### iashington, DC 20585

DRAFT REPORT ON THE P OTENTIAL IMPACT OF POSSIBLE ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR FLUORE SCENT LAMP BALLASTS
The Department of Energy has recently completed the "Draft Report on the Potential Impact of Possible Energy Efficiency Levels for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts." The report includes an engineering and economic analysis of the United States fluorescent lamp ballast market. It discusses the potential impact of four different energy efficiency levels on consumers, the environment and utility companies. The Department has initiated a comprehensive process improvement effort to examine issues surrounding the appliance standards program including those relating to the planning and prioritization process, data collection and analysis, and decision making criteria. As part of this effort, the Department is providing this report for your review and comments. The engineering and economic data for this report were developed cooperatively by manufacturers, stakeholders and industry consultants through public meetings and surveys. The Department is seeking your comments about the applicability of the data, the validity of the engineering and economic models used, and the conclusions about the impacts of the different energy efficiency levels. If you have any comments , please send them to: Ms. Sandy Beall, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Mail Station EE-43 1, U. S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7574; F : (202) 586-4617. If you have any questions, please contact Terry Logee at (202) 586-1689.

Michael J. McCabe, Director Office of Codes and Standards Office of Building Technologies Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Attachment:

### DOE/EE-XXXXX



## DRAFT REPORT ON POTENTIAL IMPACT OF POSSIBLE ENERGY EFFICIENCY

LEVELS FOR FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLASTS

FEBRUARY 1996

LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY

Energy & Environment Division Technology and Market Assessment Group

Berkeley , CA 94720

Prepared for
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY Office of Codes and Standards

## TABLE OF CONTENTS

PREFACE .... .......................................... ..... P-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................. ES-1 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .......................................... 1-1 1.1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE ................................... . ..... 1-1 1.2 STRUCTURE OF THE DOCUMENT ................. .............. 1-1 CHAPTER 2: ANALYTIC APPROACH ................................... 2-1 2.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................. 2-1 2.2 OVERVIEW OF ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK ....................... 2-1 2.3 MODELS, DATA, AND ASSUMPTIONS ................... . ...... 2-4 2.3.1 Engineering Cost and Performance Models .................... 2-4 2.3.2 EPRI Commercial Energy End-Use Model (COMMEND) ......... 2-6 2.3.3 Appliance Standards Environmental and Utility Model (ASEUM) .. 2-8 2.3.4 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis, Payback Period, and Cost of Conserved Energy ................................... 2-11 2.3.5 Environmental Analysis .................................. 2-12 CHAPTER 3: ENGINEERING ANALYSIS ................................. 3-1 3.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................. 3-1 3.2 PRODUCT CLASSES .......................................... 3-3 3.3 DESIGN OPTIONS ....' ........................ . 3.4 ENERGY USE DATA .......................................... 3-6 3.5 COST-EFFICIENCY DATA
........ ..................... . ........... 3-9 3.6 -ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVELS .............
.. ................ 3-13 CHAPTER 4: LIFE-CYCLE COSTS AND PAYBACK PERIODS ............... 4-1 4.1 LIFE-CYCLE COST FOR DESIGN OPTIONS ..................... 4-1

4.1.1 LCC Data Inputs ........ .................." ............... 4-2 4.1.2 LCC Results by Design Option .............................. 4-3 4.2 LCC SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ................................. 4-2; 4.3 LCC DIFFERENCES, PAYBACK, AND CCE ...................... 4-26 4.4 CHANGE IN LIFE-CYCLE COSTS DUE TO ENERGY

EFFICIENCY LEVELS ........................ .............. 4-28 4.4.1 Data Inputs for Change in LCC ............................ 4-28 4.4.2 " Results for LCC Differences ............................... 4-28 4.5 PAYBACK PERIODS BY ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVEL ........... 4-29 4.5.1 Payback Period Data Inputs ............................... 4-29 4.5.2 Payback Period Results ................................... 4-30 4.6 COST OF CONSERVED ENERGY (CCE) DUE TO ENERGY
DRAFT /Ballasts /January 1996/Page-i

### EFFICIENCY LEVELS ....................................... 4-30

4.6:1 CCE Data Inputs ........................................ 4-31 4.6.2 CCE Results ........................................... 4-31 CHAPTER 5. NATIONAL ENERGY AND ECONOMIC PACTS ............ 5-1 5.1 ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ........................ 5-1

5.1.1 Commercial Floor Space Projections ......................... 5-1 5.1.2 New Construction/B uilding Starts ......... ....... . ............ 5-2 5.1.3 Commercial Energy Prices .................... ............ 5-3 5.2 BASE CASE FORECAST ....................................... 5-4. 5.3 ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVELS FORECASTS ..................... 5-5

5.3.1 Energy Efficiency Levels .................................. 5-6 5.3.2 Energy Consumption ................................ .. 5-7 5.3.3 Annual Installations ..................................... 5-13 5.3.4 Equipment Prices ....................................... 5-13 5.3.5 Net Present Value (NPV) ................................. 5-14 5.4 LOW EFFICIENCY BASE CASE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS ......... 5-15 CHAPTER 6. PACTS, OF BALLAST ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVELS

ON ELECTRIC UTILITIES ..................................... 6-1 6.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................. 6-1 6.2 AVOIDED ENERGY AN D AVOIDED CAPACITY COSTS ........... 6-1 6.3 PEAK LOAD AND CAPACITY RE DUCTIONS ..................... 6-2 6.4 REVENUE LOSSES ..........................................
. 6-5 6.5 LOW EFFICIENCY BASE CASE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS .......... 6-8 6.6 NET REVENUE LOSS EXAMPLE ................................ 6-11
APPENDIX A. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION A-1 A.1 ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS SUMMARY ..................... A-1 A.2 MANUFACTURING COST DATA A-3 A.3 BEF, BF, AND POWER CONSUMPTION DATA ..................: A-9 A.4 LIGHTING HOURS DATA ........ .. .......................... A-20 A.5 LABOR TIME DATA ......................................... A-27 APPENDIX B. FORECASTING MODEL ................................... B=1 B.1 COMMEND END-USE FORECASTING MODEL ................... B-1

B.1.1- The COMMEND Framework ... .............. ......... B-1 B.1.2 The COMMEND Models ................................... B-2 B.1.3 COMMEND Data Bases ..................................... B-2 B.2 DISCUSSION OF THE COMMEND MARKET FRAMEWORK ........ B-2

B.2.1 Market Segments ............................................. B-3 B.2.1.1 Building-Type Segments ............................ B-3 B.2.1.2 End-Use Segments ................................. B-3 B.2.1.3 Other Segments .................................... B-4

DRAFT/Ballast

s/January 1996/

Page-ii

### B.2.2 Central Energy Equation .................................... B-4 B.2.3 Example of Market Profiles ................................. B-5 

### B.3 COMMEND LIGHTING TECHNOLOGY MODEL ................... B-7 B.3.1 Discussion of Lighting Systems .............................. B-8 B.3.1.1 Lighting Uses ..................................... B-8 B.3.1.2 Fixture Types ..................................... B-8 B.3.1.3 System Types ..... .................................. B-9 B.3.2 Lighting Central Energy Equation ............................. B-9 B.4 COMMEND FORECASTING FRAMEWORK FOR INTERIOR LIGHTING.. B-1 l' B.5 COMMEND FORECAST LOGIC SUMMARY .......................... B-13 B.6 ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA INPUT TO COMMEND FOR FLUORESCENT BALLASTS ..................................... B-14

APPENDIX C. ELECTRIC UTILITY IMPACT MODELING.. *................. C-1 C.1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................C-i C.2 AVOIDED COST: BACKGROUND AND CONVENTIONS ........... C-1 C.3 ENERGY COST SAVINGS ....................................... C-2 C.4 CAPACITY SAVINGS ......................................... C-6 C.4.1 Value of Capacity Savings ................................. C-6 C.4.2 Amount of Capacity Savings ............................... C-7 C.4.3 Avoided Transmissions and Distribution Capital Costs ........... C-10 APPENDIX D. SI UNIT CONVERSION ................................... D-1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLSTS ................. EA-1 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................ EA-1 2. METHODS OF ESTIMATING ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ...... EA-2 2.1 Baseline Emissions ........................................ EA-2 2.2 Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions ......................... EA-3 2.3 Carbon Dioxide Emissions .................................. EA-4 3. RESULTS ............................ ...................... EA-5. 3.1 Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions ......................... EA-5 3.2 Carbon Dioxide Emissions .................................. EA-6 4. LOW EFFICIENCY BASE CASE SENSITIVITY CASE ............ EA-11 4.1 Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions ..................... EA-11 4.2 Carbon Dioxide Emissions .............................. EA-11 FIGURES Figure ES

- l. U.S. Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Sales ............................ ES-2 Figure ES

-2. Cost, Benefits and NPV of Alternative Efficiency Levels for

Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts ....

............................. ES-8

DRAFT /Ballasts /January• 1996/

Page-iii

### t figure L. I 

### Analytic Framework for the Ballast Energy Efficiency Analysis ....... 2-3 Figure 5.1 Commercial and Industrial Interior Lighting Energy Consumption ..... 5-8 Figure 5.2 Commercial Interior Lighting Energy Consumption ................ 5-9 Figure 5.3 Industrial Interior Lighting Energy Consumption .................. 5-10 Figure 5.4 Commercial and Industrial Interior Lighting Energy

Consumption Baselines

..................................... 5-16 Figure 5.5 Commercial Interior Lighting Energy Consumption Baselines

....... 5-17 Figure 5.6 Industrial Interior Lighting Energy Consumption Baselines

.......... 5-18 Figure 6.1 Net Revenue Losses ........................... 

## 6-6 Figure B.1 1992 U.S. Commercial Energy Sales by End Use .................. B-6 Figure B.2 Lighting Model Structure ...... .. ........................... B-12 Figure B 3 Forecast of Commercial Ener Sales b End U
. gy y se (U.S. Total) ........ ............I........... ............ B-14 Figure C. 1 Simplified Load-Duration Curve ................................. C-3

TABLES Table ES-1 

## Lamp/Ballast Life-Cycle Cost Summary (1994$) ................... ES-3 Table ES-2 Payback Period (Years) for Lamp/Ballast Combinations ............. ES-5 Table ES-3 Interior Lighting Energy Consumption (Quadrillion Btu, Primary) .... ES-6 Table ES-4 Net Present Value, Benefits and Costs to Society of Alternative

Table ES-5 Efficiency Levels for Fluorescent Ballasts Purchased from 2000-

2030 (Billion 1994 Dollars, Discounted at.7% Real) ............. ES-7 Projected` Emissions at Efficiency Level 2 for Sulfur

Table 2.1 Dioxide, Oxides of Nitrogen, and Carbon Dioxide ............... ES-9

Emissions Factors for Power Generation ......................... 2-13 Table 3.1 Minimum Allowable Ballast Efficacy Factors ..................... 3-3 Table 3.2 Product Classes .............................................. 3-4 Table 3.3 Design Options for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts .................... 3-5 Table 3.4 ANSI Watts and Fixture Watts for Various Lamp/Ballast Combinations 3-8 Table 3.5 Cost-Efficiency Data for Fluorescent Ballasts (1-Lamp F40T 12) ..... 3-10 Table 3.6 Cost-Efficiency Data for Fluorescent Ballasts (1-L p F40T 12/ES) .. 3-10 Table 3.7 Cost-Efficiency Data for. Fluorescent Ballasts (2-Lamp F40T 12) ..... 3-10 

## Table 3.8 Cost-Efficiency Data for Fluorescent Ballasts (2-L p F40T12/ES) .. 3-11 Table 3.9 Cost-Efficiency Data for Fluorescent Ballasts (2-Lamp F96T12) ..... 3-11 Table 3.10 Cost-Efficiency Data for Fluorescent Ballasts (2-Lamp F96T12/ES) .. 3-11 Table 3.11 Cost-Efficiency Data for Fluorescent Ballasts (2-Lamp F96T 12HO) .. 3-11 DRAFT/Ballasts/January 1996/Page-iv

### Table 3.12 Cost-Efficiency Data for Fluorescent Ballasts (2-Lamp F96T12HO/ES) 3-12

Table 3.13 Cost-Efficiency Data for Fluorescent Ballasts (3-Lamp F40T 12) ..... 3-12 Table 3.14 Cost-Efficiency Data for Fluorescent Ballasts (3-Lamp F40T12/ES) .. 3-12 Table 3.15 Cost-Efficiency Data for Fluorescent Ballasts (4-Lamp F40T12)

..... 3-12 Table 3.16 Cost-Efficiency Data for Fluorescent Ballasts (1-Lamp F32T8)

...... 3-12 Table 3.17 Cost-Efficiency Data for Fluorescent Ballasts (2-Lamp F32T8)

...... 3-13 Table 3.18 Cost-Efficiency Data for Fluorescent Ballasts (3-Lamp F32T8)

...... 3-13 Table 3.19 Cost-Efficiency Data for Fluorescent Ballasts (4-Lamp F32T8)

...... 3-13 Table 3.20 Comparison of Ballast Alternative Energy Efficiency Levels ........ 3-16 Table 4.1 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts,

One Lamp F40T12/RE70, Commercial Sector ................... 4-5 Table 4.2 Life-Cycle Costs ofFluorescent Ballasts , One Lamp

F40T12/ ES, Commercial Sector .............................. 4-6 Table 4.3 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts, Two Lamp

F40T12/RE70, Commercial Sector .......... ... ........... 4-7. T bl 4 4 Lif l

C C f Fl B ll T L a e . e- yc e osts o uorescent a asts, wo amp

F40T12/ ES, Commercial Sector ............ ........ 4-8 Table 4.5 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts , Three Lamp

F4OT 12/RE70, Commercial Sector ............................ 4-9 Table 4.6 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts , Three Lamp

F4OT12/ ES, Commercial Sector ............................. 4-10 Table 4.7 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts , Four Lamp

F40T12/RE70, Commercial Sector ............................ 4-11 Table 4.8 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts, Two Lamp

F96T 12/RE70, Commercial Sector ........................... 4-12 Table 4.9 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts , Two Lamp

F96T12/RE70, Industrial Sector ............................. 4-13 Table 4.10 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts, Two Lamp

F96T 12/ ES, Commercial Sector ............................. 4-14 Table 4.11 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts , Two Lamp

F96T12/ ES, Industrial Sector ................................ 4-15 Table 4.12 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts , Two Lamp
4 T bl 13 F96T 12I-IO/RE70, Industrial Sector

....................

Lif C l l L .... 4-16

. a e e- yc lasts, Two

e Costs of Fluorescent Ba amp F96T12H0 70, Commercial Sector ........................ 4-17 Table 4.14 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts, Two Lamp

F96T12HO/ES, Industrial Sector ... ........................... 4-18 Table 4.15 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts, Two Lamp

F96T12HO/ES, Commercial Sector .......................... 4-19 Table 4.16 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts, One Lamp

F32T8, Commercial Sector ................................. 4-20

DRAFT/Ballasts/January 1996/Page-v

### Table 4.17 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts,Two Lamp F32T8, Commercial Sector ................................. 4-21 Table 4.18 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts, Three Lamp

F32T8, Commercial Sector ................................. 4-22 Table 4.19 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts, Four Lamp

F32T8, Commercial Sector ................................. 4-23 Table 4.20 Life Cycle Cost Sensitivities .... ............................ 4-25 

## Table 4.21 Ballast Market Share (year 2000) by Luminaire Type ............... 4-26 Table 4.22 Ballast Market Share (year 2000) by Lamp/Ballast System .......... 4-27 Table 4.23.a Cost (1994$) and Energy Use Summary:

Fluorescent Ballasts (1F40T12) .............................. 4-32 Table 4.23.b Weighted Averages of Units Sold Below Levels:

Fluorescent Ballasts (1F40T12) .............................. 4-32 Table 4.23.c Life-Cycle Cost Differences (1994$), Payback Periods (years) and Cost

of Conserved Energy ( at 8% real), Fluorescent Ballasts (1F40T12) .. 4-32 Table 4.24.a Cost (1994$) and Energy Use Summary:

Fluorescent Ballasts (2F40T12) ............................... 4-33 Table 4.24.b Weighted Averages of.Units Sold Below Levels:

Fluorescent-Ballasts (2F40T12) ............................... 4-33 Table 4.24.c Life-Cycle Cost Differences (1994$), Payback Periods (years) and Cost

of Conserved Energy (at 8% real) Fluorescent Ballasts (2F40T 12) .. 4-33 Table 4.25 Cost (1994$) and Energy Use Summary:

Fluorescent Ballasts (3F40T12) .......... I.................... 4-34. Table 4.26 ' Cost ( 1994$) and Energy Use Summary:

Fluorescent Ballasts (4F40T12) .............................. 4-34 Table 4.27.a Cost (1994$) and Energy Use Summary:

Fluorescent Ballasts (2F96T12) .............................. 4-35 Table 4.27.b Weighted Averages of Units Sold Below Levels:

Fluorescent Ballasts (2F96T12) ............ ....... ........... 4-35 Table 4.27.c Life-Cycle Cost Differences (1994$), Payback Periods (years) and Cost

of Conserved Energy (at 8% real) Fluorescent Ballasts (2F96T12) .. 4-35 Table 4.28.a Cost ( 1994$) and Energy Use Summary:

Fluorescent Ballasts . (2F96T121-IO) ........................... 4-36. Table 4.28.b Weighted Averages of Units Sold Below Levels:

Fluorescent Ballasts (2F96T12HO) ........................... 4-36 Table 4.28.c Life-Cycle Cost Differences (1994$), Payback Periods (years) and Cost

of Conserved Energy (at 8% real) Fluorescent. Ballasts (2F96T12HO) 4-36 Table 4.29.a Cost ( 1994$) and Energy Use Summary : Fluorescent Ballasts (1F32T8) 4-37 Table 4.29.b Weighted Averages of Units Sold Below Levels:

Fluorescent Ballasts (1F32T8) ............................... 4-37 Table 4.29.c Life-Cycle Cost Differences (1994$), Payback Periods (years) and

Cost of Conserved Energy (at 8% real), Fluorescent Ballasts (1F32T8) ............................... 4-37

DRAFT/ Ballasts / January 1996/Page-vi

### Table 4.30.a Cost (1994$) and Energy Use Summary: Fluorescent Ballasts (2F32T8) ................................ 4-38 Table 4.30.b Weighted Averages of Units Sold Below Levels:

Fluorescent Ballasts (2F32T8) .....:......................... 4-38 Table 4.30.c Life-Cycle Cost Differences (1994$), Payback Periods (years) and Cost

of Conserved Energy (at 8% real), Fluorescent Ballasts (2F32T8) .. 4-38 Table 4.3 l.a Cost (1994$) and Energy Use Summary:

Fluorescent Ballasts (3F32T8) ....... 4-39 Table 4.31 .b Weighted Averages of Units Sold Below Levels:

Fluorescent Ballasts (3F32T8) ............................... 4-39 Table 4.31 .c Life-Cycle Cost Differences (1994$), Payback Periods (years) and Cost

of Conserved Energy (at 8% real), Fluorescent Ballasts (3F32T8) .. 4-39 Table 4.32.a Cost (1994$) and Energy Use Summary:

Fluorescent Ballasts (4F32T8) ............................... 4-40 Table 4.32.b Weighted Averages of Units Sold Below Levels:

Fluorescent Ballasts (4F32T8) ........................... .. .. 4-40 Table 4.32.c Life-Cycle Cost Differences (1994$), Payback Periods (years) and Cost



### of Conserved Energy (at 8% real), Fluorescent Ballasts, (4F32T8) ... 4-40 Table 5.1 U.S. Commercial and Industrial Floor Space Projections

(Billions of square feet) .... .. ................................ 5-2 Table 5.2 Commercial Building Starts, 1980-2030 (Billions of square feet) ...... 5-2 Table 5.3 Building Retirement Rates .................................... 5-3 Table 5.4 Energy Prices for Commercial and Industrial Sectors (1994 Dollars) ... 5-4 Table 5.5 Energy Efficiency Levels for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts ............. 5-6 Table 5.6 Average Interior Lighting EUIs (kWh/ft2-yr) ....................... 5-7 Table 5.7 Interior Lighting Energy Consumption (Quadrillion Btu, Primary) .... 5-12 Table 5.8 Installation of Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts (millions) ............... 5-13 Table 5.9 Consumer Purchase Prices for New Fluorescent Ballasts ($1994) ..... 5-14 Table 5.10 Net Present Value, Energy Savings and Equipment Costs of Energy

