CHAPTER 11. NATIONAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS

TABLE O F CONTENTS

11.1 I NTRODUCTION

......................................................................................................... 11­1

11.2 B ASE­CASE AND STANDARDS­CASE FORECASTED EFFICACY

DISTRIBUTIONS, LAMP STOCKS, AND AVERAGE EFFICACY..................................... 11­2

11.2.1 G eneral Service Fluorescent Lamps

.................................................................. 11­2

11.2.1.1 B ase and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions.............................. 11­2

11.2.1.2 I nstalled Lamp Stock

...................................................................... 11­11

11.2.1.3 A verage Lamp Efficacy in the Stock.............................................. 11­21

11.2.2 I ncandescent Reflector Lamps......................................................................... 11­30

11.2.2.1 B ase and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions............................ 11­30

11.2.2.2 I nstalled Lamp Stock

...................................................................... 11­32

11.2.2.3 A verage Lamp Efficacy of the Stock.............................................. 11­36

11.3 NA TIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS

............................................................................. 11­38

11.3.1 Na tional Energy Savings Definition

................................................................ 11­38

11.3.2 Na tional Energy Savings Inputs....................................................................... 11­39

11.3.2.1 U nit Energy Consumption (UEC)................................................... 11­40

11.3.2.2 L amp Stock

..................................................................................... 11­40

11.3.2.3 S ite­to­Source Conversion Factors

................................................. 11­40

11.3.2.4 I nteractions with Heating, Ventilation, and Air­Conditioning

(HVAC) Systems

............................................................................................. 11­41

11.3.2.5 R ebound Rate.................................................................................. 11­42

11.4 NET PRESENT VALUE............................................................................................. 11­42

11.4.1 Ne t Present Value Definition........................................................................... 11­42

11.4.2 Ne t Present Value Inputs

................................................................................. 11­43

11.4.2.1 To tal Annual Installed Cost Increases

............................................ 11­43

11.4.2.2 To tal Annual Operating Cost Savings

............................................ 11­44

11.4.2.3 D iscount Factor............................................................................... 11­44

11.5 NA TIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS AND NET PRESENT VALUE RESULTS........ 11­45

11.5.1 Na tional Energy Savings and Net Present Value Input Summary................... 11­45

11.5.2 B ase Case Energy Consumption...................................................................... 11­46

11.5.3 Na tional Energy Savings Results..................................................................... 11­50

11.5.3.1 G eneral Service Fluorescent Lamps

............................................... 11­51

11.5.3.2 I ncandescent Reflector Lamps........................................................ 11­54

11.5.4 A nnual Costs and Savings

............................................................................... 11­55

11.5.5 Ne t Present Value Results................................................................................ 11­59

11.5.5.1 G eneral Service Fluorescent Lamps

............................................... 11­60

11.5.5.2 I ncandescent Reflector Lamps........................................................ 11­64

11­iLIST OF TABLES

Table 1 1.1 4­Foot Medium Bipin Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions

(Existing Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise Scenario)

............................... 11­4

Table 11.2 4­Foot Medium Bipin Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions

(Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, Market Segment­Based Lighting Expertise Scenario)

............................................................................................................................... ......... 11­5

Table 11.3 8­Foot Single Pin Slimline Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy

Distributions (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise Scenario)

......... 11­6

Table 11.4 8­Foot Single Pin Slimline Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy

Distributions (Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, Market Segment­Based Lighting

Expertise Scenario)

........................................................................................................ 11­7

Table 11.5 8­Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Base Case and Standards Case

Efficacy Distributions (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Lighitng Expertise Scenario)

............................................................................................................................... ......... 11­8

Table 11.6 8­Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Base Case and Standards Case

Efficacy Distributions (Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, Market Segment­Based

Lighting Expertise Scenario)

......................................................................................... 11­9

Table 11.7 4­Foot T5 Miniature Bipin Standard Output Base Case and Standards Case

Efficacy Distributions (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise Scenario)........ 11­10

Table 11.8 4­Foot T5 Miniature Bipin Standard Output Base Case and Standards Case

Efficacy Distributions (Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, Market Segment­Based

Expertise Scenario)

...................................................................................................... 11­10

Table 11.9 4­Foot T5 Miniature bipin High Output Base Case and Standards Case

Efficacy Distributions (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise Scenario)

............................................................................................................................... ....... 11­11

Table 11.10 Commercial and Residential Incandescent Reflector Lamps: Base Case and

Standards Case Efficacy Distributions in 2012, 2042 for the Existing Technologies, Shift,

Product Substitution Scenario...................................................................................... 11­31

Table 11.11 Commercial and Residential Incandescent Reflector Lamps: Base Case and

Standards Case Efficacy Distributions from 2012 to 2042 for the Emerging Technologies,

Roll­up, No Product Substitution Scenario.................................................................. 11­32

Table 11.12 National Energy Saving Inputs............................................................... 11­39

Table 11.13 Site­to­Source Conversion Factors

...................................................... 11­41

Table 11.14 Net Present Value Inputs

........................................................................ 11­43

Table 11.15 National Energy Saving and Net Present Value Inputs

.......................... 11­46

Table 11.16 Cumulative National Energy Savings for General Service Fluorescent

Lamps Under the Existing, Shift, High Lighting Expertise Scenario (2012­2042) (quads)

............................................................................................................................... ....... 11­52

Table 11.17 Cumulative National Energy Savings for General Service Fluorescent

Lamps Under the Emerging, Roll­up, Market Segment­Based Scenario (2012­2042)

(quads).......................................................................................................................... 11­53

Table 11.18 Cumulative National Energy Savings for IRL in the Existing Technologies,

Shift, Product Substitution Scenario (2012­2042) (quads).......................................... 11­54

Table 11.19 Cumulative National Energy Savings for IRL in the Emerging

Technologies, Roll­up, No Product Substitution Scenario (2012­2042) (quads)

........ 11­54

11­iiTable 11.20 Cumulative NPV Results for General Service Fluorescent Lamps Under the

Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise Scenario (2012­2042) (Billion 2007$) 11­62

Table 11.21 Cumulative NPV Results for General Service Fluorescent Lamps Under the

Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, Market Segment­Based Expertise Scenario (2012­

2042) (Billion 2007$)

.................................................................................................. 11­63

Table 11.22 Cumulative NPV Results for IRL: Existing Technologies, Shift, Product

Substitution (2012­2042) (billion 2007$)

.................................................................... 11­64

Table 11.23 Cumulative NPV Results for IRL: Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, No

Product Substitution (2012­2042) (billion 2007$)....................................................... 11­64

LIST O F FIGURES

Figure 1 1.2.1 4­Foot Medium Bipin Existing Technologies Base Case Installed Lamp

Stock

............................................................................................................................ 11­12

Figure 11.2.2 4­Foot Medium Bipin Emerging Technologies Base Case Installed Lamp

Stock

............................................................................................................................ 11­13

Figure 11.2.3 4­Foot Medium Bipin Standards Case Installed Lamp Stock (Existing

Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise Scenario, at TSL3).............................. 11­14

Figure 11.2.4 4­Foot Medium Bipin Standards Case Installed Lamp Stock (Emerging

Technologies, Roll­up, Market Segment­Based Lighting Expertise Scenario, at TSL3) 11­

14

Figure 11.2.5 8­Foot Single Pin Slimline Base Case Installed Lamp Stock.............. 11­15

Figure 11.2.6 8­Foot Single Pin Slimline Standards Case Installed Lamp Stock (TSL3)

............................................................................................................................... ....... 11­16

Figure 11.2.7 8­Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Base Case Installed Lamp

Stock

............................................................................................................................ 11­17

Figure 11.2.8 8­Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Technologies Standards

Case Installed Lamp Stock (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise Scenario at

TSL3) ........................................................................................................................... 11­18

Figure 11.2.9 4­Foot T5 Miniature Bipin Standard Output and High Output Existing

Technologies Base Case Installed Lamp Stock

........................................................... 11­19

Figure 11.2.10 4­Foot T5 Miniature Bipin Standard Output and High Output Emerging

Technologies Base Case Installed Lamp Stock

........................................................... 11­20

Figure 11.2.11 4­Foot T5 Miniature Bipin Standard Output and High Output Standards

Case Installed Lamp Stock (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise Scenario at

TSL3) ........................................................................................................................... 11­20

Figure 11.2.12 4­Foot T5 Miniature Bipin Standard Output and High Output Standards

Case Installed Lamp Stock (Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, Market Segment­Based

Expertise Scenario at TSL3)

........................................................................................ 11­21

Figure 11.2.13 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, 4­Foot Medium Bipin Lamps (Existing

Technologies, Shift, High Scenario)............................................................................ 11­22

Figure 11.2.14 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, 4­Foot Medium Bipin Lamps

(Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, Market Segment­Based Scenario)........................ 11­23

Figure 11.2.15 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, 8­Foot Single Pin Slimline Lamps

(Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise Scenario)

............................................ 11­25

11­iiiFigure 11.2.16 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, 8­Foot Single Pin Slimline Lamps

(Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, Market Segment­Based Scenario)........................ 11­26

Figure 11.2.17 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, 8­Foot Recessed Double Contact High

Output Lamps (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise Scenario)

.................... 11­27

Figure 11.2.18 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, 8­Foot Recessed Double Contact High

Output Lamps (Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, Market Segment­Based Scenario) 11­28

Figure 11.2.19 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, 4­

Foot Miniature Bipin T5 Standard Output and High Output (Existing Technologies, Shift,

High Scenario)

............................................................................................................. 11­29

Figure 11.2.20 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, 4­

Foot Miniature Bipin T5 Standard Output and High Output (Emerging Technologies,

Roll­up, Market Segment­Based Scenario)

................................................................. 11­30

Figure 11.2.21 IRL Existing Technologies Base case Installed Lamp Stock.............. 11­33

Figure 11.2.22 IRL Emerging Technologies Base Case Installed Lamp Stock.......... 11­34

Figure 11.2.23 IRL Install Lamp Stock (Existing Technologies, Shift, Product

Substitution Scenario, TSL4)....................................................................................... 11­35

Figure 11.2.24 IRL Installed Lamp Stock (Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, No Product

Substitution Scenario, TSL4)....................................................................................... 11­36

Figure 11.2.25 Average Efficacy of the IRL Stock (Existing Technologies, Shift, Product

Substitution Scenario).................................................................................................. 11­37

Figure 11.2.26 Average Efficacy of the IRL Stock (Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, No

Product Substitution Scenario)

.................................................................................... 11­38

Figure 11.5.1 National Energy Consumption, General Service Fluorescent Lamps,

Existing Technologies Base Case (quads of source energy)

....................................... 11­47

Figure 11.5.2 National Energy Consumption, General Service Fluorescent Lamps,

Emerging Technologies Base Case (quads of source energy)

..................................... 11­48

Figure 11.5.3 National Energy Consumption, Incandescent Reflector Lamps, Existing

Technologies Base Case (quads of source energy)...................................................... 11­49

Figure 11.5.4 National Energy Consumption, Incandescent Reflector Lamps, Emerging

Technologies Base Case (quads of source energy)...................................................... 11­50

Figure 11.5.5 National Undiscounted Annual Total Installed Equipment and Operating

Cost Savings For 4­Foot Medium Bipin at TSL3 (Existing Technologies, Shift, High

Lighting Expertise Scenario )

...................................................................................... 11­56

Figure 11.5.6 National Undiscounted Annual Total Installed Equipment and Operating

Cost Savings For 4­Foot Medium Bipin at TSL3 (Emerging Technologies, Roll­up,

Market Segment­Based Lighting Expertise Scenario)................................................. 11­57

Figure 11.5.7 National Undiscounted Annual Total Installed Equipment and Operating

Cost Savings for IRL at TSL4 (Existing Technologies, Shift, Product Substitution

Scenario) ...................................................................................................................... 11­58

Figure 11.5.8 National Undiscounted Annual Total Installed Equipment and Operating

Cost Savings for IRL at TSL4 (Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, No Product Substitution

Scenario) ...................................................................................................................... 11­59

11­iv11­vCHAPTER 11. NATIONAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS

11.1 I NTRODUCTION

Th is c hapter describes the method for estimating the national impacts of trial

standard levels (TSLs) for covered general service fluorescent lamps (GSFL) and

incandescent reflector lamps (IRL). In the national impact analysis (NIA), the U.S.

Department of Energy (DOE) assesses the cumulative national energy savings (NES) and

the cumulative national economic impacts of TSLs. DOE measures energy savings as the

cumulative quads of energy a TSL is expected to save the Nation. DOE measures

economic impacts as the net present value (NPV) in dollars of total customer costs and

savings expected to result from a TSL. The analysis period over which DOE calculates

the NPV and NES is from 2012 to 2042. Results of the NIA described in this chapter

include (1) national energy consumption and savings, (2) monetary value of energy

savings to the Nation as a result of standards, (3) increased total installed costs to the

Nation as a result of standards, and (4) the NPV of energy savings (the difference

between the present monetary values of energy savings and increased total installed

costs).

DOE d etermines both the NPV and NES for each TSL and each representative

product class it selects in the engineering analysis (Chapter 5). In this rulemaking, DOE

considers up to five trial standard levels for each of the GSFL representative product

classes and up to five trial standard levels for the IRL representative product classes.

DOE performs all NIA calculations using Microsoft Excel® spreadsheets,

available for download at

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/incandescent_lamp

s .html. A ppendix 11A provides instructions for using the spreadsheet. NIA results for

alternate shipment scenarios are available in Appendix 11B.

The f ollowing sections describe in detail the methodology and inputs for the NIA.

Several NIA inputs, including per­unit costs, per­unit energy consumption, and national

shipments, are discussed in other analyses. In describing the inputs to the NIA, this

chapter references those analyses and presents new information on installed stock.

