1 | Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy eere.energy.gov 

## Energy Conservation Standards 

# Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for general service fluorescent lamps (GSFLs) and incandescent reflector lamps (IRLs)
May 1, 2014 Lucy deButts Department of Energy Building Technologies Program 

### EERE

- 2011

- BT

- STD

- 0006 GSFL

- IRL_2011

- STD

- 0006@ee.doe.gov2 

# Welcome

• Introductions (around the room )

• Role of the Facilitator



## • Ground Rules

- Speak one at a time.

- Say your name for the record

– there will be a complete transcript of this meeting.

- Be concise

– share the ‘ air

- time.’

- Keep the focus here

– cell phones on silent; limit sidebar conversations.

- Webinar participants turn phone on mute; “raise your hand” to be 

### recognized to speak.



## • Housekeeping Items

• Agenda Review

• Opening Remarks3 

# Public Meeting Agenda

9:00

– 9:25 am Welcome, Introductions, Opening Statements, Overview,

Statute, Context

9:25

– 9:45 am Market and Technology Assessment, Screening Analysis



## 9:45

– 10:45 am Engineering Analysis

10:45

– 11:00 am Break

11:00

– 11:15 am Product Price Determination



## 11:15

– 12:00 pm Trial Standard Levels, Energy Use, Life

- Cycle Cost Analysis

12:00

– 1:00 pm Lunch

1:00

– 2:00 pm Shipments, National Impact Analysis



## 2:00

– 2:30 pm Manufacturer Impact Analysis

2:30

– 3:00 pm Emissions/Monetization of Emissions
, Utility Impact,

Employment Impact, Regulatory Impact Analyses



## 3:00

– 3:15 pm Proposed Standard

3:15

– 3:30 pm Closing Remarks and Adjourn4 

# Listening via the Webcast

• The Department is broadcasting this meeting live over the Internet.

• DOE is providing the webcast to accommodate stakeholders that are unable to attend the public meeting in person.

• The web broadcast allows stakeholders to listen in and view the slides.



# • All stakeholders are encouraged to submit written comments after the public meeting.5 

# Purpose of Public Meeting

1. Present energy conservation standards DOE is proposing for GSFLs and IRLs in this notice of proposed rulemaking.

2. Invite comment from participants on the analysis.

3. Discuss the next steps for the rulemaking.

4. Encourage participants to submit data, information, summary statements, and written comments, including 

# additional issues for discussion.6 

# Issue for Discussion

Issue box numbering corresponds to the Technical Support Document’s Executive Summary, available at regulations.gov, under docket number EERE

- 2011

- BT

- STD

- 0006, at www.regulations.gov /#! documentDetail;D=EERE

- 2011

- BT

- STD

0006

- 0045

.
The deadline for submitting comments is June 30, 2014. Issue Box: DOE welcomes comments, data, and information concerning standards being considered for GSFLs and IRLs. Issues that correspond to those raised in DOE’s published material will be 

## numbered in accordance with that material. Whether invited by an issue box or not, comments are welcome on any part of DOE’s analysis.7 

# How to Submit Written Comments

• In all correspondence, please refer to the GSFL

- IRL rulemaking by:

– Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Fluorescent Lamps and Incandescent Reflector Lamps;

– Docket Number EERE

- 2011

- BT

- STD

- 0006 ; and

– Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 1904

- AC43.

• Email : GSFL

- IRL_2011

- STD

- 0006@ee.doe.gov

Postal : Courier : Ms. Brenda Edwards U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE

- 2J 

### 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585

- 0121 Ms. Brenda Edwards U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Program, Suite 600 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW 

### Washington, DC 20024 Tel: 202 586

- 2945



## Comment Period closes : June 30, 2014, 11:59 PM EDT8 

# Opening Remarks

Meeting participants are invited to provide opening 

# remarks or statements at this time.9 

# Presentation Overview

Energy Use; Life

- Cycle Cost Analysis

Shipments; National Impact Analysis 5

6 Market & Technology; Screening Analysis 

### 2
Engineering Analysis, Product Price Determination 3 1 Overview; Scope of Coverage

Manufacturer Impact Analysis 7 Trial Standard Levels 4

Emissions, Utility, Employment, and Regulatory Impacts


### Proposed Standard 8



### 910 

# Regulatory History

• The Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT 1992) amended the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) by:

− Establishing standards for certain classes of GSFLs and IRLs; and



### − Authorizing DOE to conduct two rulemaking cycles to revise and amend standards, and adopt standards for additional GSFLs, if warranted.



## • On July 14, 2009, DOE completed the first rulemaking cycle by publishing a final rule amending existing standards for GSFLs and IRLs 

## (hereafter “2009 Lamps Rule”). These standards required compliance starting in July 2012 (hereafter “July 2012 standards”).

• On September 14, 2011, DOE initiated the second rulemaking cycle 

## by publishing a framework document and held a public meeting on October 10, 2011.

• On February 28, 2013, DOE published a notice announcing the availability of the preliminary analysis and held a public meeting on 

## April 9, 2013.11 

# Current Standards

- GSFLs

• The 2009 Lamps Rule prescribed the current energy conservation standards for GSFLs manufactured on or after July 14, 2012

.

Lamp Type Correlated Color Temperature (CCT) Minimum average lamp efficacy (lumens per watt [lm/W])

4

- foot Medium B ipin (MBP) ≤ 4,500 K 89 > 4,500 K and ≤ 7,000 K 88

2

- foot U

- shaped ≤ 4,500 K 84 > 4,500 K and ≤ 7,000 K 81

8

- foot Single Pin (SP) S limline ≤ 4,500 K 97 > 4,500 K and ≤ 7,000 K 93 8

- foot Recessed D ouble Contact (RDC) H igh Output (HO) ≤ 4,500 K 92 > 4,500 K and ≤ 7,000 K 88 4

- foot T5 M iniature BiPin (MiniBP) S tandard O utput (SO) ≤ 4,500 K 86 > 4,500 K and ≤ 7,000 K 81

4

- foot T5 MiniBP HO ≤ 4,500 K 76 > 4,500 K and ≤ 7,000 K 7212 

# Current Standards

- IRLs

• The 2009 Lamps Rule prescribed the current energy conservation standards for IRLs manufactured after July 14, 2012.
Rated lamp wattage Spectrum Diameter (inches) Voltage Minimum average lamp efficacy (lm/W)

40

- 205 Standard > 2.5 ≥ 125 V 6.8*P 0.27

< 125 V 5.9*P 0.27

≤ 2.5 ≥ 125 V 5.7*P 0.27

< 125 V 5.0*P 0.27

40

- 205 Modified > 2.5 ≥ 125 V 5.8*P 0.27

< 125 V 5.0*P 0.27

≤ 2.5 ≥ 125 V 4.9*P 0.27

< 125 V 4.2*P 0.27 P = rated lamp wattage, in watts13 2013 2016 2012 2014 2015 2017 2018 

# GSFL and IRL Rulemaking Schedule

Milestone Date
Notice of Public Meeting and Availability of Framework Document 14 September 2011
Notice of Public Meeting and Availability of Preliminary Technical Support Document 28 February 2013

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 29 April 2014
Final Rule (legislative deadline) 14 July 2014
Final Rule (projected) December 2014 Compliance Date (projected) December 201714 

# EPCA Factors

42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i) directs DOE to consider seven factors when setting energy conservation standards.

EPCA Factors DOE Analysis

1. Economic impact on consumers and manufacturers Life

- Cycle Cost Analysis Manufacturer Impact Analysis

2. Lifetime operating cost savings compared to increased cost for the product Life

- Cycle Cost Analysis

3. Total projected energy savings National Impact Analysis

4. Impact on utility or performance Engineering Analysis Screening Analysis

5. Impact of any lessening of competition Manufacturer Impact Analysis



### 6. Need for national energy conservation National Impact Analysis

7. Other factors the Secretary considers relevant Emissions Analysis Utility Impact Analysis 

### Employment Impact Analysis15 

# Scope of Coverage: GSFLs

• The following GSFLs are currently covered by standards:

Lamp Type Rated Wattage

4

- foot MBP  25 W

2

- foot MBP U

- shaped  25 W

8

- foot SP slimline  52 W

8

- foot RDC HO All

4

- foot T5 MiniBP SO  26 W

4

- foot T5 MiniBP HO  49 W



## • DOE assessed extending coverage to additional GSFLs using the following criteria:

- If lamps meet the general description of “fluorescent lamp” and do not fall within exclusions specified in the “general service fluorescent lamp” definition;

- w hether standards for lamps would result in significant energy savings; and

- w hether standards for lamps are technologically feasible and economically 

### justified.16 

# Scope of Coverage: GSFLs

• Assessment of additional GSFLs to include under scope of coverage:

- DOE is not evaluating standards for additional fluorescent lamp types.

- DOE is evaluating standards for additional wattages for the fluorescent lamp 

### types already covered.

Lamp Type Existing

Wattage Limits Proposed Wattage Limits

4

- foot MBP  25 W No change

2

- foot MBP U

- shaped  25 W No change

8

- foot SP slimline  52 W  49 W

8

- foot RDC HO All No change

4

- foot T5 MiniBP SO  26 W  25 W

4

- foot T5 MiniBP HO  49 W  44 W17 

# Scope of Coverage: GSFLs

• The “general service fluorescent lamp” definition provides specific exemptions.

• DOE found certain exemptions could be further clarified.

