various applications, both interior and exterior, 23

whatever, to determine sort of the mean operating hours 24

for that application rather than just rely on a table 25101

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC like you have here because I don't think it will give 1

you as good a picture as you otherwise could get. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Yes, 3

please. 4

MR. BUSCH: Bill Busch. If you use that 2002 5

Lighting Market Characterization, I haven't seen it, 6

but in my estimation it's got a lot of metal halide in 7

it, and the current market trend is towards fluorescent 8

high-bays, away from metal halide. So if you use that 9

for volumes, you're going to be way off. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: So where's that data? 11

MR. BUSCH: That would be in the new study. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 13

MR. BUSCH: The fluorescent high-bay market 14

basically took off in 2002 and it just has gone through 15

the roof. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: NEMA would also be trying to 17

aggregate that data somehow, would it not? Yes, 18

Cheryl. 19

MS. ENGLISH: Yeah. NEMA has some reports 20

where we do compile metal halide -- well, I don't think 21

we pick up metal halide but HID and we can probably go 22

back through our historical data to look at what the 23

shift has been in that type of product. Because of 24

daylighting control and motion sensors, there has been 25102

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC a dramatic shift on interior HID lighting to 1

fluorescent systems. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thanks for that 3

clarification. Bob. 4

MR. ERHARDT: There also are some trends that 5

are just now initializing to solid-state lighting, for 6

instance, and as we've mentioned, as the requirements 7

for metal halide have gone into place, there's been 8

seen a shift towards high-pressure sodium. So when 9

you're doing your future projections, you need to 10

consider the impact of cost-effectiveness of other 11

technologies and these type of things. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 13

MR. LINGARD: This is Bob Lingard with PNNL. 14

So regarding the penetration of other technologies, for 15

example fluorescent, into the metal halide market, just 16

to tease out a few more comments from you folks, I 17

guess given the ability to control fluorescent, would 18

you expect the usage patterns or the operating hour 19

profiles to be different between fluorescent and HID? 20

MR. BROOKMAN: So if you could comment on 21

that, that'd be helpful. 22

MR. LINGARD: In these different 23

applications. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Cheryl. 25103

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC MS. ENGLISH: You know, I can't answer it 1

specifically, but I think you've got the right 2

variables. It's obviously energy uses, power and time, 3

and I think the variable that you'll find is going to 4

be application. This is where application standards 5

become problematic, but, you know, Dale alluded to this 6

to some degree and warehouses illuminated with metal 7

halide high-bays, you will typically find a high/low 8

operation. So it's never off, it's always in a low 9

operation, except when people are there and it goes up 10

to a high operation. So that reduces not the time but 11

the power and many outdoor applications, you know, some 12

roadway billboards, things like that, they actually 13

will be controlled on a time clock or some kind of a 14

part-like type of sensor and in those cases, they often 15

will turn off for a certain number of hours, reducing 16

the total annual hour usage. 17

In some cases, they're even smarter and will 18

dim down at a certain time at night, then turn off at 19

midnight or 2 a.m. and then come back on for morning 20

commute. So it may be some combination of watt 21

reduction, power reduction. I can't give you a 22

specific recommendation, other than I think we probably 23

need to identify different applications and look at 24

some estimates on what is the average power reduction, 25104

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC average hour reduction. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Please say your name. 2

MR. FRANCK: This is Peter Franck with 3

Philips Lightolier, and I just wanted to give an 4

anecdotal example where our manufacturing plant 5

switched from metal halide to fluorescent high-bays and 6

before when they were metal halide, they had to 7

essentially be on all the time when people were working 8

there, even working in certain sections, whereas now 9

there are certain sections that are on occupancy 10

sensors where it can be completely turned off unless 11

someone walks into that specific area and then they 12

turn on. 13

So the profile of on versus off has changed 14

dramatically by changing the technology. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 16

MR. ERHARDT: I was just going to make one 17

other comment, that I think when you talk to individual 18

manufacturers, they may be able to help you with some 19

sales trends for the various product types. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. So any specifics would 21

be very helpful to the Department. This is very 22

complicated to calculate, very, very complicated. 23

Okay. So final comments on this segment 24

before we move on. In this case, we move forward, 25105

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC right? 1

MR. LINGARD: Yeah. We do. We jump forward, 2

move forward. If you would step forward to Slide 67? 3

Here's where we will address the Life-Cycle 4

Cost and Payback Period Analyses, the LCC PBP Analyses. 5

Of course, our purpose here is to assess the 6

net Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period impacts on the 7

consumer of the metal halide lamp fixture efficiency 8

standards. 9

Our method, the LCC equals the consumer price 10

plus the sum of annual operating costs discounted to a 11

particular base year. Obviously, this analysis is 12

directed towards the consumer perspective. The 13

analyses are implemented in an Excel spreadsheet. The 14

results are expressed as the LCC difference, the 15

baseline minus the standard level. 16

We also consider simple payback. This is in 17

years. This is the time needed to recover what would 18

generally be the higher first costs through operating 19

cost savings. It's also calculated here and you see a 20

little flow diagram here at the bottom where the first 21

costs of the equipment and the operating costs feed 22

into the consumer's life-cycle and then again we make 23

that comparison to determine the LCC impacts. 24

A little more detail here on the LCC and 25106

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC Payback Period Analysis approach. DOE analyzes the net 1

effect on consumers by calculating the LCC and Payback 2

Period using the engineering and performance data, the 3

Energy Use and End-Use Load Characterization that we 4

were just talking about, as well as the Mark-ups for 5

Equipment Price Determination. 6

DOE also conducts a rebuttal presumption 7

payback period analysis as required under EPCA and for 8

the preliminary analysis, we will conduct the LCC and 9

Payback Period Analyses using typical values to reflect 10

the conditions in the field for equipment retail price, 11

life, energy costs, energy usage, and discount rates. 12

As we proceed forward into the NOPR stage of 13

rulemaking, we will carefully review all the comments 14

garnered on the preliminary analyses and evaluate any 15

additional parameters not included in those preliminary 16

analyses and make any necessary revisions. 17

On the next slide, this is sort of a 10,000 18

foot view, if you will, of the LCC and Payback Period 19

Analyses where you can see the variables that feed into 20

total installed cost, operating cost, and lifetime 21

operating cost. Those would be the shades in lighter 22

green and how these in turn will feed into the Payback 23

Period and Life-Cycle Cost results. 24

So this could be a touchstone of sorts or a 25107

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC quick reference to give us an overview of what we're 1

doing in these analyses. 2

In terms of determining energy prices for 3

these analyses, we will survey residential -- well, in 4

this case commercial and industrial tariffs as a means 5

of establishing marginal electricity prices for 6

consumers. We will also use data from CBECS, the 7

Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey, to 8

estimate the building energy use characteristics that 9

could in turn affect electricity prices, and we will 10

also use projections of the national average energy 11

prices, this from the Energy Information 12

Administration's Annual Energy Outlook. We will be 13

using the most recent versions of these available as 14

inputs for future energy prices in the energy prices 15

that are used in the LCC Analysis. 16

And at this point, we would certainly welcome 17

your input on the information sources and projection 18

methods for electricity prices used in these analyses. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: No additional comments on 20

electricity prices? Where's Steve Rosenstock when we 21

need him? 22

(No response.) 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. I just want to give you 24

another opportunity. Data sources. Any other thing 25108

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC that you could think of? 1

(No response.) 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 3

MR. LINGARD: Okay. We'll move on to 4

installation, maintenance and repair costs. Back with 5

you on Slide 72. 6

The LCC Discount Rates. Of course, DOE uses 7

these discount rates to determine the present value of 8

the lifetime operating expenses and these are derived 9

for both a distribution of discount rates for both 10

commercial and industrial sectors. 11

I should make a note here. You'll probably 12

see a slight difference -- no, you won't see a slight 13

difference between the hard copy and the screen 14

version. Please disregard the discount rates of three 15

and seven percent. We'll be talking about those as 16

they refer to the National Impact Analysis. 17

Instead, we're going to be drawing upon the 18

weighted average cost of capital approach for 19

determining these discount rate distributions for both 20

commercial and industrial consumers of the fixtures. 21

Now the WACC, this includes the financial 22

cost of debt used to incur products as well as the 23

opportunity costs of any equity used to purchase 24

products and these are the two common pathways that 25109

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC companies would use to fund investments. Again, if 1

you'll disregard that next bullet point on the three 2

and seven percent, that's not applicable in this case 3

which brings us to our request for comment here. 4

We welcome your input on these planned 5

approaches for estimating discount rates, both the 6

approach and information sources for consumers of these 7

metal halide lamp fixtures. 8

MR. BROOKMAN: No commenters, both approach 9

and sources? 10

(No response.) 11

MR. BROOKMAN: No? Okay. I'm looking over 12

here towards Jennifer Amann. I'm wondering if 13

California or somebody has compiled that in all the 14

work they've done. Weighted average cost of capital. 15

Okay. Give you a chance to chew on that one. Okay, 16

okay. 17

Okay. So we're going to move on then. 18

MR. LINGARD: I think here's one we can wrap 19

our heads around. Metal halide lamp ballast lifetimes, 20

ballast and fixture lifetimes. 21

We have several information sources to draw 22

upon. Manufacture product catalogs, other various 23

literature sources that we can find, technical reports, 24

conference proceedings, as well as, importantly, input 25110

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC from manufacturers and other interested parties to 1

establish the ballast lifetimes for use in the LCC and 2

the subsequent analyses. 3

Here's where we'll pause for comment. We 4

welcome any comments on appropriate lifetimes for the 5

lamp fixtures and ballasts contained in this rulemaking 6

and this certainly harkens back to earlier comments I 7

recall from Cheryl and Rebecca regarding reliability of 8

electronic ballasts and certainly welcome any other 9

input at this time. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: If usage patterns are 11

shifting, that'd be nice to get. Go ahead, Bob. 12

MR. ERHARDT: I think, as NEMA, when we were 13

in California, we kind of agreed to the typical 14

lifetimes for electromagnetic HID ballasts to be about 15

60,000 hours and electronic HID ballasts are designed 16

for a lifetime of 30 to 50,000 hours. 17

As far as reliability rates, anecdotally, we 18

can comment and maybe you can discuss with individual 19

manufacturers their proprietary experiences with 20

reliability. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Based on test data or 22

something? 23

MR. ERHARDT: Or warranty returns. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Warranty returns. Okay. Yes. 25111