Efficiency Levels for Fluorescent Ballasts Purchased from 2000- 2030 (Billion 1994 Dollars, Discounted at 7% Real) ............. 5-15 Table 5.11 Interior Lighting Energy Consumption (Quadrillion Btu, Primary),

Low Efficiency Base Case ..... .......................... .5-19 Table 5.12 Net Present Value, Energy Savings and Equipment Costs of Energy

Efficiency Levels for Fluorescent Ballasts Purchased from 2000- 2030 (Billion 1994 Dollars Discounted to 1994 at 7% Real), Low Efficiency Base Case Sensitivity .............. 5-20 Table 5.13 Comparison Between Base Case and Low-Efficiency

Sensitivity, 2000-2030 ..................................... 5-21 Table 6.1 Avoided Cost Rate .......................................... 6-2 Table 6.2 Peak Demand Savings (GW) - Ballasts .........................: 6-3 Table 6.3 Capacity Savings (GW) - Ballasts ............................... 6-4
DRAFT/ Ballasts/January 1996

/ Page-vii

### Table 6.4 Net Revenue Losses - Ballasts (Million 1994$) .................... 6-7

Table 6.5 Present Value of Revenue Losses - Ballasts (Million 1994$) .......... 6-8 Table 6.6 Sensitivity Case: Peak Demand Savings (OW) - Ballasts ............ 6-9 Table 6.7 Sensitivity Case: Net Revenue Losses - Ballasts (Million 1994$) ' .... 6-10 Table 6.8 Sensitivity Case: Present Value of Revenue

Losses - Ballasts (Million 1994$) .........................
.. . 6-11 Table A.1 Ambient Temperatures and Thermal Correction Factors ............ A-3 Table A.2 Weighted Average Ballasts Prices Paid in Dollars

by LMCs and OEMs ................................ .. .... A-5 Table A.3 Manufacturer Costs (1994$) 1-Lamp F40T 12 Ballast .............. A-5 Table A.4 Manufacturer Costs (1994$) 1-Lamp F40T 12/ES Ballast ........... A-5 Table A.5 Manufacturer Costs (1994$) 2-Lamp F40T 12 Ballast .............. A-6 

## Table A.6 Manufacturer Costs (1994$) 2-Lamp F40T12/ES Ballast ......... A-6 Table A.7 Manufacturer Costs (1994$) 3-Lamp F40T12 Ballast .............. A-6 Table A.8 Manufacturer Costs (1994$) 3-Lamp F40T12/ES Ballast A-6 Table A.9 Manufacturer Costs (1994$) 4-Lamp F40T12 Ballast A-6 Table A.10 Manufacturer Costs (1994$) 2-Lamp F96T 12 Ballast .............. A-7 Table A.11 

## Manufacturer Costs (1994$) 2-Lamp F96T12/ES Ballast ........... A-7 Table A.12 Manufacturer Costs (1994$) 2-Lamp F96T 12HO Ballast ........... A-7 

## Table A.13 Manufacturer Costs (1994$) 2-Lamp F96T 12HO/ES Ballast ........ A-7 Table A. 14 Manufacturer Costs (1994$) 1-Lamp F32T8 Ballast ............... A-8 Table A.15 Manufacturer Costs (1994$) 2-Lamp F32T8 Ballast ............... A-8 Table A.16 

## Manufacturer Costs (1994$) 3-Lamp F32T8 Ballast ............... A-8 Table A.17 Manufacturer Costs (1994$) 4-Lamp F32T8 Ballast .............
.. A-8 Table A.18 Overview of Ballast Efficacy Factor, (ND=No Data) .............. A-9 

## Table A.19 NEMA Data for 1-Lamp F40T12 EEM Ballast .................. A-10 Table A.20 NEMA Data for 1-Lamp F40T12 CC Ballast ..................... A-10 Table A.21 NEMA Data for, 1-Lamp F40T 12 ERS Ballast ................... A-10 Table A.22 NEMA Data for 1-Lamp F40T12 Energy Saver EEM Ballast ....... A-10 Table A.23 NYSEO Data for 1-Lamp F40T12 Energy Saver CC Ballast ........ A-11 Table A.24 NEMA Data for 1-Lamp F40T12 Energy Saver ERS Ballast ........ A-11 Table A.25 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F40T12 EEM Ballast ................... A-11 Table A.26 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F40T12 CC Ballast .................... A-12 Table A.27 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F40T12 ERS Ballast .................... A-12 Table A.28 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F40T12 Energy Sayer EEM Ballast ....... A-12 Table A.29 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F40T12 Energy Saver CC Ballast ......... A-13 Table A.30 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F40T12 Energy Saver ERS Ballast ......... A-13 Table A.31 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F96T12 EEM Ballast .................. A-13 Table A.32 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F96T12 EIS Ballast ................... A-14 Table A.33 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp, F96T 12 Energy Saver EEM Ballast ....... A-14 Table A.34 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F96T12 Energy Saver EIS -Ballast ........ A-14 Table A.35 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F96T 12HO EEM Ballast ............... A-14 Table A.36 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F96T 12HO CC Ballast ................. A-15 DRAFT/Ballasts/January 1996/Page-viii

### Table A.37 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F96T 12HO ERS Ballast ................ A-15

Table A.38 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F96T12HO Energy Saver EEM Ballast .... A-15 Table A.39 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F96T12HO Energy Saver CC Ballast ...... A-15 Table A.40 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F96T12HO Energy Saver ERS Ballast ..... A-15 Table A.41 NEMA Data for 3-Lamp F40T12 ERS Ballast ................... A-16 Table A.42 NEMA Data for 3-Lamp F40T12 Energy Saver ERS Ballast ........ A-16 Table A.43 SLDL Data for 4-Lamp F40T12 ERS Ballast .................... A-16 Table A.44 NEMA Data for 1-Lamp F32T8 EEM Ballast ................... A-16 Table A.45 NEMA Data for 1-Lamp F32T8 ERS Ballast .................... A-17 Table A.46 NEMA Data for 1-Lamp F32T8 EIS Ballast ..................... A-17 Table A.47 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F32T8 EEM Ballast ................... A-17 Table A.48 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F32T8 CC Ballast ..................... A-17 Table A.49 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F32T8 ERS Ballast .................... A-18 Table A.50 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F32T8 EIS Ballast .................... A-18 Table A.51 NEMA Data for 3-Lamp F32T8 ERS Ballast .................... A-19 Table A.52 NEMA Data for 3-Lamp F32T8 EIS Ballast A-19 Table A:53 NEMA Data for 4-Lamp F32T8 ERS Ballast .................... A-19 Table A.54 NEMA Data for 4-Lamp F32T8 EIS Ballast .................... A-20 Table A.55 Commercial Lighting Hours and Weightings by Building

Type for 4 Foot Lamps (Year 2000) from Luminaire Manufacturer Survey ...................................... A-21 Table A.56 Commercial Lighting Hours and Weightings by Building Type

for 8 Foot Lamps (Year 2000) from Luminaire Manufacturer Survey ...................................... A-22 Table.A.57 Commercial Lighting Hours and Weightings by Building Type

for 8 Foot HO Lamps (Year 2000) from Luminaire Manufacturer Survey ............................ A-23 TableA.58 Commercial Lighting Hours and Weightings by Building Type

for 4 Foot Lamps (Year 2000) from Lighting Management Company Survey ............... ............................ A-24 Table A.59 Commercial Lighting Hours and Weightings by Building

Type for 8 Foot Lamps (Year 2000) from Lighting Management Company Survey ............................... A-25 Table A.60 Commercial Lighting Hours and Weightings by Building Type

for 8 Foot HO Lamps (Year 2000) from Lighting Management Company Survey .......................................... A-26 Table A.61 Weighted Lighting Hours ................................... A-26 Table A.62 Replacement Labor Times. (minutes) for Fluorescent

Table B.l Lamps and Ballasts ....................................... A-27

COMMEND Framework ..................................... B-1 Table B.2 Average Fixture Shares of Total Lighting (%), Existing Buildings .... B-26 Table B.3 New Construction Fixture Shares of Total Lighting (%) ............ B-26

- DRAFT/Ballasts

/ January 1996

/ Page-ix

### Table B.4 System Shares Within Fixture: Average Shares (%), Existing Buildings (4-foot fixture) ... . ........................................ B-27 Table B.5 System Shares Within Fixture: Average Shares (%), Existing Buildings

(8-foot fixture) ........................................... B-27 Table B.6 System Shares Within Fixture: Average Shares (%), Existing Buildings



### (8-foot HO fixture) ........................................ B-28 Table B.7 System Shares Within Fixture: Average Shares (%), Existing Buildings

(Non Fluorescent Systems) .................................. B-28 Table B.8 System Shares Within Fixture:

New Construction Shares (%) (4 foot fixture) ................... B-29 Table B.9 System Shares Within Fixture:

New Construction Shares (%) (8 foot fixture) ................... B-29 Table B. 10 System Shares Within Fixture:



### New Construction Shares (%) (8 foot HO fixture) ............... B-29 Table B.11 System Shares Within Fixture:

New Construction Shares (%) (Non Fluorescent Systems) .......... B-29 Table C.1 Utility Marginal OGFs, and Year of Capacity Need by NERC Region .. C-4 Table C.2 The North American Electric Reliability Council Regions ........... C-5 Table C.3 Sums of Baseload Energy Savings Fractions for

NERC Regions That Need Capacity ........................... C-9 Table EA- 1. Emission and Emission Rates (British Units) .................... EA-4 Table EA-2. Emission and Emission Rates (S.I. Units) ...................... EA-5 Table EA-3. Reduction of Pollutants for Fluorescent Ballasts -

Energy Efficiency Level 1 .............................. EA-7 Table EA-4. Reduction of Pollutants for Fluorescent Ballasts -

Energy Efficiency Level 2

... .............................. EA-8 Table EA-5. Reduction of Pollutants for Fluorescent Ballasts -

Energy Efficiency Level 3 ................................. EA-9 Table EA-6 . Reduction of Pollutants

. for Fluorescent Ballasts - . -



### Energy Efficiency Level 4 ................................ EA-10 Table EA-7. Reduction of Pollutants for Fluorescent Ballasts -

Energy Efficiency Level 1 , Low Efficiency Base Case Sensitivity Analysis ...................................... EA-12 Table EA-8. Reduction of Pollutants for Fluorescent Ballasts -



### Energy Efficiency Level 2, Low Efficiency Base Case Sensitivity Analysis ............. ........................ EA-13 Table EA-9. Reduction of Pollutants for Fluorescent Ballasts -

Energy Efficiency Level 3, Low Efficiency Base Case Sensitivity Analysis ..................................... EA-14 Table EA-10. Reduction of Pollutants for Fluorescent Ballasts -

Energy Efficiency Level 4, Low Efficiency Base Case Sensitivity Analysis ..................................... EA-15

DRAFT/ Ballasts /January 1996/Page-x

## EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Fluorescent lamp ballasts are used to operate fluorescent lamps in commercial and industrial buildings. Three types of ballasts are available for purchase; energy efficient magnetic (EEM), cathode cutout (CC) and electronic ballasts. Electronic ballasts are available in either rapid start (RS) or instant start (IS) mode. The major categories of lamps are four foot T 12s, eight foot T 12s and four foot Tbs. The total market for power factor' corrected (power factor > 85%) fluore%cent lamp ballasts in the U.S. in 1994 was about 75 million units, of which approximately 32% were electronic. Figure 1 shows ballast sales over the last several years. During the 1980s, several States enacted laws requiring the use of energy-efficient -magnetic (EEM) ballasts instead of standard magnetic ballasts

. State standards were followed by a Federal standard requiring EEM ballasts for certain T12 lamps.' Utility demand-side management (DSM) and EPA Green Lights programs have promoted sales of the more efficient electronic ballasts. Due to projected declines in DSM spending, it is unknown whether the rapid growth•in sales of electronic ballasts will continue into the future. Although, in this report, utility DSM programs are assumed to end after 1995, substantial retrofit from magnetic to electronic fluorescent lamp ballasts is assumed to continue after 1995. This report contains an analysis that compares energy efficient magnetic (EEM), cathode cutout (CC), electronic rapid start (ERS) and electronic instant start (EIS) ballasts in their operation of several lamp types. The analyses include cost-efficiency, life-cycle cost, payback period, national energy consumption and savings, net present value to the nation, utility impact and environmental impact. Input data were obtained from many sources, including the National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA) and its members. Several meetings to discuss data requirements and results, including a public workshop, were held in late 1994 and in 1995. Table ES-1 summarizes the life-cycle cost (LCC) results for each lamp/ballast combination studied. Some lamp types (3F40T12, 3F40T12/ES and 4F40T12) are not included because there is only one technology (electronic rapid start) for which life-cycle cost data are available; that is, there are no single energy efficient magnetic or cathode cutout ballasts that operate those lamp types. For such lamps, we did not compare the life-cycle costs under operation with a single electronic ballast to that with a combination of magnetic or cathode cutout ballasts. Combinations of such ballasts are taken into account in the national energy use calculations. In addition to calculating LCC data for average values of electricity price, equipment price and operating hours, sensitivity analyses were also performed.to determine the impact of varying each of these three parameters. The average electricity price is $0.075/k in 1994$ for the commercial sector and $0.05/kWh in 1994$ for the industrial sector. Equipment prices are found in Chapter 4. Average annual lighting operating hours are

Power factor is defined as the cosine of the angle of phase shift between the voltage and current drawn by an operating electrical device. 

### ES-1

### are 4230, 4.170, and 5050 hours for four foot T12 and T8 lamps, eight foot T12 lamps, and eight foot high output (HO) T12 lamps, respectively. For electricity prices, sensitivities were performed at $0.055 and $0.105/kWh for the commercial sector and $0.03 and $0.065 for the industrial sector. For annual operating hours, sensitivities were performed at 2500 and 8 000 hours. For ballast prices, sensitivities were performed at plus or minus 20% of the average price. Sensitivity to discount rate (the average is 8% real, or 8% above the inflation rate) was also determined for two other discount rates (4% and 12% real) and are shown in Chapter 4. An example demonstrates how to use Table ES-1. For ballasts operating two F40T12 energy saver lamps (2F40T12/ES), there are three alternate technologies or design options. For average values of the input parameters, the life-cycle cost is $174 per year, $168 per year and $171 per year for EEM, CC and ERS ballasts, respectively. Therefore, the. minimum LCC occurs with a cathode cutout ballast and, although the LCC increases (relative to the cathode cutout) with an electronic rapid start ballast, it is lower than for the baseline energy efficient magnetic ballast. The sensitivity of the average LCC to the three parameters shown in Table ES-1 is shown in the low and high columns for each parameter.

Figure ES-1: U.S. Fluorescent Lamp Ballast Sales

Fluorescent Ballast Sales Magnetic aElecttonlc

, d Source: Dept of Commerce Dab Year tsonN


### ES-2

## PREFACE

In accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, the Department of Energy has wide-ranging statutory authority to promote appliance and equipment energy efficiency. Federal energy conservation standards set minimum levels or mandatory performance levels for certain products according to statutorily required economic and technical criteria. As part. of the Department's overall regulatory reform effort, we have initiated a comprehensive review of the appliance energy efficiency rulemaking process. Throughout this process improvement, the Department has solicited comments from stakeholders through a series of public meetings

. A constant "theme" has been the need for the Department to seek early stakeholder input into the rulemaking process, including early review of technical and economic analyses. This draft technical report is an analysis of the energy savings and economic impacts of the fluorescent lamp ballast market in the United States. The draft technical report contains engineering analyses, ballast life-cycle costs, energy savings potential ; energy and economic impacts for commercial buildings and utility impacts for several energy efficiency levels

. It was produced for the Department of Energy's Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy by the Energy Analysis Program at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. This draft technical report is an analysis of the energy savings and economic impacts of reaching differing energy efficiency levels on the U.S. fluorescent lamp ballast market. During the data gathering phase of the study , the Department worked cooperatively with industry and stakeholder representatives to screen the public data bases and identify data gaps which were filled from industry sources

. The Department is providing the draft technical report to obtain comments on the input data ,. methodology and results of the analyses.

### CHAPTER 1. 1N`1' DUCT1 N

lei PURPOSE AND SCOPE The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (P.L. 94-163), as amended by the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act of 1987 (P.L. 100-12), by the National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments of 1988 (P.L. 100-357), and by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102- 486) provides energy conservation standards for various products', and authorizes the Secretary of Energy to prescribe amended or new energy standards for each type (or class) of covered product. The assessment of possible energy efficiency levels for fluorescent lamp ballasts presented in this document is designed to evaluate their economic impacts according to the criteria in the Act. It includes an engineering analysis of the cost and performance of design options to improve the efficiency of the products, forecasts of the number and average efficiency of products sold, the amount of energy the products will consume, their prices and operating expenses, a calculation of the costs and benefits to consumers, electric utilities, and the nation as a whole, and an assessment of the environmental impacts of the energy efficiency levels. This report contains units compliant with Le Systeme International d'Unites (SI or metric system) and traditional English units. Many SI units, such as watts (W), are familiar in the contexts in which the reader will find them', others are not. Appendix D contains a few conversion factors that may assist in the interpretation of unfamiliar metric units. This change is being made in compliance with Section 5164 of the Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988, Executive Order 12770 of 1991, and DOE Order 5900.2. LBNL intends to fully adopt SI units in future documents, but for a short transitional period both SI and English units are presented, as far as is practical.



### let STRUCTURE OF THE DOCUMENT This document consists of six chapters,-four appendices, and an Environmental Assessment. Chapter 1 Introduction: outlines the structure of the document. Chapter 2 Analytic Approach: summarizes the methodology used in the analysis, discusses the

components of the analysis and their interrelationships, describes the models used,

' The products covered in the legislation are: refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, and freezers; room air conditioners; central air conditioners and central air-conditioning heat pumps; water heaters; furnaces; dishwashers; clothes washers; clothes dryers; direct heating equipment; kitchen ranges and ovens: pool heaters; television sets; fluorescent lamp ballasts; general service fluorescent lamps and incandescent reflector lamps; showerheads; faucets; water closets;. urinals; eleciric motors; pumps; small and large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners and heat pumps; warm air furnaces; packaged boilers: storage water heaters; instantaneous water heaters: and unfired hot water tanks. 

### 1-1

### their data requirements and their outputs, and identifies the primary assumptions of the analysis. This chapter also provides an overview of the methodology used to examine the sensitivity of the results to changes in the key assumptions, parameters, and exogenous forecasts used in the analysis. Chapter 3 Engineering Analysis: contains detailed energy use and cost information. Chapter 4 Life-Cycle Costs and Payback Periods: describes the effects of energy efficiency

levels on individual purchasers and users of fluorescent lamp ballasts. It compares the life-cycle cost of ballasts and other measures of consumer impact with and without the energy efficiency levels. The sensitivity of the life-cycle cost analysis to assumptions made in the analysis is also examined here. Chapter 5 National Energy and Economic Impacts: describes national forecast of energy

consumption, efficiency of new units, units installed in commercial and industrial buildings , and annual ballast sales in the absence (or presence) of new regulations. Discusses the choice of the energy efficiency levels to be analyzed and the projected impacts of each energy efficiency levels. The chapter summarizes the energy savings, the sales, average efficiencies , purchase costs, and operating costs of new and replacement ballasts , the net present benefit of the energy efficiency levels, and the results of the sensitivity analyses. Chapter 6 Impacts of Ballast Energy Efficiency Levels on Electric Utilities: describes the

effects of energy efficiency levels on the electric utility industry , focusing on marginal costs of electricity, generating capacity growth, changes in regional capacity and energy demand, and changes in utility revenues and costs. Appendices A through C contain more detailed information on the models and databases used in the analysis . Appendix D contains factors for conversion between SI and English units. Appendix A Engineering Analysis Supporting Documentation : provides a breakdown of the

energy use and costs for each design option and other supporting material. Appendix B Forecasting Model: structure of the Commercial. Energy End-Use Model

(COMMEND). The principal components of the model are discussed and the component interrelationships are explained

. Gives a detailed description of the data used to calculate commercial and industrial sector impacts. The input data stream for the base case runs is shown and changes to the input data for the energy efficiency levels are indicated. Appendix C Electric Utility Impact Modeling: Quantifies impacts on the electric utility industry's

need for new generation capacity and calculates the net impact of energy efficiency levels on utility revenues.