• DOE is proposing definitions for exemptions shown in bold above. General service fluorescent lamp means any fluorescent lamp which can be used to satisfy the majority of fluorescent lighting applications, but does not include any lamp designed and marketed for the following nongeneral application: (1) Fluorescent lamps designed to promote plant growth; (2) Fluorescent lamps specifically designed for cold temperature applications; (3) Colored fluorescent lamps; (4) Impact

- resistant fluorescent lamps ; (5) Reflectorized or aperture lamps ; (6) Fluorescent lamps designed for use in reprographic equipment ; (7) Lamps primarily designed to produce radiation in the ultra

- violet region of the spectrum ; and (8) Lamps with a Color Rendering Index of 87 or greater

. 10 CFR 430.218 

# Scope of Coverage: GSFLs

• DOE is also proposing definitions for the terms “700 series fluorescent lamp” and “designed and marketed” when used for lighting products.

700 series fluorescent lamp means a fluorescent lamp with a color rendering index (measured according to the test procedures outlined in Appendix R to subpart B of this part) that is in the range (inclusive) of 70 to 79.

Designed and marketed means that the intended application of the lamp is stated in a publicly available document (e.g., product literature, catalogs, packaging labels, and labels on the product itself). This definition is applicable to terms related to the following covered lighting products: fluorescent lamp ballasts; fluorescent lamps; general service fluorescent lamps; general service incandescent lamps; incandescent lamps; incandescent reflector lamps; medium base compact fluorescent lamps; and specialty application mercury vapor lamp ballasts.19 

# Scope of Coverage: IRLs

• DOE is proposing standards for IRLs that meet the following definition in the scope of coverage:

• DOE is proposing standards for IRLs with wattages between 40 and 205 W. Incandescent reflector lamp (commonly referred to as a reflector lamp) means any lamp in which light is produced by a filament heated to incandescence by an electric current, which: is not colored or designed for rough or vibration service applications that contains an inner reflective coating on the outer bulb to direct the light; has an R, PAR, ER, BR, BPAR, or similar bulb shapes with an E26 medium screw base; has a rated voltage or voltage range that lies at least partially in the range of 115 and 130 volts; has a diameter that exceeds 2.25 inches; and has a rated wattage that is 40 watts or higher

.

10 CFR 430.220 

# NOPR Stage

Framework Document Prelim

Analysis NOPR Final Rule

Market & Technology

Screening Analysis Engineering

Analysis

Energy Use & End

Use Load Characterization Shipments Analysis

National Impact Analysis Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis Product Price Determination

Manufacturer Impact Analysis Emissions Analysis

Employment Impact Analysis

Utility Impact Analysis

Regulatory Impact Analysis21 

# Presentation Overview

Energy Use; Life

- Cycle Cost Analysis

Shipments; National Impact Analysis 5

6 Market & Technology; Screening Analysis 

### 2
Engineering Analysis, Product Price Determination 3 1 Overview; Scope of Coverage

Manufacturer Impact Analysis 7 Trial Standard Levels 4

Emissions, Utility, Employment, and Regulatory Impacts


### Proposed Standard 8



### 922 

# Purpose of MTA and Screening Analysis

• Market and Technology Assessment (MTA)

 Determine product classes

 Identify technology options to improve efficacy



## • Screening Analysis

 Screen out technology options that DOE will not consider in the engineering analysis based on:

1. Technological feasibility : incorporation in commercially available products or in working prototypes 2. Practicability to manufacture, install, and service : mass production and reliable installation and servicing could be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time the standard requires compliance 3. Adverse impacts on product utility or product availability : significant adverse impact on the utility of the product to significant subgroups of consumers, or causing the unavailability of any covered product type with performance characteristics, features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as products generally available in the United States at the time 

### 4. Adverse impacts on health or safety : significant adverse impacts on health or safety23 

# Product Classes

• DOE divides covered products into classes by:

– the type of energy used;

– capacity of the product; or



### – other performance

- related features that justify different standard levels, such as features affecting consumer utility.



## • DOE establishes separate energy conservation standards for each product class.

• DOE is proposing to maintain the existing product class divisions for GSFLs and IRLs.24 

# Product Classes: GSFLs

• DOE is proposing the following product class divisions for GSFLs:

Lamp Type CCT

4

- foot MBP ≤ 4,500 K
> 4,500 K

2

- foot U

- shaped ≤ 4,500 K
> 4,500 K

8

- foot SP slimline ≤ 4,500 K
> 4,500 K

8

- foot RDC HO ≤ 4,500 K
> 4,500 K

4

- foot T5 MiniBP SO ≤ 4,500 K
> 4,500 K

4

- foot T5 MiniBP HO ≤ 4,500 K
> 4,500 K 

### Correlated color temperature (CCT)

- Different CCT values offer different utility to

consumers.

- Lamps with CCTs greater than 4,500 K show a decline in efficacy. 

### Physical constraints (lamp shape/length)

- Different lamp geometries fit different building design/footprints.

- Lamp length and shape impact efficacy. 

### Lumen package (quantity of light provided by a lamp

- and

- ballast)

- Different lumen packages used for different applications.

- Lumen packages can impact efficacy (e.g., high lumen packages require ballasts that run at high currents, decreasing efficacy).25 Spectrum Diameter (inches) Voltage

Standard > 2.5 ≥ 125 V

< 125 V

≤ 2.5 ≥ 125 V

< 125 V

Modified > 2.5 ≥ 125 V

< 125 V

≤ 2.5 ≥ 125 V

< 125 V 

# Product Classes: IRLs

• DOE is proposing the following product class divisions for IRLs:
Spectrum

- Modified spectrum provide a different type of light (utility) than standard spectrum by absorbing a portion of visible light emitted from the filament.

- Modification of the spectral emission of the lamp decreases efficacy.


### Diameter

- Smaller diameter lamps can fit in smaller fixtures, offering a unique utility.

- Smaller diameter lamps have an inherently lower optical efficiency and cannot utilize the same technology options as larger diameter lamps. 

### Rated Voltage

- Most consumers operate 130 V lamps at 120 V resulting in longer lifetime, but reduced efficacy. Existing DOE test procedures require lamps rated at 130 V be tested at 130 V and lamps rated at 120 V be tested at 120 V.

- Consequently, at a single standard for all voltages, 130 V lamps would not require as efficient technologies as 120 V lamps which may make 130 V lamps less costly to produce and cheaper, resulting in a migration to 130 V lamps and increased energy consumption.26 

## • DOE identified technology options that can improve lamp efficacy for GSFLs and IRLs.

• DOE then reviewed technology options identified and assessed them using the following criteria:

– Technological feasibility

– Practicability to manufacture, install, and service



### – Adverse impacts on product utility or availability to customers

– Adverse impacts on health or safety 

# Technology Options and Screening Analysis27 

# Technology Options/Screening Analysis: GSFLs

GSFL Technology Options

Highly Emissive Electrode Coatings Glass Coatings
Higher Efficiency Lamp Fill Gas Composition Higher Efficiency Lamp Diameter

Higher Efficiency Phosphors Multi

- Photon Phosphors 

## • DOE identified the technology options below that can improve GSFL efficacy.

• Of these technology options, DOE determined that all, except multi

photon phosphors, meet the four screening criteria.28 

# Technology Options/Screening Analysis: IRLs

IRL Technology Options Higher Temperature Operation Non

- Tungsten

- Halogen Regenerative Cycles
Novel Filament Materials Infrared Glass Coatings

Thinner Filaments Higher Efficiency Reflector Coatings (Higher Efficiency Gold Reflector Coatings)
Efficient Filament Orientation Permanent Infrared Reflector Coating Shroud Efficient Filament Coiling Infrared Phosphor Glass Coatings Microcavity Filaments UV Phosphor Glass Coatings Crystallite Filament Coatings Corner Reflectors High Reflectance Filament Supports Electron Simulated Luminescence
Higher Efficiency Inert Fill Gas Higher Efficiency Burners (Higher Efficiency Burners for IRLs < 2.5 in.) Higher Pressure Tungsten

- Halogen Lamps 

## • DOE identified the technology options below that can improve IRL efficacy.



## • Of these technology options, DOE determined that all, except those in red, meet the four screening criteria.29 

# Presentation Overview

Energy Use; Life

- Cycle Cost Analysis

Shipments; National Impact Analysis 5

6 Market & Technology; Screening Analysis 

### 2
Engineering Analysis, Product Price Determination 3 1 Overview; Scope of Coverage

Manufacturer Impact Analysis 7 Trial Standard Levels 4

Emissions, Utility, Employment, and Regulatory Impacts


### Proposed Standard 8



### 930 

# Engineering Analysis Methodology

 Select certain representative product classes to be analyzed in the engineering analysis.


#  Define characteristics of baseline lamps in each representative product class that serve as reference points to assess changes due to energy conservation standards.



#  Identify more efficacious substitutes for each baseline lamp based on design options.



#  Develop efficacy levels (ELs ) that span the range of efficacy from the baseline to the maximum technologically feasible

. 

#  Scale results to product classes not analyzed. Select Representative Product Classes

Select Baseline Lamps

Identify More Efficacious Substitutes

Determine ELs

Scale Results31 

# Representative Product Classes: GSFLs

• DOE chooses representative product classes to concentrate its analytical effort.

– Representative product classes (in darker green) were chosen on a basis of high market volumes.
Lamp Type CCT

4

- foot MBP ≤ 4,500 K
> 4,500 K

2

- foot U

- shaped ≤ 4,500 K
> 4,500 K

8

- foot SP slimline ≤ 4,500 K
> 4,500 K

8

- foot RDC HO ≤ 4,500 K
> 4,500 K

4

- foot T5 MiniBP SO ≤ 4,500 K
> 4,500 K

4

- foot T5 MiniBP HO ≤ 4,500 K
> 4,500 K Select Representative Product Classes

Select Baseline Lamps

Identify More Efficacious Substitutes

Determine ELs

Scale Results32 

# Baseline Lamps: GSFLs

• The baseline model typically represents the most common, least efficacious model on the market for each representative product class.