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC Dale. 1

MR. SIMPSON: Dale Simpson. Just to 2

reiterate my earlier comment that the typical metal 3

halide luminaire goes through multiple ballasts and is 4

in fact repaired rather than replaced when the ballast 5

fails. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, Bob. 7

MR. ERHARDT: I didn't comment. I was 8

thinking somebody from the luminaire section might, but 9

some luminaires, from our NEMA discussions, can last 25 10

years or more. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Rebecca, you want to 12

add on here. 13

MS. RAINER: Just a comment to what Bob said. 14

Luminaires many times can last more than 25 years. I 15

typically estimate 30 to 40 years on electromagnetic, 16

much less on the electronic, but I think that's 17

something I would like to cover, along with warranty 18

data, in a manufacturer meeting. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Okay. Yes. 20

Amanda. 21

MS. STEVENS: I was just going to add one 22

other source of data, that PG&E sponsored a case study 23

which is Codes and Standards and Enhancement Study, 24

when we worked on the 2008 Standard and ACEEE was 25112

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC actually the lead technical author, and so that cites 1

some data, as well, on lifetime for ballasts and 2

fixtures. 3

Additionally, I mentioned maybe taking a look 4

at the California DEER database, Database for Energy 5

Efficiency Resources. I know that has expected 6

lifetimes of some components. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. That's helpful. 8

Okay, okay. I think in a little bit we're going to 9

pause for lunch, but where are we now? 10

MR. LINGARD: I think we can make it through 11

this section. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. Through this section. 13

Okay. 14

MR. LINGARD: Yes. Stepping on to 15

installation, maintenance and repair costs, 16

installation costs may not change with more energy17

efficient designs as the new regulations may not change 18

either the ballast lifetime or the labor costs for 19

installing a standards-compliant ballast. 20

Maintenance costs. DOE, we do not expect 21

that the maintenance or labor costs for metal halide 22

lamp fixtures will change with the more efficient 23

designs. However, certainly at this preliminary point 24

we recognize that more energy-efficient ballasts could 25113

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC affect the useful life of the lamps in the fixture. 1

Longer-life lamps would certainly defer and otherwise 2

affect maintenance schedules and DOE does not -- at 3

least at this stage we do not expect energy-efficient 4

ballast designs to shorten lamp life. 5

Repair costs. This may or may not be a part 6

of the LCC Analysis because metal halide lamp ballasts 7

are not repaired and ballasts are typically replaced at 8

the end of their useful life and again this brings us 9

to another opportunity for comment. 10

We welcome any comments on how to develop 11

these installation, maintenance and, if, indeed, 12

applicable repair costs for metal halide lamp fixtures. 13

If the lamp's operated by a more efficient ballast 14

design would be affected, we would like comments on how 15

that might impact relamping practices. As an example, 16

either spot or group relamping, and how it could change 17

as a result of energy conservation standards and 18

ballast design. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Bill, do you want to comment? 20

MR. BUSCH: Bill Busch. I think with Bob's 21

previous comments, you can expect more maintenance 22

costs due to a more frequent replacement of electronic 23

ballasts than magnetic ballasts. So you need to 24

consider that, as well as lamp replacement. 25114

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes. Bob. 1

MR. ERHARDT: The subject of lamp lumen 2

maintenance has come up repeatedly in various 3

discussions of ballast regulation. Some electronic 4

ballasts do improve lamp maintenance and lamp life, 5

others do not, and as a matter of fact, some electronic 6

ballasts can decrease lamp life and therefore also, as 7

we've mentioned, the lamp ballast compatibility 8

standards are very well defined for electromagnetic and 9

are just now evolving with electronic. 10

So especially if you're considering some of 11

the higher-efficiency/high-frequency ballasts, there 12

are no standards for lamp ballast compatibility and be 13

very suspect of claims of -- you should not assume -- 14

let's say -- let's put it this way. You should not 15

assume that you will automatically get an increase in 16

lamp lumen maintenance because I know from our Lamp 17

Division they test right now to determine 18

compatibility. All lamps have to be tested with all 19

ballasts and some electronic ballasts increase lamp 20

life, some electronic ballasts decrease lamp life. 21

So we do not think that lamp life should be a 22

determining factor in looking at maintenance costs as a 23

function of ballast efficiency. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Pam. 25115

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC MS. HORNER: Pam Horner, wearing the Osram 1

Sylvania hat. Our lamp people take -- it's not issue. 2

We agree with the way DOE has stated this, but I'm 3

going to read this sentence. 4

It says, "DOE expects that the increased 5

energy efficiency of ballasts could," I'm going to 6

underline "could," that's to Bob's point, 7

"significantly affect the useful," underline "useful 8

lifetime," and as you proceed with your analyses, it's 9

critical that you understand what we think you mean by 10

"useful." 11

To us, what that means is lumen maintenance 12

could be increased and total years of life, if you turn 13

them off, if you include controls, which I don't know 14

if you're going to. 15

Our company, at least, is not expecting to 16

change rated life. Am I being clear? Okay. So if you 17

mean what we mean, then we're okay with that phrasing, 18

but this is sort of a course correction workshop. So 19

we want to make sure that we're all understanding what 20

yellow bricks we're laying down on the road. 21

I also got input, the other companies may 22

disagree on this, but at least our company so far would 23

not make a recommended change in spot or group 24

relamping based on ballast efficiency. 25116

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC MR. BROOKMAN: Rebecca, you look like you 1

might wish to comment. 2

MS. RAINER: No. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: I can't lure you in, huh? 4

MS. RAINER: No. I'm in agreement with Pam. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you for that. Yes. 6

Dale. 7

MR. SIMPSON: Dale Simpson. I notice on the 8

slide just to point out that the Slide 74 says that the 9

ballasts are not generally repaired when in fact the 10

document says luminaires are not generally repaired, 11

fixtures are not generally repaired, and that brings us 12

to the earlier comment, that ballasts are in fact 13

replaced within luminaires. 14

As far as maintenance costs, we'd urge you to 15

consider that, particularly in exterior environments, 16

maintenance costs can be quite significant. It's 17

difficult to get a bucket truck to a site to work on 18

pole-mounted luminaires for less than a thousand 19

dollars just to get it there and the average that our 20

experience shows needs to be attributed somewhere 21

between $150 and $300 per luminaire per servicing. So 22

that is higher than you would traditionally think it 23

would be for interior and just wanted to make that 24

comment. 25117

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you, thank you. 1

Yes. Cheryl. 2

MS. ENGLISH: Bob, I actually just have a 3

question. If you can go back to Slide 70 on this chart 4

that describes costs, at the very top we've got ballast 5

installation costs feeding into a total installed cost, 6

and I believe that what you've described is much 7

broader than that, but I just wanted to clarify that, 8

you know, when we talk about total installed cost, 9

we're talking about something much broader than just 10

the ballast. 11

MR. LINGARD: Yeah. It probably would be 12

more appropriate to say the fixture installation costs 13

which would incorporate the ballast. 14

MS. ENGLISH: Yeah. There may be a small 15

impact, I believe it would be small, but because of the 16

increased use of controls, there may be some 17

commissioning costs that do impact that initial 18

installed cost, as well. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Would you say that 20

commissioning costs are for larger applications? 21

MS. ENGLISH: Yeah. Anywhere that the 22

controls would be used, so you're talking about 23

warehouse bays, maybe some large outdoor parking lots, 24

roadway-type of things, but yes, they generally tend to 25118

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC be -- 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Distributed among many units. 2

Yes, okay. Okay. Yes. Bob. 3

MR. ERHARDT: Yeah. Just to elaborate a 4

little bit. As a general trend, we're trying to point 5

out that you should not be looking at the incremental 6

cost of the ballast. There are many other costs with 7

the luminaire and this is a luminaire rulemaking and 8

you should be looking at luminaire costs, total 9

luminaire costs and not just the ballast cost, 10

incremental cost. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Good 12

clarification. Jennifer. 13

MS. AMANN: Hi. Jennifer Amann. I'm sorry. 14

I was taking some notes, Dale, and I missed the point 15

you were making. I just wanted to ask you a question 16

to clarify. 17

Were you saying that there were reasons why 18

the maintenance costs are higher for more efficient 19

luminaires than they are for typical metal halide 20

luminaires? 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Dale. 22

MR. SIMPSON: Dale Simpson. No. What I was 23

just saying is that when you're dealing with 24

applications, such as an exterior application, 25119

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC maintenance costs are driven by the location of the 1

luminaire which requires unusual equipment. 2

MS. AMANN: Okay. So for the purposes of 3

this rulemaking, there's not a difference. So moving 4

to a more efficient one wouldn't necessarily increase 5

maintenance costs relative to a standard luminaire? 6

MR. SIMPSON: If moving to a more efficient 7

one decreased the lifetime of componentry, yes, it 8

would and that needs to be taken into consideration. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Rebecca and then Bob. 10