### 1-2

### Appendix D SI Unit Conversions.

Environmental Assessment: For Alternative Energy Efficiency Levels for Fluorescent Lamp

Ballasts. Describes the changes induced by alternative energy efficiency levels in emissions of oxides of carbon, sulfur, and nitrogen from combustion of fossil fuels for electricity generation.

## . CHAPTER 2. ANALYTIC APPROACH

2.1 INTRODUCTION The economic impacts of energy efficiency levels depend largely on the relationship between the cost of a consumer product and its energy efficiency. The cost-efficiency relationships are determined for each product class based on engineering analyses. The United States Department of Energy (DOE) has segregated product types into classes for evaluating energy efficiency levels. Within each class, the energy-conserving designs are ordered by cost-effectiveness; then the cost and efficiency of combinations of energy-saving design options are used as inputs to the analysis of the impacts at various efficiency levels. Fluorescent lamp ballasts,are the product analyzed in this document. The analysis covers commercial and industrial sector interior lighting. Exterior and residential lighting are not covered. Identification of product classes, baseline units, and design options is based on information gathered from the trade associations, manufacturers, a survey of manufacturers and lighting management companies, discussions with researchers, a literature survey, comments from a public workshop, and comments on the earlier Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR)(1). Energy use data have been obtained from NEMA (National Electrical Manufacturers Association), published literature, and manufacturers. A Lighting Research Institute survey of ballast manufacturers, luminaire manufacturers, and lighting management companies provided data on consumer prices and present and future markets (2). The price estimates are combined with estimated markups to generate manufacturer costs; these manufacturer costs are combined with the efficiency estimates to generate the cost-efficiency relationships. Retail prices, installation costs, and maintenance costs in conjunction with the corresponding efficiencies are used in the forecasting models to forecast sales and efficiencies and in the life-cycle costs (LCC) model to calculate life-cycle costs and payback periods. Retail prices were obtained from the survey of ballast manufacturers, luminaire ' manufacturers, and lighting maintenance companies. This chapter briefly describes how the economic analysis was performed. Section 2.2 presents an overview of the analytic methodology and discusses the major components of the analysis: the Engineering Analysis, the Commercial Energy End-Use Model (CO MMEND), and the Utility Analysis. This section discusses the interrelationships among the components that ensure consistency throughout the analysis. Section 2.3 describes the computerized models used in the analysis. The models predict commercial and utility responses to future changes in the economy. Quantitative estimates of the impacts are calculated from the outputs of the models. The models utilized in the analysis are: ® Engineering Cost and Performance Models; ® Commercial Energy End-Use Model; Appliance Standards Environmental and Utility Model.



### 2-1

### 2.2 OVERVIEW OF ANALYTIC FRAMEWORK The impact of alternative fluorescent ballast efficiency levels is determined by comparing projections of a wide range of variables under the existing legislation with the projections based on the alternative efficiency levels. These projections are first made for a base case (existing legislation) using the analytic models described below. Chapter 5 describes the data and assumptions used to calculate the base case forecasts. The calculations are then repeated imposing the alternative efficiency levels as discussed in Chapter 5. The differences between the projections of energy consumption, economic variables, and other variables in the base and alternative efficiency levels provide quantitative estimates of the impacts of the alternative efficiency levels. To evaluate the significance of the differences, sensitivity analyses are performed on the key parameters and assumptions. The impact analysis is performed in four major areas:
® An Engineering Analysis, which establishes technical feasibility and product attributes including costs of design options to improve ballast efficiency;
An Energy End- Use Analysis, which characterizes energy end use in the commercial and industrial sectors; A Utility Analysis that measures the impacts of the altered energy-consumption patterns on electric utilities; and
An Environmental Effects Analysis, which estimates changes in emissions of carbon dioxide , sulfur oxides , and nitrogen oxides because of reduced energy consumption at the power plant. A simplified diagram of the analysis is shown in Figure 2.1. The analysis is performed for a base case plus several efficiency levels. Figure 2.1 illustrates the interactions among the Engineering, Consumer, Utility, and Environmental Analyses. The Engineering Analysis establishes ballast designs and related attributes such as efficiency and costs. Based on the relationship between the prices and operating costs of design options, the Consumer Analysis forecasts national sales and efficiencies of new and replacement ballasts. The Consumer Analysis also forecasts energy savings and consumer expenditures for the purchase and operation of ballasts. The Life-Cycle Cost Analysis calculates the economic impact for the average individual consumer, including payback period and cost of conserved energy. The Utility Analysis calculates changes in sales, revenues, and avoided costs of electric utilities from the energy savings, and the Environmental Analysis predicts changes in emissions of pollutants due to reduced electricity consumption.



### 2-2

### Cost vs. 

### Efficiency

Sales D istribution 14- Life Cycle Cost ! Analysis

Life Cycle Costs

/ Change in /Electric prod'n and Generatin \ Capacity 7 Utility Analysis 

### National

Energy Consumer Analysis (COMMEND)

Environmental Analysis



### Figure 2.1 Analytic Framework for the Ballast Energy Efficiency Analysis.

### Two time frames are considered in the analysis. The analysis also examines the technical

feasibility of improving the efficiency of ballasts between now and the year 2000. The analysis of consumer and utility impacts extends to the year 2030, a time frame which is consistent with the life of the products and includes the time required to approach market saturation. 

### 2.3 MODELS, DATA, AND ASSUMPTIONS 2.3.1 Engineering Cost and Performance Models The Engineering Analysis provides information on efficiencies, manufacturing costs, and other ballast characteristics for use in other components of the analysis

. Features that provide utility to the consumer are incorporated into the analysis through the creation of ballast classes. The Engineering Analysis develops cost and efficiency data for a set of design options within each ballast class

. These data are the output of the engineering performance and cost models discussed later in this section

. The Engineering Analysis is performed in seven steps: (1) select ballast classes ; (2) select baseline units ; (3) select design options within each class; (4) determine maximum technically feasible designs; (5) calculate the efficiency improvement provided by each design option;,(6) develop cost estimates ; and (7) generate cost-efficiency relationships. 

### Ballast Classes
The first step in the Engineering Analysis is the segregation of ballasts into separate classes to which different energy-efficiency levels may apply. DOE differentiates classes by performance or application-related features that affect efficiency. For specific ballasts, classes are defined using data collected in discussions with ballast manufacturers, trade associations, other interested parties, and from comments received on the NOPR. Those classes for which no DOE test procedure has been specified are omitted . The ballast classes covered by the analysis are listed in Chapter 3. 

### Baseline Units A baseline unit is the starting point for analyzing design options for improving energy efficiency. To select a baseline unit, the Engineering Analysis uses

.information gathered from trade organizations , manufacturers, consultants with expertise in specific product types , and from public comments on the NOPR. For each product class, the baseline unit generally represents a model with the maximum allowable energy use specified by the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA) as amended

. Other than efficiency, features are representative of all design options in the class as a whole. 

### Design O ptions The Engineering Analysis identifies design options with a potential for improving energy



### 2-4

### errictency. uesign options tnat are commerciauy avaiiaoie at the present time are consiaerea. They are selected after discussions with experts and an extensive literature review. The efficiency improvement and manufacturer cost of design options compared to the baseline unit are calculated. 

### Maximum Technologically Feasible Designs For each product class, a maximum technologically feasible design option is identified. This option results in the highest energy efficiency for each product class. This. design must be possible to assemble, but not necessarily to manufacture in large numbers. Economic criteria are applied to all design options in other parts of the analysis. Efficiency Calculation For each of the product classes, the efficiency levels corresponding to various design options are determined from data supplied by manufacturers. Cost Estimates Manufacturer cost data were not received from enough ballast manufacturers to allow their use directly in a public document without compromising the confidential nature of the data. These data were therefore supplemented with data from a survey conducted by the Lighting Research Institute (2). A more detailed discussion of how these data were used to derive cost estimates is found in Section 3.5 of Chapter 3. Appendix A contains detailed incremental cost data disaggregated into labor, purchased parts, materials, shipping/packaging, and tooling. Cost-Efficiency iciency Relationships The results of the Engineering Analysis are summarized in the cost-efficiency relationships showing the efficiency and manufacturer cost of the design options for each ballast class. The price-efficiency relationships are a fundamental input to the Consumer Analysis. Assumptions in the Analysis 

### The most important assumptions of the Engineering Analysis and their justifications are listed below.

### Assumption
Baseline units can be selected to represent typical product offerings within a class.

Ballast energy consumption can be estimated based on industry and independent laboratory test data on ballast efficiencies plus consumer usage data from a database of thousands of building audits. Justification
The selection of baseline units is based on studies of products on the market in 1993 through 1995 and consultations with manufacturers.

The best available data was used to determine ballast efficiencies, as described in Chapter 3, Section 4. Consumer usage was estimated based on data from lighting audits of over 24,000 buildings.

Outputs from the Engineering Analysis For each design option considered in the analysis, the models and data provide: ® energy efficiency (expressed as the Ballast Efficacy Factor, as defined in Chapter 3), ® increased material, labor, and investment costs by product class for an average manufacturer ® annual energy consumption per unit, 

### ® the relationship between manufacturer cost and energy use by product class, and ® other information on product characteristics such as ballast lifetimes, installation costs, and maintenance costs. 

### Validation of the Results Industry-supplied data have not been independently validated. 2.3.2 EPRI Commercial Energy End-Use Model (CO MMEND)
COMMEND is a commercial end-use forecasting program supported by EPRI (Electric Power Research Institute). COMMEND forecasts energy use by end use and building type. COMMEND models thirteen building types, ten end uses, and three fuel types. Version 4.0 was used for this analysis (3). Forecast fuel prices and floor space are exogenous inputs to COMMEND. COMMEND


### 2-6

### models. selection of equipment based on life-cycle-cost criteria. There are four groups of decisionmakers, each with a different discount rate. Short-run price elasticities for utilization of energy services are included. Interactions between lighting and space-conditioning energy use are also handled within the model. Representation of Technologies In the previous version of COMMEND, Version 3.2, technology options were represented as a technology' trade-off curve that showed the efficiency attainable for a given equipment cost. COMMEND 3.2 defined only one curve for the, lighting end use. In COMMEND 4.0, the version used for this analysis, a detailed technology module is added for the interior lighting end use, which replaces the single technology curve in COMMEND 3.2 with a list of specific lighting systems and .their components (such as lamps, ballasts, and fixtures). Current and future penetration of these lighting technologies are estimated based on a survey conducted by the Lighting Research Institute (LRI) (2). Development of COMMEND Input, The basic relation modeled by COMMEND (as discussed in more detail in Chapter 5) is that lighting energy use is the product of floor area (in square feet for a given end use), design footcandle level (lumens/square foot), shares of delivered lumens by each system, and operating hours, divided by system-specific constants of system efficacies (lumens/watt), fixture efficiency, and room factors. Such energy consumption calculations are summarized first over lighting systems, and then over building types to generate -the total sectoral lighting consumption The analysis integrated a variety of data: current market shares, forecasted future market shares (by LRI and LBNL), recent usage trends for various lighting products, and the LBNL engineering analysis of wattages, prices, system efficacies, fixture efficiencies, and room factors. The results of this integration were used first to develop a base case of interior lighting consumption. For the energy efficiency levels, ballasts that are less efficient were eliminated one step at a time. The difference in forecasts between the base case and the efficiency level is.the net energy impact. Turnover of Lighting Equipment In COMMEND 3. 2, only one lifetime could be used for all lighting technologies

. The discrete lighting module in COMMEND 4.0 makes it possible to specify replacement cycles for each lighting component, and to distinctly define its replacement options. Annual Operating Hours To represent hours per year that lighting equipment is operating for each lighting system and building type, lighting operating hours from over 24,000 building audits conducted by Xenergy Inc. were used.(4)

2-7

### Calibration
As a first step in the calibration process, comparisons were made between COMMEND internally-calculated building-specific lighting hours and those observed from the Xenergy survey data in order to fine-tune the footcandle levels. The calibration for the lighting end use incorporated available data from LRI on the state of the market in 1995 and the predicted state in 2000. Trends in the market shares of the lighting technologies were estimated to capture ongoing incentive programs and existing energy regulations. Additionally, the predicted number of ballast installations was calibrated against NEMA's estimate of ballast sales by product class. It is assumed that NEMA's sales total represents 90% of the market for fluorescent ballasts. 

### . Base Case Forecasts As described in Chapter 5, two different baselines, Base Case, and Low-Efficiency, are used to gauge the impacts of policy actions. In both baselines, cost/efficiency trade-off curves for all end uses other than interior lighting remain stationary. For the Base Case, it is assumed that substantial energy-efficient retrofits, such as moving from magnetic fluorescent ballast systems to electronic fluorescent ballast systems, will continue after 1995, when utility incentive programs are expected to end. Such retrofits are calibrated, based on NEMA's sales data, at about 5.5% annually. For the Low-Efficiency Case, such efficiency retrofits are assumed to cease with utilities' incentive programs after 1995. These two baseline forecasts provide an estimated boundary of what lighting consumption is likely to be in the future, and provide benchmarks upon which the impacts of energy efficiency levels on energy consumption can be measured. 

### An average consumer discount rate of 28% is used by COMMEND to model commercial consumer decision

-making.
2.3.3 Appliance Standards Environmental and Utility Model (ASEUM) The two analyses used in the prior rulemakings, the Utility Impact Model and the Environmental Analysis, have been integrated in one new model, the Appliance Standards Environmental and Utility Model (ASE UM). By calculating utility avoided costs and lost revenues, ASEUM provides marginal electricity costs to be used in evaluating the societal benefits of energy efficiency levels. ASEUM also quantifies impacts on the electric utility industry's need for new



### 2-8

### generating capacity

. Appendix C of this volume contains more information on the model and data

used to perform these calculations. ASEUM adopts the standard industry convention that the financial value of electricity savings to an electric utility can be broken down into fuel cost and capacity cost savings

. The sum of the two is usually called avoided cost. The fuel cost element measures variable production costs avoided by reduced electrical demands, valued at marginal input energy costs. The capacity cost measures the value of reduced loads during system peak periods; that is, the reduced requirement to have capacity available to meet peak demand

. This saving is often valued at the cost of a combustion turbine, which is usually considered the lowest cost capacity available

. This convention is explained in Appendix C. ASEUM calculates the avoided costs per kWh of energy saved. These values are used to calculate societal benefits from reduced electricity consumption. ASEUM calculates avoided energy costs based on a disaggregation of the generation fuel mix to the ten National Electric Reliability Council (NERC) regions and a simplified load duration curve for each region

. Fluorescent ballasts are considered to be a temperature

-insensitive demand and are treated as such in

.this analysis

. Average electricity rates and electricity sales from each scenario examined in the C OMMEND analysis are used as inputs to the ASEUM analysis. No attempt is made to segment the demand by region , but rather the electricity demand loss is assumed to be proportional to overall demand

. The fraction of the electricity that would have to be generated at the margin from oil and gas is calculated from total regional oil and gas generation and a simplified load duration curve model

. Projected utility natural gas and coal prices, weighted by the oil and gas marginal fraction and projected electricity demand by region , are used to calculate utility marginal energy costs during the forecast period. The avoided

-capacity cost calculation in the model is based on a conservation load factor (CLF) for the energy savings attributable to the energy efficiency level, as well as the cost of a combustion turbine

. A conservation load factor is defined as the average load savings of a conservation measure (in kW) divided by its peak

-load savings

. The peak

.savings are averaged over an on-peak period from 8 :00 to 20 :00. This wide on-peak period yields a conservative estimate for peak

-load savings that accounts for coincidence with system peak demand. CLFs for various end uses have been estimated by LBNL. The NERC forecasts of capacity requirements for each region are used to account for regional variations in reserve margin

. If NERC predicts an adequate reserve margin in a region for a given future year, no reliability value is given to the peak load savings in the region. The net revenue loss is equal to the difference between , the revenue reductions and avoided costs

. Revenue reduction is calculated by multiplying the change in electricity consumption by a national average of commercial and industrial electricity rates weighted by sales

. Avoided costs are calculated from the change in electricity consumption multiplied by the per

-unit, avoided costs. The inputs needed for the utility impact calculations include electricity savings , conservation load factors, utility fuel prices, average electricity prices , ballast saturations , efficiencies , hours-of

## 2-9

### use, and electricity generation by fuel type and capacity needed by NERC region. The outputs of the

analysis are the fuel savings, the reduction in the need for new generating capacity, the net change in revenues, and the avoided, energy and capacity costs for an end use per unit of resource energy. These marginal costs are' used to calculate societal costs and benefits of energy efficiency levels. Assumptions in the Analysis Justifications for the most important assumptions in ASEUM are listed below. These assumptions include the shape of regional load-duration curves, conservation factors that remain constant throughout the analysis, the regional distribution of energy savings, utility marginal costs, and the substance of NERC forecasts.

Assumption The analysis calculates the period during which oil and gas or coal are the marginal fuels for electricity generation based on a simplified load duration curve (LDC) for each NERC region

. It therefore assumes that this LDC accurately reflects the distribution of fuels on the margin. Justification There is little information by NERC region on which fuels are marginal. Since NERC supplies data on only the total amount of fuel burned for generation, a method is needed to convert total generation into an estimate of marginal generation, and using an LDC is the usual way to derive such an estimate. Because most peak generating technologies, such as gas turbines, use light fuels, these fuels will be used by utilities to meet peak loads; hence, oil and gas are assumed to be at the top of the load duration curve. The other fuel assumed to appear on the margin is coal, since nuclear, hydro, and purchases fromindependent generators are usually baseloaded.

### Assumption 

### Oil and gas fractions (OGFs) for each NERC region remain constant throughout the analysis period.

Utility marginal energy costs are calculated using the sum of utility natural ,,as and coal prices weighted by the oil and gas fraction and the non-oil and gas fraction, respectively. ' This approach assumes that all marginal generation has the same heat rate. 

### ® The NERC forecasts of changes in adjusted reserve margin are accurate. Justification Constant OGFs are assumed in order to simplify computation. The OGFs are calculated using the simplified LDCs described above and by averaging NERC forecasts of the total amount 'of oil and gas generation for the years 1990 to 1995. There are no forecasts for the amount of oil and gas generation after 1995. Because these calculations are highly uncertain, and because no other forecasts are available, the analysis assumes constant OGFs. Different generating units have different heat rates, but the extent of this variation for utility generating systems in different NERC regions has not been calculated. A 34% energy' conversion efficiency is typical for current generating units.


### The NERC forecasts are widely accepted. They are the only forecasts of adjusted' reserve margin at the regional level.

2°304 Life-Cycle Cost Analysis, Payback Period, and Cost of Conserved Energy One measure of the effect of energy efficiency levels on consumers is the change in operating expenses during the product's lifetime as compared to the change in purchase prices. These changes are quantified by the difference in life-cycle costs (LCC).between the base and energy efficiency levels for the ballast classes analyzed. The LCC is the sum of the purchase price and the operating expense discounted over the lifetime of the ballast. It is calculated at the average efficiency for each class in the year 2000 using real consumer discount rates of 4%, 8%, and 12%. The purchase price is taken from the LRI survey results. Installation and maintenance costs (of replacing the fluorescent lamps during 'the ballast's lifetime) are included. 

### The life-cycle cost analysis also examines the payback periods and the costs of conserved energy associated with the energy efficiency levels. The payback period measures the amount of time it takes to recover additional investment in increased efficiency through lower operating costs. Numerically, it is the ratio of the increase in purchase price between the base and energy efficiency
2-11

### level to the decrease in annual operating. expenditures. A measure of the "annual costs" of the

replacement lamps is included in the operating expenses, to account for design options which have different lamp lifetimes from the baseline option. Both the numerator and denominator of this expression are evaluated at the average efficiency in the year 2000 and at energy prices in that year. The cost of conserved energy is the increase in purchase price amortized over the lifetime of the ballast, divided by the annual energy savings.
Details of these calculations may be found in Chapter 4. 