• For representative product classes in which there were no commercially available lamps at the existing standard level, DOE modeled baseline lamps

.

– Modeled baselines for the 8

- foot RDC HO, T5 MiniBP SO, and T5 MiniBP HO product classes.

– Using the ANSI rated wattage of the most common, least efficacious commercially available lamp, calculated the required lumen output for the existing standard.

– A ssumed modeled baseline lamp would have similar characteristics as the most common commercially available lamps in each product class. Select Representative Product Classes

Select Baseline Lamps

Identify More Efficacious Substitutes

Determine E Ls

Scale Results33 

# Baseline Lamps: GSFLs

Issue 2: GSFL Baselines In the engineering analysis, DOE selects a baseline lamp as a reference point against which to measure changes resulting from energy conservation standards. DOE requests comments on the baseline lamps selected in this analysis for GSFLs. Baseline Lamp Lamp

Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy (25 ° C) Initial

Light Output (25 ° C) Mean

Light Output (25 ° C) Life

W W lm/W lm lm hr 4

- foot MBP T8 32 32.5 89.2 2,900 2,725 24,000* 8

- foot SP slimline T8 59 60.1 96.5 5,800 5,220 24,000

8

- foot RDC HO T8 86 84.0 92.0 7,728 7,342 18,000

4

- foot T5 MiniBP SO T5 28 27.8 86.0 2,391 2,223 30,000

4

- foot T5 MiniBP HO T5 54 53.8 76.0 4,089 3,884 25,000
*Instant start lifetime

.34 

# More Efficacious Substitutes: GSFLs

• DOE selected more efficacious replacement lamps to measure potential energy

- saving improvements.

• More efficacious replacement lamps were identified by rated efficacy and c haracteristics similar to baseline lamps (e.g., rated life, color rendering index [CRI], and CCT)

Product Class Lamp Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy Initial

Light Output Mean

Light Output Life

(IS) CRI

W W lm/W lm lm hr

4

- foot MBP T8* 32 32.5 89.2 2,900 2,725 24,000 83

T8 32 32.5 90.0 2,925 2,770 21,000 85

T8 25 26.6 93.0 2,475 2,350 24,000 85

T8 32 32.5 95.4 3,100 2,945 24,000 85

T8 28 28.4 96.0 2,725 2,590 24,000 85
*Row represents b aseline lamp Select Representative Product Classes

Select Baseline Lamps

Identify More Efficacious Substitutes

Determine ELs

Scale Results35 

# Issues for Comment: GSFLs

Issue 3: GSFL Lifetimes For GSFLs, the baseline and more efficacious substitutes selected represent the most common lifetimes for each product class. DOE requests comment on the rated lifetimes 

### of the GSFL baselines and more efficacious substitutes.36 

# Efficacy Levels: GSFLs

• DOE used commercially available lamps when possible and their associated catalog rated efficacies to determine ELs.



## • To establish final minimum efficacy requirements for ELs, DOE analyzed publicly available compliance data and determined whether any adjustments were necessary to the initial ELs.



## • DOE only analyzed ELs at which a full wattage version of the lamp type was available due to the limited utility of reduced wattage lamps. Select Representative Product Classes

Select Baseline Lamps

Identify More Efficacious Substitutes

Determine ELs

Scale Results37 

# GSFL Systems

• To assess the performance of GSFLs, DOE used a systems approach and paired lamps with ballasts, capturing real

- world energy use and light output.



## • Using manufacturer feedback and information from the 2011 Ballast Rule, DOE determined the most common fluorescent lamp ballasts by starting method and number of lamps operated to establish lamp

- and

- ballast system pairings.

Lamp Type Ballast Type

4

- foot MBP 2

- lamp IS, electronic

2

- lamp PS, electronic

4

- lamp IS, electronic

4

- lamp PS, electronic

2

- lamp IS for residential use, electronic

8

- foot SP slimline 2

- lamp IS, electronic

8

- foot RDC HO 2

- lamp IS, electronic

4

- foot T5 MiniBP SO 2

- lamp PS, electronic
4

- foot T5 MiniBP HO 2

- lamp PS, electronic38 

# GSFL Systems

• DOE selected lamp

- and

- ballast systems that maintained mean lumen output within 10 percent of the baseline system when possible.

4

- foot MBP Two

- Lamp Programmed Start Lamp

- and

- Ballast Replacement

Efficacy Level Lamp Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy Initial

Lamp Light Output Mean

Lamp Light Output Rated

Life Ballast
Factor System

Input
Power BLE System

Mean Light Output

W W lm/W lm lm hr W lm
Baseline T8 32 32.5 89.2 2,900 2,725 40,000 0.88 56.0 91.2 4,796

EL 1 T8 32 32.5 90.0 2,925 2,770 30,000 0.88 56.0 91.2 4,875

0.72 47.1 88.7 3,989

EL 2 T8 25 26.6 93.0 2,475 2,350 40,000 0.88 47.0 90.6 4,136

EL 2 T8 32 32.5 95.4 3,100 2,945 40,000 0.88 56.0 91.2 5,183

0.72 47.1 88.7 4,241

EL 2 T8 28 28.4 96.0 2,725 2,590 40,000 0.88 50.4 90.9 4,55839 

# Efficacy Levels: GSFLs

• The following are the proposed ELs:

CCT Lamp Type Efficacy Levels at 25 ° C lm/W

1 2

≤ 4,500 K 4

- foot MBP 90.0 92.4

8

- foot SP slimline 98.2 99.0

8

- foot RDC HO 94.0 97.6

4

- foot T5 MiniBP SO 93.5 97.1

4

- foot T5 MiniBP HO 82.7 N/A Select Representative Product Classes

Select Baseline Lamps

Identify More Efficacious Substitutes

Determine E Ls

Scale Results40 

# Issues for Comment: GSFLs

Issue 5: Max Tech Levels 

### For GSFLs, DOE requests comment on the max tech levels identified in this analysis and more information on the accuracy of catalog and certification data which were used to identify these levels.

Issue 6: GSFL Efficacy Levels DOE develops ELs based on three factors: (1) the design options associated with the specific lamps studied; (2) the ability of lamps across wattages to comply with the standard level of a given product class; and (3) the max tech EL. DOE requests comments on the methodology used to develop ELs for GSFLs as well as on the resulting ELs. Issue 4: GSFL Systems Because fluorescent lamps operate on a ballast in practice, DOE analyzed lamp

- and

ballast systems in the engineering analysis, to more accurately capture real

- world energy 

### use and light output. DOE requests comments on its methodology for developing lamp

and

- ballast systems as well as the results of these GSFL systems.41 

# Scaling Results: GSFLs

• DOE scaled ELs to product classes not directly analyzed.

• Scaling factors for GSFLs account for differences in efficacy due to: h igher CCT, shape (i.e., U

- shaped). Select Representative Product Classes

Select Baseline Lamps

Identify More Efficacious Substitutes

Determine ELs

Scale Results Product Class Analyzed Not Analyzed Scaling Factor

CCT 4

- foot MBP ≤ 4,500 K > 4,500 K 2 % decrease

8

- foot SP Slimline ≤ 4,500 K > 4,500 K 5% decrease

8

- foot RDC HO ≤ 4,500 K > 4,500 K 2% decrease

4

- foot T5 MiniBP SO ≤ 4,500 K > 4,500 K 6% decrease

4

- foot T5 MiniBP HO ≤ 4,500 K > 4,500 K 5% decrease

2

- foot U

- shaped ≤ 4,500 K > 4,500 K 3% decrease

Shape 2

- foot U

- shaped 4

- foot MBP 2

- foot U

- shaped 6% decrease42 

# Issues for Comment: GSFLs

Issue 7: Scaling Factors DOE develops scaling factors to scale the levels developed directly for the representative product classes and determine levels for product classes not analyzed 

### directly. DOE requests comments on the scaling factors developed to scale GSFL product classes from the less than or equal to 4,500 K CCT lamps to the greater than 4,500 K CCT lamps. DOE also requests comments on the scaling factor developed to scale from the 4

- foot MBP product class to the 2

- foot U

- shaped product class.43 

# Issues for Comment: GSFLs

Issue 31: Impact on GSFL Utility/Performance DOE requests comment on its assumption that there will be no lessening of utility or performance such that the performance characteristics, including lumen package, 

### color quality, lifetime, and ability to dim, would be adversely affected for the GSFL efficacy levels.

Issue 32: Impact on GSFL Features/Attributes DOE requests comment on whether there are features or attributes, including physical constraints such as shape or diameter, of the more energy

- efficient GSFL lamps that manufacturers would produce to meet the standards in this proposed rule that might affect how they would be used by consumers. DOE requests comment specifically on 

### how any such effects should be weighed in the choice of standards for GSFLs for the final rule.44 

# Representative Product Classes: IRLs

• DOE chooses representative product classes to concentrate its analytical effort.

– The representative product class (in darker green) was chosen on a basis of high market volume.

Spectrum Diameter (inches) Voltage

Standard > 2.5 ≥ 125 V

< 125 V

≤ 2.5 ≥ 125 V

< 125 V

Modified > 2.5 ≥ 125 V

< 125 V

≤ 2.5 ≥ 125 V

< 125 V Select Representative Product Classes

Select Baseline Lamps

Identify More Efficacious Substitutes

Determine ELs

Scale Results45 

# Baseline Lamps: IRLs

• The baseline model typically represents the most 

## common, least efficacious model on the market for each representative product class.

Baseline Lamp Design Option Initial Light Output lm Efficacy

lm/W Lamp Lifetime

hr

60 W PAR38 Improve d

Halogen* 1,070 17.8 1,500
*Halogen lamp with an improved reflector

.