MS. RAINER: Yes. As I had stated earlier, 11

we need to make sure that we take the total life-cycle 12

cost analysis because it could potentially because of 13

the reliability and the stated lifetime of the 14

components, it could, indeed, increase your maintenance 15

costs. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob. 17

MR. ERHARDT: Yeah. I think that's what we 18

pointed out just a little earlier. The design lifetime 19

of electronic ballasts typically is lower than the 20

design lifetime of an electromagnetic product. So that 21

will increase the lifetime costs of a luminaire because 22

you'll have to replace the ballast more often. 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay, okay. So Ron Lewis. 24

MR. LEWIS: With the magic of electronics, I 25120

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC got an update. We do have confirmation that that 1

update study is underway to update the characterization 2

volume. I don't have a completion date, but it is 3

underway. So I've confirmed that for you. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: So more to be revealed later. 5

Okay. Thank you for that. That's helpful. 6

I want to make sure we don't short-shrift -- 7

this last bit of comment was very helpful. Additional 8

and perhaps final comments on this segment here? 9

(No response.) 10

MR. BROOKMAN: So then I'm going to suggest 11

we go to lunch. Before everybody bolts, it's now 12

12:10. We'll resume at 1:10 here in this room. This 13

room will be locked. Please make sure you wear your 14

badges. 15

(Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the meeting was 16

recessed for lunch, to reconvene at 1:10 p.m.) 17

/ 18

/ 19

/ 20

/ 21

/ 22

/ 23

/ 24

/ 25 26121

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N 1

1:14 p.m. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Let’s resume. Thanks 3

to all of you for being back on time. We are going to 4

pick up where we left off. 5

Let me make one announcement. The Department 6

has gotten more careful about foreign nationals and so 7

any of you in future meetings that might wish to bring 8

company members that are also foreign nationals, please 9

make sure you notify the Department in advance and get 10

that all cleared and square and then it will be easier 11

for them to attend these meetings. So if you would 12

please think about that the next time early. 13

So we are going to proceed with Michael Myer, 14

Shipments Analysis. 15

Shipments Analysis, National Impact Analysis, 16

and Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis 17

MR. MYER: Okay. Good afternoon. Welcome 18

back from lunch. My name is Michael Myer. I’m with 19

Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and we’ll be 20

discussing Shipment Analysis and National Impact and 21

other fun stuff. 22

So the Department of Energy will conduct 23

shipment analysis to get a sense of what the impacts 24

are from potential changes, or actually in this case, 25

amended energy efficiency standards. Methodology is 26122

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC pretty straightforward. We will rely on a range of 1

data sources. We will consider all these shipments of 2

covered products. 3

Two possible approaches would be based on 4

historical data and then some future projected modeling 5

based on what we know of equipment installed. 6

The whole base case of shipments forecast 7

work as this. We depict a situation where the 8

standards are not amended. It depicts the current mix 9

of balance efficiency sold in the absence of new 10

regulation. 11

Shipment forecasts looks at three areas: new 12

construction, replacements of failed units and 13

retro fits. And we’ll discuss what those terms mean in 14

a second. And then we look at data requirements of 15

historical shipments and the breakdown by market 16

segment of new construction, replacement and retrofits. 17

At this point this brings us to item 31. DOE 18

welcomes recommendations on sources of data for 19

shipments of metal halide lamp fixtures by product 20

class. In addition DOE welcomes comments on how it 21

might characterize long-term trends in the efficiency 22

of metal halide lamp fixtures for the base-case 23

shipment forecast. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob? 25

MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, we already made a comment 26123

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC about other technologies. We also -- if the Department 1

of Energy chooses to regulate below 140 watts, we would 2

point out that often low power metal halide are 3

replacing halogen and not necessarily other metal 4

halide luminaires. And so if you make the cost of the 5

replacement metal halides too prohibitively high, you 6

may be counterproductive by shifting back towards a 7

less efficacious halogen product. And, again, keep in 8

mind T5H0 fluorescents and solid-state lighting 9

entering the market and affecting transit future sales 10

and high pressure sodium. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: His microphone is on. We’ll 12

get him to be orbital or whatever that would be. Okay. 13

Thank you. 14

He was having a hard time hearing you. 15

MR. ERHARDT: I see. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: I think you got that, though, 17

didn't you? 18

MR. MYER: Yes. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. We’ll make sure. 20

Thank you for that comment. We are referring 21

back to item 31 which Michael just referred to. 22

Additional comments on how to characterize long-term 23

trends, metal halide lamp fixtures. 24

Yes, Amanda. 25

MS. STEVENS: Amanda Stevens for BGE. I 26124

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC guess for the base-case forecast, I would also 1

encourage DOE just to account for the fact that there 2

is a new California standard going into effect in 2010. 3

And so, by the time the standard -- the DOE’s standard 4

becomes effective in 2015, that will have had a pretty 5

significant impact on the market. So those factors 6

should be assesses and looked at. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 8

Other comments before we move on, base-case 9

shipments forecast? 10

(No response.) 11

MR. MYER: Continuing on. Accounting 12

methodology. A discussion on the three terms I 13

mentioned earlier, new construction, replacements, and 14

retrofits. 15

New construction, these are new metal halide 16

fixtures installed each year in new or remodeled 17

buildings. They are not replacing a failed fixture. 18

It’s a gut -rehab type of thing or a new building that 19

never existed. 20

Replacements, new metal halide fixtures that 21

are installed each year to replace ballasts that have 22

failed. We’ve heard comments about the ballasts or 23

replacing fixtures to that might be adjusted. 24

And retrofits, these are metal halide lamp 25

fixtures that replace metal halide lamp fixtures during 26125

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC renovation and repair of equipment. This may occur 1

before the ballasts fail. 2

That brings us to item 32. DOE welcomes 3

comments on the accounting methodology described above 4

for each of the metal halide lamp fixtures covered in 5

this rulemaking. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. Bill Bush? 7

MR. BUSH: Are you expecting to get this 8

breakdown from luminaire manufacturers? Because I 9

don't believe our records are kept that way. We sell 10

to electrical wholesalers for the most part and we 11

don’t know where it’s goin g. 12

MR. MYER: That’s understandable that you 13

sell it to -- we’ve discussed this in supply chain and 14

we would understand that through that supply chain that 15

we wouldn’t be able to break it down by the segment. I 16

think we’ll have to review another method o f breaking 17

down this data into those segments by looking at other 18

data sources that might look at new construction and 19

other type metrics. Thank you for pointing that out, 20

that manufacturers don’t have that type of data. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: Pam? 22

MS. HORNER: Pam Horner. I think taking Bob 23

Erhardt’s previous comment again into this and pulling 24

that into this one, these three would seem on the 25

surface to exclude -- excuse me -- the situation 26126

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC particularly in retail where metal halide luminaires 1

save for accent lighting, et cetera, would replace 2

today’s existing halogen types. And you might think 3

it’s new construction or major retrofit, but sometimes 4

just doing the lighting system isn’t a major retrofit. 5

So if you don’t want to lose that, you either make a 6

note -- 7

(Laughter.) 8

MS. HORNER: -- or you create some -- you 9

know, a retrofit type B which is that you take out not 10

just what’s called here a metal halide lamp fixture, 11

but some other kind of fixture. So that way you 12

wouldn’t lose that point that he made

. 13

MR. MYER: In a sense, retrofit A would be 14

retrofits within this product category and retrofit B 15

would be non-products being replaced. 16

MS. HORNER: Right. Right. 17

MR. MYER: Or non-covered or non-product 18

parts. 19

MS. HORNER: Because it is a huge trend, as 20

Bob pointed out, especially in retail to move toward 21

metal halide. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. Thank you. 23

Yes, Dale. 24

MR. SIMPSON: Dale Simpson. Thank you. 25

Just to reiterate again the replacements 26127

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC category which indicates that essential a luminaire is 1

replaced when the ballast fails. We need to look at 2

that differently. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 4

MR. MYER: Continuing on. Standard impacts 5

on ballast shipments. DOE will develop standards for 6

case forecasts at the same time we do the base-case, 7

standard-base forecasts. Look at purchase price 8

increases and operating cost savings due to changes in 9

estimate in shipments. 10

DOE will also look at market

– pull programs, 11

rebates from energy-efficiency programs, the utilities 12

that might shift towards something else. Impacts on 13

the total amount of light produced by these ballasts in 14

the commercial and industrial sector may also be 15

considered. 16

Item 33, DOE welcomes comments on how amended 17

energy conservation standards might affect shipments of 18

metal halide lamp fixtures. 19

DOE also requests information about existing 20

market-pull programs such as consumer rebate programs 21

to promote the adoption of more efficacious ballasts. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob? 23

MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, I think our comments on 24

the previous item kind of address that too. The metal 25

halide ballasts are looked at not as their own entity, 26128

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC but against other technologies and increased the cost 1

of the metal halide ballasts and increased the 2

popularity of other technologies. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Are there a lot of market-pull 4

programs? 5

MR. ERHARDT: There -- maybe Pacific Gas and 6

Electric can comment on the CEE rebate programs. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: I don’t think you’re on, 8

Amanda. 9

MS. STEVENS: Sorry, this is Amanda Stevens. 10

That’s information I could certainly help gather. I 11

don't have that at my fingertips, but I know PG&E has 12

various rebate programs that incent more efficient 13

metal halide fixtures through a variety of different 14

programs. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Yes, please, 16

Bill. 17

MR. BUSH: Bill. A lot of these programs, 18

though, as I mentioned before, are focusing on 19

retrofits using fluorescent and a lot of them do not 20

even address using any kind of HID to retrofit an 21

existing HID. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: So how do we capture that? 23

MR. MYER: Are you saying that there are 24

programs out there that are offering, let’s say, $50 to 25

replace a probe start with a pulse start? Or 26129

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC situations where they’re saying replace a 360 watt for 1

a 400? 2

I agree that the HIF market is very much 3

targeted, you know, fluorescents targeting certain 4

markets. But I’m getting the sense you’re not saying 5

that they’re not specifically saying replace probe 6

start with pulse start or ballast efficiency? 7

MR. BUSH: Well, that’s correct. I’ll give 8

you an example just in terms of light output. To 9

replace a 400 watt metal halide pretty much standard 10

practice to replace it with pulse start is to use 320 11

watt. But the rebate programs for most utilities don’t 12

even recognize that. They’ll pay you to replace it 13

with a 6x54 fluorescent high-bay which is basically the 14

same input watts as a 320 watt. But they ignore the 15

possibility to use HID. Ad that’s just the way the 16

specific utilities choose to write their programs. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: And the incentive is so 18

ordinarily cast you might not make the right efficiency 19

choice. 20

MR. BUSH: Correct. Or the right lamp choice 21

application. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Yeah. 23

MR. BUSH: And a lot of them pay per lamp. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Uh-huh. 25

MR. BUSH: Some of them pay per luminaire. 26130

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC MR. BROOKMAN: Uh-huh. 1

MR. BUSH: Several years ago in the northeast 2

they had rebate programs to install HID luminaires with 3

high/low, two level. Those are pretty liberal. Those 4

have kind of gone away. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Did you want to continue, Pam? 6

MR. MYER: Please say your name. 7

MR. LIS: Dave Lis at Northeast Energy 8

Efficiency Partnerships. I can provide you with a 9

summary of some of the incentive programs at Northeast. 10

They do exist. I don't know the details of what the 11

cutoffs are, but they are pretty common, actually, 12

still. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. That will be good. 14

Okay. 15

MR. HANSEN: This is Dain Hansen really 16

quick. There’s a really good website that can be used 17

as general incentives for all states, various programs. 18

It’s www.dsire -- d sireUSA.org. It’s very 19

comprehensive and very extensive. So that’s a good 20

listing and it’s very up to date. 21

MR. BROOKMAN: They must have expanded it 22

because I thought it was utility-based stuff when I saw 23

it previously. 24

Thank you. 25

MR. MYER: And one last thing. The HID 26131

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC determination has also looked at these and that 1

document will have some of them as well. That’s an 2

additional resource. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Uh-huh. 4

MR. MYER: Continuing on. National Impact 5

Analysis. So we are going to look at the national 6

impact analysis and here are a lot of the inputs. 7

We’ll get shipments. This was previously discussed. 8

We’ll look at the stock of metal halide lamp ballasts. 9

This is calculated from the life of the ballast from 10

previous analysis. The effective date of the standard 11

is 2015 with a 30-year analysis period. 12

Base-case forecasted efficiency will be a 13

distribution of base-case shipments by efficiency over 14

time. The standard-case forecast will be a 15

distribution of efficiency for each of the standards 16

case. And the unit of energy will be kilowatt-hours 17

per year. And that was established earlier as well. 18

Continuing on. We’ll look at the total 19

installed cost which is established in Section 7 which 20

we discussed earlier and 8, mark-ups and lifecycle 21

costs. We also look at the electricity price forecast 22

also previously discussed in the life-cycle cost 23

section. 24

We will also look at an electricity site-to25

source conversion. This varies yearly and is generated 26132

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC by the Energy Information Agency their AEO report. 1

We’ll also look at the potential for interior 2

applications, heating, ventilation and air-conditioning 3

impacts. And we’ll get some possible interactions 4

there, either additional cooling benefits or additional 5

heating changes. 6

The discount rate will be 3 and 7 percent. 7

The present year preliminary analysis will be 8

discounted to 2010, the current year we’re in, and the 9

rebound effect is the difference between the projected 10

and the actual savings due to increase deficiency. 11

Continuing on. Brings us to items 34 and 35. 12

Item 34, DOE welcomes comments on the data sources 13

that it anticipates using to develop the inputs for the 14

National Impact Analysis. 15

And Item 34, DOE welcomes comments from 16

interested parties on whether a more efficient metal 17

halide lamp fixture will be used more as a result of 18

increased efficiency and whether such a rebound effect 19

would be expected for this technology. 20

MR. BROOKMAN: Bob? 21

MR. ERHARDT: Just if you’re looking out from 22

the period of 2015 to 2044, the impact of alternative 23

technology is going to be dramatic. And I anticipate 24

you will have a great deal of difficulty. If you look 25

at the DOE projections and solid-state lighting, there 26133

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC may not be metal halide by 2045. 1

So we’re very interested in how you’re going 2

to project beyond maybe 2020 with respect to 3

alternative technologies. 4

MR. BROOKMAN: Has the industry come up with 5

any projections themselves? Maybe they’re proprietary. 6

Bob? 7

MR. ERHARDT: Yeah, one comment. When you do 8

talk to individual companies on a case-by-case 9

proprietary basis, you may get some additional 10

information. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Andrew? 12

MR. deLASKI: Andrew deLaski, ASAP. It just 13

strikes me that this is a sensitivity analysis, you 14

know, because we can’t predict you’re going to have to 15

run some scenarios in terms of where the shipments are 16

going to go. Since I don’t think any of us can predict 17

with any kind of accuracy what the LED market share is 18

going to be in 2025. 19

I also wanted to ask the Department about 20

item number 35. I’m no t aware of any data, but others 21

may be, on -- rebound effect on metal halide lighting. 22

Are you aware of any data at this point that would -- 23

are you in favor of a rebound -- support a rebound 24

effect? 25

MR. BROOKMAN: I’m not aware of any data at 26134

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC this point. 1

MR. deLASKI: Okay. Thanks. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 3

MR. HARDING: And for those of us who are 4

wanting to know what’s a rebound effect if we’re not 5

talking about -- you know. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: That was Tom. Thank you, Tom. 7

Andrew, do you want to -- 8

MR. d eLASKI: I’ll let the Department do 9

that. 10

MR. MYER: Thanks. Well, it’s the difference 11

between the projected and actual savings due to 12

increased efficiency. My understanding is -- well, my 13

understanding is going to be kind of what it is because 14

that’s m y loose grasp of it as well. Maybe Mimi will 15

step in and save me. 16

PARTICIPANT: (Off microphone.) So I think 17

the way the rebound effect works is that and sometimes 18

they do these analyses they try to take into account 19

how increasing the efficiency -- might result in 20

consumers using the products more -- see that they’re 21

saving money -- 22

MR. STAS: Eric Stas, DOE. For example, if 23

you have an air conditioner in your room and your 24

electricity bills are high, but then you buy a new 25

super-efficient air condit ioner, you say, wow, I’m 26135

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC going to make my house cooler because I am much more 1

comfortable. And it’s sort of like the payments will 2

even out. 3

(Simultaneous conversation.) 4

MR. BROOKMAN: -- would not capture all those 5

savings that they had anticipated. 6

MR. MYER: We have to re-summarize what Mimi 7

said because of a microphone snafu. Essentially it’s 8

that there is an assumption by the general public that 9

the energy -- the device is so efficient it’s okay to 10

use it more. And actually you would have more energy 11

use than actual saved. 12

PARTICIPANT: (Off microphone.) Or reduce 13

your energy savings. 14

MR. MYER: Or, yes, reduce your savings 15

because there’s more of a new use than the savings. 16

MR. deLASKI: Or the thing I would caution 17

against is using rebound effect that have been measured 18

for the residential sector and applying them to the 19

commercial sector. I think that will be inappropriate. 20

So, I think you can look for specific data that would 21

support the existence of a rebound effect in the 22

commercial lighting sector to be able to support using 23

rebound effect in this analysis. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Other comments? 25

(No response.) 26136

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 1

MR. MYER: Continuing on with the National 2

Energy Savings. DOE intends to calculate national 3

energy consumption for each year beginning with the 4

expected effective date of the standards which is 2015. 5

DOE will calculate national electricity consumption 6

for the base case in each standard level analyzed. 7

We’ll use a spreadsheet, the NES, the National En ergy 8

Savings spreadsheet developed in 1996. 9

That brings us to Item 36. DOE welcomes 10

comments from interested parties on the NES spreadsheet 11

models that it plans to use for estimating national 12

impacts on energy conservation standards for metal 13

halide lamp fixtures. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: No comments from industry? 15