Section 11.2 discusses DOE’s lamp­shipment forecasts by efficacy, the installed stock of

lamps, and the mix of efficacies of that stock. The section discusses GSFL and IRL

separately. Section 11.3 discusses DOE’s calculation of national energy consumption in

the base and standards cases, and the resulting NES between these cases. Section 11.4

discusses the NPV calculation. Section 11.5 presents the NES and NPV results by lamp

category.

11­111.2 BASE­CASE A ND STANDARDS­CASE FORECASTED EFFICACY

DISTRIBUTIONS, LAMP STOCKS, AND AVERAGE EFFICACY.

The c haracteristics of DOE’s shipment forecasts (such as equipment costs and

operating costs) and projected lamp stocks (such as average efficacy and energy

consumption) are key aspects of DOE’s NES and NPV estimates. This section describes

these key characteristics of stock and shipments as they relate to the NES and NPV.

For e xample, the projected distribution of lamp efficacies shipped and lamp

efficacies in stock are key factors in determining the NPV. Two inputs to the NPV are

the per­unit total installed cost and per­unit annual operating cost. The per­unit total

installed cost often depends on the efficacy of lamps shipped. Therefore, when higher

efficacy lamps are shipped, higher installed costs are often incurred. Section 8.2.2 of

Chapter 8 describes how per­unit total installed costs vary as a function of efficacy for

each lamp.

Per­unit a nnual energy consumption is a key input into the NPV (as an input into

the per­unit operating cost) and NES. The per­unit annual energy consumption is a

function of lamp wattage (and ballast characteristics in the case of GSFL) in the installed

stock. The total installed stock of lamps is used to determine total annual energy

consumption, a key input into the NES and NPV calculations.

Also i mportant to determining NES and NPV is the average efficacy of the lamp

stock. The engineering analysis (Chapter 5) discusses the relationship between lamp

power and efficacy. Because consumers select wattages when purchasing lamps, per­unit

energy consumption for a particular standards case purchase is not necessarily less than

per­unit energy consumption for the corresponding base case purchase. Certain standards

case scenarios (Shift and High lighting expertise for GSFL and No Product Substitution

and Shift for IRL) model primarily energy­saving consumer purchase decisions with

standards. The energy use characterization (Chapter 6 and Appendix 6A) describes how

the per­unit energy consumption varies as a function of efficacy for each lamp or lampand­ballast design.

Sections 1 1.3.2 and 11.4.2 discuss inputs to calculation of the NES and NPV in

further detail.

The f ollowing sections detail the forecasted distribution of efficacies, installed

lamp stocks, and average efficacy of those stocks in the base and standards cases.

11.2.1 G eneral S ervice Fluorescent Lamps

11.2.1.1 B ase a nd Standards Case Efficacy Distributions

Because t he end­user price of lamps varies with lamp efficacy, the base and

standards case forecasted efficacy distributions of shipments affect the average total

installed cost per unit. Generally, as the efficacy of a GSFL lamp design increases, the

total installed cost increases as well. In addition, the base­case and standards­case

efficacy distributions affect the average lamp efficacy in the installed stock, an indication

11­2of annual energy consumption. However, as both efficacy and ballast factor affect

energy consumption, total energy savings may be greater than the efficacy distributions

would indicate. For GSFL, DOE first presented the market share matrices in the base and

standards cases in Chapter 10 in sections 10.3 and 10.4, respectively. These market share

matrices characterize the shipments of lamps or lamp­and­ballast systems for each system

type. The forecasted efficacy distributions of shipments for GSFL depend directly on

these matrices and the total shipments of a particular lamp type in each year of the

analysis period.

Table 1 1.1 through Table 11.9show the base and standards case efficacy

distributions for 4­foot medium bipin (MBP), 8­foot single pin (SP) slimline, 8­foot

recessed double contact (RDC) high output (HO), and 4­foot T5 miniature bipin

(MiniBP) standard output (SO) and 4­foot T5 MiniBP HO lamp shipments. The tables

illustrate the percentage market share of shipments of lamps of different efficacies, where

the efficacies correspond to particular TSLs.

The t able also illustrates how this mix of efficacy changes over time. All tables

illustrate three points in time: 2012, 2030, and 2042. The tables show that in the base

case, consumers may purchase lamps with efficacy higher than the baseline, and in the

standards cases, consumers may purchase lamps of efficacies greater than the TSL

requires.

There a re two tables per GSFL representative product class, one depicting the

efficacy mixes in the Existing Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise scenario and

one depicting those in the Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, Market Segment­Based

Lighting Expertise scenario. Chapter 10 discusses these scenarios in further detail.

Though the Emerging Technologies/Existing Technologies and High/Market SegmentBased Lighting Expertise scenarios slightly affect the shipped lamp efficacy distributions,

the greater impact scenarios are the Shift/Roll­up shipment scenarios. Because

consumers in the Shift scenario make purchase decisions based more on the energy

savings of a particular lamp or lamp­and­ballast design, the Shift scenario often presents

a more aggressive forecasted efficacy distribution. As discussed in Chapter 10, in

developing the Shift scenario, when possible, DOE maintained the same base­case

efficacy distribution ( i.e.

, the percentage of lamps shipped at the minimum efficacy level

and the percentage shipped at higher efficacy levels) in the standards­case for each lamp

type ( e.g.

, 4­foot T12 MBP lamps). However, when presenting the efficacy distributions

of multiple lamp types combined ( e.g.

, T12 and T8 lamps), the standards­case efficacy

distribution of an entire product class may not exactly mirror the base­case efficacy

distribution. For the Roll­Up scenario, DOE assumed that, when possible, consumers

will purchase the lowest first­cost lamp option which, in many cases, is often at the

minimum allowed efficacy level.

Table 1 1.1 and Table 11.2 show the base­case and standards­case efficacy

distributions in the Existing Technologies, Shift, High expertise scenario and the

Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, Market Segment­Based expertise scenario for 4­foot

medium bipin lamps (both T8 and T12 diameters), respectively. As Chapter 10 shows,

approximately 75 percent of the 4­foot medium bipin lamp shipments in 2012 are T8

11­3lamps, while 25 percent are T12. This is reflected in the base case efficacy distributions:

In 2012, large portions of shipments appear at the lowest efficacy T12 level (baseline)

and the lowest efficacy T8 efficacy level (EL2). As Chapter 10 discusses, 4­foot T12

medium bipin shipments continue to decline in the years following 2012. In addition,

DOE modeled a shift in the commercial sector from consumers purchasing low efficacy

T12 lamps to consumers purchasing higher efficacy (EL2 and EL3) T12 lamps. This

trend is reflected in the efficacy distributions: in 2030, shipments of baseline and EL1

lamps have approximately half the market share as in 2012 in the base case. The efficacy

distributions also incorporate the effects of higher efficacy 4­foot T8 MBP lamps being

shipped in the later years of the analysis period than those T8 lamps shipped in the earlier

years of the analysis period. The standards case efficacy distributions show similar

trends as the base case. However, as a result of the standards, at each trial standard level,

various EL lamps are unavailable, and therefore percentage shipments are zero.

Table 1 1.1 4­Foot Medium Bipin Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy

Distributions (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise Scenario)

Year EL P roporti ons o f All 4­Foot MBP Lamps Shipped (%)

Standards C ase TSLs

Base C ase 1 2 3 4 5

Basel ine 1 7 0 0 0 0 0

1 6 15 0 0 0 0

2 38 4 3 5 4 0 0 0

2012 3 22 2 4 2 7 5 6 0 0

4 11 1 2 1 2 3 4 4 0 0

5 5 6 6 10 6 0 1 00

T otal 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00

B aseline 9 0 0 0 0 0

1 3 7 0 0 0 0

2 34 3 7 4 2 0 0 0

2030 3 17 1 8 2 0 4 2 0 0

4 27 2 7 2 7 2 7 4 5 0

5 10 1 1 1 1 3 1 5 5 1 00

T otal 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00

B asel ine 7 0 0 0 0 0

1 2 5 0 0 0 0

2 26 2 8 3 2 0 0 0

2042 3 10 1 1 1 2 3 2 0 0

4 40 4 1 4 1 2 0 3 6 0

5 15 1 5 1 5 4 8 6 4 1 00

T otal 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00

1 1­41

2

3

4

5 Table 11.2 4­Foot Medium Bipin Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy

Distributions (Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, Market Segment­Based Lighting

Expertise Scenario)

Year TSL P roporti ons o f All 4­Foot MBP Lamps Shipped (%)

Base C ase Standards C ase TSLs

1 2 3 4 5

Basel ine 1 7 0 0 0 0 0

6 18 0 0 0 0

38 4 1 5 8 0 0 0

2012 2 2 2 3 2 4 8 1 0 0

11 1 2 1 2 1 3 9 1 0

5 6 6 6 9 100

T otal 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00

B asel ine 1 1 0 0 0 0 0

1 3 11 0 0 0 0

2 34 3 5 4 6 0 0 0

2030 3 17 1 8 1 8 6 3 0 0

4 25 2 6 2 6 2 6 8 7 0

5 10 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 3 1 00

T otal 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00

B asel ine 9 0 0 0 0 0

1 3 9 0 0 0 0

2 27 2 8 3 6 0 0 0

2042 3 10 1 1 1 1 4 6 0 0

4 38 3 8 3 9 3 9 8 3 0

5 14 1 4 1 4 1 4 1 7 1 00

T otal 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00

Table 11.3 and Table 11.4 show the base case and standards case efficacy

distributions in the Existing Technologies, Shift, High expertise scenario and the

Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, High Lighting Expertise scenario for 8­foot single pin

slimline lamps (both T8 and T12 diameters), respectively. These two tables reflect the

most and least aggressive efficacy distributions, respectively. As Chapter 10 shows, in

the base case, approximately 30 percent of the 8­foot single pin slimline lamp shipments

are T8 lamps in 2012, while 70 percent are T12. This is reflected in the efficacy

distributions: in 2012, large portions of shipments appear at the lowest efficacy 8­foot

T12 SP slimline TSL (baseline) and the lowest efficacy T8 TSL (TSL3). In addition, as

Chapter 10 discusses, 8­foot T12 single pin slimline shipments continue to decline

rapidly in the years immediately following 2012, before flattening out throughout the

remainder of the analysis period. This is reflected in the efficacy distributions: in 2030,

there are approximately one­third to one­fourth the share of shipments of baseline, EL1,

and EL2 8­foot SP slimline lamps as in 2012 (The lowest EL for T8 lamps is EL3.) In

addition, the efficacy distributions incorporate the effects of higher efficacy T8 lamps

being shipped in the later years of the analysis period. The standards case efficacy

distributions show similar trends as the base case. However, as a result of the standards,

at each trial standard level several EL lamps are unavailable, and therefore percentage

shipments are zero.

11­51

2

3

4

5 Table 11.3 8­Foot Single Pin Slimline Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy

Distributions (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise Scenario)

Year EL P roporti ons o f All 8­Foot SP Slimline Lamps Shipped (%)

Base C ase Standards C ase TSLs

1 2 3 4 5

Basel ine 3 2 0 0 0 0 0

21 4 7 0 0 0 0

11 1 1 5 6 0 0 0

2012 1 9 2 3 2 4 7 8 0 0

10 1 2 1 3 1 4 0 0

6 7 8 8 100 1 00

T otal 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00

B asel ine 8 0 0 0 0 0

1 6 0 0 0 0 0

2 3 4 3 0 0 0

2030 3 31 4 0 3 9 4 1 0 0

4 26 2 7 2 8 2 8 0 0

5 27 2 9 3 0 3 0 1 00 1 00

T otal 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00

B asel ine 9 0 0 0 0 0

1 6 0 0 0 0 0

2 3 5 4 0 0 0

2042 3 22 3 2 3 1 3 4 0 0

4 23 2 4 2 5 2 5 0 0

5 37 3 9 4 0 4 1 1 00 1 00

T otal 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00

1 1­61

2

3

4

5 Table 11.4 8­Foot Single Pin Slimline Base Case and Standards Case Efficacy

Distributions (Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, Market Segment­Based Lighting

Expertise Scenario)

Year EL P roporti ons o f All 8­Foot SP Slimline Lamps Shipped (% )

Base S tandards C ase TSLs

Case 1 2 3 4 5

Basel ine 3 2 0 0 0 0 0

21 4 8 0 0 0 0

11 1 0 5 6 0 0 0

2012 1 9 2 3 2 4 7 8 0 0

10 1 2 1 3 1 4 6 7 0

6 7 8 8 33 1 00

T otal 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00

B asel ine 8 0 0 0 0 0

1 6 4 0 0 0 0

2 3 2 5 0 0 0

2030 3 31 3 8 3 8 4 1 0 0

4 26 2 7 2 8 2 8 5 8 0

5 27 2 9 3 0 3 0 4 2 1 00

T otal 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00

B asel ine 9 0 0 0 0 0

1 6 5 0 0 0 0

2 3 2 6 0 0 0

2042 3 22 2 9 2 9 3 4 0 0

4 23 2 4 2 5 2 5 4 1 0

5 37 3 9 4 0 4 1 5 9 1 00

T otal 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00

Table 11.5 and Table 11.6 show the base case and standards case efficacy

distributions in the Existing Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise scenario and

the Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, Market Segment­Based Lighting Expertise

scenario, respectively, for 8­foot recessed double contact high output lamps (both T8 and

T12 diameters). These two tables reflect the most and least aggressive efficacy

distributions, respectively. As Chapter 10 shows, DOE projects that all 8­foot recessed

double contact high output shipments will have a T12 diameter in the base case. This is

reflected in the efficacy distributions: because EL3 is the highest efficacy T12 lamp, in

the base case in 2012, 2030, and 2042, shipments at EL4 and EL5 are zero. The efficacy

distributions also incorporate the effects of higher efficacy T12 lamps being shipped in

the later years of the analysis period.

The s tandards case efficacy distributions at TSL1, TSL2, and TSL3 show similar

trends as the base case. However, because of the standards at each trial standard level,

various EL lamps are unavailable, and therefore percentage shipments are zero. At TSL4

and TSL5, no 8­foot T12 RDC HO lamps are available and all systems are retrofitted to

11­71

2

3

4

5 T8 diameters. Therefore, standards case shipments at TSL4 and TSL5 represent only 8­

foot T8 RDC HO shipments.