### Issue 8: Baseline Lamp In the engineering analysis, DOE selects a baseline lamp as a reference point against which to measure changes resulting from energy conservation standards. DOE requests comments on the baseline lamp selected in this analysis for IRLs. Select Representative Product Classes

Select Baseline Lamps

Identify More Efficacious Substitutes

Determine ELs

Scale Results46 

# More Efficacious Substitutes: IRLs

• DOE selected more efficacious replacement lamps to measure potential energy

- saving improvements.

• More efficacious replacement lamps were identified by lumen output within 10 percent of the baseline lamp when possible.

Substitute Lamp Design Option Initial Light Output lm Efficacy**

lm/W Lamp Lifetime

hr

55 W PAR38 HIR 980 18.5 2,500

55 W PAR38 Improved HIR* 1,120 18.5 4,200
*HIR lamp with an improved reflector. **Efficacy values are based on data from DOE’s certification database. Select Representative Product Classes

Select Baseline Lamps

Identify More Efficacious Substitutes

Determine ELs

Scale Results47 

# Issues for Comment: IRLs

Issue 9: IRL Lifetimes In the engineering analysis for IRLs, DOE observed lifetime changes for different technologies. DOE requests comment on the rated lifetimes of the baseline and more 

### efficacious substitutes.48 

# Efficacy Levels: IRLs

• DOE used an equation

- based approach to characterize a continuous relationship between lamp input power and lamp efficacy across wattages.

• DOE used commercially available lamps and their associated catalog rated efficacies to determine ELs

.

• To establish final minimum efficacy requirements for ELs , 

## DOE analyzed publicly available compliance data and determined whether any adjustments were necessary to the initial EL.

• The following is the proposed EL:

Efficacy Level Efficacy Requirement lm/W

EL 1 6.2P 0.27

P = wattage Select Representative Product Classes

Select Baseline Lamps

Identify More Efficacious Substitutes

Determine ELs

Scale Results49 

# Issues for Comment: IRLs

Issue 10: Max Tech Level DOE requests comment on the max tech levels identified in this analysis and information on high efficacy IRLs including prototype lamps, specifically manufacturer costs and 

### information on equipment required to produce high efficacy IRLs.50 

# Scaling Results: IRLs

• DOE scaled ELs to product classes not directly analyzed.

• Scaling factors for IRLs account for difference in efficacy due to: spectrum, diameter, voltage.

Analyzed Not Analyzed Scaling Factor

Spectrum Standard Modified 15% decrease

Diameter > 2.5 Inches ≤ 2.5 Inches 15.5% decrease
Voltage < 125 Volts ≥ 125 Volts 15% increase Select Representative Product Classes

Select Baseline Lamps

Identify More Efficacious Substitutes

Determine ELs

Scale Results 

### Issue 11: Scaling between Product Classes

DOE has not found evidence that more efficacious small diameter, modified spectrum, or 130 V IRLs are not technologically feasible or 

### practicable to manufacture, and therefore is proposing to increase efficacy levels for these lamp types. DOE requests comment on any technological barriers in manufacturing more efficacious small diameter, modified spectrum, or 130 V rated lamps for commercial production.51 

# Issues for Comment: IRLs

Issue 33: Impact on IRL Utility/Performance DOE requests comment on its assumption that there will be no lessening of utility or performance such that the performance characteristics, including lumen package and 

### lifetime, would be adversely affected for the IRL efficacy levels.

Issue 34: Impact on IRL Features/Attributes DOE requests comment on whether there are features or attributes, such as the shape or diameter, of the more energy

- efficient IRL lamps that manufacturers would produce to meet the standards in this proposed rule that might affect how they would be used 

### by consumers. DOE requests comment specifically on how any such effects should be weighed in the choice of standards for the IRLs for the final rule.52 

# Issues for Comment: Engineering

Issue 1: Engineering Analysis DOE requests comments on the overall methodology, assumptions, and results of the GSFL and IRL engineering analyses.53 

# Product Price Determination

• DOE estimated the end

- user prices of GSFLs and IRLs directly, rather than developing manufacturing selling prices, because these lamps are difficult to reverse

- engineer (i.e., not easily disassembled).

• DOE developed three sets of discounts and corresponding prices, depending on the observed distribution channels for GSFLs and IRLs:

– Low Price (State procurement, High Discount)



### – Medium (Large distributors, including do

- it

- yourself stores, Medium Discount)

– High (Internet retailers, Low Discount)



## • Based on shipment estimates through each channel, DOE applied 85% to the large distributor price, 10% to the state procurement 

## price, and 5% to the internet retail price to develop a weighted average end

- user price used in the main LCC and NIA.

• DOE used information from the 2011 Ballast Rule to determine end

user prices for fluorescent lamp ballasts.54 

### Issue 12: Product Price Determination Because GSFLs and IRLs are difficult to reverse

- engineer (i.e., not easily disassembled), DOE directly estimated end

- user prices for lamps by establishing discounts from manufacturer suggested price lists. DOE requests feedback on the pricing methodology used in this analysis. 

# Issues for Comment: Product Price Determination55 

# Presentation Overview

Energy Use; Life

- Cycle Cost Analysis

Shipments; National Impact Analysis 5

6 Market & Technology; Screening Analysis 

### 2
Engineering Analysis, Product Price Determination 3 1 Overview; Scope of Coverage

Manufacturer Impact Analysis 7 Trial Standard Levels 4

Emissions, Utility, Employment, and Regulatory Impacts


### Proposed Standard 8



### 956 

### GSFL Trial Standard Levels Analyzed

TSL 1 Least efficacious lamps on the market 1



### TSL 2 Same level of rare earth phosphor in all product classes

TSL 3 Max national energy savings (NES) without going to EL 2 on any product

TSL 4 Max consumer net present value ( NPV)



### TSL 5 Max Tech and Max NES (PROPOSED) 

# Trial Standard Level (TSL) Descriptions

IRL Trial Standard Level Analyzed

TSL 1 Max Tech (PROPOSED) 1 There are currently no 8

- foot RDC HO, T5 MiniBP SO or T5 MiniBP HO lamps on the market with efficacies at the baseline level. This TSL sets the standard for these lamps at an EL corresponding to the least efficacious lamps currently on the market.57 

# Trial Standard Levels

GSFL Representative Product Classes TSL 1 Current Market Min TSL 2

Rare Earth Phosphor Level TSL 3

Best Non

EL 2 TSL 4

Max NPV TSL 5

Max Tech

4

- foot MBP, ≤ 4500K 0 0 1 2 2

8

- foot SP slimline, ≤ 4500K 0 1 0 0 2

8

- foot RDC HO, ≤ 4500K 1 2 1 1 2

4

- foot T5 MiniBP SO, ≤ 4500K 1 1 1 1 2

4

- foot T5 MiniBP HO, ≤ 4500K 1 1 1 1 1

IRL Representative Product Class TSL 1

Standard spectrum; > 2.5 inch diameter; < 125 V 158 

# Presentation Overview

Energy Use; Life

- Cycle Cost Analysis

Shipments; National Impact Analysis 5

6 Market & Technology; Screening Analysis 

### 2
Engineering Analysis, Product Price Determination 3 1 Overview; Scope of Coverage

Manufacturer Impact Analysis 7 Trial Standard Levels 4

Emissions, Utility, Employment, and Regulatory Impacts


### Proposed Standard 8



### 959 

# Energy Use Characterization

• Annual energy consumption (kWh) = system input power x annual operating hours

• DOE used various sources to determine annual operating hours:

- 2010 U.S. Lighting Market Characterization (LMC), 2011

- Energy Information Administration (EIA) Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS), 2003

- EIA Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS), 2009

- EIA Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS), 2006



## • DOE’s assumed annual operating hours capture variation across census divisions and large states , building types, lamp types, and 

## lighting applications.

Sector GSFL Average Annual

Operation ( hrs/yr ) IRL Average Annual

Operation ( hrs/yr )

Commercial 4,065 4,532

Residential 634 763

Industrial 4,587 N/A60 

# Energy Use Characterization: Lighting Controls

• In a sensitivity analysis, DOE assessed impacts on life

- cycle costs and payback periods for GSFLs and IRLs when operated on dimming systems.

• To develop annual energy consumption for these dimming systems, DOE used the system input power ratings as a result of dimming and annual operating hours.

• DOE made certain key assumptions to determine system input power 

## ratings for dimmed GSFLs and IRLs.

– GSFLs : On average a 33% lumen reduction (lamp

- and

- ballast); associated system input power reduction calculated based on characteristics of dimming ballasts analyzed ; no change in lamp lifetime.



### – IRLs : On average a 20% wattage reduction, corresponding to a 25% reduction in lumens, and a lifetime multiplier of 3.94.



## • For IRLs, DOE also assessed a scenario in which a certain percentage of the 

## population used dimmers. DOE assumed this to be 29% for the residential sector and 5% for the commercial sector.61 

# LCC and PBP

• The life

- cycle cost (LCC) analysis provides an economic evaluation from the end

- user perspective.

• LCC equals end

- user price plus the sum of annual operating costs discounted to a particular base year.

• If the lamp has remaining useful life at the end of the analysis period, a residual value is subtracted from the LCC.



## • Results are expressed as LCC savings (baseline minus the standard level ).

• Simple payback period (PBP) is also calculated and reported in this 

## analysis.

LCC Results

First Cost
(End

- User Price + Installation Cost ) Operating Expenses Convert to Present Value62 

# LCC and PBP: Inputs

• DOE derived electricity prices and projections from 2011 EIA form 861 data and EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2013 ( AEO 2013 ).

• DOE based installation costs on labor time and labor rate data from the 2011 Ballast Rule, RS Means , and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.