Amanda? 16

MS. STEVENS: Amada Stevens for PG&E. This 17

is just a general request I’ve been making, but in 18

these spreadsheets, it would be really helpful for us 19

to be able to see the energy savings, the annual energy 20

savings, not just the cumulative energy savings over 21

the 30 years. So if there’s a way that that -- 22

sometimes it seems like those numbers are bundled 23

together on a spreadsheet that’s hidden and you can’t 24

view it. So it would be really great to see like a 25

graph with the annual energy savings from the different 26137

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC standard levels. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 2

Additional comments on Item No. 36? 3

MR. deLASKI: Just a question for 4

clarification. This is Andrew deLaski. So you said 5

the NES spreadsheet develop -- okay. So the general 6

approach has been used since 1996, is what you’re 7

referencing here? 8

MR. MYER: We’re not using 13 -year-old data 9

if that’s your question. 10

MR. deLASKI: Yes, that’s my question. 11

MR. MYER: It’s a spreadsheet that was 12

developed 13 years ago. 13

MR. deLASKI: Okay. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 15

MR. MYER: Continuing on to a fun diagram. 16

So we have the shipment analysis up here at the top and 17

feeding into both the base-case projection and the 18

standards-case projection. As mentioned earlier, 19

starting both at 2015 and extending out to the far 20

future of 2044. We’ll look at the base case cumulative 21

energy usage, how it feeds into the site source energy, 22

the standard case, and we’ll end up with a national 23

energy savings. So graphic representation of what 24

we’ve just been discussing. 25

Continuing on. Another analysis -- another 26138

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC diagram of shipment analysis. So, again, you have 1

feeding both into the base case and the standards case. 2

Both of them they’re very similar with energy co sts 3

from 2015 to 2044, maintenance and installation costs 4

and products costs. Those are both feeding into 5

cumulative operating costs on both sides. Our total 6

equipment cost increases and the discount rate and you 7

get a net present value. 8

Continuing on. DOE will calculate the net 9

present value on a consumer saving resulting from 10

energy conservation standards. This is the annual 11

equipment expenditures by multiplying the price per 12

unit. That’s the difference between base case and the 13

standard case. For metal halide fixture making the 14

differential will likely result in an NES offset 15

against increased ballast expenditures. And the 16

difference each year between the energy bill savings 17

and the increased expenditures is the net savings or 18

negative net costs. 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s just pause for a moment. 20

I think many of you are familiar with this general 21

framework. Questions or comments before we move along? 22

(No response.) 23

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 24

MR. MYER: Okay. Moving into the NOPR 25

analyses. We have a new diagram here. And looking at 26139

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC the life-cycle costs subanalysis. So the purpose here 1

is to look at the economic impacts of standards on 2

consumers, people who might be disproportionately 3

affected, elderly, ethnic minorities, low-income 4

consumers, any subset that would be affected by this 5

standard somehow. 6

The method, you look at the LCC analysis and 7

examine the impacts for the defined subgroups. DOE 8

will evaluate variations of regional electricity 9

prices, usage profiles and see what the effect on the 10

NPV is for the differing consumer subgroups. 11

Okay. Moving on to Item 37. DOE welcomes 12

comments from interested parties on what if any 13

consumer subgroup should be considered when developing 14

standards for metal halide lamp fixtures. 15

MR. BROOKMAN: You see a listing of groups 16

that have been identified previously. Are there 17

others? Pam? 18

MS. HORNER: I’m on. Pam Horner. In our 19

NEMA response we will likely include a list of 20

suggestions. The current one that we’re rattling 21

around would have some forms of -- shall I call it -- 22

retail, different types. I’d loosely categorize the 23

next one as community. There are certain community 24

municipality types. And then finally an industrial 25

segment that might include warehousing, et cetera. But 26140

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC well include them in our written comments. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 2

MR. MYER: Continuing on to the Manufacturer 3

Impact A nalysis. And I’ll stop briefly and turn it 4

over to Doug. 5

Manufacturer Impact Analysis 6

MR. ROSSIN: Thanks, Michael. 7

So, the Manufacturer Impact Analysis or MIA 8

has three main purposes. The first main purpose is to 9

assess the impacts of energy conservation standards on 10

manufacturers of metal halide lamp fixtures and 11

manufacturers of metal halide ballasts. 12

The second main purpose of the MIA is to 13

identify and estimate the impacts on manufacturing 14

subgroups that may be more impactive than the industry 15

as a whole. 16

Now, in other DOE rulemakings an example of a 17

small business manufacturer might be -- or sorry, 18

example of a subgroup may be a small business 19

manufacturer. 20

Now, in other rulemakings DOE has identified 21

those using a number of employees the company may have. 22

And finally, the third main purpose of the 23

MIA is to examine the impacts of cumulative regulatory 24

burden on the industry. This is where DOE looks at 25

other DOE regulation and federal regulation that may 26141

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC impact the industry financially. And in terms of 1

methodology DOE uses the government regulatory impact 2

model or the GRIM to calculate the industry net present 3

value at each efficiency level. Also DOE uses 4

interviews for manufacturers and other interested 5

parties to further develop a sub-analysis and also to 6

address any qualitative issues. 7

In terms of output DOE has the industry net 8

present value, has the industry net present value for 9

subgroups if its found applicable, and other impacts 10

such as direct employment, community regulatory burden, 11

and capacity. 12

Now, here we see a picture that shows us the 13

three phases of the MIA. In phase one which happens 14

during the preliminary analysis DOE uses publicly 15

available information such as manufacturers’ annual 16

reports to develop an industry profile. It also uses 17

this information to calculate manufacturers’ financial 18

parameters and also to estimate the cost of complying 19

with standards. 20

Also in phase one DOE conducts preliminary 21

MIA interviews in conjunction with the engineering 22

interviews. This is a first chance for manufacturers 23

to provide detailed information on possible impacts due 24

to standards. 25

In phase two DOE develops or sorry, in phase 26142

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC two which happens during -- between the NOPR phase and 1

the preliminary analysis, DOE develops the spreadsheets 2

for the GRIM. Now, the GRIM outputs cash flows for the 3

analysis period and calculates the INPV by summing the 4

discounted cash flow over the analysis period. Now 5

this is done for both a base case and standards case. 6

The difference between both cases is a quantitative 7

representation of the impacts on manufacturers. 8

Also in phase two DOE develops interview 9

guides that are used during interviews. 10

In phase three which happens during the NOPR 11

phase, DOE conducts the MIA interviews and uses the 12

information to develop the subanalysis and also to 13

revise any of the GRIM inputs. 14

And during the final rule phase DOE revises, 15

if applicable, the results. And I wanted to point out 16

that information provided by manufacturers or other 17

interested parties is kept confidential and made public 18

only in an aggregate form. So no manufacturer’s 19

specific data is made public. 20

That concludes the MIA. But there’s two 21

comments here that DOE seeks input, specifically on 22

subgroups of metal halide lamp fixtures and ballast 23

manufacturers and also on any pending regulation that 24

could impact manufacturers. 25

MR. BROOKMAN: That would constitute a 26143

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC regulatory burden? 1

MR. ROSSIN: Yes. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: Dale. 3

MR. SIMPSON: Thank you. Dale Simpson. 4

As far as the Item 38, the manufacturer 5

subgroups, I would argue that exterior luminaire 6

manufacturers are disproportionately affected and 7

should be analyzed as a subgroup as should 8

manufacturers of luminaires that go into other what 9

I’ll call extreme spaces like freezers and refineries, 10

places of that sort should be looked at differently 11

than the rest. And that’s all I have on that. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 13

MR. SIMPSON: Oh, on Item 39, I did have one 14

more thing. On Item 39 I would suggest definitely to 15

consider California Title 20 and the pending outdoor 16

lighting legislation in the regulatory burden. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 18

So your specific comments on how that’s 19

affecting manufacturers that would help the Department. 20

Ron Lewis? 21

MR. LEWIS: As an extension of that, if the 22

names of the specific manufacturers that might be 23

included in that to get a flavor of both quantity and 24

profile of those kinds of companies so how we would 25

consider them would be helpful. 26144

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC And as you brought up, special categories, it 1

just occurred to me, there are things like hazardous 2

locations, you know, explosion proof or dust proof, you 3

know, kinds of things that the luminaires are rated 4

for, you know, now does that fit in? Should that be a 5

category of that. If that’s an application, it’s not a 6

manufacturer, so how do you, you know, go about -- is 7

there a disproportionate somebody that just 8

manufactures to that application, for instance? Any of 9

that kinds of information that you can give us to help 10

to educate us on the specifics would be much 11

appreciated. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 13

Yes, Pekka. 14

MR. HAKKARHNEN: I’m Pekka Hakkarhnen. Just 15

asking for clarification on slide number 96, if you 16

could g o back to the page there. There’s a tick mark 17

between phases two and three and above that tick mark 18

is NOPR. Does that indicate that NOPR is published at 19

that point or does it mean something else? 20

MR. ROSSIN: I guess for clarification phase 21

three happens just basic on the NOPR. So the 22

publishing of the NOPR would be after phase three. 23

MR. HAKKARHNEN: After phase three? 24

MR. ROSSIN: Yes. 25

MR. HAKKARHNEN: Okay. Thank you. 26145

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC MR. BROOKMAN: That connotes the commencing; 1