Table 1 1.5 8­Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Base Case and Standards

Case Efficacy Distributions (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Lighitng Expertise

Scenario)

Year EL P roporti ons o f All 8­Foot RDC HO Lamps Shipped (% )

Base C ase Standards C ase TSLs

1 2 3 4 5

Basel ine 5 4 0 0 0 0 0

21 1 9 0 0 0 0

7 62 6 0 0 0 0

2012 1 8 1 9 4 0 1 00 0 0

0 0 0 0 55 0

0 0 0 0 45 1 00

T otal 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00

B asel ine 3 7 0 0 0 0 0

1 23 1 2 0 0 0 0

2 13 5 1 4 0 0 0 0

2030 3 27 3 7 6 0 1 00 0 0

4 0 0 0 0 55 0

5 0 0 0 0 45 1 00

T otal 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00

B asel ine 2 2 0 0 0 0 0

1 24 1 3 0 0 0 0

2 19 3 8 2 6 0 0 0

2042 3 35 5 0 7 4 1 00 0 0

4 0 0 0 0 55 0

5 0 0 0 0 45 1 00

T otal 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00

1 1­81

2

3

4

5 Table 11.6 8­Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Base Case and Standards

Case Efficacy Distributions (Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, Market SegmentBased Lighting Expertise Scenario)

Year TSL P roporti ons o f All 8­Foot RDC HO Lamps Shipped (% )

Emergi ng

T echnologies Standards C ase

(Roll­up, Market Segment­Based Scenario)

Base C ase 1 2 3 4 5

Baseline 5 4 0 0 0 0 0

21 5 1 0 0 0 0

7 31 8 2 0 0 0

2012 1 8 1 8 1 8 1 00 0 0

0 0 0 0 55 0

0 0 0 0 45 1 00

T otal 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00

B asel ine 3 7 0 0 0 0 0

1 23 2 3 0 0 0 0

2 13 5 0 7 3 0 0 0

2030 3 27 2 7 2 7 1 00 0 0

4 0 0 0 0 55 0

5 0 0 0 0 45 1 00

T otal 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00

B asel ine 2 2 0 0 0 0 0

1 24 2 4 0 0 0 0

2 19 4 0 6 5 0 0 0

2042 3 35 3 5 3 5 1 00 0 0

4 0 0 0 0 55 0

5 0 0 0 0 45 1 00

T otal 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00

Table 11.7 and Table 11.8 show the base case and standards case efficacy

distributions in the Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise scenario and the

Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, Market Segment­Based expertise scenario,

respectively, for 4­foot T5 miniature bipin standard output lamps. These two tables

reflect the most and least aggressive efficacy distributions, respectively. The efficacy

distributions of 4­foot T5 MiniBP SO lamps are more straightforward than other product

classes, as there is only one diameter under consideration. As presented in Chapter 10

and indicated in Table 11.7 and Table 11.8, DOE modeled constant efficacy distributions

in the base case and standards case. However, as a result of the standards at each trial

standard level, various EL lamps are unavailable, and therefore percentage shipments are

zero.

11­9Table 11.7 4­Foot T5 Miniature Bipin Standard Output Base Case and Standards

Case Efficacy Distributions (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise Scenario)

Year EL P roporti ons o f All 4­Foot T5 MiniBP SO Lamps Shipped (% )

Base C ase Standards C ase TSLs

1 2 3 4 5

Basel ine 2 1 0 0 0 0 0

2012 1 55 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 0

2 24 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 1 00

T otal 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00

B asel ine 2 1 0 0 0 0 0

2030 1 55 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 0

2 24 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 1 00

T otal 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00

B asel ine 2 1 0 0 0 0 0

2042 1 55 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 0

2 24 7 9 7 9 7 9 7 9 1 00

T otal 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00

Table 11.8 4­Foot T5 Miniature Bipin Standard Output Base Case and Standards

Case Efficacy Distributions (Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, Market SegmentBased Expertise Scenario)

Year EL P roporti ons o f All 4­Foot T5 MiniBP SO Lamps Shipped (% )

Base C ase Standards C ase TSLs

1 2 3 4 5

2012

­ B asel ine 2 1 0 0 0 0 0

1 55 7 6 7 6 7 6 7 6 0

2042 2 24 2 4 2 4 2 4 2 4 1 00

T otal 1 00 100 100 1 00 1 00 1 00

Table 11.9 shows the base case and standards case efficacy distributions in the

Existing Technologies, Shift, High expertise scenario, which is identical to the Emerging

Technologies, Roll­up, Market Segment­Based scenario for 4­foot T5 miniature bipin

high output lamps. The Shift and Roll­up scenarios produce identical efficacy

distributions for 4­foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps because there is only one higher efficacy

lamp to which consumers can migrate. For example, in the base case, 20 percent of

shipped 4­foot MiniBP HO lamps are of baseline efficacy, all of which moves to the next

efficacy level in the standards case. As presented in Chapter 10 and indicated in Table

11.9, DOE modeled constant efficacy distributions in the base case and standards case.

11­10Table 11.9 4­Foot T5 Miniature bipin High Output Base Case and Standards Case

Efficacy Distributions (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise

Scenario)

Year EL P roporti ons o f All 4­Foot MiniBP T5 HO Lamps Shipped (% )

Base C ase Standards C ase TSLs

1 2 3 4 5

2012 B asel ine 2 0 0 0 0 0 0

­

2042 1 80 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00

T otal 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00

11.2.1.2 Installed L amp Stock

The l amp stock in a given year is the total number of lamps shipped that year and

in prior years that are still operating. The NES model keeps track of the lamp­and­ballast

pairs in GSFL shipped each year. Lamps are retired when 1) they reach the end of their

lifetime, 2) the ballast on which they are installed reaches the end of its life, or 3) the

ballast on which they are installed is retrofitted. From this information and the shipments

forecasts presented in Chapter 10, DOE established the installed lamp stock profile for 4­

foot medium bipin, 8­foot single pin slimline, 8­foot recessed double contact HO, and 4­

foot T5 MiniBP SO and 4­foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps. Figure 11.2.1 through Figure

11.2.12 s how these lamp stocks in the base case and standards case for TSL3 under

various scenarios.

Figure 1 1.2.1 and Figure 11.2.2 presents the installed stock of 4­foot medium

bipin lamps in the Existing Technologies and Emerging Technologies base cases,

respectively. The total installed stock of 4­foot medium bipin lamps is expected to

experience a steady increase as DOE projects that most of the new construction in the

commercial sector and all of new construction in the residential sector apportioned to

GSFL will utilize 4­foot T8 medium bipin lamps. Additionally, as Chapter 10 notes,

DOE expects 4­foot medium bipin systems to continue to replace 8­foot single pin

slimline systems. DOE modeled 80 percent of retiring two­lamp 8­foot single pin

slimline systems will be replaced by two two­lamp 4­foot T8 medium bipin systems. As a

result, DOE expects that the installed stock of lamps in 2042 (meeting the initial 2011 8­

foot single pin slimline lumen demand) will be much greater than in 2012.

As d iscussed in Chapter 10, DOE assumed that all 4­foot T12 medium bipin

systems installed prior to 2012 are magnetic systems. DOE expects the installed stock of

T12 magnetic systems to decline and reach zero in the commercial sector by 2026 but

persist with a relatively small presence in the residential sector. In the commercial sector,

most of the retiring magnetic systems will be replaced by T8 systems, although 10

percent will be replaced by T12 electronic systems. After 2026, the residential 4­foot

T12 MBP stock is split roughly between magnetic and electronic systems.

The d ifference between the Existing Technologies base case (Figure 11.2.1) and

the Emerging Technologies base case (Figure 11.2.2) is mostly one of scale. The

11­11Existing Technologies is larger because DOE assumes light­emitting diode (LED) lamps

penetrate a portion of the 4­foot medium bipin stock over the analysis period, as is

described in Chapter 10.

Figure 1 1.2.3 and Figure 11.2.4 depict the Existing Technologies, Shift, High

expertise scenario and the Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, Market Segment­Based

expertise scenarios at TSL3, respectively. The tables show that similar trends occur as in

the base case, but at an accelerated rate due to the standards­induced retrofits of T12

systems and increasing replacement, upon ballast failure, of 4­foot T12 MBP systems

withT8 systems in the residential sector, discussed in Chapter 10.

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0InstalledLampStock(billions) 4­foot T8 MBP 4­foot T12 MBP Magnetic

4­foot T12 MBP Electronic

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Year

Figure 11.2.1 4­Foot Medium Bipin Existing Technologies Base Case Installed

Lamp Stock

11­120.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0InstalledLampStock(billions) 4­foot T8 MBP 4­foot T12 MBP Magnetic

4­foot T12 MBP Electronic

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Year

Figure 11.2.2 4­Foot Medium Bipin Emerging Technologies Base Case Installed

Lamp S tock

5.0

4­foot T8 MBP 4­foot T12 MBP Magnetic

4.5 4­foot T12 MBP Electronic

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0InstalledLampStock(billions)

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Year

11­13Figure 11.2.3 4­Foot Medium Bipin Standards Case Installed Lamp Stock (Existing

Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise Scenario, at TSL3)

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0InstalledLampStock(billions) 4­foot T8 MBP 4­foot T12 MBP Magnetic

4­foot T12 MBP Electronic

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Year

Figure 11.2.4 4­Foot Medium Bipin Standards Case Installed Lamp Stock

(Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, Market Segment­Based Lighting Expertise

Scenario, at TSL3)

Figure 1 1.2.5 presents the installed stock of 8­foot single pin slimline lamps in the

base case. As discussed earlier, 80 percent of retiring 8­foot single pin slimline systems

are replaced with 4­foot T8 medium bipin systems, accounting for most of the decline

show below. Similar to the 4­foot medium bipin stock, DOE expects that the installed

stock of 8­foot T12 single pin slimline lamps will decline rapidly in the years

immediately after 2012. Eight­foot single pin slimline magnetic T12 systems will reach

zero by 2026 when the initial stock has completely turned over. However, because

electronic T12 systems will replace 10 percent of retiring 8­foot T12 single pin slimline

magnetic systems, a relatively small stock of 8­foot T12 single pin slimline lamps will

persist throughout the analysis period. The final 10 percent of retiring 8­foot T12 single

pin slimline magnetic systems are replaced by 8­foot T8 single pin slimline systems,

which, for this reason, increase in stock initially, before beginning a gradual decline.

The Ex isting Technologies scenario is the same as the Emerging Technologies

scenario for 8­foot single pin slimline lamps because DOE did not assume this product

class would service fixture replacement, renovation, or new construction. Therefore,

11­14there is no available market within this product class for emerging technologies to

penetrate in DOE’s analysis.

Figure 1 1.2.6 depicts a similar trend at TSL3. However, DOE modeled an

accelerated rate of decline of 8­foot T12 SP slimline due to the standards­induced

retrofits (discussed in Chapter 10).

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100InstalledLampStock(millions) 8­foot T8 SP 8­foot T12 SP Magnetic 8­foot T12 SP Electronic

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Year

Figure 11.2.5 8­Foot Single Pin Slimline Base Case Installed Lamp Stock

11­15100InstalledLampStock(millions) 90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0 8­foot T8 SP 8­foot T12 SP Magnetic 8­foot T12 SP Electronic

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Year

Figure 11.2.6 8­Foot Single Pin Slimline Standards Case Installed Lamp Stock

(TSL3)

Figure 1 1.2.7 presents the installed stock of 8­foot recessed double contact high

output lamps in the Existing Technologies (also the Emerging Technologies) base case.

The Existing and Emerging Technologies base cases are equivalent because DOE

assumed that most of the penetration of alternative technologies into this market will be

in the form of 4­foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps. DOE expects that the installed stock of

lamps (composed entirely of T12 lamps) will decline rapidly, in accordance with 2006

and 2007 confidential shipment data. As discussed earlier, DOE decided not to model the

2011 stock of 8­foot T8 recessed double contact HO lamps, resulting in zero forecasted

in the base case. Furthermore, DOE only models 8­foot T8 RDC HO systems as

replacements on T8 systems or when T12 lamps are no longer standards­compliant. The

combined effect of these assumptions is that there is no stock of 8­foot T8 RDC HO

lamps in the base case or at TSL1, TSL2, or TSL3.

With r egard to T12 lamps, as in the residential sector of the 4­foot medium bipin

product class, some magnetic 8­foot T12 recessed double contact HO systems can be

manufactured under the 2000 Ballast Rule. Therefore, Figure 11.2.7 depicts a continued

presence of T12 lamps throughout the analysis period.

Figure 1 1.2.8 depicts 8­foot recessed double contact HO lamps at TSL3 in the

Existing Technologies, Shift, High Lighting Expertise scenario. While DOE still expects

that the majority of the installed stock of 8­foot RDC HO lamps to be T12 lamps, DOE

expects that an increased number of lamps would be purchased with electronic ballasts

11­16(as consumers are forced to reevaluate there entire lighting systems). Therefore, Figure

11.2.8 d epicts a slightly larger installed stock of electronically­ballasted lamps.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45InstalledLampStock(millions) 8­foot T8 RDC HO 8­foot T12 RDC HO Magnetic

8­foot T12 RDC HO Electronic

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Year

Figure 11.2.7 8­Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Base Case Installed

Lamp Stock

11­170 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45InstalledLampStock(millions) 8­foot T12 RDC HO Electronic

8­foot T12 RDC HO Magnetic

8­foot T8 RDC HO

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Year

Figure 11.2.8 8­Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Technologies

Standards Case Installed Lamp Stock (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise

Scenario at TSL3)

Figure 1 1.2.9 and Figure 11.2.10 depict the installed stock of 4­foot T5 miniature

bipin standard output and high output lamps in the Existing Technologies and Emerging

Technologies base case scenarios, respectively. DOE projects the installed stock of

lamps in each product class to increase over the analysis period, as 4­foot T5 MiniBP SO

systems penetrate the 8­foot single pin slimline and 4­foot MBP markets in the

commercial sector. Four­foot T5 MiniBP HO systems penetrate the 8­foot recessed

double contact HO market in the industrial sector as well as penetrate into other markets

such as high intensity discharge lamps. While shipments of each lamp type are

approximately equivalent, 4­foot T5 MiniBP SO lamps have longer lifetimes and

therefore accrue to larger installed stocks over time. Similar to the 4­foot MBP installed

stock projections, the installed stock projections of 4­foot T5 MiniBP SO lamps is greater

in the Existing Technologies scenario than it is in the Emerging Technologies scenario.