### 2.3.5 Environmental Analysis As mentioned in Section 2.3.3 above, the ASEUM model is now used for both the electric utility and environmental analyses. Further details of the environmental calculations and results can be found in the Environmental Assessment, which is included in this volume. The environmental calculations are quite straightforward. Reductions in energy use estimated by COMMEND are multiplied by emissions factors to estimate net emissions reductions. In the case of fluorescent ballasts, the net energy impacts are almost entirely seen in the form of slower growth of electricity consumption and generation, and that environmental effect is considered in this analysis. The main environmental effects of electricity generation and distribution on air and water quality result from emissions of sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NO,,), and carbon dioxide (CO2). With the energy efficiency levels lessening the need for electricity generation, in general, power plant emissions would be reduced. However, the case of SO, is complicated by the emissions cap provision of the 1991 Clean Air Act Amendments . In the case of this pollutant, the reduction in pollution reported should be interpreted as reduced demand for emissions

. Physical emissions will most likely not change , although the price of emission allowances should be lower than the case without the energy efficiency levels. The numerous other, but more minor, effects of power generation, such as water pollution, land-use effects, etc., are not covered in the ballast energy efficiency levels analysis. The net effect of a ballast energy efficiency level on such environmental problems is assumed to be too small to be measurable. The emissions factors used in this report are derived from a report that accompanied the 1991 National Energy Strategy (5).. Estimation of multipliers over future periods is not as straightforward as it may seem. Our reasonable expectation is of improved emission controls over time, and the effectiveness of these improvements must be forecast. In addition, future restrictions on emissions of greenhouse gases could have a major impact on CO, emissions.. Table 2.1 shows some sample emission factors. As is clear, the forecast emission factor for SO2 falls dramatically as the provisions of the Clean Air Act become effective. The factor for NOx falls, but less dramatically, while the CO7 emissions fall modestly.



### 2-12

### Table 2. 1 Emissions Factors for Power Generation

Year 

# so,

g/kWh NO

g/kWh CO,

g/kWh 2000 3.142 

### 2.339 874.9 2010 2.314 2.011 886.9 2020 1.487 1.487 879.9 2030' 0.863 1.061 863.8

Clearly, the approach used in this analysis assumes that the generation avoided will be similar in its environmental effects to average generation. That is, no effort is made to conduct a marginal rather than average analysis, even though the fraction of time that a certain fuel is a marginal fuel will not be the same as its share of overall generation. For fluorescent ballasts, this is a reasonable assumption. Generation will be reduced at all times of the year and coal and gas will both be marginal for some of the time.

### REFERENCES

1. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register, Vol. 59, No. 43, pp. 10464, Friday, March 4, 1994. 2. Lighting Research Institute, 1995. Research for Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Energy Analysis Program by the Lighting Research Institute under LBNL Subcontract No. 4602810; A. Gough, LRI Principal Investigator;. J. Burke, Burke and Associates, subcontractor to LRI. 3. Regional Economic Research, Inc. 1993. Users' Guide for COMMEND 4.0. Prepared for Electric Power Research Institute. San Diego, CA. 4. Extract of Xenergy, Inc's XENCAP database showing lighting equipment and lighting hours of operation for over 24,000 commercial and industrial buildings from nationwide energy, audits for the years 1990 - 1995. 5. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration , 1991. Effects of the Clean Air Act Amendments on Reducing SO2/NOX Emissions. Service Report to the National Energy Strategy. Energy Information Administration, SR/NES/90-01.

## CHAPTER 3® ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

3.1 INTRODUCTION A fluorescent lamp ballast is an electrical device required for starting and operating fluorescent lamps. The ballast provides the high voltage needed to ignite the discharge (start the lamp) and then limits the current when the discharge is established. The lamp does not conduct electricity until the gas in the lamp is ionized by the high voltage, after which only a small current is required to sustain light output. The starting and operating conditions of each type of fluorescent lamp are specified by the lamp manufacturers through the American National Standards Institute ( ANSI), Electric Lamp Committee, ANSI 078.1. The important specifications for lamp life are the lamp current, the maximum starting, voltage, the-filament voltage, and the lamp current crest factor.' The characteristics of the fluorescent lamp ballast are specified by an ANSI FluoresceBallast Committee, C.82.2 and C82.11-1993. They include operating voltage, ballast factor2, and power factor' Other standards groups have addressed electromagnetic interference (EMI) and harmonic content as related to specific applications or environments. Ballasts are now available with total harmonic distortion (THD ) less than 10%. Two parameters not specified by ANSI are ballast efficiency and system (lamp-ballast) efficacy. The ANSI standard for electronic high-frequency. ballasts has a limit on harmonics. The three types of fluorescent lamp ballasts considered in this analysis are magnetic, cathode cutout, and electronic . The three methods of starting lamps are pre-heat , rapid

-start and instant

-start. These names are also applied to those ballasts designed to operate with a particular lamp type

. Pre-heat ballasts are not used in 4 or 8-foot commercial and industrial applications and are not considered in the analysis

. Instant start magnetic ballasts are not usually found in commercial or industrial lamp ballast systems and are not considered in the analysis

. Cathode cutout ballasts use the rapid

-start method exclusively. The rapid start ballasts have extra windings to supply a steady filament voltage

. Instantstart lamps do not apply a steady filament voltage and rely upon a higher voltage to initiate the discharge. The magnetic ballast is constructed using discrete components. The main components are a magnetic choke to limit the current, a step-up transformer to obtain the high starting voltage, and two capacitors, one of which corrects for the low power factor and the other changes the phase voltage between the two lamps (when a single ballast operates two lamps). Magnetic ballasts operate at an input frequency of 60 Hz and operate the lamp(s) at the same 60 Hz frequency.

'The lamp current crest factor is defined as the peak current divided by the root mean square current. 2 Ballast factor is the measured ability of a particular ballast to produce light from the lamp it powers. ' Power factor is defined as the cosine of the angle of phase "shift between the voltage and current drawn by an operating electrical device. y 

## 3-1

### The electronic ballast (solid state) provides the same function as the magnetic ballast. The

electronic fluorescent lamp ballast is constructed using discrete components with circuit boards to electrically connect the components. The manufacturing procedures for the electronic ballast are the same as those employed for other electronic. Ferrite cores are used for the high-frequency output circuits. Electronic ballasts operate at an input frequency of 60 Hz and operate the lamp(s) at high frequency above 20,000 Hz. The electronic ballast is more efficient than the energy-efficient magnetic ballast in transforming the input power to lamp requirements. In addition, the fluorescent lamp is more efficacious when operated at high frequencies (20,000 Hz or above). These two improvements may result in a 10 to 31% increase in efficacy for the lamp-ballast system. Since electronic ballasts are packaged in the same size "cans" as magnetic core-coil ballasts, they can be installed in fixtures designed. to be used with core-coil ballasts. Electronic ballasts have an installation advantage because of their lighter weight. The cathode cutout ballast uses components similar to the magnetic ballast but adds an electronic switch to disconnect the ballast's lamp electrode heater after the lamp starts. This ballast uses less energy than the energy efficient magnetic ballast. 

### The ANSI 0.82.2-1984 standard test procedure for evaluating the performance of a ballast (1) measures filament voltage, lamp current crest factor, power factor, lamp current, ballast factor, and starting voltage. The measurements are made in a draft

-free thermal environment of 20°C. The lamp is measured in an open strip fixture such that the minimum lamp wall temperature is between 37 and 40°C. The ballast efficacy factor (BEF) is a measure of ballast system performance or efficacy. This factor is not explicitly mentioned in the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (N A) and is defined as: 

### BEF = Percent Ballast Factor/Input Power The BEF is defined as the ballast factor in percent divided by the ballast input power in watts. The ballast factor (BF) for a specific ballast is the ratio of the light output of a lamp tested on the specific ballast divided by the light output of the same lamp tested on a "reference" ballast under identical environmental conditions. The reference ballasts for each lamp type are discussed in detail in the applicable ANSI lamp standards. Lamp types are designated by a series of letters and numbers. The letter "F" is used to designate a fluorescent lamp. It is followed by a two digit number that indicates either the wattage, if the number is "40" or "32", or the lamp length if the number is "96". These digits are followed by the letter "T" for tubular, which is followed by a number that is the lamp diameter in eighths of an inch, followed by "H®" if the lamp is high output, followed by "/ES" if the lamp is an energy saver, or "/RE70" if the lamp is a rare-earth phosphor type with color rendering index of 70 or greater. An energy saving lamp is a reduced wattage krypton-filled lamp.



### 3-2

### The F40T12 and the F96T12 fluorescent lamp ballasts are the only ballasts presently regulated. These ballasts comprised about 70% of the market in 1994. The minimum BEFs for the existing NAECA standards are listed in Table 3.1. These efficiency factors apply to all ballasts manufactured after January 1, 1990, and sold by manufacturers after April 1, 1991. The standards apply to ballasts operating at input voltages of both 120 and 277V with an input current frequency of 60 Hz. Although the regulated ballasts can operate reduced-wattage or "energy saver" lamps, all BEF tests are made with 40W F40T 12, 75 W• F96T 12, or 110W F96T 12HO lamps. The standards do not apply to dimming ballasts, ballasts designed for use in ambient temperatures of 0°F or less, or ballasts that have a power factor less than 0.90 and are designed for use in residential applications. _

Table 3.1 Minimum Allowable Ballast Efficacy Factors Ballast-Lamp System Voltage Nominal Lamp watts Ballast Efficac Factor 

### 1 F40T12 120,277 40 1.805 2 F40T 12 

### 120 80 1.06 277 80 1.05 2 F96T12 120, 277 150 0.570 2 F96T12H0 120,277 220 0.390 

### The efficacy of the lamp-ballast system is defined in terms of lumens per watt (1 ). The term efficacy is standard nomenclature for efficiency when the input and output have different dimensions. Efficacy is measured after a lamp has been operated for 100 hours, and is described as the initial characteristic. The light output is also specified at 40% of lamp life to assess the lumen depreciation of the lamp. 

## 3.2 PRODUCT CLASSES Other product classes are now important in the market such as the three and four-lamp F40T12 ballasts in use with full wattage and energy saver lamps , and the four-foot T8 lamp ballast system. The classes considered in this analysis appear in Table 3.2. The nominal 32 watt F32T8 lamp-ballast system is more efficacious than the F40T12 fluorescent'system. The T10 lamps are designed to operate with the 40W F40T12 ballast, so they do not need a separate product class. Since the full wattage halophosphor T12 lamps were obsolete under the Energy Policy Act in November 1995, RE70 rare earth phosphor fluorescent lamps with a color rendering index of 70 and "/ES" halophosphor lamps are selected as the lamp options that are used to establish various ballast product classes and to perform the engineering analysis4.

4For the consumer analysis halophosphor lamps are assumed to persist until they have been replaced by natural turnover. 

## .3-3

### Table 302 Product Classes

1. One-lamp F40 ballast (120, 277V), to operate one 40W F40T12/RE70 fluorescent lamp; 2. One-lamp F40 ballast (120, 277V), to operate one 40W F40T12/ES fluorescent lamp; 3. Two-lamp F40 ballast (120, 277V), to operate two 40W F40T12/RE70 fluorescent lamps; 4. Two-lamp F40 ballast (120, 277V), to operate two 40W F40T12/ES fluorescent lamps; 5. Two-lamp F96 ballast (120, 277V), to operate two 75W F96T12/12E70 fluorescent lamps; 6. Two-lamp F96 ballast (120, 277V), to operate two 75W F96T12/ES fluorescent lamps; 7. Two-lamp F96HO ballast (120, 277V), to operate two 110W F96T12HO/RE70 fluorescent lamps. 8. Two-lamp F96H0-ballast (120, 277V), to operate two 110W F96T 12HO/ES fluorescent lamps. 

### 9. Three-lamp F40 ballast (120, 277V), to operate three 40W F40T12/RE70 fluorescent lamps; 10. Three-lamp F40 ballast (120, 277V), to operate three 40W F40T12/ES fluorescent lamps; 11. Four-lamp F40 ballast (120, 277V), to operate four 40W F40T12/RE70 fluorescent lamps; 12. One-lamp F32 ballast (120, 277V), to operate one F32T8 fluorescent lamp; 13. Two-lamp F32 ballast (120, 277V), to operate two F32T8 fluorescent lamps; 14. Three-lamp F32 ballast (120, 277V ), to operate three F32T8 fluorescent lamps; and 15. Four-lamp F32 ballast (120, 277V), to operate four F32T8 fluorescent lamps.

Three- and four-lamp magnetic and cathode cutout ballasts are not manufactured for F40T 12 or F32T8 lamps. Four-lamp F40T12 ballasts are not presently manufactured, although an electronic rapid start four-lamp ballast has been manufactured in the past. With magnetic ballasts, three-lamp fixtures generally use a two-lamp and a one-lamp ballast, or, sometimes the lamps are tandem-wired so



### 3-4

### that two-lamp ballasts can be employed throughout the lighting layout. Four-lamp fixtures use two, twolamp magnetic ballasts per fixture. These uses of magnetic ballasts are accounted for in the subsequent chapters on impact analyses but are not used in the engineering calculations in this chapter. Compact fluorescent ballasts are not included in this analysis. Table 3.3 lists the product classes analyzed.



## 3®3 DESIGN OPTIONS Table 3.3 lists possible design options that are more efficacious than the baseline energy-efficient magnetic ballast. Table 3.3 Design Options for Fluorescent Lamp Ball is 1. Cathode Cutout 2. Electronic High-Frequency Rapid Start 3. Electronic High-Frequency Instant Start



### Energy-Efficient Magnetic Ballast ( Baseline) The energy-efficient magnetic (EEM) ballast is one that just meets the minimum allowable BEFs found in Table 3.1. The EEM ballast employs copper wire and high grade magnetic materials for the. choke and transformer. The EEM ballast could be made even more efficient, but this would result in an increase in the package size .and weight. Cathode Cutout Ballasts The cathode cutout or hybrid ballast is a modification of the EEM ballast. It uses an electronic circuit to remove the filament power after the discharge has been initiated for rapid-start lamps. These ballasts start the lamps in the normal manner with a suitable filament power. Operating lamps without filament power maintains the light output while reducing power by about two watts per lamp. This approach is effective for dedicated lighting systems where the lamps are operated at full-light output. There is a significant loss in lamp-life if filament power removal is used with fluorescent dimming systems. The cathode cutout technique is generally used with magnetic ballasts. Some electronic ballast designs reduce the cathode voltage during operation, but do not reduce it to zero. Electronic High-Frequency Ballasts For equivalent light output the electronic ballast consumes about 10 to 30% less energy than magnetic ballasts based on average power values for magnetic ballasts and median power values for



## 3-5

### electronic ballasts. The front end of the electronic ballast is a full-wave rectifier circuit that converts

the 60 Hz AC power into DC power. It is filtered to reduce the modulation. This DC voltage is the input to an oscillating circuit that converts the DC power to a high frequency of 20 kHz or more. The anode fall of the lamp is decreased by about ten volts at high frequency, resulting in a 10 to 15% increase in the lamp 's efficacy. The ballasting action (current

-limiting) at high frequency requires smaller components , reducing ballast losses and making the ballast more efficient

. Substituting integrated circuits for discrete components saves an additional 1.5 - 2.0 W. The high-frequency operation reduces the 60-cycle flicker associated with fluorescent lamps operated with magnetic ballasts .' This may reduce the occurrence of headaches and eyestrain sometimes associated with fluorescent lighting. High frequency electromagnetic radiation and carrier line harmonics are produced by electronic ballasts and are known to interfere with the operation of certain electrical devices. Library proximity sensors, infrared remote controls, and powerline carrier controls are examples of devices that have experienced interference problems (2). Equipment manufacturers are aware of this problem and have solved it for certain specific applications and are working to find solutions for others (3). A rapid-start electronic ballast provides a filament voltage to the rapid-start lamp that heats the electrode and allows starting at a low voltage. The instant-start ballast does not provide a filament voltage, but must provide a higher starting voltage to the instant-start lamp to initiate discharge. This higher starting voltage degrades the coating on the lamp electrodes and reduces lamp life. Eliminating the filament voltage saves about 2 watts per lamp during operation of the lamps. For most F40T12 lamps, instant start is not viable; the filament would have to be redesigned. There is at least one F40T12 lamp that can operate as an instant-start lamp; however, its lifetime is less than the standard T12 lamp lifetime. Electronic ballasts used with F34T12 energy saver lamps may develop starting difficulties that are caused by the tin oxide coating on the inside of the lamp. Lamps without this coating are compatible with electronic ballasts; while such lamps are not presently manufactured, they have been manufactured in the past.


### 3,4 ENERGY USE DATA Table 3.4 lists the ANSI and fixture watts (lamp(s) and ballast) for several types of magnetic and electronic high-frequency ballasts operating the F40T12, F96T12, and F32T8 fluorescent lamps. The data sets used to generate Table 3.4 are reproduced in Appendix A and were obtained from the National Electrical Manufacturer's Association in all but two cases. These two cases are: the four-lamp F40T12 ballast, which is not currently being manufactured, and the cathode cutout ballasts in the one-lamp F40T12/ES product class. Data for these two cases came from the New York State Energy Office, and the Seattle Lighting Design Lab, respectively. All of the sources (4), (5), (6) used the ANSI procedure C82.2-1984 in developing the data.



### 3-6

### The values in the column labeled "ANSI watts" were obtained from the data set by different approaches depending on whether the ballast was electronic or not as described below. For the baseline (EEM) and design option 1 (cathode cutout), the ANSI watts were calculated from the formula: ANSI watts = BF/ BEF, using the average BEF from the data set and the typical BF value of ballasts offered for sale. The typical EEM ballast BF values are: 95% for F40T12 and F32T8lamps, and 88% for F40T12/ES, F96T12, F96T12/ES, F96T12HO and F96T12HO/ES lamps. The cathode cutout average BF values are 86% for F32T8 lamps, 88% for F96T12HO and F96Tl2HO/ES lamps and 83% for F40T12lamps. These average BF values are in good agreement with published values (7), (8). For electronic ballasts, the ballast whose BEF was closest to the 50 percentile level (usually the next highest BEF to that level) was selected from the data set. The measured ANSI watts and measured BF value for this ballast were then selected from the data set and used in the tables. The values in the column labeled "Fixture watts" were obtained by making three corrections to the ANSI watts. Independent corrections were applied to ANSI watts for three- and four-lamp ballast design options to account for thermal effects on 1) power input and 2) light output caused when the lamp/ballast combination is in a fixture and installed in a plenum. These corrections were not applied to one- and two-lamp fixtures since the thermal effects are thought to be minimal. A power correction 3) was applied to all classes to normalize light output to the baseline. Since all design options have to be compared to the baseline within a given product class, each design option wattage had to be normalized to the baseline ballast BF. Refer to Appendix A for details on applying the correction factors. Since some design options are not available for certain product classes , the power values (ANSI watts and Fixture watts) for those configurations are not found in the table

. For-those cases where the energy-efficient magnetic ballast does not exist, the baseline ballast is the electronic rapid-start ballast.