right? Yeah, that’s when that p hase starts. 2

Please, Jennifer. 3

MS. AMANN: Jennifer Amann. I just have some 4

general comments about the Manufacturer I mpact A nalysis 5

and particularly the calculation of industry in that 6

present value. In looking at your plans for the MIA, 7

you examine th e impact of the cumulative regulatory 8

burden on industry which I think rightfully recognizes 9

that these manufacturers are subjected to other lamp 10

standards affecting different product lines. 11

But in the case most recently of the lamp 12

standards, the MIA and calculation of industry net 13

present value focused only on losses associated with 14

changes in the regulated product category. Not 15

recognizing any benefit to the industry if changes in 16

the product mix or changes in sales migration from 17

covered product to other products would also -- would 18

translate into continued sales for that industry 19

because they make the alternative products as well. 20

So we had quite a bit of discussion at the 21

rulemaking stage for lamps about this kind of black box 22

drawn just around the covered product category in 23

determining industry net present value that didn't 24

account for any of the benefit to industry or, you 25

know, it only looked at losses from one product line 26146

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC not gains and other product lines. And I think we 1

would just encourage the Department to look more 2

broadly at the industry in doing the NPV just as you’re 3

recognizing the cumulative impact of standards 4

affecting other business lines. 5

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 6

So you can see the questions that the 7

Department is asking there in those two comment boxes. 8

Any additional responses? 9

(No response.) 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 11

MR. ROSSIN: So I’ll pass it back to my 12

colleague Michael on Utility Impact Analysis. 13

Utility Impact Analysis, Employment Impact Analysis, 14

environmental assessment, and Regulatory Analysis 15

MR. MYER: Thanks, Doug. 16

And we’ll finish with me the rest of the 17

afternoon. So the Department of Energy will do a 18

Utility Impact Analysis. The focus of this analysis is 19

to look at the overall energy supplies and how they 20

could be affected by amended or imposition of energy 21

conservation standards. 22

The methodology here uses a modeling program 23

called NEMS-BT. NEMS stands for the National Energy 24

Modeling System. In this case it would be a slightly 25

modified version looking at building technologies. 26147

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC It’s been used by DOE and the EIA on their annual 1

report as the basis for the utility impact analysis. 2

Outputs of utilities will also factor into this. 3

Forecasted electricity generation, sales, price, and 4

avoided capacity. 5

DOE will model the energy savings impacts 6

from amended conservation standards using NEMS-BT to 7

generate forecasts. 8

Item 40. DOE seeks inputs on its plans to 9

use NEMS-BT to conduct the utility impact analysis on 10

the equipment covered under this rulemaking. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: No additional comment on NEMS? 12

Andrew? 13

MR. deLASKI: I don't know where this 14

comment belongs, but I’ll make it here. It may have 15

belonged back in the NES discussion. But the 16

Department in other dockets recently has begun to 17

analyze the impact of electricity savings on the 18

overall price level of natural gas. I think that’s 19

something you want to look at in this docket as well, 20

if the savings levels are shown to have impacts. If 21

you set up that model to do that, you can run it in 22

this docket as well. And we recommend it elsewhere 23

that you should do a similar analysis, an analogous 24

analysis to look at impacts on price levels for 25

electricity markets. So these are benefits that are 26148

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC proven to all customers due to reduced demand for 1

energy and how does that filter through -- filter 2

through the economy. 3

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. Additional 4

comments on NEMS-BT And it’s application? Yes, Cheryl? 5

MS. ENGLISH: Cheryl English. I think as you 6

guys are well aware, for power use during the nighttime 7

many times when there’s a power reduction or a reduce 8

in demand the utilities will then shift back to that 9

end user with a different rate structure because they 10

expect to have a certain energy use or power use or 11

power consumption during the nighttime. 12

So I think as you do this modeling, you just 13

need to make sure that you capture the cost impact on 14

the end user relative to the potential that a demand 15

reduction in energy could cause a rate increase for 16

that end user. 17

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. 18

MR. MYER: Continuing on to the Employment 19

Impact Analysis. The Department of Energy will conduct 20

an employment impact analysis. This is looking at the 21

effect of a national employment from the position of 22

efficiency standards at differing levels. This is 23

looking at both the indirect as well as the direct 24

impacts. The direct employment impacts are estimated 25

in the manufacturers’ impact analysis. The indirect 26149

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC employment impacts result from shifting consumer 1

expenditures among goods and services and change of 2

equipment in energy costs. 3

This method is using a modeling system known 4

as IMBUILD or IMSET. Impact -- IMSET is the impact of 5

sector energy technologies and it does the indirect 6

employment impacts. 7

Item 41, DOE requests feedback on its 8

approach to assessing employment impacts on the 9

equipment covered under this rulemaking. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Any comments on that approach? 11

(No response.) 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Yes, Rebecca. 13

MS. RAINER: Rebecca Rainer. I think NEMA 14

recommends that this should be addressed during the 15

individual manufacturers’ meetings. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 17

MR. MYER: Continuing on to the Environmental 18

Assessment. So the purpose of this is to look at what 19

happens to the environment under impossible amended 20

energy conservation standards for metal halide lamp 21

fixtures. 22

The method here, DOE would use -- would look 23

at environmental impacts predicted from the NEMS-BT 24

modeling analysis done in the utility impact analysis. 25

Carbon dioxide will be the primary emission 26150

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC reported. Existing legislation caps on sulfur dioxide, 1

nitrous oxide and mercury will play a role here. But 2

because of their existing situation, that will have 3

little effect in the energy conservation standard. 4

Item 42 here, DOE seeks input on its plans to 5

use NEMS-BT to conduct the Environmental Impact 6

Analysis on the equipment covered by this rulemaking. 7

DOE is particularly interested in whether there are any 8

other approaches to the environmental assessment that 9

should be considered and the advantages and 10

disadvantages of this approach. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Additional thoughts on 12

environmental assessment or analysis? 13

(No response.) 14

MR. MYER: Continuing on regulation. This 15

slide deviates from the printed handout. There was a 16

hiccup and some of the text in there got a little 17

skewed. So the Clean Air Mercury Act, CAMR, text is, 18

as I say, there was a hiccup and you have the wrong 19

text there. So the screen has the correct text. 20

So, CAIR which is the Clean Air Interstate 21

Act, looks at sulfur dioxide. It sets a cap. Recently 22

it was vacated in 2008 in the court case of North 23

Carolina versus EPA. There was a similar legislation 24

under CAMR which is the Clean Air Mercury Act. It 25

would have capped mercury effectively -- there’s a typo 26151

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC there too. Effectively September 2010. This was 1

recently vacated as well in the court case of New 2

Jersey versus EPA. EPA has decided to develop emission 3

standards for power plant. The NEMS-BT model will 4

assume that both nitrous oxide and Mercury emissions 5

would be subject to these rules. 6

I believe the slides will be up on the 7

website and this will be corrected on the website. So 8

I understand you are quickly writing down, but it will 9

be available rather quickly. 10

I’m going to give you one more second and 11

then move on to the next slide which ties into this. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Take a quick scan through that 13

slide. 14

MR. MYER: Okay. DOE is going to use the 15

most current Social Cost of Carbon value developed 16

through interagency consultations. The Social Cost of 17

Carbon is intended to be a monetary measure of the 18

incremental damage resulting from additional greenhouse 19

gas. It looks at the effects on agriculture, health, 20

human, possible damage, rising sea levels. 21

CO 2 estimates, the global benefit can vary in 22

price. In 2008 dollars it can be anywhere from $5 up 23

to $56 per metric ton. The domestic benefits 24

approximately $1 per metric ton. 25

So that brings us to Items 43, 44, and 45. 26152

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC Item 43 DOE invites comments on how to estimate the 1

monetary value associated with emission reductions or 2

on any widely accepted values that might be used in 3

DOE’s analyses. 4

Item 44, DOE invites comments on how to 5

estimate the benefits of reduced sulfur dioxide 6

emissions. 7

In Item 45 DOE invites comments on the 8

estimated range, anywhere from $370 to $3,800 in 2001 9

dollars per ton of nitrous oxide for use in DOE’s 10

analysis. 11

(Pause.) 12

MR. BROOKMAN: No additional comments? 13

(No response.) 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. 15

MR. MYER: Moving on to an additional set of 16

comments. Items 46 through 48. In Item 46 DOE invites 17

comments on the estimated range, anywhere from .75 18

cents to 33 -- I’m sorry, I missed my millions place 19

there. Anywhere from .745 to $33 million per ton of 20

mercury in 2008 dollars for DOE’s analysis. 21

Item 47 DOE invites comments on the estimated 22

social c osts of carbon for use in DOE’s analysis. 23

And in Item 48 DOE seeks to put on the other 24

environmental factors to considering this rulemaking. 25

MR. BROOKMAN: I guess for all of these 26153

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC comment boxes, if anyone here thinks that the 1

Department should have an entirely different approach 2

or if these estimates of price are entirely out of 3

range, now would be a good time to say something. 4

Yes, Pam? 5

MS. HORNER: Pam Horner. Specific to Item 6

47. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Uh-huh. 8

MS. HORNER: I had the person in our company 9

who actually knows this stuff look all of this over and 10

she felt that 43 through 48 were, you know, typical. 11

But on 47 she wanted me to make a couple of comments so 12

that as NEMA companies we could actually answer the 13

question better. 14

So regarding soci al costs of carbon, I’m glad 15

she knows what that is. It was unclear as to how it 16

was derived specifically, for example, if they should 17

use something else, it’s hard to know. It says, 18

“interagency reviews.” We don’t know which agencies. 19

So, is there a report somewhere we could look at? We 20

don’t even know which agency to look at to know how the 21

values were derived. 22

MR. BROOKMAN: Let’s just pause for a second. 23

Do you know the answer, Michael? 24

MR. MYER: I don’t think they’re entirely 25

completed yet between different agencies. 26154

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC MS. HORNER: Are they new? 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Ron Lewis? 2