Figure 1 1.2.12 and Figure 11.2.12 depict the Existing Technologies, Shift, High

Lighting Expertise and Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, Market Segment­Based

expertise lamp stocks at TSL3, respectively, for 4­foot T5 SO and HO lamps. The

figures show that at TSL3 a very similar trend occurs as in the base case.

11­180 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800InstalledLampStock(millions) 4­foot T5 HO

4­foot T5 SO

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Year

Figure 11.2.9 4­Foot T5 Miniature Bipin Standard Output and High Output

Existing Technologies Base Case Installed Lamp Stock

0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700InstalledLampStock(millions) 4­foot T5 HO

4­foot T5 SO

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Year

11­19Figure 11.2.10 4­Foot T5 Miniature Bipin Standard Output and High Output

Emerging Technologies Base Case Installed Lamp Stock

800

4­foot T5 HO

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Year

Figure 11.2.11 4­Foot T5 Miniature Bipin Standard Output and High Output

Standards Case Installed Lamp Stock (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise

Scenario at TSL3) 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700InstalledLampStock(millions) 4­foot T5 SO

11­20InstalledLampStock(millions) 700

4­foot T5 HO

4­foot T5 SO 600

500

4 00

3 00

2 00

1 00

0

2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Year

Figure 11.2.12 4­Foot T5 Miniature Bipin Standard Output and High Output

Standards Case Installed Lamp Stock (Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, Market

Segment­Based Expertise Scenario at TSL3)

11.2.1.3 A verage L amp Efficacy in the Stock

As d iscussed earlier, the average lamp efficacy of the stock is an important input

to both the NPV and NES calculations. The average efficacy of the stock can be an

indication of the energy consumption. Figure 11.2.13 through Figure 11.2.20 present the

average efficacy forecasts of GSFL stock in the base case and standards case for the

Existing Technologies, Shift, High expertise and Emerging Technologies, Roll­up,

Market Segment­Based scenarios for each product class (provided there is a difference

between the scenarios).

As F igure 11.2.13 and Figure 11.2.14 illustrate, the average efficacy of 4­foot

medium bipin lamps gradually increases in the base case. This is due to two separate

trends: 1) the decline of T12 ballasts over the analysis period as they are largely replaced

with more efficacious T8 systems, and 2) the installation of higher efficacy 4­foot T8

MBP lamps later in the analysis period. As T12 lamps are generally less efficacious than

their T8 counterparts, the market shift toward 4­foot T8 MBP lamp­and­ballast systems

causes an overall increase in efficacies of shipped fluorescent lamps. In the standards

case, similar trends occur but at accelerated rates, particularly in the years immediately

following the effective date of the standards as the lamp and ballasts stock turn over for

the first time. At all TSLs, the average efficacy of the stock increases rapidly until about

2026, when the rate of increase slows. By 2026, most T12 ballasts in the initial stock will

11­21have been replaced by T8 ballasts (and their corresponding higher efficacy T8 lamps).

Because TSL1 and TSL2 only affect 4­foot T12 MPB lamps, the efficacy forecasts at

these levels depict a higher average efficacy of the T12 the lamp stock. As Figure

11.2.13 s hows, t he average efficacy of 4­foot MBP lamps rapidly increases at TSL3,

TSL4 and TSL5, when T8 lamps are affected by standards. The increase is most

pronounced at TSL4 and TSL5, at which levels 4­foot T12 MBP are phased out. This

increase is also due to the installation of very high efficacy, reduced­wattage lamps on

higher ballast factor ballasts installed before 2012. DOE expects that many consumers

will choose these reduced­wattage lamps in order to maintain their existing light output.

DOE expects that some consumers who purchase new ballasts may choose lower ballast

factors and therefore will not necessarily migrate to the very high efficacy, reducedwattage lamps. The magnitude of this effect is characterized by the lighting expertise

scenarios. Figure 11.2.14 depicts the case in which whether consumers migrate to lower

ballast factors depends on their market segment. Figure 11.2.14 also depicts the Roll­up

scenario, in which only consumers whose baseline 4­foot MBP lamps are below the

standard are affected. Therefore, the average efficacy in the stock at each TSL is lower

than in the Shift scenario shown in Figure 11.2.13. At TSL5, the difference between the

scenarios is small because all consumers migrate to max­tech.

98.0

96.0

9 4.0

9 2.0

9 0.0

8 8.0

8 6.0 Base Case

TSL1

TSL2

84.0 TSL3

TSL4

TS L5 82.0

2012 2 016 2 020 2 024 2 028 2 032 2 036 2 040 2 044

Ye ar

Figure 11.2.13 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, 4­Foot Medium Bipin Lamps

(Existing Technologies, Shift, High Scenario)AverageEfficacy(lumensperWatt)

11­2298.0

96.0

9 4.0AverageEfficacy(lumensperWatt)

92.0

90.0

8 8.0

8 6.0 Base Case

TSL1

TSL2

84.0 TSL3

TSL4

TS L5 82.0

2012 2 016 2 020 2 024 2 028 2 032 2 036 2 040 2 044

Ye ar

Figure 11.2.14 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, 4­Foot Medium Bipin Lamps

(Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, Market Segment­Based Scenario)

As F igure 11.2.15 and Figure 11.2.16 illustrate, the average efficacy forecast of 8­

foot single pin slimline lamps increases in the base case. Similar to 4­foot medium bipin

lamps, this is due to two separate trends: 1) the decline of T12 magnetic ballasts and their

replacement with T8 ballasts and higher efficacy T8 lamps, and 2) the installation of

higher efficacy T8 SP slimline lamps later in the analysis period. As 8­foot T12 SP

slimline lamps are generally less efficacious than their T8 counterparts, the market shift

toward T8 lamp­and­ballast systems causes an overall increase in efficacies of shipped

fluorescent lamps. The average efficacy also increases with higher TSLs as DOE

assumes increasing levels of voluntary 8­foot T12­to­T8 SP slimline lamp retrofits with

increasing TSLs. As TSL1 and TSL2 only affect 8­foot T12 SP slimline lamps, the

efficacy forecasts depict a higher average efficacy of the T12 lamp stock and standardsinduced retrofits. At TSL4 and TSL5, which are equivalent in the Shift, High expertise

scenario, T12 8­foot SP slimline lamps are phased out and automatically retrofitted upon

ballast failure. This is reflected in the dramatic increase in average efficacy at these trial

standard levels immediately after the effective date of the standard.

Under b oth scenarios, the average efficacy of standards case stock is higher than

that of the base case throughout the entire analysis period. Figure 11.2.16 depicts the

Roll­up scenario, in which only consumers whose baseline 8­foot SP slimline lamps are

below the standard are affected. Therefore, the average efficacy in the stock at each TSL

11­23is lower than in the Shift scenario shown in Figure 11.2.15. At TSL5, the difference

between the scenarios is slight because all consumers migrate to max­tech.

11­24AverageEfficacy(lumensperWatt) 104.0

102.0

1 00.0

9 8.0

9 6.0 Base Case

TSL1

94.0

TSL2

TSL3

92.0

TSL4

TSL5 90.0

2012 2 016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044

Year

Figure 11.2.15 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, 8­Foot Single Pin Slimline Lamps

(Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise Scenario)

104.0AverageEfficacy(lumensperWatt)

102.0

100.0

9 8.0

9 6.0 Base Case

TSL1

94.0

TSL2

TSL3

92.0

TSL4

TSL5 90.0

2012 2 016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044

Year

11­25Figure 11.2.16 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, 8­Foot Single Pin Slimline Lamps

(Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, Market Segment­Based Scenario)

As F igure 11.2.17 and Figure 11.2.18 illustrate, the average efficacy forecast of 8­

foot recessed double contact HO lamps gradually increases in the base case due to the

installation of higher efficacy lamps later in the analysis period. Because DOE estimates

that all 8­foot RDC HO lamps installed before 2012 will be retired within approximately

two years of standards implementation (the estimated service lifetime of these lamps in

the industrial sector), the average efficacy sharply increases in the standards case until

2013. The average efficacy forecast shows a large increase at TSL4 due to the

retrofitting of all T12 systems to T8 systems. As 8­foot T12 RDC lamps are generally

less efficacious than their T8 counterparts, the market shift toward T8 lamp­and­ballast

systems causes an overall increase in efficacies of shipped fluorescent lamps.

Under b oth scenarios, the average efficacy of standards case stock is higher than

that of the base case throughout the entire analysis period. Figure 11.2.18 depicts the

Roll­up scenario, in which only consumers whose baseline 8­foot RDC HO lamps are

below the standard are affected. Therefore, the average efficacy in the stock at each TSL

is lower than in the Shift scenario shown in Figure 11.2.17. At TSL5, the difference

between the scenarios is slight because all consumers migrate to max­tech.

11­2682.0 84.0 86.0 88.0 90.0 92.0 94.0 96.0AverageEfficacy(lumensperWatt)

Base Case TSL1

TSL2 TSL3

TSL4 TSL5

2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044

Year

Figure 11.2.17 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, 8­Foot Recessed Double Contact

High Output Lamps (Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise Scenario)

11­2782.0 84.0 86.0 88.0 90.0 92.0 94.0 96.0AverageEfficacy(lumensperWatt)

Base Case TSL1

TSL2 TSL3

TSL4 TSL5

2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044

Year

Figure 11.2.18 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, 8­Foot Recessed Double Contact

High Output Lamps (Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, Market Segment­Based

Scenario)

As F igure 11.2.20 and Figure 11.2.20 illustrate, the average efficacies of 4­foot

miniature bipin T5 standard and high output lamps are flat in the base case, as DOE

models no natural migration between lamp designs of varying efficacies within each

product class. For the same reason, after immediately increasing following the effective

date of the standards, the average efficacy of the stock flattens out for the remainder of

the analysis period in the standards case.

Under b oth scenarios shown, the average efficacy of standards case stock is

higher than that of the base case throughout the entire analysis period. Figure 11.2.20

depicts the Roll­up scenario, in which only consumers whose baseline 4­foot MiniBP

lamps are below the standard are affected. Therefore, the average efficacy in the stock at

each TSL is lower than in the Shift scenario shown in Figure 11.2.20. At TSL5, the

difference between the scenarios is slight because all consumers migrate to max­tech.

11­2890.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0AverageEfficacy(lumensperWatt) T5 SO: Base Case T5 HO: Base Case

T5 SO: TSL1 to TSL4 T5 HO: TSL1 to TSL5

T5 SO TSL5

2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044

Year

Figure 11.2.19 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock,

4­Foot Miniature Bipin T5 Standard Output and High Output (Existing

Technologies, Shift, High Scenario)

11­2990.0 95.0 100.0 105.0 110.0 115.0AverageEfficacy(lumensperWatt) T5 SO: Base Case T5 HO: Base Case

T5 SO: TSL1 to TSL4 T5 HO: TSL1 to TSL5

T5 SO TSL5

2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044

Year

Figure 11.2.20 Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock, Average Efficacy of Lamp Stock,

4­Foot Miniature Bipin T5 Standard Output and High Output (Emerging

Technologies, Roll­up, Market Segment­Based Scenario)

11.2.2 I ncandescent R eflector Lamps

11.2.2.1 B ase a nd Standards Case Efficacy Distributions

Sections 1 0.3.3 and 10.4.2 of Chapter 10 present the IRL market share matrices

for the base and standards case scenarios, respectively. These matrices characterize the

stock of IRL in the base and standards cases. As the shipments analysis discusses, DOE

establishes forecasted shipments throughout the analysis period by using the service

lifetime of lamps.

Table 1 1.10 presents the Existing Technologies, Shift, Product Substitution

standards case efficacy distributions of IRL shipped in 2012 and 2042 for the commercial

and residential sectors combined. In general, base case shipments of halogen IRL

decrease while shipments of halogen infrared (HIR) increase over the analysis period. In

the Shift scenario, as a new efficacy level is established in the market, those consumers

purchasing IRL that just meet that trial standard level in the base case generally shift up

to the next trial standard level in the standards case. At TSL1, improved halogen IRL are

shipped in place of halogen IRL, as these lower efficacy lamps are no longer standards

compliant. In addition, over the analysis period, HIR technologies continue to increase in

market­share while the halogen shipments decrease. All shipments at TSL2 are HIR

lamps except for the improved halogen lamps at TSL2, which are the only halogen lamps

11­30remaining. At TSL2 and above, in the Shift scenario, market share begins to accumulate

at improved HIR plus (TSL5) as consumers shift up to this level. As discussed in Chapter

10, shipments do not move beyond improved HIR plus as DOE does not consider lamps

above this efficacy. At TSL3, TSL4, and TSL5 most shipments become HIR, Improved

HIR, and improved HIR plus, respectively.

Table 1 1.11 presents the Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, No Product

Substitution standards case efficacy distributions of IRL shipped in 2012 and 2042 for the

commercial and residential sectors combined. The Roll­up scenario causes market share

to aggregate at the least efficacious standards­compliant level at each TSL. Because

Table 11.11 also depicts the emerging technologies scenario, there is actually greater

market share at the least standards­compliant design option in 2012 than in 2042 in the

base case and standards case, except for TSL5. This occurs because, in the emerging

technologies scenario, the commercial sector ships a greater percentage of covered IRL

in 2012 than in 2042. As the residential sector in general purchase the least efficacious

standards­compliant options, there is greater market share for the least standardscompliant design option as a percentage of total covered shipments in 2042 as compared

to 2012.