• DOE assumed ballast lifetimes of 49,054 hours (commercial & 

## industrial) and 9,514 hours (residential ).

- T ranslates to approximately 12 years (commercial), 11 years (industrial), and 15 years (residential)

- C onsistent with the 2011 Ballast Rule and available “life measure” studies



## • DOE calculated weighted

- average discount rates from estimates for cost of capital (commercial & industrial) and estimates of interest (“finance cost”) to purchase residential products.

- C ommercial = 5.1%

- I ndustrial = 6.3%

- R esidential = 5.2%63 

# LCC and PBP: Probability Updates

• In the NOPR, DOE determined the probability of a GSFL or IRL in a particular building type (whereas the Preliminary Analysis used building type alone) in each census division and large state using data published in the 2010 LMC in combination with CBECS, MECS, and RECS to determine a weighted average for:

- Electricity prices

- Sales tax

- Operating hours

Issue 13: Electricity Prices in the LCC Analysis 

### DOE used data published in the 2010 LMC in combination with CBECS, MECS, and RECS to determine an average weighted electricity price based on the probability of a GSFL or IRL in a particular building type in each census division and large state. DOE requests comment on its methodology of determining average weighted electricity prices in the LCC.64 

# LCC and PBP: Lamp Purchasing Events

• Event I: Lamp Failure

– The lamp fails and must be replaced.



## • Event II: Ballast Failure (GSFLs only)

– The failure of the installed ballast triggers a lamp and ballast purchase.



## • Event III: New Construction and Renovation

– New fixture installations where the lighting design can be completely new or 

### changed.

Issue 14: Lamp Purchasing Events DOE determined LCC savings and PBP results for different scenarios where consumers need to purchase a lamp (i.e., lamp failure, ballast failure, and new construction and 

### renovation for GSFLs and lamp failure and new construction and renovation for IRLs). DOE requests comments on these lamp purchasing events developed for this analysis.65 

# Issues for Comment: LCC and PBP

Issue 16: LCC Analysis Period DOE requests comment on its LCC analysis period assumptions. In particular, DOE requests comment on basing the analysis period on the baseline lamp life divided by the annual operating hours of that lamp for the IRL and the commercial and industrial sector GSFL analyses. DOE also requests comment on basing the analysis period on the useful life of the baseline lamp for a specific event for residential GSFLs.

Issue 15: Lifetime Assumptions in the LCC Analysis DOE conducts the LCC and PBP analyses over the lifetime of the product. DOE considered the impact of group relamping practices on GSFL lifetime in the commercial and industrial sectors. DOE requests comment on its spot and group relamping assumptions, particularly the percent of rated life at which group relamping occurs 

### (85%). DOE also requests comment on its general approach to determining lamp lifetime for this analysis.66 

# GSFL LCC Results at Proposed Level: 4

- ft MBP

Baseline Efficacy Level LCC Savings

Event I: Lamp Failure Event II: Ballast Failure and Event III: New Construction and Renovation Weighted

Average

4

- foot MBP, 2

- Lamp, Instant Start EL 2

- 9.55 to 6.36 0.81 to 6.72

3.14* 4

- foot MBP, 2

- Lamp, Programmed Start EL 2

- 9.55 to 16.09

- 9.55 to 18.93

4

- foot MBP, 4

- Lamp, Instant Start EL 2

- 19.10 to 11.58 1.05 to 11.35

4

- foot MBP, 4

- Lamp, Programmed Start EL 2

- 19.10 to 32.08

- 7.79 to 36.66
4

- foot MBP, 2

- Lamp, Instant Start, Residential Sector EL 2

- 9.55 to

- 2.08

- 7.17 to 0.06

* Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2017.67 

# GSFL LCC Results at Proposed Level: 4

- ft MBP (cont.)

• EL 2, Lamp Replacement, Commercial and Industrial

- Negative LCC savings for replacements with same wattage and ballast factor as baseline; Positive LCC savings for all others



## • EL 2, Lamp

- and

- Ballast Replacement, Commercial and Industrial

- 2

- lamp and 4

- lamp IS: Positive LCC savings

- 2

- lamp PS: Negative LCC savings for replacements with same wattage and 

### ballast factor as baseline; Positive LCC savings for all others

- 4

- lamp PS: Negative LCC savings for replacements with same wattage as baseline; Positive LCC savings for all others



## • EL 2, Lamp Replacement, Residential

- Negative LCC savings



## • EL 2, Lamp

- and

- Ballast Replacement, Residential

- Negative LCC savings except for one representative unit with positive LCC savings68 

# GSFL LCC Results at Proposed Level: 4

- ft T5 MiniBP HO

Product Class Efficacy Level LCC Savings

Event I: Lamp Failure Event II: Ballast

Failure and Event III: New Construction and Renovation Weighted Average

4

- foot T5 MiniBP HO EL 1

- 8.02 to 18.66

- 8.02 to 18.66 2.28*



## • EL 1, Lamp Replacement

- Negative LCC savings for replacements with same wattage and ballast factor as baseline; Positive LCC savings for all others



## • EL 1, Lamp

- and

- Ballast Replacement

- Negative LCC savings for replacements with same wattage and ballast factor as baseline; Positive LCC savings for all others * Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2017.69 

# GSFL LCC Results at Proposed Level: 4

- ft T5 MiniBP SO

Product Class Efficacy Level LCC Savings

Event I: Lamp Failure Event II: Ballast

Failure and Event III: New Construction and Renovation Weighted Average

4

- foot T5 MiniBP SO EL 2

- 6.22 to 5.68 7.18 to 22.42 2.76*



## • EL 2, Lamp Replacement

- Commercial: Negative LCC savings for replacement with same wattage and ballast factor as baseline; Positive LCC savings for all others



### - Industrial: Negative LCC savings for replacement with same wattage and ballast factor as baseline; Others: one positive LCC savings, one negative LCC savings



## • EL 2, Lamp

- and

- Ballast Replacement

- Positive LCC savings * Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2017.70 

# GSFL LCC Results at Proposed Level: 8

- foot SP slimline

Product Class Efficacy Level LCC Savings

Event I: Lamp Failure Event II: Ballast

Failure and Event III: New Construction and Renovation Weighted Average

8

- foot SP slimline EL 2

- 8.63 to 2.36

- 5.33 to 16.35 2.08*



## • EL 2, Lamp Replacement

- Negative LCC savings except for one representative unit in the commercial sector with positive LCC savings



## • EL 2 , Lamp

- and

- Ballast Replacement

- Positive LCC savings except for one representative unit in the industrial sector with negative LCC savings * Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2017.71 

# GSFL LCC Results at Proposed Level: 8

- foot RDC HO

Product Class Efficacy Level LCC Savings

Event I: Lamp Failure Event II: Ballast

Failure and Event III: New Construction and Renovation Weighted Average

8

- foot RDC HO EL 2

- 16.77 to

- 16.76

- 16.77 to

- 16.76

- 16.76*



## • EL 2, Lamp Replacement



## - Negative LCC savings

• EL 2, Lamp

- and

- Ballast Replacement

- Negative LCC savings * Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2017.72 

# IRL LCC Results at Proposed Level

EL 1 Representative Unit Efficacy Level LCC Savings Event I: Lamp Failure or Event III: New Construction and Renovation Weighted Average

2,500 Hour 55 W HIR EL 1 2.65 to 3.44 2.95* 4,200 Hour 55 W Improved HIR EL 1 4.49 to 5.94



## • EL 1, HIR



## - Positive LCC savings

• EL 1, Improved HIR

- Positive LCC savings * Weighted by shares of each product class in total projected shipments in 2017.73 

# LCC Subgroup Analysis

• DOE examined two subgroups for the LCC Subgroup Analysis

– Low

- Income Consumers

• EIA RECS data for consumers below the poverty line

• Using this EIA RECS data changed the probabilities of a GSFL or IRL within each building type and division or large state for the residential sector. These probabilities are used as inputs to the operating hours, electricity prices, and sales tax calculations

• Sign of LCC savings remained the same as main analysis in all cases



### – Institutions that Serve Low

- Income Populations

• Small non

- profit groups

• Commercial discount rate of 9.6% (versus average discount rate of 5.1%)

• Sign of LCC savings remained the same except for the following, which shifted from positive to negative savings:

– 4

- foot T5 MiniBP SO Product Class: Lamp replacement, EL 2, 26 W T5

– 8

- foot SP Slimline Product Class: Lamp replacement and lamp

- and

- ballast replacement, EL 2, 50 W T874 

# Presentation Overview

Energy Use; Life

- Cycle Cost Analysis

Shipments; National Impact Analysis 5

6 Market & Technology; Screening Analysis 

### 2
Engineering Analysis, Product Price Determination 3 1 Overview; Scope of Coverage

Manufacturer Impact Analysis 7 Trial Standard Levels 4

Emissions, Utility, Employment, and Regulatory Impacts


### Proposed Standard 8



### 975 

# Shipments and National Impact Analyses

Engineering Analysis

Product Price Determination

Energy Use & End Use Load Characterization NIA Shipments Analysis 

## • Shipments Analysis

– E stimates GSFL

- IRL shipments over the 30

- year analysis period (2017

- 2046)



## • National Impact Analysis

– E stimates the National Energy Savings (NES) from those shipments at various trial standards levels

– E stimates the Net Present Value (NPV) to GSFL

- IRL consumers of the savings from those shipments at the various trial standards levels76 

# Shipments Analysis

The Consumer Choice Module projects market shares by product class and efficiency 

### level, based on consumer sensitivity to price and to operating and maintenance
costs , computed per kilo

lumen. Lumen Demand Module

$1.00 $5.75 0.00 0.50 1.00

$1.00 $3.25 $5.25 $7.25 $9.25

O&M Cost ($/klm) Probability

First Cost ($/klm) Consumer Choice Module
Price Learning Module To LEDs

First Cost

O&M Cost PC 1 Shipments and lamp Market Shares Renovations and new construction

Lamp Replacements

Details on the shipments analysis can be found in chapter 11 of the TSD. PC 2 Shipments and lamp Market Shares77 

# Shipments Analysis: Lumen Demand

LEDs are expected to erode the total lumen demand 1 

## satisfied both by GSFLs and IRLs. This is treated as an exogenous envelope on the 

## shipments model.



## LED (from GSFL)

GSFL LED (from IRL) IRL

1 LED incursion based on projections from Energy Savings Potential of Solid

- State Lighting in General Illumination Applications, NCI, DOE, 2012.78 

# Shipments Analysis: GSFL Relamping

Probability of Relamping Ballast 

## Ballasts are populated with new lamps based on ballast age and the probability curves below. Consumers are assumed to remain in the same product class if they are simply replacing a failed lamp.