MR. LEWIS: There is an active discussion 3

amongst several agencies. There is not a final report 4

on it. It’s been a -- I’ll say an evolutionary 5

discussion that has taken into consideration several 6

things including there have been lawsuits based on the 7

marketization of carbon. There have been things as far 8

as the negotiations or discussions globally on global 9

warming and different issues. There are all kinds of 10

things that go far beyond just a DOE focus. So there 11

are multiple agencies and I don’t want to be pointing 12

you towards specific ones because there is not a final 13

outcome report at this point. 14

It is an active dialogue that’s underway. So 15

we’ve been trying to be respon sive to that as we get 16

new input and feedback on the coordination of that 17

activity. We are only one of the players and look 18

forward to much more discussion as the months go on 19

that there will be much more specificity. And I just 20

foresee a lot more discussion on that area in the 21

future. 22

But it’s nowhere near close to finalization. 23

It’s an active discussion. And I don’t attend those 24

meetings it’s way above my grade. But we do get the 25

direction as outcomes of some of those discussions of 26155

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC what to put in here, of what the valuations, the things 1

that have been agreed to that are government wide where 2

there’s something that there’s been great discussion 3

and consideration of multiple obligations and 4

administrative -- administration goals. And so we’ll 5

try to keep you in tuned with that and encourage that 6

you will watch those discussions in these documents as 7

they move forward. There will be, I think, much more 8

dialogue or narrative in that section in the future. 9

MR. BROOKMAN: Pam? 10

MS. HORNER: Pam Horner. Thank you. I think 11

this was more -- it wasn’t a criticism, it was, you 12

know, we’re very fortunate to among the NEMA companies 13

to have at least one, I know of, maybe there are more 14

that has an expertise in this stuff. So, as it affects 15

us, and you want to know, are these appropriate, we 16

happen to have someone who can say, yes, no, or here’s 17

a change you should make. You know, people are 18

involved in this climate change initiatives and 19

calculating carbon footprints and doing all that stuff. 20

I wouldn’t kno w how to do it myself. 21

MR. LEWIS: There is a person in the 22

administration who is noted and part of the reason he 23

was brought in is because of his reputation as being 24

the expert in this area. And so he’s overseeing the 25

conversations. So we’re asking for input. We’re 26156

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC always interested in input that the actual expertise is 1

not really coming from us, but we want to be sensitive 2

to input that others might have. 3

MS. HORNER: So we want to know who to give 4

the input to, I guess. 5

MR. LEWIS: You can give the input to us and 6

we will make sure that the people that attend the -- 7

MS. HORNER: We don’t know. Like where did 8

the global benefits of the $5 the $10 -- where did it 9

all come from? 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes. 11

MR. deLASKI: If I could get in here. I 12

would just -- I believe in some other document -- and 13

this is a framework document, and some of the other 14

recent dockets which aren’t lighting dockets, there’s a 15

write up in some of the proposed rules that goes far 16

more in depth than here. And I don't know whether you 17

all can think of some other dockets you might point 18

folks to here -- 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Andrew. 20

MR. deLASKI: -- where they can have a more 21

complete discussion. Because there has been more 22

complete discussion elsewhere. 23

MR. LEWIS: Yeah, I think there are a couple 24

of things that are in their final phases, heating 25

products, things that are on our web page. I’m trying 26157

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC to think of the most current, I think, was heating 1

products. And we can probably give you a website to 2

look at that docum ent. It’s something that is -- like 3

the values, it’s not by accident, it’s not something 4

that’s random. There’s a large -- much larger 5

international activity and they’re reviewing all the 6

literature and all the studies. In fact, that range of 7

values came from a study of studies of all the studies 8

that they could find. 9

MS. HORNER: I can appreciate that very much. 10

It’s just that when you ask us for input, we’d like to 11

give it. And if we don’t know enough to give it, we 12

just want to know where it came from. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: I just want to make sure, Pam, 14

were you finished? 15

MS. HORNER: Yes. 16

MR. BROOKMAN: We’ll move then to -- 17

MR. ERHARDT: It’s on the same topic. I 18

guess my question is, is there a national or 19

international body that is focusing on this that has 20

public access or something? You’re talking about 21

discussions between agencies, and is that a public 22

process? Is that just within the government? How is 23

this working? 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Well, Eric? 25

MR. STAS: Eric Stas, DOE. Trying to discuss 26158

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC it, you know, generally, but obviously the UN has done 1

a lot of work in this area, the UNEP program. And I 2

know that we cite some studies in that when we’re 3

discussing the Social Cost of Carbon. And as Andrew 4

said in some of the NOPRs you’ll get a more full 5

discussion. This is pared down, I think, because it’s 6

just a framework document. But go into the Federal 7

Register website and look at some of our more recent 8

rules and get further explanation. 9

But there’s, you know, generally, these rules 10

go throug h OMB, there’s general interagency -- a chance 11

for interagency comment on different rules of agencies 12

across the government too. And so the carbon issue 13

obviously affects the whole government, right, so you 14

don’t want different agencies coming up with dif ferent 15

values. This is really an area that’s the whole 16

country. You know, you want the government to speak 17

with one voice, so it makes sense to have this kind of 18

coordination. 19

So to the extent that you’re going to have 20

your experts provide comments, it ’s all the more 21

important to try to be kind of data driven and give 22

targeted comments so that -- because it could have an 23

impact beyond DOE’s efficiency rulings. 24

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 25

Pekka. 26159

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC MR. HAKKARHNEN: Pekka Hakkarhnen. Let me 1

just pre face this by saying that what I’m about to say, 2

I’m by no means an expert on this topic. But it 3

relates to the issue of CO 2 and global warming. 4

I’ve heard that if you look at the earth’s 5

emission spectrum from outer space the resonant CO 2 6

line is alrea dy missing. So if that’s true, then 7

relative to CO 2 affecting global warming, if we add 8

more CO 2 in the atmosphere there won’t be any effect. 9

So the Department certainly, I believe, has access to 10

people who are expert in this matter. I would want 11

that analysis to be included. 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 13

I’m certain that the intergovernmental group 14

and many other groups will be looking at this very 15

vague subject. Thank you. 16

Yes, Dale. 17

MR. SIMPSON: Dale Simpson from outer space 18

to something a little more mundane here. 19

(Laughter.) 20

MR. SIMPSON: There’s a subtle effect going 21

on that may play into your analysis. And that has to 22

do with the shifting metal halide market. You have 23

quartz metal halide that has a certain amount of 24

mercury in it. You have ceramic metal halide that has 25

a whole lot less mercury. In fact it has less mercury 26160

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC than most high pressure sodiums do. 1

You have the potential impact of a change in 2

the regulations moving away from metal halide to high 3

pressure sodium. So you need to understand all the 4

shifting patterns of the market particularly when you 5

start looking at it in 2015 could drastically affect 6

the amount of mercury that is taken and put into or 7

taken out of the marketplace. And that’s just a 8

general comment. 9

M R. BROOKMAN: Thank you. That’s helpful. 10

I’m for that. 11

Yes. 12

MR. MYER: This is not the first time we’ve 13

heard this comment about the shift from metal halide to 14

HPS. But I would say that it can only work in outdoor 15

applications. And the applications that are currently 16

not already HPS could you possibly estimate the 17

existing metal halide market that could shift easily to 18

HPS in the event of an overly stringent standard? 19

MR. BROOKMAN: Dale. 20

MR. SIMPSON: Dale Simpson. Yes, I can 21

respond to that to a certain degree. Specific data 22

that we were able to analyze where there’s large 23

volumes involved included parking garages. And these 24

were in, for instance, the state of California who put 25

the 175 pulse start ban or 175 watt probe start ban 26161

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC into effect the 1st of January 2008. In 2008 and 2009, 1

we saw that 175 watt probe start volume which had been 2

the overwhelming part of the volume prior to the change 3

split between 150 watt metal halide and 150 watt high 4

pressure sodium. 5

So basically for every hundred units that had 6

been sold in the 175 watt metal halide, 50 units were 7

sold in 150 metal halide and 50 units were sold in 150 8

watt high pressure sodium. 9

MR. MYER: That’s for parking -- 10

MR. SIMPSON: That’s just the one case that I 11

can look at and site specific to you. 12

MR. MYER: That we would have a limited -- I 13

would go so far to say that most roadway applications 14

are HPS. Most area lighting, it’s roughly a 50/50 15

split is -- 16

MR. SIMPSON: Oh, no, it’s more like an 80/20 17

split. 18

MR. MYER: And the 80 is on which side? 19

MR. SIMPSON: Metal halide. 20

MR. MYER: Okay. That -- 21

MR. SIMPSON: So there’s significant 22

potential in parking garages, area lighting, façade 23

lighting, flood lighting to switch from metal halide to 24

high pressure sodium. 25

And the one case that was dramatic where we 26162

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC saw that and we have enough data to substantiate it is 1

the case of parking garage luminaires in California. 2

MR. BROOKMAN: So that’s so helpful, that 3

kind of representation, for you to be able to provide 4

specific market segment data and trend line data, boy, 5

that would be very helpful to the Department. 6

MR. SIMPSON: Sure. 7

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. 8

So other comments on this whole cluster of 9

environmental impact analyses and also figures or 10

loadings. 11

(No response.) 12

MR. BROOKMAN: Nothing additional on those? 13

(No response.) 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Moving on. 15