Table 1 1.10 Commercial and Residential Incandescent Reflector Lamps: Base Case

and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions in 2012, 2042 for the Existing

Technologies, Shift, Product Substitution Scenario

Year EL D esign O ption Proporti ons o f IRL Shipped (%)

Base C ase Standards C ase TSLs

1 2 3 4 5

Basel ine H alogen 9 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 Improved H alogen

(xenon) 0 88 0 0 0 0

2012 2 Long­l ife H IR /

Improved Halogen

(silver) 3 4 88 0 0 0

3 HIR 5 5 5 88 0 0

4 Improved H IR 2 2 5 4 87 0

5 Improved H IR Plus 0 0 3 8 13 1 00

T otal

­ 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00

B asel ine H alogen 8 0 0 0 0 0 0

1 Improved H alogen

(xenon) 0 78 0 0 0 0

2042 2 Long­l ife H IR /

Improved Halogen

(silver) 5 5 73 0 0 0

3 HIR 1 1 1 2 1 0 7 8 0 0

4 Improved H IR 4 4 11 7 70 0

5 Improved H IR Plus 0 0 5 15 3 0 1 00

T otal

­ 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00

1 1­31Table 11.11 Commercial and Residential Incandescent Reflector Lamps: Base Case

and Standards Case Efficacy Distributions from 2012 to 2042 for the Emerging

Technologies, Roll­up, No Product Substitution Scenario

Year TSL D esign O ption Proporti ons o f IRL Shipped (%)

Emergi ng

T echnologies Standards C ase

(Roll­up No Product Substitution Scenario)

Base C ase 1 2 3 4 5

Basel ine H alogen 9 1 0 0 0 0 0

1 Improved H alogen

(xenon) 0 90 0 0 0 0

2012 2 Long­l ife H IR /

Improved Halogen

(silver) 3 3 93 0 0 0

3 HIR 5 5 5 98 0 0

4 Improved H IR 2 2 2 2 100 0

5 Improved H IR Plus 0 0 0 0 0 100

T otal

­ 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00

B asel ine H alogen 9 6 0 0 0 0 0

1 Improved H alogen

(xenon) 0 96 0 0 0 0

2042 2 Long­l ife H IR /

Improved Halogen

(silver) 1 1 97 0 0 0

3 HIR 2 2 2 99 0 0

4 Improved H IR 1 1 1 1 100 0

5 Improved H IR Plus 0 0 0 0 0 100

T otal

­ 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00 1 00

11.2.2.2 Installed L amp Stock

The l amp stock in a given year is the total number of lamps shipped in prior years

that survive in the given year. Figure 11.2.21 displays the combined residential and

commercial installed lamp stock for the Existing Technologies base case scenario. For

the Existing Technologies scenario, 2042 reflector compact fluorescent lamps (R­CFL)

penetration reached 38 percent in the residential sector and 20 percent in the commercial

sector. This penetration of R­CFL, occurring gradually over the analysis period, reduces

the analyzed installed stock and therefore the potential impact of an IRL energy

conservation standard. For further details see Chapter 10, Section 10.3.3.1.

11­320 100 200 300 400 500 600 700InstalledLampStock(millions) Reflector CFL

IRL

2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Year

Figure 11.2.21 IRL Existing Technologies Base case Installed Lamp Stock

Figure 1 1.2.22 displays the commercial and residential IRL Emerging

Technologies base case installed lamp stock. In this scenario, DOE models market

penetration of emerging technologies, such as LED, R­CFL, and ceramic metal halide

(CMH), into the IRL stock. The methodology used for this scenario is described in detail

in Chapter 10. For the Emerging Technologies scenario, LED reached the highest market

penetration of any analyzed technology in both the residential sector and the commercial

sector. DOE’s analysis found that R­CFL and other emerging technologies could

penetrate 40 percent and 92 percent of the IRL installed stock by 2042 in the residential

and commercial sector, respectively. This penetration of emerging technologies,

occurring gradually over the analysis period, reduces the analyzed installed stock and

therefore the potential impact of an IRL energy conservation standard.

11­330 100 200 300 400 500 600 700InstalledLampStock(millions) Reflector CFL and Other Emerging Technologies

IRL

2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Year

Figure 11.2.22 IRL Emerging Technologies Base Case Installed Lamp Stock

Figure 1 1.2.23 and Figure 11.2.24 display the IRL stocks for the Existing

Technologies, Shift, Product Substitution and Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, No

Product Substitution standards case scenarios at TSL4, respectively. In general, DOE

expects a decline in the stock of covered IRL in the near term because of a historical fall

in R­CFL prices which DOE predicts increased and will continue to increase the

penetration of this technology. However, DOE does not believe this rate of decline is

sustainable as the growth of R­CFL will likely slow as the price of R­CFLs have

stabilized in recent years. Therefore, in the years after a standard takes effect, DOE

expects the covered IRL stock to flatten and then gradually climb due to new construction

and the increasing number of light points per home, as discussed in Chapter 10.

As d iscussed in Chapter 10, in the Product Substitution scenario, DOE assumes

consumers do not necessarily continue to purchase the same lamp as they do in the base

case. DOE thus models a shift to both exempted bulged reflector (BR) lamps and to RCFL in the standards case. Thus, Figure 11.2.23 depicts a small portion of the market

migrating to exempted 65W BR lamp and additional R­CFL.

11­340 100 200 300 400 500 600 700InstalledLampStock(millions) Reflector CFL

Additional Reflector CFL

65W BR Lamp

Covered IRL

2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Year

Figure 11.2.23 IRL Install Lamp Stock (Existing Technologies, Shift, Product

Substitution Scenario, TSL4)

Figure 1 1.2.24 shows that after the effective date of the standard, R­CFL and

other emerging technologies penetrate the IRL market, gradually increasing market share.

In the “No Production Substitution” scenario, DOE assumes consumers who purchase

covered IRL technology in the base case continue to purchase covered IRL technology in

the standards case ( i.e., the total number of installed covered IRL in the base case is the

same as that in the standards case throughout the analysis period). In this scenario, DOE

does not model any additional shift to non­regulated reflector technologies in the

standards case. Because DOE assumes the total stock of IRL sockets is the same in the

base case as it is in the standards case and because no additional shift to non­regulated

reflector technologies is included, the base case stock shown in Figure 11.2.22 is the

same as standards case stock shown in Figure 11.2.24.

11­350 100 200 300 400 500 600 700InstalledLampStock(millions) Reflector CFL and Other Emerging Technologies

Additional Reflector CFL

65W BR Lamp

Covered IRL

2005 2008 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 2026 2029 2032 2035 2038 2041

Year

Figure 11.2.24 IRL Installed Lamp Stock (Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, No

Product Substitution Scenario, TSL4)

11.2.2.3 A verage L amp Efficacy of the Stock

Calculation o f the NES and NPV depends on the estimate of the average efficacy

in the lamp stock. Figure 11.2.25and Figure 11.2.26 present the average efficacy of the

commercial and residential IRL stock for each TSL in the upper­ and lower­bound energy

savings scenarios. The average efficacy numbers do not include stock moving to R­CFL

or other emerging technologies over time.

Figure 1 1.2.25 presents the average efficacy of the IRL stock under the Existing

Technologies, Shift, Product Substitution scenario from 2012 to 2042. The average

efficacy of the IRL stock increases with increasing TSLs. However, in the residential

sector, there is a sharp increase in efficacy at each TSL until 2014 as lower­efficacy

lamps installed prior to 2012 are retired from the stock. By 2014, standards­compliant

lamps saturate the installed base. Because the technology mix of the lamps shipped

remains constant over time in both the base case and standards cases for the residential

sector, the corresponding efficacy forecasts are constant as well. This is not the case for

the commercial sector, since technology tends to shift from halogen to HIR, but since the

commercial sector is a much smaller part of the overall market, a significant overall

increase in efficacy is not shown.

11­36AverageEfficacy(lm/W) 24

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

Base­Case E fficacy Forecast 6 TSL1

T SL2 4 TSL3

T SL4 2

TSL5

0

2010 2 015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

Year

Figure 11.2.25 Average Efficacy of the IRL Stock (Existing Technologies, Shift,

Product Substitution Scenario)

Figure 1 1.2.26 presents the average efficacy of the IRL stock in the Emerging

Technologies, Roll­up, No Product Substitution scenario from 2012 to 2042. Again, the

average efficacy of the IRL stock increases with increasing TSLs. Also similar to the

previous scenario, lamp efficacy remains constant over the analysis period after a small

increase during the first few years. However, in the base case for emerging technologies,

there is a slight decrease in lamp efficacy in the first few years of the analysis period.

This is due to the rapid penetration of emerging technologies in the commercial market,

especially between 2012 and 2019. Since such a large percentage of the commercial

market shifts to technologies other than IRL, the residential market quickly increases its

share of the overall market for IRL. Because residential IRL have a lower average

efficacy than commercial IRL and quickly increase market share, the average efficacy of

the total market decreases slightly between the years of 2012 and 2019.

11­370 5 10 15 20 25AverageEfficacy(lm/W)

Base Case Efficacy Forecast

TSL1

TSL2

TSL3

TSL4

TSL5

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

Year

Figure 11.2.26 Average Efficacy of the IRL Stock (Emerging Technologies, Roll­up,

No Product Substitution Scenario)

11.3 N ATIONAL E NERGY SAVINGS

11.3.1 N ational E nergy Savings Definition

DOE c alculates annual national energy savings as the difference between the base

case (without new standards) and the standards case (with new standards). Positive

values of NES correspond to net energy savings following standards implementation.

That is, national annual energy consumption (AEC) with standards is less than AEC in

the base case.

NES

t = ( AEC

t

, base − AEC

t

, std ) × HVAC × RR Eq. 1 0.1

where

NES

t = national energy savings in year t

,

AEC

= annual national energy consumption each year (at the source) in

quadrillion British thermal units (quads),

HVAC= heating, v entilation, air conditioning (HVAC) factor,

11­38RR

= rebound rate,

t = year in the forecast (e.g., 2012 to 2042),

base

= base case, and

std

= standards case.

Cumulative e nergy savings are the sum over a defined time period from the

implementation of a standard forward (from 2012 to 2042) of the annual national energy

savings multiplied by the HVAC interaction factor and rebound rate.

NES

cum = 

## ∑ NES

t Eq. 10.2

t

where

NES

cum = cumulative national energy savings.

DOE c alculated the AEC (in any year) by multiplying the number or stock of

lamps by the product of the annual unit energy consumption and the site­to­source

conversion factor, shown by the following equation:

AEC

= 

## ∑ STOCK

ld × UEC

ld × src

_ conv

t Eq. 10.3

ld

where

STOCK ld = stock of lamps for a given lamp design or lamp­and­ballast design

surviving in the year for which DOE calculated AEC,

UEC ld = unit energy consumption (kWh per year), and

src_conv t = time­dependent conversion factor to convert from site energy (kWh)

to s ource energy (quads) (Btu/kWh).

11.3.2 National E nergy Savings Inputs

Table 11.12 lists the inputs for the determination of NES.

Table 11.12 National Energy Saving Inputs

Input

Unit Energy Consumption, UEC

Lamp Stock by Design ( STOCKld )

Site­to­Source Conversion Factor ( src_conv )

Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning Factor ( HVAC )

Rebound Rate ( RR )

11­3911.3.2.1 Unit E nergy Consumption (UEC)

DOE presented the per­unit UEC for each lamp (and lamp­and­ballast pair in the

case of GSFL) in the energy use characterization (Chapter 6). For the NES and NPV

calculations, DOE used an average number of annual operating hours for each sector and

lamp type in calculating the UEC of each lamp design.

11.3.2.2 Lamp S tock

For GSFL, the lamp stock in a given year is the total number of lamps shipped in

prior years that survive. The NES spreadsheet model keeps track of the lamps (and lampand­ballast pairs in the case of GSFL) shipped each year. DOE discusses forecasted

shipments for the base case and all standards cases in Chapter 10. To generate the

shipments that eventually compose the GSFL stock, the shipments analysis for GSFL

incorporates one set of base­case scenarios and two sets of standards case scenarios

which can affect shipments. The base­case scenarios, Existing Technologies and

Emerging Technologies, dictate the penetration of other lighting technologies into the

GSFL, and therefore affect the total volume of GSFL shipment and installed stock. The

first set of standards­case scenarios comprises the Roll­up and Shift scenarios; the second

set comprises the High and Market Segment­Based lighting expertise scenarios. These

scenarios dictate the inputs to the market­share matrices, and therefore affect the

breakdown of the installed stock by lamp and ballast design from 2012 to 2042.

For I RL, the total lamp stock is also the total number of lamps shipped in prior

years that survive in a given year. To generate the shipments that eventually compose the

IRL stock, DOE’s shipments analysis incorporates two sets of standards case scenarios—

four standards case scenarios in all—which characterize consumers that may weigh these

factors differently. As with GSFL, the first set of scenarios for IRL includes the Roll­up

and Shift scenarios. The second set of standards case IRL scenarios includes the Product

Substitution and No Product Substitution scenarios. These standards case scenarios are

compared to two separate base case scenarios (Existing Technologies and Emerging

Technologies) resulting in eight possible sets of results. The Shift and Product

Substitution scenarios generally result in higher energy savings than the Roll­up and No

Product Substitution scenarios, respectively. The market share matrices, as presented in

Chapter 10, provide for the breakdown of the stock by lamp design.

11.3.2.3 Site­to­Source C onversion Factors

The site­to­source conversion factor is the multiplicative factor DOE uses for

converting site­energy consumption into primary or source energy consumption. For

electricity, the conversion factors vary over time due to projected changes in generation

sources (i.e., the power plant types projected to provide electricity to the country). For

the notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR), DOE calculated annual average site­tosource conversion factors using the version of the National Energy Modeling Systems

(NEMS) that corresponds to the Energy Information Administration’s Annual Energy

Outlook ( AEO2008)

. Table 11.13 presents site­to­source factors. The average

11­40conversion factors vary over time, due to projected changes in electricity generation

sources.