3-7

### Table 3.4 ANSI Watts and Fixture Watts for Various La lBallast Combinations EE Magnetic Cathode Cutout Electronic Rapid Start Electronic Instant Start Lamp ANSI Fixture ANSI Fixture* ANSI Fixture* ANSI Fixture*

watts * watts watts watts watts watts watts watts I F40T12 51.1 51.1 42.8 49.0 37.4 39.5 NA NA I F40T12/ES 42.3 42.3 36.7 38.9 31.1 32.4 NA NA 2 F40T12 88. 8 88.8 72.2 82 .6 71.9 79.5 NA NA 2 F40T12/ES 72.7 72.7 61 .9 65.6 65.8 61.9 NA NA 3 F40T12 NA NA NA NA 109 .0 107 .8 NA NA 3 F40T12/ES NA NA NA NA 95.1 93.2 NA NA 4 F40T12 NA NA NA NA 146.0 144.4 NA NA 2 F96T12 149.2 149.2 NA NA NA NA 136.1 134.9 2F96T12/ES 125 .7 125.7 NA NA NA NA 113.4 111.5 2 F96T12H0 220.0 220.0 209

.5 209.5 195.0 201.9 NA NA 2F96T12H0/E5 200

.0 200

.0 185.3 185 .3 176.3 176.5 NA NA 1 F32T8 39. 3 39.3 NA NA 29.7 32.8 30.7 32.0 2 F32T8 74.2 74.2 62. 8 69.4 61.3 65

.3 58.8 63.0 3 F32T8 NA NA NA NA 94. 3 89.6 85.0 85.4 4 F32T8 NA NA NA NA 122 .8 116

.7 108.2 109.6
Notes: NA = not available * The values in the column labeled "Fixture watts" were obtained by making three corrections to the ANSI watts. The corrections applied to the ANSI watts for three and four-lamp ballast design options are 1) thermal correction factor for power input and 2) thermal correction factor for light output , required when the lamp/ballast combination is in a fixture and installed in a plenum, and 3) power correction factor to normalize light output to the baseline for all classes. Since all design options have to be compared to the baseline within a given product class, each design option wattage was normalized to the baseline ballast BF. Refer to Appendix A for details on applying the correction factors.

## 3.5 COST-EFFICIENCY DATA

The values of BEF and fixture watts that appear in the cost-efficiency tables (Tables 3.5 to 3.19) are derived according to the definitions stated in section 3.4. The columns for "Energy Use" were computed by multiplying the adjacent column of Fixture watts by the annual lighting hours. The annual lighting hours -of operation were derived from a large data set of energy audits throughout the U.S.' Annual interior lighting hours were calculated by lamp type for the industrial sector and for various commercial sector building types: office, retail, grocery, restaurant, lodging, health, assembly, school, college, and warehouse. To derive commercial sector lighting hours, hours for the separate building types were weighted using ballast shipments by building type projected for the year 2000 from Lighting Research Institute (LRI) survey data6. This weighting provides operating hours for ballasts sold in the year 2000 for new construction, retrofit, or replacement. The weighted averages of the commercial sector annual lighting hours for the different lamp types are: 4,230 hours for F40T12 / F32T8, and 4,170 hours for F96T12; and 4,470 hours for F96T 12HO. The industrial sector annual lighting hours for the applicable lamp types are: 4,080 hours for F96T 12 and 5,050 hours for F96T 12HO. The commercial sector hours are used for the F40T12, F32T8, and F96T12 lamp types, while the industrial hours are used for the F96T12HO lamp type. Appendix A contains details of the lighting hours calculations. Manufacturer cost data were not received from enough ballast manufacturers to allow their use directly in a public document without compromising the confidential nature of the data. . The average manufacturing costs were reverse-calculated from prices paid by the largest ballast customers, using the prices that appear in Table A.2 of Appendix A, and an average markup computed from confidential data supplied by ballast manufacturers. The consumer price data were obtained from the LRI survey of lighting management companies (LMCs) and luminaire manufacturers (OEMs). Average prices to the largest customers, LMCs and OEMs, were determined as follows. LBNL subcontracted LRI to develop price data for each of the lamp/ballast combinations and up to four technologies (or design options). These options were energy efficient magnetic, cathode cutout, electronic rapid start, and electronic instant start. LRI collected data from ballast manufacturers, LMCs, and OEMs. LRI provided aggregated data on the ballast prices paid by OEMs and LMCs, and market share weighting factors to account for the share purchased by each. The aggregated prices paid by each group were weighted by the share purchased to arrive at an average price. The average manufacturing cost was computed by dividing the average price by the average markup. The manufacturing cost is disaggregated in Appendix A. Most of the manufacturer cost is for purchased parts and materials.

5 Extract of Xenergy, Inc's XENCAP database showing lighting equipment and lighting hours of operation for over 24,000 buildings for the years 1990 - 1995.

6Surveys of ballast manufacturers, luminaire manufacturers , and lighting management companies performed and aggregated by Lighting Research Institute, 1995. 

## 3-9

### All of the energy use and manufacturer cost values in Tables 3.5 through 3.19 have an uncertainty

associated with them. There are two sources to the uncertainty in BEF values, measurement error and variability in the manufacturing process. A series of eight repeated measurements using the ANSI test method was made by one ballast manufacturer under well-controlled laboratory conditions on the same lamp/ballast combination. The range in BEF that was calculated from these measurements is 2.969 to 3.014 for a one-lamp F32 ballast and 1.523 to 1.537 for a two-lamp F32 ballast. These tests indicate thatan absolute measurement error in the BEF of 0.045 for the one-lamp F32 ballast and 0.014 for the twolamp F32 ballast may exist. Data from industry on production runs in excess of one-thousand units indicate an average production run variation in BEF of ±2 percent. The uncertainty in the manufacturer cost data cannot be deduced from the limited data provided by industry.



### Table 3

.5 Cost

-Efficiency Data for Fluorescent Ballasts (I-Lamp F40T12) Energy Ballast Type BEF Fixture Energy Use Manufacturer Efficiency Level (Design-Option) watts (kWh/vr) Cost 1994$

EE Magnetic 1.86 51.1 2.16 6.19 1,2 Cathode Cutout 1.94 49.0 207 9.38 3,4 Electronic, Rapid-Start 2.41 39.5 167 14.24


### Table 3.6 Cost-Efficiency Data for Fluorescent Ballasts (I-Lamp F40T12/ES) Energy Ballast Type BEF . Fixture Energy Use Manufacturer Efficiency Level (Design Option) watts (kWh/yr) Cost 1994$

EE Magnetic 2.08 42.3 179 6.19 1,2 Cathode Cutout 2.26 38.9 165 9.38 3,4 Electronic, Rapid-Start 2.72 32.4 137 14.24 

### Table 3.7 Cost-Efficiency Data f or Fluorescent Ballasts (2-Lamp F40T12) Energy Ballast Type BEF Fixture Energy Use Manufacturer Efficiency Level (Design Option) watts (kWh/yr) Cost 1994$

EE Magnetic 1.07 88.8 376 6.19 1,2 Cathode Cutout 1.15 82.6 350 9.38 3.4 Electronic, Rapid
-Start 1.19 79.5 336 14.24 Note: The typical EEM ballast BF values are: 95 % for F40T12 and F32T8 lamps, and 88 % for F40T12/ES, F96T12, and F96T12/ES lamps. The cathode cutout average BF values are 86% for T8 lamps , 88% for 8-ft HO lamps and 83 % for T12 lamps. Refer to Table 3

.20 for the list of Energy Efficiency Levels.



### 3-10

### Table 3.8 Cost-Efficiency Data for Fluorescent Ballasts (2-Lamp F40T1 S)

Energy Ballast Type BEF Fixture Energy Use Manufacturer Efficiency Level (Design Option) watts (kWh/yr) Cost 1994$

EE Magnetic 1.21 72.7 308 

### 6.19 1,2 Cathode Cutout 

### 1.34 65.6 278 9.38 3,4 Electronic , Rapid-Start 

### 1.42 61.9 262 14.24


## Table 3.9 Cost-Efficiency Data for Fluorescent B allasts (2-Lamp F96T12) Energy Efficiency Ballast Type 

### BEF Fixture Energy Use Manufacturer Level (Design Option) watts (kWh/yr) 

### Cost 1994$ 1 EE Magnetic 

### 0.59 149.2 622 9.97 2,3.4 Electronic, Instant-Start 0.65 134.9 562 20.26


## Table 3.10 Cost-Efficiency Data for Fluorescent Ballasts (2-Lamp F96T1 S) Energy Efficiency Ballast Type BEF Fixture Energy Use Manufacturer. Level (Design Option)

- watts (kWh/yr) Cost 1994$ 

### 1 EE Magnetic 0.70 125.7 524 9.97 2,3,4 Electronic, Instant-Start 0.79 111.5 465 20.26


## Table 3.11 Cost-Efficiency Data for Fluorescent Ballasts (2-La p F96T12H ) Energy . Ballast Type BEF Fixture Energy Use Manufacturer Efficiency Level (Design Option) watts (kWh/yr) Cost 1994$



### EE Magnetic 0.40 220 1111 18.89 Cathode Cutout 0.42 209.5 1058 34.80 2,3,4 Electronic, Rapid-Start 0.44 201.9 1020 26.70 Note: The typical EEM ballast BF values are: 95% for F40T12 and F32T8 lamps, and 88% for F40T12/ES, F96T12, and F96T12/ES lamps. The cathode cutout average BF values are 86% for T8 lamps, 88% for 8-ft HO lamps and 83% for T12 lamps. Refer to Table 3.20 for the list of Energy Efficiency Levels.



### 3-11

### Table 3.12 Cost-Efficiency Data for Fluorescent Ballasts (2-La p F'96T12HO/ES) Energy Ballast Type BEF Fixture Energy Use Manufacturer Efficiency Level - (Design Option) watts (kWh/yr) Cost 1994$

EE Magnetic 0.44 200 1010 18.89 I Cathode Cutout 0.48 185.3 936 34.80 2.3,4 Electronic. Rapid-Start 0.50 176.5 891 26.70


### Table 3013 Cost-Efficiency Data for Fluorescent Ballasts (3-Lamp F40T12) Energy Ballast Type BEF Fixture Energy Use Manufacturer Efficiency Level (Design Option) watts (kWh/yr) Cost 1994$ 2.3 Electronic, Rapid-Start 0.78 107.8 456 15.48 

### Table 3.14 Cost-Efficiency Data for Fluorescent Ballasts (3-Lamp F40T12/ES) Energy Ballast Type BEF Fixture Energy Use Manufacturer Efficiency Level (Design Option) watts (kWh/yr) Cost 1994$ 2,3 Electronic, Rapid-Start 0.91 93.2 394 15.48 

### Table 3.15 Cost-Efficiency Data for Fluorescent Ballasts (4-Lamp F40T12) Energy Ballast Type BEF Fixture Energy Use Manufacturer Efficiency Level (Design Option ) watts (kWh/yr) Cost 1994$ 2,3 Electronic, Rapid-Start 0.60 144.4 611 16.46 

### Table 3.16 Cost-Efficiency Data for Fluorescent Ballasts (1-Lamp F32T8) Energy Ballast Type BEF Fixture Energy Use Manufacturer Efficiency Level (Design Option) watts (kWh/yr) Cost 1994$

EE Magnetic 2.42 39.3 166 8.32 3 Electronic, Rapid-Start 2.90 32.8 139 14.01 4 Electronic, Instant-Start 2.97 '32.0 135 13.79 Note: The typical EEM ballast BF values are: 95% for F40T12 and F32T8 lamps, and 88 % for F4OT12/ES, F96T12, and F96TI2/ES lamps. The cathode cutout average BF values are 86% for T8 lamps, 88% for 8-ft HO lamps and 83% for T12 lamps . Refer to Table 3.20 for the list of Energy Efficiency Levels.



### 3-12

### Table 3.17 Cost-Efficiency Data for Fluorescent Ballasts (2-La F32T)

Energy Ballast Type BEF Fixture Energy Use Manufacturer Efficiency Level (Design Option) watts (kWh/ r) Cost 1994$



### EE Magnetic 1.28 74.2 314 8.32 1 Cathode Cutout 1.37 69.4 293 10.46 2,3 Electronic, Rapid-Start 1.46 65.3 276 14.01 4 Electronic, Instant-Start 1.51 63.0 267 13.79



### Table 3.18 Cost-.Efficiency Data for Fluorescent Ballasts (3-Lamp F32T8) Energy Ballast Type BEF Fixture Energy Use . Manufacturer Efficiency Level (Design Option) watts (kWh/yr) Cost 1994$ 

### 3 Electronic, Rapid-Start 0.99 89.6 379 15.60

Electronic, Instant-Start 1.04 85.4 361 

### 15.35



### Table 3.19 Cost-Efficiency Data for Fluorescent Ballasts (4-Lamp F32T8) Energy Ballast Type BEF Fixture Energy Use Manufacturer 

### Efficiency Level (Design Option) watts (kWh/yr) 

### Cost 1994$ 3 Electronic, Rapid

-Start 0.73 116.7 494 16.57 4 Electronic, Instant

-Start 0.77 109.6 463 16.31 Note: The typical EEM ballast BF values are : 95% for F40T12 and. F32T8 lamps , and 88 % for F40T12/ES, F96T12, and F96T12/ ES lamps

. The cathode cutout average BF values are 86% for T8'lamps , 88% for 8-ft HO lamps and 83% for T12 lamps

. Refer to Table 3.20 for the list of Energy Efficiency Levels.



## 3.6 ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVELS Several energy efficiency levels (shown in Table 3.20) were chosen to show potential energy savings from fluorescent ballast efficiency improvements. Description of the efficiency level in terms of their representative technologies is complicated by the fact that each energy-efficient technology is not available for every product class, as noted in the detailed description below

. Nevertheless, the following generalizations describe the rationale for the levels. The efficiency levels are organized so as to provide increasing energy savings as the level number increases and where possible, to group like technologies together, such as cathode cutout or electronic rapid start ballasts. Note that in some classes of ballasts, some technologies are not available in the market or are not feasible. In several cases for three- and four-lamp ballasts , single magnetic and cathode cutout ballasts that

3-13

### drive 3 or 4 lamps are not manufactured and. are therefore not present in the engineering tables as design

options. 'However, there are many 3- and 4-lamp fixtures that use either combinations of 1 or 2-lamp magnetic ballasts or single 3- or 4-lamp electronic ballasts. To model these in COMMEND, it was necessary to include the magnetic ballast combinations. The initial energy efficiency levels evaluated in this report (in Tables 3.5 through 3.19) are numbered I through 4 and generally correspond to the following-design options. Two alternative efficiency levels (described below) were added after the first draft analysis was completed. COM MEND and NPV analyses only were carried out for these two levels (Al and A2). 1) Level 1 is Non-Electronic (Cathode Cutout or Energy Efficient Magnetic) 2) Level 2 is a combination of Cathode Cutout and Electronic Rapid Start 3) Level 3 is Electronic Rapid Start 4) Level 4 is Electronic Instant Start Existing ballast standards cover only energy efficient magnetic (EEM) ballasts for one and two lamp F40T12 types, two lamp .F96T 12 types and two lamp F96T 12HO types. Fluorescent lamp standards effective in November. 1995 restrict the use of the F40 and F96 full wattage halophosphor lamps but leave the reduced wattage halophosphor and full wattage rare earth phosphor versions available. Life-cycle costs, energy savings, and economic impacts were calculated for reduced-wattage lamp/ballast combinations as well as rare earth full wattage lamp/ballast combinations. The same ballast is used for standard lamps and reduced wattage lamps. Note that the F40T12 ballasts that drive three and four lamps have only been available in the electronic rapid-start technology. Luminaire manufacturers can use combinations of the one and two lamp F40T12 ballasts for three and four lamp fixtures where energy efficient magnetic ballast types are desired.The F32T8 ballasts for one, two, three, and four lamps are included as product classes because this ballast type accounts for a significant percentage of the market. Since only electronic ballasts are available for the three and four lamp types, combinations of energy efficient magnetic. (EEM) or cathode cutout (CC) must be used in the consumer analysis. Level one is comprised of non-electronic or cathode cutout ballasts. The cathode cutout ballast type provides energy savings via a circuit in the ballast which shuts off the cathode heater after the lamp is lit. Note that CC ballasts for one lamp F32T8 and two lamp F96T12 systems are not made, and the EEM ballast is selected for level 1. For three and four lamp F40T12 and F32T8 systems, EEM and CC ballasts also are not available; for the consumer energy analysis their fixtures contain combinations of one and two, lamp ballast types. Level two is comprised of a combination of non-electronic and electronic ballasts. Retaining the cathode cutout ballasts for the one and two lamp F40T12 systems provides a magnetic ballast for the replacement market and for use with the reduced wattage energy saver lamps which may have starting


### 3-14

### problems with electronic ballasts. Three and four lamp F40T 12 systems have electronic ballasts because only an electronic rapid start (ERS) ballast is available for these lamp types. Combinations of the one and two lamp CC ballasts could be used for replacement situations

. The two lamp F96T12 ballast is the electronic instant start (EIS) type and the two lamp F96T12H® ballast is the ERS type because those are the only electronic ballast types available. All of the F32T8 ballasts are ERS types at level two; magnetic ballasts are presently less than 5% of the T8 market. At level two, energy efficient magnetic and cathode cutout ballasts would continue to supply a large percentage (-50%) of the total market in 2000.
Level three is comprised of electronic ballasts , primarily rapid start types. Electronic instant start ballasts are used for the two lamp F96T 12 type because the ERS ballast type is not available. This energy efficiency level would convert about 55-60% of the present total market from magnetic to electronic ballasts in the year 2000. The only difference between level four and level three is that for T8 lamps , electronic instant start ballasts are employed rather than electronic rapid start ballasts. Note that all classes of the F40T 12 ballast are electronic rapid start types because the instant start ballast would require a different cathode in the lamp and such lamps are not generally available

. The instant start ballasts are not always preferred because of reduced lamp life, especially with more frequent switching by occupancy sensors. Reduced lamp life is accounted for in the life cycle cost and the consumer economic analyses. Two alternative efficiency levels (variations of 1 & 2) were also added to the original four. Alternative level one (Al) is the same as level one except for the ballast that operates the 2F96T 12H0 lamps, it is changed, from a cathode cutout to an energy efficient magnetic ballast

. Alternative level two (A2) is the same as level two except that for three and four lamp T 12 lamps , the efficiency level remains at cathode cutout rather than changing to electronic rapid start.

### Table 3.20 Comparison of Ballast Alternative Energy Efficiency Levels
Energy Efficiency Level 

### Ballast Type Baseline Level 1 CC Level 2

CC & ERS Level 3

ERS Level 4

EIS 

### 1 F40T12 EEM CC CC ERS ERS 1 F40T 12 /ES EEM 

# CC CC ERS ERS
2 F40T 12 EEM CC CC ERS ERS 2 F40T12 /ES EEM CC CC ERS ERS
3 F40T 12 EEM* CC* ERS ERS ERS 3 F40T12 /ES EEM* CC* ERS ERS ERS
4 F40T 12 EEM* CC* ERS ERS ERS 1 F32T8 EEM EEM ERS ERS EIS 2 F32T8 EEM CC ERS ERS EIS 3 F32T8 EEM* EEM* ERS ERS EIS 4 F32T8 EEM* CC* ERS ERS EIS 2 F96T12 EEM EEM EIS EIS EIS, 2 1796T12 /ES EEM EEM EIS EIS EIS
2 F96T12HO EEM 

# CC ERS ERS ERS 2 F96T12HO /ES EEM CC ERS ERS ERS
* Combination of one plus two lamp or two plus two lamp ballasts.

3-16

### REFERENCES

1. American National Standards Institute . ANSI C82.2. An American National Standard, Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts - Methods of Measurement

. Chicago, IL, C82.2., 1984. 2. Advance Transformer Co. Comments on Proposed Rulemaking for Fluorescent Ballasts, Docket No: 0692, July 18, 1994. 3. Meeting minutes, Electronic Lighting Interference Interest Group Meeting,- February 2, 1994. 

### 4. National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA).. 1995. Public Workshop Comments. Docket No : 10, Lamp Ballast Workshop, March 31, 1995.
5. New York State Energy Office. 1994. Comments on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Docket No. EE- -90-201, June 8, 1994.

6. Seattle Lighting Design Lab

. 1995. Electronic Ballast List for Full Size Fluorescent Lamps. January 1995.

7. NEMA Standards Publication No. LE5. "1994 Revised Procedure For Determining Luminaire Efficacy Ratings For Fluorescent Luminaires Revision 1: Draft #6." 12/23/94. National Electrical Manufacturers Association , 12/23/94.