MR. MYER: Moving on to the last analysis 16

which is the regulatory impact analysis. DOE will 17

explore the potential for non-regulatory alternatives 18

to new manufacturing efficiency standards. DOE 19

recognizes that voluntary and other non-regulatory 20

efforts by manufacturers, utilities, and other 21

interested parties could result in substantial energy 22

improvements. 23

DOE will base this assessment on the actual 24

impact of such initiatives to date. We will also 25

consider information presented regarding possible 26163

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC initiatives that might be in the future. Notably we’ve 1

already talked about a couple and would love to hear 2

more comments on specifically the pending outdoor 3

leg islation that we’ve talked about many times or the 4

HID lamp determinations, another one that we’ve talked 5

about many times already during this meeting. 6

MR. BROOKMAN: Yes, Bob. 7

MR. ERHARDT: Bob Erhardt. Just a comment 8

that when you have your one-on-one conversations with 9

manufacturers some companies -- well, many companies 10

are already increasing the efficiency of their products 11

without regulation. And when you talk to individual 12

companies we can give you permission. 13

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you. That would 14

be their voluntary contribution or something or their 15

marketing efforts, whatever. Yes, thank you. 16

Other Issues and Comments; Closing Remarks 17

So I think that is the last substantive slide 18

for presentation. Then we’ll have a closing slide that 19

talks about how to submit comments and the like. But 20

as reflected in the agenda, now is an opportunity for 21

any person to raise additional issues, cover ground 22

that needs to be recovered, raise anything additional 23

that was pertinent to this phase in the framework 24

consideration. 25

So any additional issues? Pekka? 26164

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC MR. HAKKARHNEN: Yes. Pekka Hakkarhnen. I 1

think this goes back all the way back to item one 2

perhaps. I made a comment about being cautious about 3

applying the system approach to a larger group of 4

products than what we have in the outdoor legislation 5

proposal that’s before Congress right now. And Andrew 6

deLaski stopped me in the hallway during the break and 7

asked what I meant by that. So I thought I would just 8

state here what I meant in more detail. 9

I’m in particular concerned about the effect 10

of control that is in the outdoor legislation proposal. 11

As we’ve heard today, the electronic ballasts and 12

metal halide lamp combinations have to be -- and 13

removed on an individual basis. And when it comes to 14

operation at a dim level, we don’t know how complicated 15

that is going to be yet. 16

So that was -- my concern is before we go to 17

the system approach, we should start somewhere in a 18

limited application and see how that goes so we have 19

that outdoor application now underway. It is likely 20

that this is going to result in a very large number of 21

product categories and standards between lamps and 22

ballasts that need to be classified under the control 23

condition. So that’s just my caution and explanation 24

of what I was concerned about. Thank you. 25

MR. BROOKMAN: Okay. Thank you, Pekka. 26165

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC Okay. Brenda. 1

MR. deLASKI: Thank you for that explanation, 2

Pekka. I appreciate you clearing up our -- or filling 3

out that comment from earlier. 4

And I guess the comment I wanted to make is 5

that there may be something in between what Pekka is 6

raising and what the Department has flushed out in this 7

initial framework document looking just at the 8

ballasts. And I think Jennifer in her comments this 9

morning indicated a desire to look a little more 10

broadly. I think there may be a way to look more 11

broadly, doesn’t entail moving all the way to a system 12

approach. And I just want to make sure the Department 13

-- I just want to draw your attention to the very last 14

page, since we’re at the end here, of the packet today 15

which is on page 63 of the packet. So it’s at the very 16

end of -- actually it’s at the end of the framework 17

document. And this is from statute. 18

In the middle of that page there’s a 19

paragraph four called “Design and Perform ance 20

Requirements” which reads: “Notwithstanding any other 21

provision of law any standard that’s established 22

pursuant to this subsection may contain both design and 23

performance requirements” which is an unusual clause in 24

the statute. And it creates an opportunity for the 25

Department to -- all of the Departments at this point 26166

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC to say, we’re looking at performance requirements for 1

ballasts, but it hasn’t availed itself of this clause 2

in the law. So the authority here to look at something 3

in between what Pekka has talked about and what the 4

Department has sketched out in the framework document I 5

think is real. And when they could, you know, 6

potentially considerably more savings depending on what 7

sort of options might be developed based on the inputs. 8

So I just wanted to make sure that particular 9

clause comes to your attention and I think it does 10

create a lot more opportunity. 11

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you, Andrew. Thank you. 12

Brenda? 13

MS. EDWARDS: Yes. 14

MR. BROOKMAN: Why don’t you distribute those 15

Xerox copies? The Department has made a copy of the 16

business cards of the attendees for everybody that 17

would want one of those. 18

So now is, again, an opportunity for anybody 19

to make closing remarks, additional comments, raise 20

additional issues for consideration for the record. 21

Ron Lewis? 22

MR. LEWIS: I’ve got a couple people working 23

frantically to get the link to the heating products, 24

NOPR, because I promised to give you insight into some 25

of that more expansive language. I also want to 26167

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC announce the request this morning to extend the comment 1

period. We are going to extend that comment period by 2

a week to a week from Friday, February 5th, for you to 3

get your comments together. 4

So we are hesitant to extend comment periods. 5

We have so many deadlines and it’s so diffic ult to 6

coordinate and synchronize all these things. So it was 7

with some reluctance, but we did hear -- we did hear 8

and we’re responsive. So you’ve got an extra week on 9

that. 10

MR. BROOKMAN: Thank you. I don’t want to 11

short shrift anybody. Additional comments as we move 12

toward the end of this public meeting today? 13

I think right now we are pulling up the URL 14

that Ron was referring to. Are you going to do the 15

last page? 16

If you will look at the final page in your 17

slides, this would be slide 112. Linda Graves is going 18

to discuss this. 19

MS. GRAVES: Yeah, if you would all just 20

notice that there’s actually -- there’s four different 21

ways you can submit written comments. And all the 22

addresses are there on that last page of your 23

presentation. But if you would also refer to the very 24

first page, the notice that we published in the Federal 25

Register, it was the four different ways to do it 26168

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INCincluding the through the portal through the DOE e1

mail, through snail mail or even what to do if you want 2

to do it by courier. 3

Brenda is the contact person, if you go 4

through courier. Also, elsewhere if anybody wants to 5

review the docket, see the comments that have been 6

coming in, Brenda Edwards here is also the contact 7

person for that. We have a resource room. Make an 8

appointment with her and she can let you in to review 9

the comments. 10

We also have -- here’s the list I think you 11

all found our website for this rule. But we’re also 12

typing in the links. Okay. So you go to appliance 13

standards, I guess for the transcript if you could 14

type, add these please into the transcript. We’ll give 15

it to you. It’s a page. 16

Access denied. Whoops. That happens a lot. 17

(Pause.) 18

MS. GRAVES: So you scan down through the 19

list of products, click on heating products. 20

(Pause.) 21

MS. GRAVES: You probably can’t read that 22

from there, can you? The heading at the top? 23

MR. LEWIS: (Off microphone.) Anybody who 24

wants to record that before you leave, it’s right up 25

here on the screen. We’ll leave it on the screen. 26169

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC It’s an excellent link to the d ocument. Up here in the 1

URL for the web page at the top where it says, address, 2

then this link right here, PDF, right here, that would 3

be a copy of the NOPR -- on the environmental factors 4

and questions that you were asking, it’s much more 5

expansive. 6

MS. GRAVES: Okay. I guess I can read it 7

off. So it’s 8

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/resi 9

dential/water_pool_heaters_nopr.html. 10

MR. LEWIS: Now that you’ve all been slashed 11

thoroughly, I just got an idea. We are just handing 12

out a copy of the business cards for everybody. As 13

long as your e- mail address is on there, we’ll e -mail 14

that to you; how’s that? Okay. Sorry we didn't think 15

of that sooner. We were trying desperately to be 16

responsive. 17

MS. GRAVES: And I just want to really thank 18

everyone for your participation. I appreciate the tone 19

and the spirit in which comments were offered. I also 20

think that there was some very useful discussion, 21

useful clarification. My team is grateful for your 22

input. We will be even more grateful for fast response 23

when submitting data to us. And we look forward to 24

getting any additional comments you might want to 25

submit to us in writing. And with that, thank you very 26170

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC much, everyone. 1

MR. BROOKMAN: Please fill out the evaluation 2

form. The Department is always looking for your 3

thoughts and comments on ways to improve these 4

meetings. And it’s at the final page in your packet. 5

Each person’s got it. 6

So safe travels to all of you. Best wishes. 7

Thanks for a very productive day. 8

(Whereupon, at 2:21 p.m., the meeting was 9

adjourned.) 10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26171

EXECUTIVE COURT REPORTERS, INC 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 FOR

METAL HALIDE LAMP FIXTURES

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 proceedings.



## Wendy Greene

Official Reporter

Dated: December 27, 2009