Table 1 1.13 Site­to­Source Conversion Factors

Site­to­Source Site­to­Source

C onversi on F actor Conversion F actor

Year B tu/kWh Y ear B tu/kWh

2 012 8 ,700 2 028 1 0,400

2 013 8 ,800 2 029 1 0,400

2 014 8 ,900 2 030 1 0,400

2 015 8 ,900 2 031 1 0,400

2 016 9 ,200 2 032 1 0,400

2 017 9 ,500 2 033 1 0,400

2 018 9 ,500 2 034 1 0,400

2 019 9 ,700 2 035 1 0,400

2 020 9 ,900 2 036 1 0,400

2 021 9 ,900 2 037 1 0,400

2 022 9 ,900 2 038 1 0,400

2 023 1 0,100 2 039 1 0,400

2 024 1 0,200 2 040 1 0,400

2 025 1 0,200 2 041 1 0,400

2 026 1 0,200 2 042 1 0,400

2 027 1 0,400

S ource: A EO 2008. Conversion factors beyond 2030 are extrapolated.

11.3.2.4 Interactions w ith Heating, Ventilation, and Air­Conditioning

(HVAC) Systems

DOE estimated increased national energy savings due to interactions with heating,

ventilating, and air­conditioning systems in the commercial and industrial sectors. To

account for HVAC energy savings, DOE used the analysis completed by the 2000

Fluorescent Ballast rulemaking, which calculates an HVAC interaction energy savings of

6.25 p ercent o f total energy savings. i This analysis incorporates changes in both heating

and cooling loads as a result of the standard. The ballast rule analysis involved

calculating the lighting HVAC interaction energy savings on buildings built before 1989

(5 percent of total energy savings) and ones built from 1990 to 1995 (10 percent of total

energy savings). The ballast analysis assumed that over the analysis period, the building

stock would move from the 5­percent HVAC factor toward the 10­percent HVAC factor.

With simple scaling methods, DOE used 6.25 percent as an average interaction over the

entire analysis period. Using this same methodology for lamps, an analysis period from

2012 to 2042 would have a slightly higher HVAC energy savings. However, the overall

HVAC savings with lighting may also decrease relative to the factor calculated by the

2000 ballast rule due to a trend toward more efficient heating and cooling systems.

Considering these competing factors, DOE used 6.25 percent of total energy savings as

the HVAC energy savings in the commercial sector for both GSFL and IRL and in the

industrial sector for GSFL. DOE assumed negligible HVAC interactions in the

residential sector.

11­4111.3.2.5 Rebound R ate

In its analysis, DOE considered the rebound effect 1 that occurs after installation of

energy­efficient lighting equipment. DOE examined a summary of the literature

regarding the rebound effect in relation to lighting equipment. 2 Based on four studies, the

summary estimated that for a 100­percent increase in energy efficiency, “take­back” or

rebound values for residential lighting are between 5 and 12 percent of energy

consumption savings. The summary estimated zero to 2­percent rebound values for

commercial and industrial lighting. Therefore, in the calculation of national energy

savings due to energy conservation standards on lighting, DOE used a rebound rate of 8.5

percent in the residential sector and 1 percent in the commercial and industrial sectors.

The t ake­back in energy consumption associated with the rebound effect provides

consumers with increased value (e.g., increased lighting hours, since the increased

efficiency enables consumers to use their lighting equipment for longer periods of time).

The impact on consumers is therefore the sum of the change in the cost of owning the

lighting equipment (i.e., life­cycle cost) and the increased value of more lighting hours.

However, DOE is unable to monetize this increase in consumer value in the life­cycle

cost (LCC) analysis. If it were able to monetize the increased value to consumers of the

rebound effect, this value would be at least as great as the value of the foregone energy

savings. For this analysis, DOE estimates that this value is equivalent to the monetary

value of the energy savings that would have occurred without the rebound effect.

Therefore, the economic impacts on consumers with or without the rebound effect, as

measured in the LCC and NPV analyses, are the same.

11.4 NET P RESENT VALUE

11.4.1 N et P resent Value Definition

The NPV is the value in the present of a time series of costs and savings. The

NPV is calculated as follows:

NPV

= PVS

− PVC Eq. 10.4

where

PVS

= present value of operating cost savings, and

PVC

= present value of increased total installed costs.

The P VS and PVC are determined according to the following expressions:

1 Under economic theory, “rebound effect” refers to the tendency of a consumer to respond to the cost

savings associated with more efficient equipment in a manner that actually leads to marginally greater

product usage, thereby diminishing some portion of anticipated benefits related to improved efficiency.

2 Greening, L.A., D.L. Greene, and C. Difiglio, “Energy efficiency and consumption—the rebound effect—

a survey,” 28 Energy P olicy (2000), p p. 389–401.

11­42PVS

= 

# ∑ OCS

t × DF

t Eq. 10.5

PVS

= 

# ∑ TIC

t × DF

t Eq. 10.6

where

OCS

= total annual operating cost savings,

TIC

= total annual installed cost increases,

DF

= discount factor, and

t = y ear ( PVS and PVC are summed over 2012­2042).

DOE d etermined the contributions to PVC and PVS for each year from the

effective date of the standard, 2012, to 2042, discounted for the NOPR analysis to 2007.

DOE applied residual values (positive cash flows) in 2042 in both the base and standards

cases to account for the remaining useful lives of the lamps (and ballasts) beyond 2042.

DOE chose this approach rather than estimating the operating cost savings beyond 2042

because the average lamp lifetimes in the base and standards cases often differ. For

example, a baseline halogen IRL may have lifetime of 2,500 hours while an improved

HIR IRL (shipped at TSL3) has a lifetime of 4,000 hours. DOE calculated costs and

savings as the difference between a standards case (i.e., with new standards) and a base

case (i.e., without new standards). DOE calculated a discount factor from the discount

rate and the number of years between the “present” (i.e., year to which the sum is being

discounted) and the year in which the costs and savings occur. DOE calculated the net

present value as the sum over time of the discounted net savings (which is equivalent to

the approach shown in Equations 10.4

– 10.6).

11.4.2 Net P resent Value Inputs

Table 11.14 summarizes the inputs to the NPV calculation.

Table 11.14 Net Present Value Inputs

Input

Total Annual Installed Cost Increases ( TICt )

Total Annual Operating Cost Savings ( OCSt )

Discount Factor

11.4.2.1 Total A nnual Installed Cost Increases

DOE calculated the increase in total annual installed costs as the difference

between the total annual installed costs in the standards case minus those in the base case.

For each case, the total annual installed costs equal the product of the shipments and per

unit installed cost (summed over each lamp design or lamp­and­ballast design). The per

unit installed cost includes the lamp cost (and the ballast cost if applicable) and the

installation cost. (In its installed cost calculation, DOE also includes the cost of a retrofit

11­43kit for replacing a two­lamp 8­foot single pin slimline system with two two­lamp 4­foot

medium bipin systems. DOE uses a total labor cost and retrofit kit cost for the

installation of two two­lamp 4­foot medium bipin systems to be $53.88. To establish the

per unit installed cost, DOE based installation costs on nationally representative values

for each lamp design or each lamp­and­ballast design. In addition, DOE based lamp and

ballast prices off of discounted blue­book prices (See the LCC and payback period (PBP)

analysis descriptions in Chapter 8 for a further description of installation costs and lamp

and ballast prices). Although GSFL lamp designs often have slightly varying lifetimes,

as discussed in chapter 10, DOE used an average lifetime of each lamp type for each

GSFL product class. Therefore, to ensure the accurate calculation of NPV, DOE scaled

the per unit installed costs of each lamp to account for this modification of lamp lifetime.

11.4.2.2 Total A nnual Operating Cost Savings

As the LCC and PBP analysis (Chapter 8) describes, DOE calculates total annual

operating costs based on national average electricity prices. (The only component of

annual operating cost for lamps is the cost of electricity consumption.)

OCS

= 

## ∑ STOCK

ld × UEC

ld × electricity price Eq. 10.7

ld

DOE calculates total annual operating cost savings as the difference between total

annual operating costs in the base case minus those in the standards case. DOE uses an

average number of annual operating hours for each sector and lamp type in calculating

the UEC of each lamp design.

For G SFL, DOE uses national average commercial electricity prices, for 4­foot

medium bipin lamps, 8­foot single pin slimline lamps, and 4­foot T5 miniature bipin

standard output. DOE uses national average industrial prices for the 8­foot recessed

double contact HO lamps and 4­foot T5 miniature bipin high output lamps. For IRL,

DOE uses national­average commercial and residential prices for it analysis in the

commercial and residential sectors, respectively. DOE uses AEO 2008 to establish all

electricity prices. ii Chapter 8 provides the electricity price forecasts DOE uses to

calculate the NPV.

11.4.2.3 Discount F actor

DOE multiplies monetary values in future years by the discount factor (DF) to

calculate the present value. The following equation describes how to calculate the

discount factor:

p DF

= 1 

## ( 1 + r 

## ) (

t

− t ) Eq. 10.8

where

r = d iscount rate,

t = year of the monetary value, and

t p = year in which the present value is being determined.

11­44DOE estimates national impacts with both a 3­percent and a 7­percent real

discount r ate as the average real rate of return on private investment in the U.S. economy.

These discount rates are used in accordance with the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB)’s guidance to Federal agencies on the development of regulatory analysis (OMB

Circular A­4, September 17, 2003), and section E, “Identifying and Measuring Benefits

and Costs,” therein. iii DOE defined the present year as 2007 for the NOPR analysis.

11.5 NATIONAL E NERGY SAVINGS AND NET PRESENT VALUE RESULTS

The NES spreadsheet model provides estimates of the NES and NPV due to

various TSLs. The inputs to the NES spreadsheet are discussed in sections 11.3.2,

National Energy Savings Inputs, and 11.4.2, Net Present Value Inputs. DOE generated

the NES and NPV results using Microsoft Excel spreadsheets, accessible at

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/incandescent_lamp

s .html. A ppendix 11A provides instructions for using the spreadsheets.

11.5.1 National E nergy Savings and Net Present Value Input Summary

Table 11.15 summarizes the inputs to the NES spreadsheet model. A brief

description of the data is given for each input.

11­45Table 11.15 National Energy Saving and Net Present Value Inputs

Input Data Data D escription

Shipments A nnual s hipments from the GSFL and IRL, shipment models (see

technical support document (TSD) Chapter 10, Shipments Analysis).

St ock o f Lamps Established b ased on the 2005 lamp stock, the service life of lamps

and/or ballasts, penetration of emerging technologies and noncovered technologies, and annual shipments.. The 2012 initial stock

is based on historical shipments from National Electrical

Manufacturers Association (NEMA) and forecasted shipments from

2006 to 2011. (see TSD Chapter 10, Shipments Analysis).

Effective D ate of Standard 2012

A nalysis P eriod 2012 t o 2042

Unit E nergy Consumption

(kWh/yr) Established in the Energy­Use Characterization, TSD Chapter 6, by

lamp or lamp­and­ballast design and sector.

Tot al I nstalled Cost Established in the Product Price Determination, TSD Chapter 7 and

the LCC Analysis, TSD Chapter 8, by lamp­and­ballast designs.

Includes cost of retrofit kit and labor for replacing 8­foot lamp with

two 4­foot lamps.

El ectricity P rice Forecast 2008 E nergy Information Agency (EIA) Annual Energy Outlook

forecasts (to 2030) and extrapolation for beyond 2030 (see TSD

Chapter 8).

El ectricity S ite­to­Source

Conversion Conversion v aries yearly and is generated by 2008 EIA Annual

Energy Outlook forecasts (to 2030) of electricity generation and

electricity­related losses. Conversion factors beyond 2030 are

extrapolated.

HVAC Interaction Savings 6.25% o f total energy savings in the commercial sector.

Rebound E ffect 1% o f total energy savings in the commercial sector

8.5% of total energy savings in the residential sector

Di scount R ate 3 and 7 percent real.

Present Y ear Future c osts and savings are discounted to the year 2007.

11.5.2 Base C ase Energy Consumption

Figure 11.5.1 through Figure 11.5.4 show the base case energy consumption

trajectories for the GSFL and IRL stocks, respectively, in both the Emerging and Existing

Technologies scenarios. As Figure 11.5.1 shows, DOE projects the energy consumption

of 4­foot medium bipin lamps to grow due to new construction and the replacement of

some 8­foot single pin slimline systems with 4­foot medium bipin systems. Because of

this same replacement, DOE projects the energy consumption of 8­foot single pin

slimline systems will decrease. Additionally, DOE expects energy consumption from 4­

foot T5 miniature bipin standard output lamps to grow due to new construction, fixture

replacement, renovation in the commercial sector. Similarly, energy consumption from 4­

foot T5 miniature bipin high output lamps is expected to grow as their stock grows from

shipments servicing new construction and renovation demand in the industrial sector.

The stock and energy consumption of 8­foot recessed double contact high output lamps

11­46declines as these T5 high output lamps and other technologies, such as HID, take their

place in new construction, fixture replacement, and renovation.

As s hown in Figure 11.5.2, energy consumption in the Emerging Technologies

base case is lower than in the Existing Technologies scenario for 4­foot medium bipin

and 4­foot T5 miniature bipin standard output lamps, as their stock is penetrated by LED

lamps. The energy consumption of other product classes is equivalent in each scenario.