### 8. U.S. Department of Energy. Advanced Lighting Guidelines: 1993. DOE/E-008, U.S. Dept. of Energy.

3-17

# CHAPTER 4. LIFE-CYCLE COSTS AND PAYBACK PERIODS

Purchasing ballasts with increased energy efficiency would affect commercial and industrial consumers in two ways: operating expense would probably decrease and purchase price would probably increase. The net effect is analyzed by calculating the life-cycle cost (LCC), using the engineering data (Chapter 3) for energy consumption and equipment price, together with an assumed electricity price. Section 4.1 presents the LCC for each design option as tables of values. Section 4.2 presents the effect of different assumptions on the LCC calculations. The next level of analysis takes into account expected changes in efficiency and usage over time, and compares alternative energy efficiency scenarios to the base case forecast. Section 4.3 summarizes the organization of the results tables. The difference due to changing energy efficiencylevels is calculated after.a base case forecast is made. The base case forecast accounts for marketbased shifts in efficiency and usage (see Chapter 5). Impacts are calculated for each energy efficiency level to which consumers might change, and only those equipment purchasers who would otherwise have chosen a less efficient design option are included in the calculation. The impact of changing energy efficiency levels is expressed by three measures:

Section 4.4: Payback Period (PAY) by Energy Efficiency Level, Section 4.5: Change in Life-Cycle Cost (LCC) Due to Energy Efficiency Level, .Section 4.6: Cost of Conserved Energy (CCE) Due to Energy Efficiency Level.


## 4,1 LIFE-CYCLE COST FOR DESIGN OPTIONS The LCC is the sum of the purchase price (PC) and the operating expense (OC) discounted at rate r over the lifetime (N) of the appliance. Initial installation costs, such as equipment and

N Oct LCC = PC + t=t (1 + r) (4.1) labor, are included in PC, and energy consumption and lamp replacements (and associated labor) during the life of the ballasts are included in OC. Discounting means that money spent (or saved) at some future date has less value than the same expenditures (or savings). in the immediate present. If operating expenses are constant over time, Eq. 4.1 simplifies to:



## LCC = PC + P ° OC, (4.2)

4-1

### where the present worth factor (PWF) is:


### N P

_ 1 _ 1

(1 +r)t r 1- 1

(1 + r)N

The LCC is calculated for each ballast class. 

### 4.1.1 LCC Data Inputs (4.3)

Inputs include retail prices for -ballasts and lamps, installation costs, annual energy consumption (kWh/a), electricity rates ($/kWh), ballast lifetime and lamp lifetime (years), and discount rate. The ballast retail prices (Appendix A, Table A.2) were determined by a survey of ballast, luminaire, and lighting management companies

. Installation times and costs were obtained from lighting management companies and from Means Electrical CostData, 1994 (1). Sectoral electricity prices in $1994/kilowatt-hour come from the Annual Energy Outlook 1995 (2). The electricity prices projected for the year 2000 are used , as that is the earliest year in which changes in minimum efficiency levels are projected to occur. Each ballast type is assumed to be used primarily in either the commercial or industrial sector , not both, and the appropriate electricity rate for that sector is used to calculate the LCC. Ballasts driving F40T12, F32T8, and F96T 12 lamps are assumed to operate in the commercial sector with an electricity price of $0.075/ kWh`. Ballasts driving F96T12/ IIO lamps are assumed to operate in the industrial sector only with an electricity price of $0.05/kWh2. Sensitivity analyses included alternative electricity rates.
The annual lighting hours of operation were derived from a large data set of lighting energy audits throughout the U.S. 3 Annual interior lighting hours were calculated by lamp type for various commercial sector building types: office; retail, grocery, restaurant, lodging, health, assembly, school, college, and warehouse . Interior lighting hours were also calculated for industrial buildings. Appendix A, section A.4 describes the derivation of the weighted averages for each ballast class used here . These hours are in reasonable agreement with hours derived by DOE's Energy Information Administration (3). Installation costs were calculated from installation time (minutes) multiplied by labor rate

I For F96T12 systems, alternate analyses have been performed using the industrial sector price. 2 For F96T12/HO systems, there are alternate cases using the commercial sector price. 3 Extract of Xenergy, Ines XENCAP database showing lighting equipment and lighting hours of operation for over 24,000 buildings for the years 1990 - 1995. , 

### 4-2

### ($/

hour times 1 hour/60 minutes ). The labor rates are from Means Electrical Cost Data, 1994 (1). Lamps are assumed to be changed by an electrician 's helper whose rate including overhead and profit is $29.35/hour. Half ofall ballasts are assumed to be changed by an electrician's helper and the other half by an electrician at $42.10/ hour in both the commercial and industrial sectors. The period for this analysis is the ballast service life, which is the ballast rated lifetime divided by. the annual lighting hours. The period thus varies by ballast type, and by operating hour assumptions. Electronic ballasts have not been installed long enough to establish a complete,field record for rated lifetime. Data on electronic ballast life from 1987 (4), (5) to 1993 indicates a 1.4% failure rate for a survey group of 65,000 ballasts (A high failure rate in the early years, which would have suggested a short ballast life, was not observed). According to survey data from LRI, lighting management companies estimate magnetic ballast lifetimes at 33,000 hours for 4-foot ballasts and 36,000 hours for 8-foot ballasts. These values are applied to all ballasts in this analysis. Fluorescent ballasts are installed as part of a) new construction (including renovation), or b) replacement (at ballast end-of-life or early replacement). For new construction, ballasts are shipped in the fixtures and installed with them. For replacement, old ballasts are removed and new ones installed. Lamps are also typically changed at the same time. There is assumed to be no difference between electronic and magnetic ballast installation times. The labor times include cleaning the fixture's lens. Labor times and assumptions are reported in Appendix A, Section A.5 

## 4.1.2 LCC Results by Design Option The total life-cycle costs and input data used to calculate them are listed in Tables 4.1 through 4.19. The life-cycle costs of the baseline and design options may be compared in these tables. The tables are divided into an upper tier and a lower tier. Data used in generating the upper table are summarized immediately. below the table title and in the lower tier table that is labeled "Data Inputs" and contains only cost data. Note that the, Period(Years) is the ballast service life, obtained by dividing the ballast lifetime hours by the annual lighting hours. These data are described in section 4.1.1. The first column in the upper tier of each table lists the cost of the equipment to the end user. This cost also appears in the last column of the second tier of the table. This cost is the sum of theretail price of the ballast, the retail price of the lamp, and the cost of the labor to install both as a newsystem ("ballast labor cost" includes the cost to install the first lamp). The second column in the upper tier lists the present value of the maintenance costs for all lamp replacements over the life of the ballast system computed at an 8% discount rate. For the commercial and industrial sectors, the assumed discount rate is 8% real, with a life-cycle cost sensitivity analysis performed at rates established by DOE at 4% and 12% real. The maintenance cost is the sum of the retail price of the lamp(s) and the labor cost to replace them. This cost also appears in the lower tier of the table along, with cost computed at 4% and 12% discount rates. The remaining columns in the upper tier list the total of all costs, the service life, the corrected and normalized fixture watts, the annual energy use, the annual electricity cost, and the total life cycle costs at three discount rates. Total LCC is the sum of the total installed cost and the present value of the annual electricity cost over the period (ballast service life).

4-3

### The lower tier lists the costs associated with maintenance and installation of the ballast system.

The maintenance cost is listed under the heading "PV Lamp Equip + Labor Cost". Lamps are assumed to be installed with the ballast and replaced several times over the ballast's lifetime. Since the lamp is typically discarded when the ballast is changed, the calculation assumes that the full cost of the lamp equipment and labor are incurred for the last lamp installed before the end of the ballast service life. The installation costs are listed under the heading "Ballast Labor Cost". For the 2F96T12 product classes, alternative cases are presented for the commercial and industrial sectors and appear as separate tables. Note that for the F40T12 three- and four-lampproduct categories, only the electronic rapid start ballast is manufactured. For the three- and fourlamp F32T8 categories there are no energy efficient magnetic or cathode cutout ballasts manufactured for these product classes.

## Table 4.1 •Life.Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts, One Lamp F40T12 E70, Commercial Sector 2000 Electricity Cost ($ 1994/kWh) $ 0.075 Annual Lighting Hours 4230 Labor Rates, helper/elect. ($1994 ) $ 29.35 $42.10 Period (Years) 7.80 Total Ballast Annual Annual Total LCC ($ 1994) Ballast Equip + PV Lamp Equip Installed Service Fixture Energy Elect Labor Cost + Labor Cost Cost Life Watts Use Cost Real Discount Rates Technology Option (at 8%) ($1994 ) ( at 8%) ($1994 ) ($ 1994) (years) (Norm.) (kwh/yr) ($1994) 4% 8% 12% Energy Efficient Magnetic 33.89 10.20 44.09 7.8 51.1 216 16.21 153 136 122 Cathode Cutout 40.53 10.20 50.73 7.8 49.0 207 15.54 155 138 125 Electronic, Rapid Start 50.64 10.20 60.84 7.8 39.5 167 12.52 145 131 121

Data Inputs PV Lamp Ballast Lamp Lamp Lamp Equip + Labor Cost Ballast Ballast Equip + Retail Labor Time to Relamp Service ($1994) Ballast Labor Time to Labor Price Cost Change Life Life Retail Price Cost Change Cost Technology Option ($1994) ($1994) ( minutes) (hours) (years) 4% 8% 12% ($1994) ($1994) (minutes) ($1994) Energy Eff. Magnetic 3.16 11.25 23 19000 4.49 12.09 10.20 8.66 12.87 17.86 30 33.89 Cathode Cutout 3.16 11.25 23 19000 4.49 12.09 10.20 8.66 19.51 17.86 30 40.53 Electronic , Rapid Start 3.16 11.25 23 19000 4.49 12.09 10.20 8.66 29.62 17.86 30 50.64 Notes: 1) For this analysis , the Period is the Ballast Service Life. 2) Lanip Retail Price and Lamp Labor Cost are incurred every Lamp Service Life throughout the period

. 3) "PV Lamp Equip + Labor Cost" is the present value of Lamp Retail Price and Lamp Labor Cost for all replacement lamps over the period. 4) Ballast Time to Change is the incremental time to replace the ballast in an existing fixture; lamps are assumed to be changed at the same time. Since the period is equal to the Ballast Service Life, the ballast is changed once (at the beginning of the period). 5) Total LCC is the sun of Total Installed Cost and the present value of the Annual Electricity Cost over the Period 6) Lamp Retail Price, Lamp Labor Cost, and Lamp Time to Change are calculated per ballast (for one or more lamps). 7) Ballast Labor Cost and Ballast Time to Change assume that new lamps are installed at the same time as the ballast is changed . " Ballast Equip + Labor Cost" includes the cost of these lamps. "PV Lamp Equip + Labor Cost includes the cost of all other replacement lamps during the Ballast Service Life.



### 4-5

### Table 4.2 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts, One Lamp li 40T12/ES, Commercial Sector 2000 Electricity Cost ($1.994/kWh) $0.075 Annual Lighting Hours 4230 Labor Rates, helper/elect.($1994 ) $ 29.35 $42.10 Period (Years) 7.80

Total Ballast Annual Annual Total LCC ($1994) Ballast Equip + PV Lamp Equip Installed Service Fixture Energy Elect Labor Cost + Labor Cost Cost Life Watts Use Cost Real Discount Rates Technology Option (at 8%) ($1994 ) ( at 8%) ($1994 ) ($1994) (years) (Norm.) (kwh/yr) ($1994) 4% 8% 12% Energy Efficient Magnetic 32.37 9.12 41.49 7.8 42.3 179 13.42 132 117 106 Cathode Cutout 39.00 9.12 48.13 7.8 38 .9 165 12.34 131 118 107 Electronic, Rapid Start 49.11 . 9.12 58.24 7.8 32.4 137 10.28 128 1 1 6 107

Data Inputs PV Lamp Ballast Lamp Lamp Lamp Equip + Labor Cost Ballast Ballast Equip + Retail Labor Time to Relamp Service ($1994) Ballast Labor Time to Labor Price Cost Change Life Life Retail Price Cost Change Cost Technology Option ($ 1994) ($1994 ) ( minutes) (hours ) (years) 4% 8% 12% ($1994 ) ($ 1994) (minutes ) ($ 1994) Energy Eff. Magnetic 1.64 11.25 23 19000 4.49 10.81 9.12 7.75 12.87 17.86 30 32.37 Cathode Cutout 1.64 11.25 23 19000 4.49 10.81 9.12 7.75 19.51 17.86 30 39.00 Electronic, Rapid Start 1.64 11.25 23 19000 4.49 10.81 9.12 7.75 29.62 17.86 30 49.11 

### See the notes at the end of Table 4.1

4-6

## Table 4.3 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts , Two Lamp F40T12/RE70, Commercial Sector 2000 Electricity Cost ($1994/kWh) $0.075 Annual Lighting Hours 4230 Labor Rates, helper/elect .($1994) . $29.35 $42.10 Period (Years) 7.80

Total Ballast Annual Annual Total LCC ($1994) Ballast Equip + Labor Cost PV Lamp Equip

+ Labor Cost Installed

Cost Service

Lif e Fixture Watts Energy

Use Elect

Cost Real Discount Rates 

### Technology Option (at 8 %) ($1994) 

### (at 8%) ($1994) ($1994) (years) (Norm.) (kwh/yr) ($1994) 4% 8% 12% 

### Energy Efficient Magnetic 36.62 12.61 49.23 7.8 88.8 376 28.17 237 208 185 Cathode Cutout 43.04 12.61 55.65 7.8 82.6 350 26.22 231 204 182 Electronic, Rapid Start 53.12 12.61 65.73 7.8 79.5 336 25.23 234 208 . 187

Data Inputs 

### PV Lamp ballast 

### Lamp Lamp Lamp Equip + Labor Cost Ballast Ballast

. Equip + Retail Labor Time to Relamp Service ($1994) Ballast Labor Time to Labor 

### Price Cost Change Life Life Retail Price Cost Change Cost Technology option ($1994) ($1994) (minutes) (hours) (years) 

### 4% 8% 12% ($1994) ($ 1994) (minutes) ($1994) 

### Energy Eff. Magnetic 6.32 11.50 23 .5 19000 4.49 14.94 12.61 10.71 12.44 .17.86. 30 36.62 Cathode Cutout 6 .32 11.50 23.5 19000 4.49 14.94 12.61 10.71 18.86 17.86 30 43.04 

### Electronic, Rapid Start 6 .32 11.50 23.5 19000 4.49 14.94 12.61 10.71 28.94 17.86 30 53.12
See the notes at the end of Table 4.1



### 4-7

### Table 4.4 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts, Two Lamp F4OTI2IES, Commercial Sector 2000 Electricity Cost ($1994/kWh) $0.075 Annual Lighting Hours 4230 Labor Rates, helper/elect. ($1994) $29.35 $42.10 Period (Years) 7.80
Total Ballast Annual Annual Total LCC ($1994) Ballast Equip + PV Lamp Equip Installed Service Fixture Energy Elect Labor Cost + Labor Cost Cost Life Watts Use Cost Real Discount Rates Technology Option (at 8%) ($1994) (at 8%) ($1994) ($1994) (years) (Norm.) (kwh/yr) ($1994) 4% 8% 12% Energy Efficient Magnetic 33 .57 10.45 44.03 7.8 72.7 308 23.06 198 174 155 Cathode Cutout 39.99 10.45 50.45 7.8 65.6 278 20.82 190 168 151 Electronic, Rapid Start 50.07 10.45 60.53 7.8 61.9 262 19.65 192 171 155

Data Inputs PV Lamp Ballast Lamp Lamp Lamp Equip + Labor Cost Ballast Ballast Equip + Retail Labor Time to Relamp Service ($1994) Ballast Labor Time to Labor Price Cost . Change Life Life Retail Price Cost Change Cost Technology Option ($1994) ($1994) (minutes) (hours) (years) 4% 8% 12% ($1994) 01994) (minutes) ($1994) Energy Eff. Magnetic 3.28 11.50 23.5 19000 4.49 12.39 10.45 . 8.88 12.44 17.86 30 33.57 Cathode Cutout 3.28 11.50 23.5 19000 4.49 12.39 10.45 8.88 18.86 17.86 30 39.99 Electronic, Rapid Start 3.28 11.50 23.5 19000 4.49 12.39 10.45 8.88 28.94 17.86 30 , 50.07 See the notes at the end of Table 4.1



### 4-8

### Table 4.5 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts, Three Lamp F40TI2 E70, Commercial Sector 2000 Electricity Cost ($1994/kWh) $0.075 Annual Lighting Hours 4230 Labor Rates, helper/elect. ($1994) $29.35 $42.1Q Period (Years) 7.8
Total Ballast Annual Annual Total LCC ($1994) Ballast Equip + PV Lamp Equip Installed Service Fixture Energy Elect Labor Cost + Labor Cost Cost Life Watts Use Cost Real Discount Rates Technology Option (at 8%) ($1994) (at 8%) ($1994) ($1994) (years) (Norm.) (kwh/yr) ($1994) 4% 8% 12% 

### Electronic Rapid Start 62 .52 15.02 77.54 7.8. 107.8 456 34.20 306. 270 243

Data Inputs PV Lamp Ballast Lamp Lamp Lamp Equip + Labor Cost Ballast Ballast Equip + Retail Labor Time to Relamp Service ($1994) Ballast Labor Time to Labor Price Cost Change Life Life _ e Retail. Price Cost Change Cost Technology Option ($1994) .($1994) . (minutes) (hours) (years) 4% . 8% 12% ($1994) ($1994) (minutes) ($1994) 

### Electronic Rapid Start 9 .49 11.74 24 19000 4.49 17.80 15.02 12.76 32.20 20.84 35 62.52
See the notes at the end of Table 4.1



### 4-9

### Table 4

.6 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts , Three Lamp F40T12/ES, Commercial Sector 2000 Electricity Cost ($1994/kWhj $0

.075 Annual Lighting Hours 4230 Labor Rates, helper

/ elect. ($,1994) $ 29.35 $42.10 Period (Years) 7.80

Total Ballast Annual Annual Total LCC ($1994) Ballast Equip + PV Lamp Equip Installed Service Fixture Energy Elect Labor Cost + Labor Cost Cost Life Watts Use Cost Real Discount Rates Technology Option (at 8%) ($1994) (at 8%) ($1994) ($1994) (years) (Norm .) (kwh/yr) ($1994) 4% . 8% 12% Electronic Rapid Start 57.49 11.79 69.73 7.8 93.2 394 29.57 267 237 213

Data Inputs PV Lamp Ballast Lamp Lamp Lamp Equip + Labor Cost Ballast Ballast Equip + Retail Labor Time to Relamp Service ($ 1994) Ballast Labor Time to Labor Price Cost Change Life Life Retail Price Cost Change Cost Technology Option ($1994) ($1994) (minutes) ( hours) (years) 4% . 8% 12% ($1994) ($ 1994) (minutes) ($1994) Electronic Rapid Start 4.91 11.74 24 19000 4.49 13.96 11.79 10.01 32.20 20.84 35 57.94
See the notes at the end of Table 4.1

## Table 407 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts, Four Lamp F40T12/RF70, Commercial Sector 2000 Electricity Cost ($1994/kWh) $0.075 Annual Lighting Hours 4230 Labor Rates, helper/elect. ($1994) $29.35 $42.10 Period (Years) 7.80
Total Ballast Annual Annual Total LCC ($1994) Ballast Equip + PV Lamp Equip Installed Service Fixture Energy Elect Labor Cost + Labor Cost Cost Life Watts Use Cost Real Discount Rates Technology Option (at 8%) ($1994) (at 8%) ($1994) ($1994) (years) ' (Norm.) (kwh/yr) ($1994) 4% 8% 12% Electronic Rapid Start 67.71 17.43 85.14 7.8 144.4 611 45.81 390 344 307

Data Inputs PV Lamp Ballast Lamp Lamp Lamp Equip + Labor Cost Ballast Ballast Equip + Retail Labor Time to Relamp Service ($1994) Ballast Labor Time to Labor Price Cost Change Life Life Retail Price Cost Change Cost Technology Option ($1994) ($1994) ( minutes) (hours ) (years) 4% 8% 12% ($1994) ($1994 ) (minutes ) ($1994) Electronic Rapid Start 12.65 11.98 24.5 19000 4.49 20.65 17.43 14.81 34.23 20.84 35 67.71 

### See the notes at the end of Table 4.1

### Table 4.8 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts , Two Lamp F96T12/RE70, Commercial Sector 2000 Electricity Cost ($1994/kWh) $0.075 Annual Lighting Hours 4170 Labor Rates, helper/elect. ($1994) $29.35 $42.10 Period (Years) 8.63