Peak for each curve occurs at average lifetime of a lamp installed on a given ballast New ballasts always accompanied by new lamps79 

# Shipments Analysis: Price Learning

* Price learning is not applied to the cost of a GSFL associated with rare earth elements. Rare earth price uncertainty is treated in a separate analysis. 

## D ecreases in product price are accounted for by incorporating learning

curves. *80 

# Shipments Analysis: Product Class Switching

Product class switching can occur in the consumer choice module when renovations and retrofits are undertaken. This can result in different market shares in the standards cases compared to the base case.

4

- ft MBP 8

- f t Slimline T8 T5 SO Base Case TSL 581 

# Shipments Analysis: Reference Case

Shipments over the analysis period in the reference case for representative lamp types

Plots for all TSLs and shipments scenarios can be viewed in the NIA spreadsheet tool. Shipments decline

because of LED incursion 4ft MBP T5 SO

T5 HO

8

- ft Slimline

8

- ft HO IRL82 

# Issues for Comment: Shipment Analysis

Issue 30: T5 Market Share and Product Class Switching 

### DOE seeks comment on the reasonableness of its shipment project for TSL 5, specifically, that standard output T5 lamps could increase from 3

- 4 % of the standard output GSFL market presently, to approximately 13 % of the same market by 2020, and approximately 30 % of the much attenuated (due to LED incursion) standard output GSFL market by 2046.

Issue 35: Product Class Switching DOE requests comment on the consumer choice model that projects shifts in shipments between product classes and whether there are other factors (e.g. utility, costs to replace light fixtures, design incompatibility) that may preclude or limit that shifting that may not be considered in DOE’s analysis. Issue 29: First Costs as Consumer Choice Drivers For the proposed GSFL standards, DOE requests comment on the reasonableness of its assumption that first cost is a significant driver of consumers' choice of product class, which results in the shipments analysis projecting a rapid shift from 4

- foot MBP T8s to standard output T5s in the TSL 5 standards case. The TSL 5 standards case substantially increases first cost for 4

- foot MBP T8s.83 

# National Impact Analysis

Where: NES ( y ) = National Energy Savings in year y (quads) AEC b ase ( y ) = base case annual national energy consumption in year y (quads)
AEC std ( y ) = standards case annual national energy consumption in year y (quads)
RF = rebound factor
μ ( y ) = full fuel cycle multiplier 

### National E nergy Savings (primary) is calculated using the following equation:

National Net Present Value is calculated using the following equation. NPV was calculated using 3% and 7% discount rates:

NPV = PVS

− PVC NES y = AE C base y
− AE C std y × RF × μ ( y )

Where:
NPV = National net present value (2012$)
PVS = present value of operating cost savings ( 2012$)
PVC = present value of increase in total installed cost (2012$)84 

# GSFL: NIA and Emissions Results

TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5
National Energy Savings FFC (quads) 0.21 0.21 0.89 3.0 3.5
CO 2 Emissions Reductions (million metric tons) 10 10 44 150 170
NO X Emissions Reductions (thousand tons) 13 13 54 180 210 NPV 7% Discount Rate (billion 2012$)

- 0.39

- 0.48 0.23 3.2 3.1 NPV of CO 2 (billion 2012$) * 0.35 0.35 1.5 4.9 5.6 NPV of NO X (billion 2012$) 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.2 0.2 Net Social Benefit 7% Discount Rate (billion 2012$)

- 0.03

- 0.12 1.8 8.3 8.9 NPV 3% Discount Rate (billion 2012$)

- 0.49

- 0.63 1.0 8.1 8.1 NPV of CO 2 (billion 2012$) * 0.35 0.35 1.5 4.9 5.6 NPV of NO X (billion 2012$) 0.02 0.02 0.09 0.3 0.3 Net Social Benefit 3% Discount Rate

- 0.12

- 0.26 2.6 13.3 14

Details on the NIA can be found in chapter 12 of the TSD. 

### NES, NPV, and Emissions at 3% and 7 % , for the 30 year analysis period, for all TSLs.

* Based on Social Cost of Carbon of $39.7 per metric ton for CO 2 .85 

# National Impact Analysis: GSFL Reference Case

Plots for all TSLs and shipments scenarios can be viewed in the NIA spreadsheet tool. GSFL Annual Energy Savings, TSL 5 GSFL Cumulative NPV, TSL 586 

# IRL: Overall Results

Full fuel cycle NES and NPV, at 3 and 7 percent, for the 30 year analysis period.

TSL 1
National Energy Savings FFC (quads) 0.013
CO 2 Emissions Reductions (million metric tons) 0.70
NO X Emissions Reductions (thousand tons) 0.79 NPV 7% Discount Rate (billion 2012$) 0.18 NPV of CO 2 (billion 2012$) * 0.025 NPV of NO X (billion 2012$) 0.001 Net Social Benefit 7% Discount Rate (billion 2012$) 0.21 NPV 3% Discount Rate (billion 2012$) 0.28 NPV of CO 2 (billion 2012$) * 0.025 NPV of NO X (billion 2012$) 0.002 Net Social Benefit 3% Discount Rate 0.31

* Based on Social Cost of Carbon of $39.7 per metric ton for CO 2 .87 

# National Impact Analysis: IRL Reference Case

IRL Annual Energy Savings, TSL 1 IRL Cumulative NPV, TSL 1

Plots for all TSLs and shipments scenarios can be viewed in the NIA spreadsheet tool.88 

# Alternative Shipments Analyses

Scenario Name Reference Assumption Alternative Assumption
Sensitivity Analyses

Rare earth oxide prices (higher assumed price ) Prices fixed at October 2013 levels. High REO Prices : 3.4 times the October 2012 price

Xenon prices (higher assumed price) Xenon prices remain at current levels throughout the analysis period High Xe : Xe prices rise to 10 times current levels and remain for the analysis period.

Alternative technology (IRL lifetimes) TSL 1 IRLs are all 55

- watt lamps with 2500 and 4200 hour lifetimes. Short life : One 60 W lamp modeled to meet TSL 1 with lifetimes of 1,046. Impact Analyses

LED market incursion Increasing LED incursion. No LED : No additional LED incursion

Lighting controls penetration Growth of commercial controls determined by today’s building codes. Fixed : Constant controls penetration at today’s level

Analysis Period 30

- year analysis period (2017

- 2046) 9

- year Analysis : 2017

- 2026 analysis period.89 

# Alternative Analyses: High REO Prices

Rare earth oxide price indices used in alternative analysis

GSFL TSL 5 Reference High REO Change NES FFC (quads) 3.46 3.64 5.2%

NPV (3%, billion 2012$) 8.08 8.51 5.3% NPV (7%, billion 2012$) 3.13 3.31 5.8%

High REO price assumption90 

# Alternative Analyses: High Xenon Price, Short IRL Life

IRL TSL 1

Reference Short Life Change
NES FFC (quads) 0.01 0.01

- 9.5%

NPV (3%) (billion 2012$) 0.28 0.11

- 60% NPV (7%) (billion 2012$) 0.18 0.06

- 66% 

### IRL High Xe price alternative scenario results

IRL TSL 1

Reference High Xe Change
NES FFC (quads) 0.01 0.01

- 23%

NPV (3%) (billion 2012$) 0.28 0.28 0.44% NPV (7%) (billion 2012$) 0.18 0.18 2.9%



### IRL short life alternative scenario results91 

# Issues for Comment: NIA

Issue 19: Rare Earth Oxides DOE assumes in its reference shipment and NIA analyses that the future real price of rare earth oxides used in GSFLs will remain near current levels on average. In an 

### alternative scenario analysis, DOE assumes that the future price of REOs is 3.4 times the current price on average, owing to market forces outside the rulemaking. Further, DOE estimates that the proposed standards would cause a maximum annual increase in demand for REOs of 296 tons in 2017, with lower demand increases in later years. DOE welcomes input on the reasonableness and appropriateness of these estimates and 

### assumptions

.

Issue 20: Xenon Gas Price DOE assumes in its reference shipments and national impacts analyses that the future price of xenon gas will remain near current levels on average. DOE further assumes in an 

### alternative

- scenario analysis that the future price of xenon gas may rise but that it is not likely to exceed ten times the current price on average. DOE welcomes input on the reasonableness and appropriateness of these assumptions.92 Reference Fixed Controls 

# Alternative Analyses: Fixed Controls *

Dimming Controls Switching Controls Total Lighting Capacity Reference Fixed Controls

GSFL TSL 5 IRL TSL 1

Reference Fixed

Controls Change Reference Fixed Controls Change

NES FFC (quads) 3.46 3.18

- 8.1% 0.01 0.01 0.79%

NPV (3%) (billion 2012$) 8.08 7.69

- 4.8% 0.28 0.28 0.25% NPV (7%) (billion 2012$) 3.13 2.98

- 4.8% 0.18 0.18 0.27%

*DOE does not consider this scenario to be realistic; it is presented to show the impact of controls incursion on the analysi s.