2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044

Year

Figure 11.5.1 National Energy Consumption, General Service Fluorescent Lamps,

Existing Technologies Base Case (quads of source energy) 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0EnergyConsumption(Quads)

4­foot Medium Bipin

8­foot SP Slimline

8­foot RDC HO

4­foot T5 SO

4­foot T5 HO

11­470.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5EnergyConsumption(Quads)

4­foot Medium Bipin

8­foot SP Slimline

8­foot RDC HO

4­foot T5 SO

4­foot T5 HO

2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040 2044

Year

Figure 11.5.2 National Energy Consumption, General Service Fluorescent Lamps,

Emerging Technologies Base Case (quads of source energy)

As illustrated in Figure 11.5.3 andFigure 11.5.4, the energy consumption of the

IRL stock mostly increases over time in both the commercial and residential sectors in

each base case scenario. However, in the initial years of the analysis period, energy

consumption in the Emerging Technologies scenario declines due the penetration of RCFL and other technologies. For this reason, energy consumption is lower in the

Emerging Technologies base case than in the Existing Technologies base case.

11­480.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.4 0.4 0.5 0.5EnergyConsumptionSource(Quads)

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042

Year

Figure 11.5.3 National Energy Consumption, Incandescent Reflector Lamps,

Existing Technologies Base Case (quads of source energy)

11­490.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.3EnergyConsumptionSource(Quads)

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042

Year

Figure 11.5.4 National Energy Consumption, Incandescent Reflector Lamps,

Emerging Technologies Base Case (quads of source energy)

11.5.3 N ational E nergy Savings Results

The following section provides NES results (including HVAC interactions and

rebound effects where applicable) for each TSL that DOE considers for GSFL and IRL.

Results are cumulative to 2042 and are shown as primary energy savings in quads. For

GSFL, 4­foot medium bipin, 8­foot single pin slimline, 8­foot recessed double contact

high output, and 4­foot T5 miniature bipin standard output and high output results are

representative of the combination of the low correlated color temperature (CCT) (less

than or equal to 4,500K) and the high CCT (greater than 4,500K) product classes. Also

shown are the NIA results for 2­foot U­shaped lamps. Due to their relatively small

shipments­based market share, DOE did not directly model the national impacts of 2­foot

U­shaped lamps. However,given the similarities in historical shipment trends (showing a

decrease in T12 lamps and an increase in T8 lamps) and in system input power, DOE

scaled results from the 4­foot medium bipin product classes to approximate NES of 2­

foot U­Shaped product classes. As historical shipments 4­foot medium bipin lamps were

22 times that of 2­foot U­shaped lamp shipments, DOE used this scaling factor to

approximate the energy savings of 2­foot U­shaped lamps. For IRL, results in this

chapter represent a combination of the standard­spectrum and modified­spectrum product

classes. As discussed earlier, DOE analyzes several shipment scenarios for GSFL and

IRL. In this section DOE presents only upper and loer bound energy savings and net

11­50present value results. Appendix 11B presents national impact results for the other

shipment scenarios.

11.5.3.1 General S ervice Fluorescent Lamps

In total, there are eight possible combinations of base and standards case

scenarios, yielding eight possible sets of NES results. Table 11.16 and Table 11.17 show

the NES results under the Existing Technologies, Shift, High expertise scenario, which

reflects the upper bound of energy savings, and the Emerging, Roll­up, Market SegmentBased scenario, which reflects the lower bound, respectively. Due to a larger reduction

in the installed stock of lamps affected by standards, the Emerging Technologies basecase forecast results in lower energy savings than the Existing Technologies base­case

forecast. In addition, due to a portion of consumers purchasing non­energy­saving,

higher­lumen­output systems, the Market Segment­Based Lighting Expertise scenario

results in lower energy savings than the High Lighting Expertise scenario. Finally,

because in the Shift scenario more consumers move to higher­efficacy lamps than in the

Roll­Up scenario, the Shift scenario results in higher energy savings than the Roll­Up

scenario.

Table 1 1.16 and Table 11.17 present total national energy savings for each TSL

(labeled as “Total” savings). The table also reports national energy savings due to

individually regulating each type of GSFL (presented next to the lamp type names),

assuming no amended standard on all other lamp types. However, it is important to note

that individual lamp type energy savings (due to separate regulation) do not sum to equal

total energy savings achieved at the trial standard levels due to standards­induced

substitution effects between lamp types. Instead, these savings are provided merely to

illustrate the approximate relative energy savings of each lamp type under a TSL.

The g reatest energy savings result from TSL5 for both scenarios and all lamp

types. At TSL1 and TSL2, most of the energy savings originate from shifts to higher

efficacy T12 lamps, and, in the 4­foot medium bipin and 8­foot single pin slimline

models, retrofits to more efficacious T8 systems. At TSL1 and TSL2 all T8 lamps are

standards­compliant and, therefore, unaffected in both scenarios. At TSL3, a large

increase in energy savings can be observed, stemming from the savings associated with

the regulation of 4­foot T8 MBP lamps (the majority of the stock). At TSL4 and TSL5,

all T12 lamp systems are automatically retrofitted to T8 lamp systems because no T12

standards­compliant lamps are available in the for 4­foot medium bipin, 8­foot single pin

slimline, and 8­foot recessed double contact HO product classes. Energy savings for 4­

foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps are the same at each TSL because there is only one efficacy

level for this product class. For 4­foot T5 standard output lamps, energy savings are the

same for TSL1 to TSL4 as these TSL reflect the same efficacy level with regard to this

product class. At TSL5, 4­foot T5 MiniBP SO energy savings increase as the minimum

efficacy requirement for these lamps increase as well..

11­51Table 11.16 Cumulative National Energy Savings for General Service Fluorescent

Lamps Under the Existing, Shift, High Lighting Expertise Scenario (2012­2042)

(quads)

TSL P roduct C lass NES

(Quads)

Undiscounted Discounted

a t 7% Discounted

a t 3%

4­foot medium bipin 1.52 0.42 0 .90

8­foot single pin slimline 0.10 0.04 0 .06

8­foot recessed double contact HO 0.18 0.07 0 .11

1 4­foot T5 miniature bipin SO 0.76 0.15 0 .36

4­foot T5 miniature bipin HO 1.14 0.23 0 .55

2­foot U­shaped 0.07 0.02 0 .04

TOTAL 3.77 0.92 2 .03

4­foot medium bipin 1.57 0.44 0 .93

8­foot single pin slimline 0.13 0.05 0 .08

8­foot recessed double contact HO 0.24 0.09 0 .15

2 4­foot T5 miniature bipin SO 0.76 0.15 0 .36

4­foot T5 miniature bipin HO 1.14 0.23 0 .55

2­foot U­shaped 0.07 0.02 0 .04

TOTAL 3.90 0.98 2 .12

4­foot medium bipin 4.76 1.28 2 .66

8­foot single pin slimline 0.18 0.07 0 .11

8­foot recessed double contact HO 0.25 0.09 0 .15

3 4­foot T5 miniature bipin SO 0.76 0.15 0 .36

4­foot T5 miniature bipin HO 1.14 0.23 0 .55

2­foot U­shaped 0.22 0.06 0 .12

TOTAL 7.33 1.89 3 .99

4­foot medium bipin 8.23 2.39 4 .72

8­foot single pin slimline 0.38 0.13 0 .23

8­foot recessed double contact HO 0.66 0.24 0 .41

4 4­foot T5 miniature bipin SO 0.76 0.15 0 .36

4­foot T5 miniature bipin HO 1.14 0.23 0 .55

2­foot U­shaped 0.37 0.11 0 .21

TOTAL 11.64 3.29 6 .55

4­foot medium bipin 9.53 2.68 5 .37

8­foot single pin slimline 0.38 0.13 0 .23

8­foot recessed double contact HO 0.72 0.26 0.45

5 4­foot T5 miniature bipin SO 0.91 0.18 0 .43

4­foot T5 miniature bipin HO 1.14 0.23 0 .55

2­foot U­shaped 0.43 0.12 0 .24

TOTAL 13.17 3.63 7 .32

11­52Table 11.17 Cumulative National Energy Savings for General Service Fluorescent

Lamps Under the Emerging, Roll­up, Market Segment­Based Scenario (2012­2042)

(quads)

TSL P roduct C lass NES

(Quads)

Undiscounted Discounted

a t 7% Discounted

a t 3%

4­foot medium bipin 0.43 0.14 0 .27

8­foot single pin slimline 0.08 0.03 0 .05

8­foot recessed double contact HO 0.02 0.01 0 .01

1 4­foot T5 miniature bipin SO 0.12 0.02 0 .06

4­foot T5 miniature bipin HO 0.65 0.13 0 .31

2­foot U­shaped 0.02 0.01 0 .01

TOTAL 1.32 0.33 0 .70

4­foot medium bipin 0.60 0.19 0 .37

8­foot single pin slimline 0.11 0.04 0 .07

8­foot recessed double contact HO 0.20 0.08 0 .13

2 4­foot T5 miniature bipin SO 0.12 0.02 0 .06

4­foot T5 miniature bipin HO 0.65 0.13 0 .31

2­foot U­shaped 0.03 0.01 0 .02

TOTAL 1.70 0.46 0 .94

4­foot medium bipin 1.99 0.57 1 .16

8­foot single pin slimline 0.17 0.07 0 .11

8­foot recessed double contact HO 0.20 0.08 0 .13

3 4­foot T5 miniature bipin SO 0.12 0.02 0 .06

4­foot T5 miniature bipin HO 0.65 0.13 0 .31

2­foot U­shaped 0.09 0.03 0 .05

TOTAL 3.24 0.90 1 .83

4­foot medium bipin 2.70 0.77 1 .56

8­foot single pin slimline 0.23 0.09 0 .15

8­foot recessed double contact HO 0.66 0.24 0 .41

4 4­foot T5 miniature bipin SO 0.12 0.02 0 .06

4­foot T5 miniature bipin HO 0.65 0.13 0 .31

2­foot U­shaped 0.12 0.03 0 .07

TOTAL 4.49 1.29 2 .57

4­foot medium bipin 3.72 1.06 2 .14

8­foot single pin slimline 0.25 0.09 0 .16

8­foot recessed double contact HO 0.67 0.25 0.42

5 4­foot T5 miniature bipin SO 0.29 0.06 0 .14

4­foot T5 miniature bipin HO 0.65 0.13 0 .31

2­foot U­shaped 0.17 0.05 0 .10

TOTAL 5.75 1.64 3 .26

11­5311.5.3.2 Incandescent R eflector Lamps

Table 11.18 and Table 11.19 present national energy savings for IRL in the

Existing Technologies, Shift, Product Substitution scenario and the Emerging

Technologies, Roll­up, No Product substitution scenario, respectively. Table 11.18

reflects the upper­bound energy savings scenario, and Table 11.19 reflects the lowerbound energy savings scenario. In total, there are eight possible combinations of base and

standards case scenarios. Appendix 11B presents results each scenario as well as for the

10 percent lumen increase sensitivity scenarios. As seen in the tables, energy savings

increases with increasing TSLs. TSL5 results in the highest energy savings for both the

upper­ and lower­bound scenarios. Energy savings are, in general, greater for the

Existing Technologies, Shift, Product Substitution scenario primarily because there is

more covered IRL stock for this scenario and because there is a shift to additional RCFLs in the case of a standard.

Table 11.18 Cumulative National Energy Savings for IRL in the Existing

Technologies, Shift, Product Substitution Scenario (2012­2042) (quads)

TSL N ES

(Quads)

Undiscounted Discounted

a t 7% Discounted

a t 3%

1 0.37 0.10 0 .20

2 1.06 0.27 0 .56

3 1.89 0.48 1 .00

4 2.32 0.59 1 .23

5 2.60 0.67 1 .37

Table 11.19 Cumulative National Energy Savings for IRL in the Emerging

Technologies, Roll­up, No Product Substitution Scenario (2012­2042) (quads)

TSL N ES

(Quads)

Undiscounted Discounted

a t 7% Discounted

a t 3%

1 0.22 0.06 0 .12

2 0.52 0.14 0 .28

3 1.00 0.26 0 .53

4 1.25 0.33 0 .66

5 1.48 0.39 0 .79

11­5411.5.4 Annual C osts and Savings

To illustrate the basic inputs to the NPV calculations, Figure 11.5.5 through

Figure 11.5.8 present the undiscounted annual total installed cost increases and annual

operating cost savings at the national level for GSFL and IRL in the upper and lower

bound scenarios. The figures also show the net annual savings, which is the difference

between the savings and costs for each year. Both annual total installed cost increases

and annual operating costs savings accumulate from 2012 to 2042. A net residual value

is applied at the end of 2042 to account for the difference in the remaining values of the

base and standards case lamp (and ballast) stock. The NPV is the difference between the

cumulative annual discounted operating cost savings and the cumulative annual

discounted total installed cost increases (plus the inclusion of the discounted net residual

value).

Figure 1 1.5.5 and Figure 11.5.6 present detailed results showing the breakdown of

the NPV into PVS (equation 10.5) and PVC (equation 10.6) for 4­foot medium bipin

under the Existing Technologies, Shift, High expertise scenario and the Emerging

Technologies, Roll­up, Market Segment­Based expertise scenario, respectively. Both

figures illustrate a similar pattern though at different scales: an initial smaller annual

operating cost savings compared to the increases in annual total installed equipment

costs, resulting in negative net annual savings in the first years after the standard takes

effect. However, operating and equipment cost savings generally increase with time, as

more standards­compliant lamps are installed (and the initial ballast stock is replaced). As

a result, total savings increases rapidly. Near the middle of the analysis period, after

much of initial ballast stock has retired and been replaced, the net annual savings begins

to level out and gradually decline, although savings remain positive. As the red line

depict, net annual savings decline for a few years during the middle of the analysis period

and again at the end of the analysis period. This is because there are lamp­and­ballast

system retrofits at the start of the analysis period in the standards case that result in high

incremental first costs at the beginning of the analysis period and approximately 15 years

later when these ballasts must be replaced.