Ballast Equip + Labor Cost PV Lamp Equip

+ Labor Cost Total

Installed Cost Ballast

Service Fixture Life Watts Annual

Energy Use Annual

Elect Cost Total LCC ($1994)

Real Discount Rates Technology Option (at 8%) ($1994) (at 8%) ($1994) ($1994) (years) (Norm.) (kwh/yr) ($1994) 4% 8% 12% Energy Efficient Magnetic 67.77 45.83 113.61 8.63 149.2 622 46.66 458 397 349 Electronic, Instant Start 89.15 45.83 134.99 8.63 134.9 562 42.18 447 391 347

Data Inputs PV Lamp Ballast Lamp Lamp Lamp Equip + Labor Cost Ballast Ballast Equip + Retail Labor - Time to Relamp Service ($1994) Ballast Labor Time to Labor

C i Lif

Ch Lif R t il P ic C Ch C ost ce Pr ange e e e a r e ost ange ost Technology Option ($1994) ($1994) (minutes) (hours) (years) 4% 8% 12% ($1994) ($1994) (minutes) ($1994) Energy Eff. Magnetic 14 .30 8.32 17 11000 2.64 55.37 45.83 38.44 20.74 32.75 55 67.77 Electronic, Instant Start 14.30 8.32 17 11000 2.64 55.37 45.83 38.44 42.13 32.75 55 89.15 

### See the notes at the end of Table 4.1

### Table 4,9 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts, Two Lamp t+96T12/RE70, industrial Sector 2000 Electricity Cost ($1994/kWh) Labor Rates, helper/elect. ($1994) $0.050 $29.35 $42.10 Annual Lighting Hours Period (Years) 4080 8.82



### echnology Option Ballast Equip + Labor Cost 

### (at 8 %) 

### ($1994) PV Lamp Equip

+ Labor Cost 

### (at 8 %) 

### ($1994) Total

Installed Cost ($1994) Ballast

Service Life (years) Fixture

Watts (Norm.) Annual

Energy Use (kwh/yr) Annual

Elect Cost ($1994) Energy Efficient Magnetic 67.77 45.45 113.20 8.82 149.2 609 30.44 Electronic, Instant Start 89.15 45.45 134.61 8.82 134.9 550 27.51 

### Total LCC ($1994)
Real Discount Rates 4% 8% 12% 345 301 266 345 304 272

Data Inputs PV Lamp Ballast Lamp Lamp Lamp Equip + Labor Cost Ballast Ballast Equip + Retail o Labor Time to Relamp Service ($1994) Ballast Labor Time to Labor Lif Ch Lif R tail P ic C t Ch C t Price Cost e ange e e e r os ange os 

### Technology Option ($1994) ($1994) (minutes) (hours ) (years) 4% 8% 12% ($1994) ($1994) (minutes) ($1994) Energy Eff. Magnetic 14.30 8.32 17 11000 2.7 55.12 45.45 37.98 20.74 32.75. 55 67.77 Electronic, Instant Start 14.30 8.32 17 11000 2.7 55.12. 45.45 37.98 42.13 32.75 55 89.15


### See the notes at the end of Table 4.1



## 4-13

### Table 4.10 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts, Two Lamp F96T12/ES, Commercial Sector 2000 Electricity Cost ($1994/kWh) Labor Rates, helper/elect. ($1994) $0.075 $29.35 $42.10 Annual Lighting Hours Period (Years) 4170 8.63

Total Ballast Annual Annual
Technology Option Ballast Equip + Labor Cost (at 8%) ($1994) PV Lamp Equip

+ Labor Cost (at 8%) ($1994) ' Installed

Cost ($1994) Service

Life (years) Fixture

Watts ' (Norm.) Energy

Use (kwh/yr) Elect

Cost ($1994) Energy Efficient Magnetic 59.34 28.74 88.08 8.63 125.7 524 39.31 Electronic, Instant Start 80.72 28.74 109.46 8.63 111.5 465 34.87 Total LCC ($1994) Real Discount Rates 4% 8% 12% 376 327 288 366 321 286

Data Inputs PV Lamp Ballast Lamp Lamp Lamp Equip + Labor Cost Ballast Ballast Equip + Retail Labor Time to Relamp Service ($1994) Ballast Labor Time to Labor

C i Lif

Ch Lif Ret il Pri C t Ch C ost Pr ce e ange e a ce os ange ost Technology Option ($1994) ($1994) (minutes) (hours) (years) 4% 8% 12% ($1994) ($1994) (minutes) ($1994) Energy Eff. Magnetic 5.87 8.32 17 11000 2.64 34.72 28.74 24.10 20.74 32.75 55 59.34 Electronic, Instant Start 5.87 8.32 17 11000 2.64 34.72 28.74 24.10 42.13 32.75 55 80.72
See the notes at the end of Table 4.1



### 4-14

## Table 4.11 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts, Two Lamp F96T12/ES, Industrial Sector 2000 Electricity Cost ($1994/kWh) Labor Rates, helper/elect. ($1994) $0.050 $29.35 $42.10 Annual Lighting Hours Period (Years) 4080 8.82


### Total Ballast Annual Annual
Technology Option Ballast Equip + Labor Cost (at 8%) ($1994) PV Lamp Equip

+ Labor Cost (at 8%) ($1994) Installed Cost ($1994) Service

Life (years) Fixture

Watts (Norm.) Energy

Use (kwh/yr) Elect

Cost ($1994) Energy Efficient Magnetic 59.33 28.50 87.84 8.82 125.7 513 25.64 Electronic, Instant Start 80 .72 28.50 109.46 8.63 111.5 455 22.75 Total LCC ($1994)
Real Discount Rates 

### 4% 8% 12% 281 246 218 282 249 224

Data Inputs PV Lamp Ballast Lamp Lamp Lamp Equip + Labor Cost Ballast Ballast , Equip + Retail Labor

. Time to Relamp Service ($ 1994) Ballast Labor Time to Labor Price Cost Change Life . Life Retail Price Cost Change Cost Technology Option ($1494)-($1994) (minutes) (hours) (years) 4% 8% 12% ($1994) ($1994) (minutes) ($1994) 

### Energy Eff. Magnetic 5.87 8.32 17 11000 2.70 34.56 28.50 23.82 20.74 32.75 -55 59.33 Electronic, Instant Start 5.87 8.32 17 11000 2.70 34.56 28.50 23.82 42.13 32.75 55 80.72

See the notes at the end of Table 4.1



### 4-15

### Table 4 .12 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts , Two Lamp F96'T12HO/RB70, Industrial Sector 2000 Electricity Cost ($1994/kWh) $0.050 Annual Lighting Hours 5050 Labor Rates, helper/elect. ($1994) $29.35 $42.10 Period (Years) 7.13

Ballast Equip + Total Ballast Annual Annual Total LCC ($1994) Labor Cost PV Lamp Equip Installed Service Fixture Energy Eleci (at 8%) + Labor Cost Cost Life Watts Use Cost Real Discount Rates Technology Option ($ 1994) (at 8%) ($1994 ) ($ 1994) (years ) (Norm .) (kwh/yr) ($ 1994) 4% 8% 12% Energy Efficient Magnetic 93.53 63.80 157.32 7.13 220.0 1111 55.55 507 451 405 Cathode Cutout 126.57 63.80 190.37 7.13 209.5 1058 52.90 524 470 426 Electronic, Rapid Start 108 .07 63.80 172.67 7.13 201.9 1020 50.98 494 442 399

Data Inputs PV Lamp Ballast Lamp Lamp Lamp Equip + Labor Cost Ballast Ballast Equip + Retail Labor Time to Relamp - Service ($1994) Ballast Labor Time to Labor Price Cost Change Life Life Retail Price Cost Change Cost Technology Option ($1994) ($1994) (minutes) (hours) (years) 4% 8% 12% ($1994) ($1994) (minutes) ($1994) Energy Eff. Magnetic 18.46 11.01 22.5 11000 2.18 74.68 63.8 55.05 39.33 35.73 60 93.53 Cathode Cutout 18.46 11.01 22.5 11000 2.18 74.68 63.8 55.05 72.37 35.73 60 126.57 Electronic, Rapid Start 18.46 11.01 22.5 11000 2.18 74.68 63.8 55.05 54.67 35.73 60 108.87
See the notes at the end of Table 4.1



### 4-16

## Table 4.13 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts , Two Lamp F96T12 /RE70, Commercial Sector 2000 Electricity Cost ($1994/kWh) $0.075 Labor Rates, helper/elect. ($1994) $29.35 $42.10 Annual Lighting Hours 4470 Period (Years) 8.05
Total Ballast Annual Annual Total LCC ($1994) Ballast Equip + PV Lamp Equip Installed Service Fixture Energy Elect Labor Cost + Labor Cost Cost Life Watts Use Cost Real Discount Rates Technology Option (at 8%) ($1994) (at 8%) ($1994) ($1994) (years) (Norm:) (kwh/yr) ($1994) 4% 8% 12% Energy Efficient Magnetic. 93.47 61.24 154.72, 8.05 220.0 983 73.76 666 580 513 Cathode Cutout 126.5 61.24 187.75 8.05 209.5 936 70.23 675 593 529 Electronic, Rapid Start 108.81 61.24 170.06 8.05 201.9 902 67.68 640 561 498

Data Inputs PV Lamp Ballast Lamp Lamp Lamp Equip + Labor Cost Ballast Ballast Equip + Retail Labor Time to . Relamp Service ($1994) Ballast Labor Time to Labor Price Cost Change Life Life Retail Price Cost Change Cost Technology Option ($1994) ($1994 ) (minutes ) ( hours) (years) 4% 8% 12% ($1994) ($1994) (minutes) ($1994) Energy Eff

. Magnetic 18.46 11:01 22.5 11000 2.46 - 73.10 61.24 51.92 39.33 35.73 60 93.53 Cathode Cutout 18.46 11.01 22.5 11000 2.46 73.10 61.24 51.92 72.37 35.73 60 126.50 Electronic, Rapid Start 18.46 11.01 22.5 11000 2.46 73.10 61.24 51.92 54.67 35.73 60 108.81
See the notes at the end of Table 4.1



### 4-17

### Table 4.14 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts, Two Lamp F96T12H®/ES, Industrial Sector 2000 Electricity Cost ($1994/kWh) $0.050 Annual Lighting Hours 5050 Labor Rates, helper/elect. ($1994) $29.35 $42.10 Period (Years) 7.13

Ballast Equip + Total Ballast Annual Annual Total LCC ($1994) Labor Cost PV Lamp Equip Installed Service Fixture Energy Elect (at 8%) + Labor Cost Cost Life Watts Use Cost Real Discount Rates Technology Option ($ 1994) (at 8% ) ($ 1994) ($1994) (years ) ( Nona.) (kwh/yr) ($ 1994) 4% 8% 12% Energy Efficient Magnetic 88

. 85 53.68 142.53 7.13 200. 0 1010 50.5 460 409 368 Cathode Cutout 121.9 53.68 175.57 7.13 185.3 936 46 .79 470 423 384 Electronic, Rapid Start 104.19 53.68 157.87 7.13 176.5 891 44.57 439 393 356

Data Inputs PV Lamp Ballast Lamp Lamp Lamp Equip + Labor Cost Ballast Ballast Equip + Retail Labor Time to Relamp Service ($1994) Ballast Labor Time to Labor Price Cost Change Life Life Retail Price Cost Change Cost Technology Option ($1994) ($1994) (minutes) (hours) (years) 4% 8% 12% ($1994)" ($1994) (minutes) ($1994) Energy Eff. Magnetic 13.78 11.01 22.5 11000 2.18 62.84 53.68 43.62 39.33 35.73 60 88.95 Cathode Cutout 13.78 11.01 22.5 11000 2.18 62.84 53.68 43.62 72.37 35.73 60 121.90 Electronic, Rapid Start 13.78 11.01 22.5 11000 2.18 62.84 53.68 43.62 54.67 35.73 60 104.19 

### See the notes at the end ofTable 4.1

.4-18

## Table 4015 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts, Two Lamp F96T12 OIES, Com mercial 

## Sector 2000 Electricity Cost ($1994/kWh) $0.075 Annual Lighting Hours 4470 

### Labor Rates, helper/elect . ($1994)' $29.35 $42.10 Period (Years) 8.05

Ballast Equip + Total Ballast Annual Annual Total LCC ($1994) Labor Cost PV Lamp Equip Installed Service Fixture Energy Elect (at 8%) + Labor Cost Cost Life Watts Use Cost Real Discount Rates Technology Option ($1994) (at 8%) ($1994) ($1994) (years) (Norm.) (kwh/yr) ($1994) 4% ' 8% 12%n Energy Efficient Magnetic 88.8 51
. 53 140.34 8.05 200

.0 894 67.05 604 527 467 Cathode Cutout 121.83 51
. 53 173.37 8.05 185.3 828 62 .12 604 532 475 Electronic, Rapid Start 104.14 51.53 157.87 8
.05 176.5 789 59.17 566 497 443

Data Inputs PV Lamp Ballast Lamp Lamp Lamp Equip + Labor Cost Ballast Ballast Equip + Retail Labor Time to Relamp Service ($1994) Ballast Labor Time to Labor Price Cost Change Life Life Retail Price Cost Change . Cost 

### Technology Option ' ($ 1994) ($1994 ) ( minutes) (hours) ( years) 4% 8% 12% ($1994 ) ($ 1994) (minutes) ($ 1994) Energy Eff. Magnetic ' 13.78 11.01 22.5 11000 2.46 61.5 51.53 43.68 39.33 35.73 60 88.80 Cathode Cutout 13.78 11.01 22.5 11000 2.46 61.5 51.53 43.68 72.37 35.73 60 121.83 Electronic, Rapid Start 13.78

. 11.01 ' 22.5 11000 2.46 61.5 51.53 43.68 54.67 35.73 60 104.14
See the notes at the end of Table 4.1



### 4-19

### Table 4.16 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts, One Lamp F32T8, Commercial Sector 2000 Electricity Cost ($1994/kWh) $0.075 Annual Lighting Hours 4230 Labor Rates, helper/elect. ($1994) $29.35 $42.10 Period (Years) 7.80

Ballast Equip PV Lamp Equip, Total Ballast Annual Annual Total LCC ($1994) + Labor Cost (at 8%) + Labor Cost

(at 8 %) Installed

Cost Service Fixture

Life Watts Energy Use Elect

Cost Real Discount Rates Technology Option ($1994) ($1994) ($1994) (years) (Norm.) (kwh/yr) ($1994) 4% 8% 12% Energy Efficient Magnetic 37.79 9.81 47.60 7.8 39.3 166 12.47 132 118 107 Electronic, Rapid Start 50.30 9.81 60.11 7.8 32.8 139 10.40 130 119 109 Electronic, Instant Start 49.83 19.07 68.91 7.8 32.0 135 10.15 140 126 116
Data Inputs PV Lamp Ballast Lamp Lamp Lamp Equip + Labor Cost Ballast Ballast Equip +
Technology Option Retail Labor Price Cost ($1994) ($1994) Time to Relamp

Change Life (minutes) (hours) Service Life (years) ($1994) Ballast Retail Price 4% 8% 12% ($1994) Labor Cost ($1994) Time to

Change (minutes) Labor

Cost ($1994) Energy Eff. Magnetic 2.61 11.25 23 19000 4.49 11.62 9.81 8.33 17.32 17.86 30 37.79 Electronic, Rapid Start 2.61 11.25 23 19000 4.49 11.62 9.81 8.33 29.84 17.86 30 50.30 Electronic, Instant Start 2.61 11.25 23 14000 331 22.86 19.07 16.07 29.37 17.86 30 49.83
See the notes at the end of Table 4.1



### 4-20Table 4.17 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent B a Lamp F32T8, Commercial Sector 2000 Electricity Cost ($1994/kWh) $0.075 Annual Lighting flours 4230 Labor Rates, helper/elect. ($1994) $29.35 $42.10 - Period (Years) 7.80

Ballast Equip PV Lamp Equip Total Ballast Annual Annual Total LCC ($1994) + Labor Cost + Labor Cost Installed Service Fixture Energy Elect (at 8%) (at 8b/o) Cost Life Watts Use Cost Real Discount Rates Technology Option ($1994) ($1994) ($1994) (years.) (Norm.) (kwh/yr) ($1994) 4% 8% 12/ Energy Efficient Magnetic 39.77 11.83 51.6 7.8 74.2 314 23.54 209, 184 165 Cathode Cutout 44.81 11.83 56.64 7.8 69.4 293 22.01 204 181 162 Electronic, Rapid Start 52.21 11.83 64.04 7.8 65.3 276 20.71 203 181 164 Electronic, Instant Start 51.74 23.00 74.74 7.8 63.0 267 20.00 211 188 169
tata Inputs PV Lamp Ballast Lamp Lamp Lamp Equip + Labor Cost Ballast Ballast Equip .+ Retail Labor Time to Relamp. Service ($1994) Ballast Labor Time to Labor Price Cost Change Life Life Retail Price Cost Change Cost Technology Option ($1994) ($1994 ) (minutes) (years) (years) 4% 8% 12% ($1994) ($1994) (minutes) ($1994) Energy Eff. Magnetic 5.22 11.50 23.5 19000 4.49 14.01 11.83 10.05 16.70 17.86 30 39.77 Cathode Cutout 5.22 11.50, 23.5 - 19000 4.49 14.01 11.83 10.05 21.74 17.86 30 44.81 Electronic, Rapid Start 5.22 11.50 23.5, 19000 4.49 14.01 11.83 10.05 29.14 17.86 30 52.21 Electronic, Instant Start 5.22 11.50 23.5 14000 3.31 27.57 23.00 19.38 28.67 17.86 30 51.74 cc the notes at the end of Table 4.1



### 4-21

### Table 4,18 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts, Three Lamp F32T8, Commercial Sector 2000 Electricity Cost ($1994/kWh) Labor Rates, helper/elect. ($1994) $0.075 $29.35 $42.10 Annual Lighting Hours Period (Years) 4230 7.80
Ballast Equip PV Lamp Equip Total Ballast Annual Annual
Technology Option + Labor Cost (at 8%) ($1994) .+ Labor Cost

(at 8%) ($1994) Installed

Cost ($1994) Service

Life (years) Fixture

Watts (Norm.) Energy

Use (kwh/yr) Elect

Cost ($1994) Electronic, Rapid Start 61.09 13.85 74.94 7.8 89.6 379 28.43 Electronic, Instant Start 60.58 26.92 87.50 7.8 85.4 361 27.09 Total LCC ($1994) Real Discount Rates 4%_ 8% 12% 265 235 212 271 240 216

Data Inputs PV Lamp Ballast Lamp Lamp Lamp Equip + Labor Cost Ballast Ballast Equip + Retail Labor Time to Relamp Service ($1994) Ballast Labor Time to Labor Lif Ch Lif il P R t i C t Ch C Price Cost e ange e cee a r os ange ost Technology Option ($1994) ($1994) (minutes) (hours) (years) 4% 8% 12% ($1994) ($1994) (minutes) ($1994) Electronic`, Rapid Start 7.83 11.74 24 19000 4.49 16.41 13.85 11.76 32.43 20.84 35 61.09 Electronic, Instant Start 7.83 11.74 24 14000 , 3.31 32.28 26.92 22.69 31.92 20.84 35 60.58
See the notes at the end of Table 4.1

### Table 4.19 Life-Cycle Costs of Fluorescent Ballasts, Four Lamp F32T8, Commercial Sector 2000 Electricity Cost ($1994/kWh) $0.075 Annual Lighting Hours 4230 Labor Rates, helper

/elect . ($1994) $29.35 $42.10 Period (Years) 7.80 Ballast Equip PV Lamp Equip Total Ballast Annual Annual Total I.CC ($1994) + Labor Cost + Labor Cost Installed Service Fixture Energy Elect (at 8%) (at 8%) Cost Life Watts Use Cost Real Discount Rates Technology Option ($ 1994) ($1994 ) ($ 1994) (years ) (Norm.) (kwh/yr) ($1994 ) 4% 8% 12% Electronic, Rapid Start 65

.74 15.87 81.60 7.8 116.7 494 37.02 328 290 260 Electronic, Instant Start 65.18 30

. 85 96

. 03 7.8 109.6 463 34 .76 331 292 261

Data Inputs PV Lamp Ballast Lamp Lamp Lamp Equip + Labor Cost Ballast Ballast Equip + Retail Labor Time to Relamp

. Service ($ 1994) Ballast Labor Time to Labor Price Cost Change Life Life Retail Price Cost Change Cost Technology Option • ($1994) ($1994) (minutes) (hours ) (years) 4% 8% 12% ($1994) ($1994) (minutes) ($1994) Electronic, Rapid Start 10.44 11.98 24.5 19000 4.49 18.8 15.87 13.48 34.47 20.84 35 65.74 Electronic; Instant Start 10 .44 11.98 24.5 14000 3.31 .36.99 30.85 26.00 33.91 20.84 35 65.18
See the notes at the end of Table 4.1

## 4.2 LCC SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS

The previous section provides best estimates for all the input variables. In this section, the LCCs are recalculated, using alternative assumptions for those variables for which a range of values are possible, and for which selection of a different value might significantly affect the LCC. Three variables were examined as most important: electricity price, operating hours, and retail price of ballasts. Table 4.20 summarizes the life-cycle cost (LCC) results for each lamp/ballast combination studied.` Electricity price. The,average electricity price is $0.075/kWh in 1994$ for the commercial sector and $0.05/kWh in 1994$ for the industrial sector. Sensitivities were performed at $0.055 and $0.105/kWh for the commercial sector and $0.03 and $0.065 for the industrial sector. Sensitivity to discount rate (the average is 8% real ) was shown above by using two other discount rates (4% and 12% real) in Tables 4.1 through 4.19. Ballast price. Retail equipment prices are listed in Tables 4.1 through 4.19 in the column labeled Ballast Equip. + Labor Cost. The electronic ballast price estimates are based upon current market prices. To the extent that production of electronic ballasts increases substantially in the future, production costs and prices may decline. Sensitivities were performed at plus or minus 20% of the average price. Qperating hours. Average annual lighting operating hours are 4230, 4170, and 5050 hours for four- foot T12 and T8 lamps, eight-foot T12 lamps, and eight-foot high output (HO) T12 lamps, respectively. Sensitivities were performed at 2500 and 8000 hours per year. The following sensitivity cases were analyzed: 1) low energy prices, 2) high energy prices, 3) high ballast retail prices, 4) low ballast, retail prices, 5) high operating hours, and 6) low operating hours. An example demonstrates how to use this table. For ballasts operating two F40T12 energy saver lamps (2F40T12/ES), there are three alternate technologies or design options. For average values of the input parameters, the life-cycle cost is $174 per year, $168 per year, and $171 per year for EEM, CC, and ERS ballasts, respectively. Therefore, the minimum LCC occurs with a cathode cutout ballast and, although the LCC for the electronic rapid start ballast increases

4 Some lamp types (3F40T12, 3F40T12/ ES, and 4F40T12) are not included because there is only one technology (electronic rapid start) for which life-cycle cost data are available; that is, there are no single energy-efficient magnetic or cathode cutout ballasts that operate those numbers of lamps. 