### Lighting Capacity Under Controls93 

# Issues for Comment: NIA

Issue 18: Reduced Wattage Lamps DOE assumes in its shipments and NIA analyses that reduced wattage 4

- ft MBP lamps can be coupled to dimming ballasts, but it assumes that no individual reduced wattage lamp option will be coupled to more than 10 % of the dimming ballasts in the installed stock, owing to performance problems that may arise in some applications. DOE welcomes input on the reasonableness and appropriateness of these assumptions. Issue 21: Controls To improve DOE’s estimates of the potential impact of lighting controls on this rulemaking, DOE seeks input on the current fraction of GSFL ballast shipments that are dimming ballasts and the likely rate of growth of dimming ballasts in the future94 NIA

Scenarios Variables Best Estimate Alternatives Change from Reference Case, TSL 5 (TSL 1 for IRL)

AEO Growth: Affects only NPV Ref : Electricity

prices follow AEO’s reference economic growth projections. AEO Low: Electricity prices

follow AEO’s low economic growth projections. NPV

3% discount

- 5.9%

7% discount

- 6.6%
AEO High: Electricity prices follow AEO’s high economic growth projections. 3% discount 10%

7% discount 13%

Rebound Rate: Affects only NES Ref : Rebound

rates for residential and commercial sectors set to 0% Framework : Residential

8.5%, Commercial 1% NES

- 1% High: Residential and Commercial 15% - 15% 

# Other Alternative Analyses
DOE also performed alternative analyses to assess uncertainty arising from the AEO economic growth rate and the rebound rate. These affect the NIA and not the shipments.95 

# Issues for Comment: NIA

Issue 22: Rebound DOE assumed zero direct rebound effect for efficiency improvements in GSFLs and IRLs, and conducted sensitivity analyses with alternative rebound rates. DOE welcomes comment on its assumptions and methodology for estimating the rebound effect including potential magnitudes of rebound effects.

Issue 17: Analysis Period For this rulemaking, DOE analyzed the effects of this proposal assuming that the GSFLs and IRLs would be available to purchase for 30 years (consistent with other rulemakings) and undertook a sensitivity analysis using 9 years (a proxy for the timeline in EPCA for the review of certain products). DOE is seeking input, information and data on whether there are ways to refine the analytic timeline.96 

# Presentation Overview

Energy Use; Life

- Cycle Cost Analysis

Shipments; National Impact Analysis 5

6 Market & Technology; Screening Analysis 

### 2
Engineering Analysis, Product Price Determination 3 1 Overview; Scope of Coverage

Manufacturer Impact Analysis 7 Trial Standard Levels 4

Emissions, Utility, Employment, and Regulatory Impacts


### Proposed Standard 8



### 997 

# MIA Overview

• Purpose

– To assess the impacts of standards on manufacturers;

– To identify and estimate impacts on manufacturer sub

- groups that may be 

### more severely affected than the industry as a whole;

– To examine the impacts of standards on direct employment and manufacturing capacity; and

– To examine the cumulative regulatory impact on the industry.



## • Methodology

– Analyze industry cash flow and industry net present value (INPV) through use of the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM); and

– Interview manufacturers to refine inputs to the GRIM, develop sub

- group analysis, and address qualitative issues

.98 

# MIA Methodology

• Phase 1

– DOE creates an industry profile to characterize the market and identify important issues that require further investigation

.



## • Phase 2

– DOE prepares an industry cash

- flow model and an interview questionnaire to guide subsequent discussions with manufacturers.



## • Phase 3

– DOE interviews manufacturers and assesses the impacts of standards both quantitatively (using the Government Regulatory Impact Model) and qualitatively (impacts on competition, manufacturing capacity, employment, and regulatory burden).

Industry profile Develop straw

man GRIM Develop

interview guide Interviews

& industry wide/ subgroup analysis Assess direct

employment, competition, cumulative burdens 

### Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 199 

# MIA Key Issues

• Rare Earth Oxides (REOs) in GSFLs

– Increasing the efficacy of GSFLs c ould require using significantly more REOs in GSFLs.



### – This could result in another significant price increase of REOs, similar to that in 2011.



## • Impact of 2012 GSFL and IRL Energy Conservation Standards

– Manufacturers already made significant capital investments in order to comply 

### with GSFL and IRL standards that went into effect in 2012

.

– Amended standards could strand these substantial investments, as manufacturers have not fully recouped these costs.



## • Technology Shift

– The market is already shifting to LEDs and these standards could cause manufacturers to divert resources away from the R&D of more efficacious lighting technologies with greater energy saving potential

.100 

# MIA Scenarios Analyzed

• DOE Modeled Two Markup Scenarios for GSFLs and IRLs.

– Flat Markup Scenario

– Preservation of Operating Profit Markup Scenario



## • Least Severe for Manufacturers

– Flat Markup Scenario

– In the flat markup scenario manufacturers fully pass through additional costs to their consumers and maintain their gross margin percentage in the standards case

.



## • Most Severe for Manufacturers

– Preservation of Operating Profit Markup Scenario

– In the preservation of operating profit markup scenario manufacturers maintain the same total operating profit in absolute dollars in the standards case as in the base case, despite a higher level of investment

.101 

# MIA INPV Results

- GSFL

• Flat Markup (Least Severe for Manufacturers)

• Preservation of Operating Profit (Most Severe for Manufacturers) Units Base

Case Trail Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV (2012$ millions) 1,542.5 1,584.4 1,580.3 1,663.1 1,901.1 1,939.7

Change in INPV (2012$ millions)

- 41.8 37.8 120.5 358.5 397.1 (%)

- 2.7% 2.5% 7.8% 23.2% 25.7%
Product Conversion Costs (2012$ millions)

- 0.9 2.0 5.3 7.5 9.1 Capital Conversion Costs (2012$ millions)

- 1.0 11.0 3.0 5.5 29.5
Total Conversion Costs (2012$ millions)

- 1.9 13.0 8.3 13.0 38.6

Units Base

Case Trail Standard Level

1 2 3 4 5

INPV (2012$ millions) 1,542.5 1,541.7 1,533.4 1,531.0 1,519.6 1,502.6

Change in INPV (2012$ millions)

- (0.9) (9.2) (11.5) (22.9) (39.9) (%)

- - 0.1%

- 0.6%

- 0.7%

- 1.5%

- 2.6%
Product Conversion Costs (2012$ millions)

- 0.9 2.0 5.3 7.5 9.1 Capital Conversion Costs (2012$ millions)

- 1.0 11.0 3.0 5.5 29.5
Total Conversion Costs (2012$ millions)

- 1.9 13.0 8.3 13.0 38.6102 

# MIA INPV Results

- IRL

• Flat Markup (Least Severe for Manufacturers)

• Preservation of Operating Profit (Most Severe for Manufacturers) Units Base Case Trail Standard Level

1

INPV (2012$ millions) 176.0 128.6

Change in INPV (2012$ millions)

- (47.5) (%)

- - 27.0%
Product Conversion Costs (2012$ millions)

- 6.1 Capital Conversion Costs (2012$ millions)

- 65.4
Total Conversion Costs (2012$ millions)

- 71.5

Units Base Case Trail Standard Level

1

INPV (2012$ millions) 176.0 124.2

Change in INPV (2012$ millions)

- (51.8) (%)

- - 29.5%
Product Conversion Costs (2012$ millions)

- 6.1 Capital Conversion Costs (2012$ millions)

- 65.4
Total Conversion Costs (2012$ millions)

- 71.5103 

# MIA Small Business Impacts

• DOE i dentified up to 21 potential GSFL small businesses and up to 15 potential IRL small businesses.

– Since most small businesses are not the original manufacturers of GSFLs or 

### IRLs, nor do they own the equipment used to produce GSFLs and IRLs, most small businesses will not have any capital conversion costs due to standards.

– However, since all small businesses have lower sales volumes, their product conversion costs are estimated to be significantly larger on a percentage of revenue basis compared to large manufacturers

.

– S mall businesses may not be able to pass on these higher per unit product conversion costs since market competition forces them to keep prices low.



## • Some small businesses might not be able to or might choose not to 

## make the investments necessary to meet the proposed standards.
Issue 36: Regulatory Flexibility Analysis The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires DOE to determine if the proposed standards will have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. DOE requests comment on the potential impacts to GSFL and IRL small businesses at the proposed efficacy levels.104 

# Issues for Comment: MIA

Issue 23: Distribution Chain Markup
To calculate the MSP, in the MIA, DOE determined the distribution chain markup for the GSFL and IRL industries. DOE invites comment on its methodology of using a 1.52 

### distribution chain markup in combination with the medium end

- user price to estimate the MSP of all GSFLs and IRLs.