11­55­1.5 ­1.0 ­0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5Billion$

Undiscounted Equipment Cost Savings

Undiscounted Operating Cost Savings

Total NPV Net Residual Value: $2.082

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042

Year

Figure 11.5.5 National Undiscounted Annual Total Installed Equipment and

Operating Cost Savings For 4­Foot Medium Bipin at TSL3 (Existing Technologies,

Shift, High Lighting Expertise Scenario )

11­56­1.5 ­1.0 ­0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0Billion$

Undiscounted Equipment Cost Savings

Undiscounted Operating Cost Savings

Total NPV Net Residual Value: $1.226

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042

Year

Figure 11.5.6 National Undiscounted Annual Total Installed Equipment and

Operating Cost Savings For 4­Foot Medium Bipin at TSL3 (Emerging Technologies,

Roll­up, Market Segment­Based Lighting Expertise Scenario)

Figure 11.5.7 and Figure 11.5.8 present detailed results showing the breakdown of

the NPV into PVS (equation 10.5) and PVC (equation 10.6) for combined commercial

and residential IRL at TSL4 under the Existing Technologies, Shift, Product Substitution

and Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, No Product Substitution scenarios, respectively. In

general, operating cost savings exceed any increase in equipment costs throughout the

analysis period, resulting in a positive annual NPV. In the product substitution scenario,

equipment costs are in general less in the standards case than in the base case yielding a

decrease in equipment costs throughout the analysis period. This is because consumers

begin to purchase both longer lifetime IRL (4,000 hr) and longer lifetime R­CFL (8,000

hr) in the case of a standard yielding lower overall shipments.

11­57­0.4 ­0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2Billion$

IRL Undiscounted Operating Cost Savings

IRL Undiscounted Equipment Cost Savings

IRL Undiscounted Total NPV Undiscounted Net Residual Value (Billion $): 0.458

2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 2041

Year

Figure 11.5.7 National Undiscounted Annual Total Installed Equipment and

Operating Cost Savings for IRL at TSL4 (Existing Technologies, Shift, Product

Substitution Scenario)

11­58­0.3 ­0.2 ­0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8Billion$

IRL Undiscounted Operating Cost Savings

IRL Undiscounted Equipment Cost Savings

IRL Undiscounted Total NPV Undiscounted Net Residual Value (Billion $): 0.520

2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025 2027 2029 2031 2033 2035 2037 2039 2041

Year

Figure 11.5.8 National Undiscounted Annual Total Installed Equipment and

Operating Cost Savings for IRL at TSL4 (Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, No

Product Substitution Scenario)

11.5.5 N et P resent Value Results

The following section provides NPV results for the TSLs considered for GSFL

and IRL. For GSFL, 4­foot medium bipin, 8­foot single pin slimline, 8­foot recessed

double contact high output, 4­foot T5 miniature bipin standard output and high output,

and 2­foot U­shaped results are representative of the combination of the low CCT (less

than or equal to 4,500K) and the high CCT (greater than 4,500K) product classes. As

discussed earlier, due to their relatively small shipments­based market share, DOE did

not directly model the national impacts of 2­foot U­shaped lamps. However, given the

similarities in historical shipment trends (showing a decrease in T12 lamps and an

increase in T8 lamps) and in system input power, DOE scaled results from the 4­foot

medium bipin product classes to approximate NPV of 2­foot U­Shaped product classes.

As historical shipments 4­foot medium bipin lamps were 22 times that of 2­foot Ushaped lamp shipments, DOE used this scaling factor to approximate the net present

value for 2­foot U­shaped lamps. For IRL, results in this chapter represent a combination

of the standard­spectrum and modified­spectrum product classes.

NPV results are cumulative and shown as the discounted value of these savings in

dollar terms. DOE uses national average electricity pricing and sector­specific point

11­59values for operating hours in calculating UECs. Thus, the NPV results are discrete point

values rather than a distribution of values as in the LCC and PBP analyses.

The p resent value of increased total installed costs is the total installed cost

increase (i.e., the difference between the standards case and base case in given year),

discounted to the present, and summed over the time period in which DOE evaluates the

impact of standards (i.e., from the effective date of standards, 2012, to 2042).

Savings a re decreases in operating costs associated with higher efficacy lamps

purchased in the standards case compared to the base case. DOE calculated total annual

operating cost savings as the difference between total annual operating costs in the base

case minus those in the standards case. Equation 10.7 gives the total annual operating

costs in each case.

11.5.5.1 General S ervice Fluorescent Lamps

Table 11.20 and Table 11.21 show the NPV results under the Existing

Technologies, Shift, High expertise scenario, which reflects the upper bound NPV of

standards, and the Emerging, Roll­up, Market Segment­Based scenario, which reflects

the lower bound, respectively. NPV is presented at both 7­percent and 3­percent discount

rates. DOE based all results on electricity price forecasts from the AEO 2008 Reference

Case. In general, the NPV results at each trial standard level are a reflection of the lifecycle cost savings at the corresponding efficacy levels. As seen in Chapter 8, Life­Cycle

Cost Analysis, for most lamp purchasing events and most baseline lamps, increasing

efficacy levels generally result in increased LCC savings. Due to this general costeffectiveness of higher­efficacy GSFL, the Existing Technologies base­case forecast

(which increases the affected stock and shipments) and the Shift scenario (which results

in the shipment of more high­efficacy lamps) represent the high­range scenario for NPV.

The Market Segment­Based Lighting Expertise scenario models consumers who purchase

higher­first­cost lamps, but may not achieve energy savings. As these consumers

generally have overall lower NPV (and often negative NPV) than their energy­saving

counterparts, the Market Segment­Based Lighting Expertise scenario results in lower

NPV than the High Lighting Expertise scenario.

As s een in Table 11.20 and Table 11.21, NPV generally increases with increasing

trial standard levels, consistent with the same trend in the LCC results. For the Market

Segment­Based Lighting Expertise scenario, due to a large lack of lighting expertise in

the residential sector (DOE assumes 0 percent consumers conducting T12 fixture

replacements have high lighting expertise), the NPV from 4­foot medium bipin lamps is

negative at EL1 and EL2. At efficacy levels above EL2, 4­foot medium bipin lamps

achieve positive NPV due to the integration of more­efficacious T8 lamps into both

commercial stocks (where lighting sophistication is higher) and residential stocks. In

addition, the Emerging Technologies, Market Segment­Based Lighting Expertise, RollUp scenario shows decreased NPV from TSL4 to TSL5. This is primarily due to the

11­60portion of consumers (without lighting expertise) that are forced to purchase much higher

cost lamps, but do not take advantage of the energy savings they provide.

Under t he upper scenario, the highest NPV is realized at TSL5 for all product

classes. Under the lower bound scenario, the highest NPV is realized at TSL5 for all

product classes, except 4­foot medium bipin, 2­foot U­shaped, and 4­foot T5 miniature

bipin high output lamps, which all realize slightly higher NPVs at TSL4. The majority of

the NPV is achieved in 4­foot medium bipin class due mostly to the cost effectiveness of

T8 systems as replacements for both 4­foot medium bipin T12 and 8­foot single pin

slimline systems, as well as the larger stock of these lamps relative to other product

classes. The 4­foot medium bipin lamp results in positive NPV because increasingly

efficacious lamp­and­ballast designs generally have higher LCC savings relative to each

other and the base case lamp­and­ballast designs.

At TS L4 and TSL5 for 4­foot medium bipin, 8­foot single pin slimline lamps, and

8­foot recessed double contact HO lamps, large and positive NPV generally result due to

the integration of more efficacious T8 design options into the commercial, residential,

and industrial lamp stocks. As 4­foot T8 medium bipin lamps are the majority of stock of

all GSFL, an increase in lamp efficacy and a decrease in energy consumption result in

large operating cost savings and, therefore, high NPV. The NPV of 4­foot T5 miniature

bipin standard output and high output is positive for each scenario and relatively flat

across the various TSLs.

11­61Table 11.20 Cumulative NPV Results for General Service Fluorescent Lamps

Under the Existing Technologies, Shift, High Expertise Scenario (2012­2042)

(Billion 2007$)

TSL P roduct C lass NPV

(billion 2007$)

Discounted

at 7% Discounted a t

3%

4­foot medium bipin 3.93 9.04

8­foot single pin slimline 0.10 0.34

8­foot recessed double contact HO 0.35 0.60

1 4­foot T5 miniature bipin SO 1.11 2.70

4­foot T5 miniature bipin HO 1.46 3.38

2­foot U­Shaped 0.18 0.41

TOTAL 7.12 16.46

4­foot medium bipin 3.14 7.78

8­foot single pin slimline 0.15 0.45

8­foot recessed double contact HO 0.43 0.73

2 4­foot T5 miniature bipin SO 1.11 2.70

4­foot T5 miniature bipin HO 1.46 3.38

2­foot U­Shaped 0.14 0.35

TOTAL 6.43 15.39

4­foot medium bipin 7.56 17.53

8­foot single pin slimline 0.37 0.81

8­foot recessed double contact HO 0.12 0.26

3 4­foot T5 miniature bipin SO 1.11 2.70

4­foot T5 miniature bipin HO 1.46 3.38

2­foot U­Shaped 0.34 0.80

TOTAL 11.09 25.67

4­foot medium bipin 17.47 35.93

8­foot single pin slimline 0.87 1.89

8­foot recessed double contact HO 1.33 2.53

4 4­foot T5 miniature bipin SO 1.11 2.70

4­foot T5 miniature bipin HO 1.46 3.38

2­foot U­Shaped 0.79 1.63

TOTAL 23.37 48.61

4­foot medium bipin 18.37 38.56

8­foot single pin slimline 0.87 1.89

8­foot recessed double contact HO 1.38 2.62

5 4­foot T5 miniature bipin SO 1.45 3.46

4­foot T5 miniature bipin HO 1.46 3.38

2­foot U­Shaped 0.83 1.75

TOTAL 24.49 51.90

11­62Table 11.21 Cumulative NPV Results for General Service Fluorescent Lamps

Under the Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, Market Segment­Based Expertise

Scenario (2012­2042) (Billion 2007$)

TSL P roduct C lass NPV

(billion 2007$)

Discounted

at 7% Discounted a t

3%

4­foot medium bipin ­0.01 0.73

8­foot single pin slimline 0.03 0.21

8­foot recessed double contact HO ­0.17 ­0.24

1 4­foot T5 miniature bipin SO 0.05 0.19

4­foot T5 miniature bipin HO 0.81 1.91

2­foot U­Shaped 0.00 0.03

TOTAL 0.71 2.82

4­foot medium bipin ­0.35 0.52

8­foot single pin slimline 0.09 0.35

8­foot recessed double contact HO 0.53 0.87

2 4­foot T5 miniature bipin SO 0.05 0.19

4­foot T5 miniature bipin HO 0.81 1.91

2­foot U­Shaped ­0.02 0.02

TOTAL 1.11 3.85

4­foot medium bipin 1.79 5.58

8­foot single pin slimline 0.37 0.80

8­foot recessed double contact HO 0.06 0.14

3 4­foot T5 miniature bipin SO 0.05 0.19

4­foot T5 miniature bipin HO 0.81 1.91

2­foot U­Shaped 0.08 0.25

TOTAL 3.23 8.98

4­foot medium bipin 5.97 13.34

8­foot single pin slimline 0.38 0.97

8­foot recessed double contact HO 1.33 2.53

4 4­foot T5 miniature bipin SO 0.05 0.19

4­foot T5 miniature bipin HO 0.81 1.91

2­foot U­Shaped 0.27 0.61

TOTAL 8.85 19.59

4­foot medium bipin 5.53 12.80

8­foot single pin slimline 0.45 1.11

8­foot recessed double contact HO 1.28 2.46

5 4­foot T5 miniature bipin SO 0.23 0.69

4­foot T5 miniature bipin HO 0.81 1.91

2­foot U­Shaped 0.25 0.58

TOTAL 8.54 19.53

11­6311.5.5.2 Incandescent R eflector Lamps

Table 11.22 and Table 11.23 present IRL NPV in the Existing Technologies,

Shift, Product Substitution scenario and the Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, No product

substitution scenario, respectively. Table 11.22 reflects the upper­bound NPV scenario,

and Table 11.23 reflects the lower­bound NPV scenario. As seen in Table 11.22 and

Table 11.23 NPV increases with TSL, consistent with LCC savings generally increasing

with efficacy level. In particular, for the No Product Substitution scenario, the negative

NPV at TSL1 results because the life­cycle cost savings at EL1 (the associated EL) are

primarily negative. However, as seen in the Product Substitution scenario, TSL1

achieves positive NPV due to primarily the increased movement to highly cost­effective

R­CFLs. NPV results are the most positive at TSL5, because the most cost­effective IRL

lamp is purchased at this TSL. Appendix 11B presents results for other scenarios as well

as for the 10 percent lumen increase sensitivity scenarios.

Table 11.22 Cumulative NPV Results for IRL: Existing Technologies, Shift,

Product Substitution (2012­2042) (billion 2007$)

TSL NPV a t

7% NPV a t 3%

1 0.19 0.55

2 3.47 7.11

3 4.75 9.85

4 6.75 13.97

5 7.52 15.55

Table 11.23 Cumulative NPV Results for IRL: Emerging Technologies, Roll­up, No

Product Substitution (2012­2042) (billion 2007$)

TSL NPV a t 7% NPV a t 3%

1 ­0.06 0.00

2 1.82 3.71

3 2.58 5.30

4 3.72 7.68

5 4.34 8.99

11­64REFERENCES

i U.S. Department o f Energy—Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Office of

Building Research and Standards. Technical Support Document: Energy Efficiency

Standards for Consumer Products: Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Proposed Rule: Appendix

B. Marginal E nergy Prices and National Energy Savings

. January 2000. Washington,

D.C.

< h ttp://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/residential/pdfs/appendix_b.

p df >.

ii U.S. Department o f Energy C Energy Information Administration. Annual Energy

Outlook 2007 with Projections to 2030

. February 2007. Washington, D.C.

< http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/index.html >

.

iii Office of Management and Budget. Circular A­4. September 2003. Washington, D.C.

< http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/circulars/a004/a­4.pdf >

.

11­65