Issue 26: Direct Domestic Manufacturing Impact DOE quantitatively assessed the impacts of standards on direct employment. DOE seeks comment on the potential domestic employment impacts to GSFL and IRL 

### manufacturers at the proposed efficacy levels

. Issue 24: Conversion Costs for IRL Manufacturers


### As part of the MIA, DOE estimates the product and capital conversion costs that all manufacturers must make to comply with potential standards. DOE requests comment on the $6.1 product industry conversion costs and $65.4 capital industry conversion costs necessary for IRL manufacturers to comply with the proposed standards

.105 

# Issues for Comment: MIA

Issue 27: Cumulative Regulatory Burden Analysis DOE seeks comment on the compliance costs of any other regulations GSFL or IRL manufacturers must make, especially if those regulations take place three years before 

### or after the estimated compliance date of these proposed standards (2017 ).

Issue 28: Mercury Content of GSFLs in Response to GSFL Standards DOE seeks comment on GSFL manufacturers potentially increasing the amount of mercury in GSFLs in order to comply with the proposed GSFL standards.106 

# Presentation Overview

Energy Use; Life

- Cycle Cost Analysis

Shipments; National Impact Analysis 5

6 Market & Technology; Screening Analysis 

### 2
Engineering Analysis, Product Price Determination 3 1 Overview; Scope of Coverage

Manufacturer Impact Analysis 7 Trial Standard Levels 4

Emissions, Utility, Employment, and Regulatory Impacts


### Proposed Standard 8



### 9107 

# Emissions Analysis

• DOE estimates the cumulative emissions reductions resulting from amended energy conservation standards. DOE considers full

- fuel

- cycle emissions. Thus, both power plant emissions and “upstream” emissions are included in 

## the analysis.

– Includes fugitive methane emissions.

Trial Standard Level
1 2 3 4 5

CO 2 (million metric tons) 10 10 44 150 170

NO x (thousand tons) 13 12 54 180 210

Hg ( tons) 0.020 0.019 0.083 0.28 0.32

N 2 O ( thousand tons ) 0.17 0.16 0.71 2.5 2.8

CH 4 ( thousand tons ) 44 43 190 640 730

SO 2 ( thousand tons ) 15 15 65 220 250 

### Cumulative Emissions Reduction for Potential Standards of GSFLs

Details of the Analysis can be found in chapter 14 of the TSD.108 

# Emissions Analysis

• DOE estimates the cumulative emissions reductions resulting from amended energy conservation standards. DOE considers full

- fuel

- cycle emissions. Thus, both power plant emissions and “upstream” emissions are included in 

## the analysis.

– Includes fugitive methane emissions.

Trial Standard Level
1

CO 2 (million metric tons) 0.70

NO x (thousand tons) 0.79

Hg ( tons) 0.0012

N 2 O ( thousand tons ) 0.0099

CH 4 ( thousand tons ) 2.7

SO 2 ( thousand tons ) 0.69 

### Cumulative Emissions Reduction for Potential Standards of IRLs

Details of the Analysis can be found in chapter 14 of the TSD.109 

# Emissions Analysis: Monetization

• DOE uses the most current Social Cost of Carbon (SCC) values developed by interagency process.

- SCC is intended to be a monetary measure of the incremental damage resulting from greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including, but not limited to, agricultural productivity loss, human health effects, property damage from rising sea levels, and changes in the ecosystem



## • The most recent (2013) U.S. government interagency estimates of the SCC for emissions in 2015, per metric ton avoided (in 2012 dollars):

- $11.8 (average value from distribution with a 5% discount rate)

- $39.7 (average value from distribution with a 3% discount rate)

- $61.2 (average value from distribution with a 2.5% discount rate)

- $117 (95th

- percentile value from distribution with a 3% discount rate)



## • The SCC in constant dollars increases over time

• DOE also monetizes the NO x 

## emissions reductions resulting from amended standards.

- Estimates of monetary value range from $468 to $4,809 per short ton

- DOE calculated monetary benefits using a medium value of $2,639 per short ton

Details of the Analysis can be found in chapter 15 of the TSD.110 

# CO 2 

# Emissions Monetization Results

TSL SCC: $11.8 per

metric ton 5% discount rate,
average 

### SCC: $39.7 per

metric ton 3% discount rate,
average 

### SCC: $61.2 per

metric ton 2.5% discount rate,
average 

### SCC: $117.0 per

metric ton 3% discount rate, 95 th percentile



### 1 81 350 550 1,100

2 80 350 540 1,100

3 340 1,500 2,300 4,500

4 1,100 4,900 7,700 15,000

5 1,300 5,600 8,900 17,000

Details of the Analysis can be found in chapter 15 of the TSD. 

# Estimates of Net Present Value of CO 2 

# Emissions Reduction Under GSFL Trial Standard Levels (Million 2012$)111 

# CO 2 

# Emissions Monetization Results

TSL SCC: $11.8 per

metric ton 5% discount rate,
average 

### SCC: $39.7 per

metric ton 3% discount rate,
average 

### SCC: $61.2 per

metric ton 2.5% discount rate,
average 

### SCC: $117.0 per

metric ton 3% discount rate, 95 th percentile



### 1 6.1 25 39 75

Details of the Analysis can be found in chapter 15 of the TSD. 

# Estimates of Net Present Value of CO 2 

# Emissions Reduction Under IRL Trial Standard Level 1 (Million 2012$)112 

# Issues for Comment

Issue 25: SCC values DOE solicits comment on the application of the new SCC values used to determine the social benefits of CO2 emissions reductions over the rulemaking period. In particular 

### the agency solicits comment on the derivation of SCC values after 2050.113 

# Utility Impact Analysis

• Purpose

- To estimate the changes in electric installed capacity and generation that result for each TSL



# • Method

- The National Energy Savings is used to provide a stream of energy savings over the analysis period



## - The Energy Information Administration’s National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) is modified to represent the impacts of DOEs standards program (modified code is known as NEMS

- BT)



# • Output

- Reductions in total electricity generation

- Reductions in primary fuel (coal, natural gas etc.) consumption

- Changes to the mix of electricity generation by fuel type

- Changes to total installed capacity

Details of the Analysis can be found in chapter 16 of the TSD.114 

# Employment Analysis

• Purpose



# - To estimate the net jobs created or eliminated nationally as a consequence of amended energy conservation standards, includes direct and indirect employment impacts



# • Method



# - Uses the ImSET (Impact of Sector Energy Technologies) model for the 

## evaluation of indirect employment impacts



# - The changes in equipment and energy expenditures are taken from the National Energy Savings Analysis



# - Direct employment impacts to the lighting industry are developed in the Manufacturer Impact Analysis (chapter 13)



# • Output



# - Change to commercial and energy sector employment as a 

## consequence of amended energy conservation standards

Details of the Analysis can be found in chapter 17 of the TSD.115 

# Regulatory Impact Analysis

• Purpose

- To investigate the national impacts of non

- regulatory alternatives to mandatory amended energy conservation standards



# • Method

- DOE modified NIA spreadsheet to represent the following non

regulatory alternatives



# • Output

- National Energy Savings and Net Present Value for the non

- regulatory alternatives

- Impact of non

- regulatory alternatives on purchase price and use of
energy

- efficient equipment • No new regulatory action • Manufacturer tax credits

• Customer rebates • Voluntary efficiency targets

• Customer tax credits • Bulk government procurement

Details of the Analysis can be found in chapter 18 of the TSD.116 

# Presentation Overview

Energy Use; Life

- Cycle Cost Analysis

Shipments; National Impact Analysis 5

6 Market & Technology; Screening Analysis 

### 2
Engineering Analysis, Product Price Determination 3 1 Overview; Scope of Coverage

Manufacturer Impact Analysis 7 Trial Standard Levels 4

Emissions, Utility, Employment, and Regulatory Impacts


### Proposed Standard 8



### 9117 

# Proposed Standard (TSL 5): GSFLs

Lamp Type CCT ( K) Proposed Level (lm/W)

4

- Foot Medium Bipin ≤ 4,500 92.4
> 4,500 90.6

2

- Foot U

- Shaped ≤ 4,500 86.9
> 4,500 84.3

8

- Foot Slimline ≤ 4,500 99.0
> 4,500 94.1

8

- Foot High Output ≤ 4,500 97.6
> 4,500 95.6

4

- Foot Miniature Bipin Standard Output ≤ 4,500 97.1
> 4,500 91.3

4

- Foot Miniature Bipin High Output ≤ 4,500 82.7
> 4,500 78.6118 

# Proposed Standard (TSL 1): IRLs

Lamp Type Diameter

inches Voltage (V) Proposed Level (lm/W)

Standard Spectrum 40 W

– 205 W > 2.5 ≥ 125 7.1P 0.27

< 125 6.2P 0.27

≤ 2.5 ≥ 125 6.0P 0.27

< 125 5.2P 0.27

Modified Spectrum 40 W

– 205 W > 2.5 ≥ 125 6.0P 0.27

< 125 5.2P 0.27

≤ 2.5 ≥ 125 5.1P 0.27

< 125 4.4P 0.27
P = wattage119 

# Summary of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

• At TSL 5, the estimated national energy savings for products shipped in 2017

– 2046, are 3.5 quads for GSFL. At TSL 1 estimated national energy savings for products shipped in 2017

- 2046, are 0.013 quads for IRL.



## • For GSFLs, the NPV for products shipped between 2017 and 2046 is $3.1 billion (at a 7

- percent discount rate) and $8.1 billion (at a 3

- percent discount rate), in 2012$.

• For IRLs, the NPV for products shipped between 2017 and 2046 is $0.18 billion (at a 7

- percent discount rate) and $0.28 billion (at a 3

- percent discount rate), in 2012$.120 

# How to Submit Written Comments

• In all correspondence, please refer to the GSFL

- IRL rulemaking by:

– Energy Conservation Standards for General Service Fluorescent Lamps and Incandescent Reflector Lamps;

– Docket Number EERE

- 2011

- BT

- STD

- 0006 ; and

– Regulatory Identification Number (RIN) 1904

- AC43.

• Email : GSFL

- IRL_2011

- STD

- 0006@ee.doe.gov

Postal : Courier : Ms. Brenda Edwards U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE

- 2J 

### 1000 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20585

- 0121 Ms. Brenda Edwards U.S. Department of Energy Building Technologies Program, Suite 600 950 L’Enfant Plaza, SW 

### Washington, DC 20024 Tel: 202 586

- 2945



## Comment Period closes : June 30, 2014, 11:59 PM EDT121 

# Closing Remarks/Questions