### 4-24-

### (relative to the cathode cutout ballast), it is lower than for the baseline energy-efficient magnetic ballast. The sensitivity of the average LCC to the three parameters shown in Table 4.20 appears in the low and high columns for each parameter. For the 2F40T12/ES lamp, the LCC minimum occurs for the cathode cutout ballast at all six sensitivities. Table 4.20 Life Cycle Cost Sensitivities

Electricity Price Equipment Price Operating Hours 

### Ballast Svstem low Avg iQ low vg high w vg is 1F40T12 

### EEM 111 136 172 133 136 138 118 136 150



### CC 115 138 173 135 138 142 122 138 152 ERS 113 131 160 126 131 137 118 131 143 1F40T12/ES 

### EEM 97 117 147 115 117 120 103 117 129

CC 99 118 146 114 118 122 104 118 129 

### ERS 101 116 139 110 116 122 105 116 126 2F40T12 EEM 166 208 272 206 208 211 179 208 233



### CC 164 204 263 200 204 207 177 204 226 ERS 170 208 265 202 208 214 182 208 230 2F40T12/ES EEM 139 174 226 172 174 177 151 174 194



### CC 137 168 215 164 168 172 146 168 186 ERS 142 171 216 166 171 177 151 171 189 1F32T8 

### EEM 99 118 146 114 118 121 104 118 130

ERS 103 119 142 113 119 125 107 119 129 EIS 111 126 149 120 126 132 113 126 138 2F32T8 EEM 149 184 238 181 184 188 160 184 205



### CC 148 181 230 176 181 185 158 181 200 ERS 150 1`81 228 175 181 187 159 181 199 EIS 157 188 233 182 188 193 164 188 208 

### 3F32T8 ERS 193 

### 235 299 229 235 242 206 235 260

EIS 200 240 301 234 240 247 209 240 267 

### 4F32T8 ERS 235 290 374 284 290 297 253 290 322

EIS 240 292 371 285 292 299 253 292 325 2F96T12 EEM 321 397 510 393 397 401 338 397 450

EIS 323 391 493 382 391 399 337 391 440 2F96T12/ES EEM 263 327. 422 322 327 331 279 327 370

EIS 265 321 406 313 321 329 278 321 360 2F96T12H0 EEM 333 451 539 443 451 458 370 451 -487

CC 358 470 553 455 470 '484 392 470 505 ERS 334 442 522 431 442 453 367 442 476 

### 2F96T12H0/ES EEM 302 409 489 401 .409 417 337 409 442

CC 324 423 497 408 423 437 355 423 453



### 393 464 1 382 393 404 1 328 4



### 4-25

### The abbreviations EEM, CC, ERS, and EIS are used for energy-efficient magnetic,

cathode cutout, electronic rapid start, and electronic instant start ballasts, respectively. 

### 4®3 LCC DIFFERENCES , PAYBACK, AND CCE By comparing possible energy efficiency levels to the distribution of efficiencies in the base case forecast, the impacts of minimum efficiency levels is determined. As an aid to understanding the projected distribution of units sold, the projected ballast market shares are given by luminaire type in Table 4.21 and by lamp/ballast system type in Table 4.22. These projections indicate that the 2- and 4-foot ballasts will dominate the market, and that the F40T12 lamps will be powered by magnetic ballasts while the F32T8 lamps will be powered by electronic ballasts.



### Table 4,21 Ballast Market Share (year 2000) by Luminaire Type
Luminaire Type Market Share
I Lamp, 4 foot 8.6 2 Lamp, 4 foot 39.9 3 Lamp, 4 foot 9.3 4 Lamp, 4 foot 24.3 2 lamp, 8 foot 17.8



### 4-26

### Table 4.22 Ballast Market Share (year 2000) by Lamp/Ballast System

Lamp/Ballast System Market Share Magnetic % Electronic % I Lamp F40T12 , 3.8 0.4 2 Lamp F40T12 20.1 1.0 3 Lamp F40T12 3.0* 0.6* 4 Lamp F40TI2 13.1 * 1.0* 2 Lamp F96T12 11.8 3.7 2 Lamp F96T12IHO 1.6 0.7 1 Lamp F32T8 0.3 4.2 

### 2 Lamp F32T8 0.5 18.3 3 Lamp F32T8 0.2 5.5 

### 4 Lamp F32T8 0.1 9.9 Note: * These ballasts are modeled as combinations of one and two-lamp ballasts.



### Tables 4.23 through 4.3.2 show the calculation of LCC differences, payback, and cost of conserved energy (CCE). Each table corresponds to a lamp/ballast types, and is composed of.three parts, sections a, b, and c. Section a summarizes the equipment cost, operating cost, LCC, and energy use for each design option. The design options represent the range of technologies possible.' The last column of section a shows the projected distribution of units sold in the year 2000, according to the base case forecast described in Chapter 5. In Tables 4.23 through 4.32, the distributions in Section a are used as weights applied to the values in Section a to obtain the weighted average values shown in Section b, corresponding to the

5 Individual tables were not,generated for all product classes since certain product classes use the same ballast, for example the same ballast is used for the energy saver and RE70 lamp/ballast classes. The tables for the 1, 2, & 3 F40T12 and 2 F96T12 & 2 F96T12/IIO ballasts are generated by weighting the corresponding values from Tables 4.1 through 4.19 for equipment price, life cycle cost, annual energy use, and operating cost for the RE and ES lamp options using factors of 0.1 and 0.9 respectively (to reflect their relative market shares). The tables for the 41740T12, and 1,2,3, & 4F32T8 classes do not have ES lamp options and no weighting is performed.

6 Not all ballast design options exist within each product class. The abbreviation NA is used to indicate that the energy efficiency level is not applicable in these cases. In cases where only one design option exists, Sections b and c cannot be generated.



### 4-27

### fraction of purchases that would be affected by each possible minimum efficiency level. Section c

in each table shows the resulting LCC differences, payback periods, and CCE due to a change of those purchases to a particular higher efficiency level.



### 4.4 CHANGE IN LIFE-CYCLE COSTS DUE TO ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVELS The impact of energy efficiency levels is calculated as the difference in L CC, base case minus energy efficiency case and is presented in Tables 4.23.c through 4.32.c. If the LCC difference is greater than zero (positive savings), the energy efficiency level provides a net decrease in expenses to the consumer. That is, the present value of decreased operating expenses offsets the increased purchase price. Conversely, if the LCC difference is negative, the energy efficiency level causes a net increase in expenses to the consumer. 

### 4.4.1 Data Inputs for Change in LCC The data inputs appear in Tables 4.23.a through 4.32.a and are taken from Section 4.1.1, except for the addition of the distribution (or,market share) of design options projected by COMMEND in the base case for the year 2000. . Only those designs that are eliminated by the energy efficiency level are included in the calculation of impacts. Consumers whose base case choice is eliminated by an energy efficiency level are assumed to purchase the design option corresponding to the minimum energy efficiency level.



### 4.4.2 Results for LCC Differences
Tables 4

.23.c through 4.32.c show the LCC savings by energy efficiency level, one table for each ballast type

. The results are the weighted average of LCC differences comparing that portion of the projected distribution of designs in the base case that are less efficient than the energy efficiency level to the design at the energy efficiency level. Designs with energy consumption at or below the energy efficiency level are not affected, so these are excluded from the calculation of impacts. These LCC differences are calculated at an 8 % discount rate ; a higher discount rate (e.g., 12%) gives a smaller difference

. As an example, consider the following equations used to calculate the LCC savings for the 2F32T8 ballast, based on the data of Table 4.30.a, where the weighted average LCC of the units sold below level 4 (Table 4.30.b) is calculated first: Wtd. Avg. LCC = (0.024 ® 184 + 0.0003 ® 181 + 0.147 ® 181) / (0.024 + 0.0003 + 0.147) = 181.42 and the LCC Savings (Table 4.30.c) is calculated as the difference between this weighted average and the LCC at level 4: 

### LCC Savings = 181.42 - 188 = -6.58

4-28

### 4.5 PAYBACK PERIODS BY ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVEL The payback period (PAY) is the amount of time needed to recover the additional consumer investment, APC, in increased efficiency through lower operating costs , AOC. PAY is found by solving the equation:

PAY



# APC + AOC, = 

# 0 (4.4)

for PAY. In general, PAY is found by interpolating between the two years when the expression in Eq. 4.4 changes sign. If the operating cost is constant , the equation has the simple solution:

PAY APC

®oC (4.5)
Numerically, the payback period is the ratio of the increase in purchase (and installation) price from the base to the energy efficiency levels to the decrease in annual operating expenditures (including maintenance). The annual operating costs for ballasts include the annual lamp replacement cost plus the annual electricity cost

. Payback periods are expressed in years

. A payback period of three years means that the increased purchase price is equal to three times the value of reduced operating expenses achieved in the year of purchase , or that the increased purchase price is recovered in approximately three years because of lower operating expenses

. Payback periods greater than the life of the product mean that the increased purchase price is not recovered in reduced operating expenses. The average operating life of a ballast is at least 7.8 years.
4.5.1 Payback Period Data Inputs The data inputs appear in Tables 4.23.a through 4.32.a. The goal is to calculate the average payback for the more efficient design or technology relative to the projected base case design that would have been on the market if the energy efficiency levels did not take effect

. Even without minimum energy efficiency levels , some consumers will already be purchasing design options more efficient than the baseline

. A market-weighted average of the payback periods is calculated only for those design options eliminated by the changed energy efficiency levels. Consumers whose base case choice is eliminated by minimum energy efficiency levels are assumed to purchase the design option corresponding to the minimum energy efficiency level.

4-29.

### 4.5.2 Payback Period Results The payback periods by energy efficiency level shown in Tables 4.23.c through 4.32.c are the weighted averages. They compare that portion of the projected distribution of designs which are less efficient than the considered energy efficiency level to the design at the considered energy, efficiency level. Design options with energy consumption at or below the energy efficiency level are not affected. For the 1F32T8 and the 2F32T8 ballasts, an asterisk in the table at level 4 indicates that there is no payback since the more efficient option has higher operating costs than the weighted average operating costs of the less efficient options. This occurs only at level 4 since the additional lamp replacement costs for the electronic instant start ballast increase the total operating costs. The increased consumer investment is never recovered when the annual operating costs of the design option are greater than the weighted annual operating costs of those design options sold below the energy efficiency level. For the 3F32T8 and the 4F32T8 ballasts, an asterisk in the table at level 4 indicates that the product cost at this level is less than the weighted annual product cost of those design options sold below the energy efficiency level. Payback does not apply in this case since the higher efficiency option is already less expensive than the weighted lower efficiency options. Payback is effectively immediate. As an example, consider the following equations used to calculate the payback at level 3 for the 2F32T8 ballast based on the data of Table 4.30.a, where the weighted average Ballast Installed Cost (WBIC) and operating cost (WOC) of the units sold below level 3 (Table 4.30.b) are calculated ° first: 

### WBIC = (0.024 ® 39.77 + 0

.0003 ® 44.81 ) / (0.024 + 0.0003 = 39.84 WOC = (0.024 ® (23.54 + 2.14)) +(0.0003 0 (22.01 + 2.14))) / (0.024 + 0

.0003) = 25.66 and the Payback (Table 4

.30.c) is calculated by dividing the difference between the Ballast Installed Cost at level 3 and the WBIC , by the difference between the operating cost at level 3 and the WOC: PAY = (52. 21 - 39.84) / (25.66 - (20.71+2 .14)) = 4.4


### 4.6 COST OF CONSERVED ENERGY (CCE) D UE TO ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVELS The CCE is the increase in purchase price amortized over the lifetime of the equipment at the consumer discount rate divided, by the annual energy savings:



### 4-30

### CCE CRF°®PC ®E (4.6)
where the capital recovery factor CRF = 1/PWFis used to annualize the capital costs. Since different ballast lifetimes were used for the three main ballast types, the PWF at 8% is 5.642 for 4-foot ballasts, 6.066 for 8-foot ballasts, and 5.278 for 8-foot HO ballasts. Note that although the CCE can be measured in cents per kWh, it does not depend on current or future energy prices. The consumer will benefit whenever the cost of conserved energy is less than the price of energy for that end use. 4,6.1 CCE Data Inputs The data inputs are the same as in Section 4.1.1. Only those designs that are eliminated by the energy efficiency level are included in the calculation of impacts. Consumers whose base case choice is eliminated by an energy efficiency level are assumed to purchase the design option corresponding to the minimum energy efficiency level.

4.6.2 CCE Results Tables 4.23.c through 4.32.c show the cost of conserved energy at the consumer's site of the energy efficiency level as compared to the base case. Note that the current (1994) and projected (2000) average commercial electricity prices are 7.5 and 8.26 cents per kWh, respectively. These are equivalent to 21.98 and 24.21 dollars per million Btu, (20.83 and 22.95 dollars per gigajoule) , respectively, where one kWh is taken as 3,412 Btu (3,599 kilajoules) site energy. The tables may be examined to discover if the CCE for a particular level and class is higher or lower than the projected national electricity prices of $0.075 for commercial users and $0.055 for industrial users. As an example, consider the following equations used to calculate the CCE at level 3 for the 2F32T8 ballast based on the data of Table 4.30.a, where the weighted average Ballast Installed Cost ( IC) and Energy Use of the units sold below level 3 (Table 4.30.b) are calculated first:

WBIC = (0.024 ® 39.77 + 0.0003 ® 44.81) / (0.024 + 0.0003 ) = 39.84 Weighted Avg. Energy Use = (0.024 e 314 + 0.0003 ® 293) / (0.024 + 0.0003) = 314
and the CCE (Table 4.30.c) is calculated by dividing the difference between the Ballast Installed Cost at level 3 and the WBIC, by the difference between the Annual Energy Use at level 3 and the weighted average Annual Energy Use :

CCE = (52.21 - 39.84) / ((314 - 276) ® 5.642) = 5.8

4-31

### Table 4,23<a Cost (1994$) and Energy Use Summary: Fluorescent Ballasts (1F40T12)

Ballast Present

Value (at 8%) Lamp Annual Annual Annual Technology Installed

Cost Replacement

Cost Electricity

Cost Lamp

Replacement Life

cycle Cost Electricity

Use 2000 Option (1994$) (1994$) (1994$) Cost (1994$) kWh/vear Distribution EEM 32.52 9.23 13.70 1.68 118.90 183 91.3% CC 39.15 9.23 12.66 1.68 120.00 169 0.2% ERS 49.26 9.23 10.50 1.68 117.50 140 8.5%


### Table 4.23.b Weighted Averages of Units Sold Below Levels : Fluorescent Ballasts (1F40T12)
<------------------ Level --------------------> l 2 3 4 Ballast Installed Cost (1994 $) 32.52 32.52 32.53 32.53 Annual Operating Cost (1994 $) 15.37 15.37 15.37 15.37 Life-Cycle Cost at 8% (1994 $) 118.90 118.90 118.90 118.90 Energy Use (kWh/yr. ) 183 183 183 183



### Table 4

.23.c Life

-Cycle Cost Differences ( 1994$), Payback Periods (years) and Cost of

Conserved Energy (at 8 %® Real), Fluorescent Ballasts (1F40T12)
<------------------ Level --------------------> 1 2 3 4 LCC Savings -1.10 -1.10 1.40 1.40 Payback 6.4 6.4 5.2 5.2 CCE (cent/kWh) 8.7 8.7 7.0 7.0 Notes: Energy Efficiency Level I is generally cathode cutout, except where cathode cutout is not available (then baseline option). 2 is electronic, except for four

-foot T12s, which are cathode cutout. 3 is electronic rapid start

. except for classes where only electronic instant start ballasts are available. 4 is same as level 3, except for T8s, which are electronic instant starts.



### 4-32

### Table 4.24.a Cost (1994$) and Energy Use Summary: Fluorescent Ballasts (2F40T12)

echnology Ballast

Installed Cost Present Value

(at 8%) Lamp Replacement Cost Annual

Electricity Cost Annual

Lamp Replacement Lifecycle Cost Annual 

### Electricity Use 000 Option (1994$) (1994$) (1994$) Cost (1994$) kWh/year Distribution 

### EEM 33.88 10.67 23.57 1.90 

### 177.40 315 94.8% CC 40.30 10.67 21.36 1.90 171.60 285 

### 0.3% ERS 50.38 10,67 20.21 1.90 174.70 269 4.9%



### Table 4<24ab Weighted Averages of Units Sold Below Levels: Fluorescent Ballasts (2F40T12) -

<---------------- Level --------------------> 1 2 3 4 Ballast Installed Cost (1994 $) 33.88 

### 33.88 33.89 33.89 Annual Operating Cost (1994 $) 25.47' 25.47 

### 25.46 25.46 Life-Cycle Cost at 8% (1994 $) 177.40 177.40 177.38 

### 177.38 Energy Use (kWh/yr.) 315 315 315 315



### Table 4.24.c Life-Cycle Cost D ifferences ( 1994$), Payback Periods (years) and Cost of

. Conserved Energy (at 8% real) Fluorescent Ballasts (2F40T12)

<------------------ Level --------------------> 1 2 3 4 LCC Difference 5.80 5.80 2.68 2.68 Payback 2.9 2.9 4.9 4.9 CCE (cent/kWh) - 3.8 3.8 6.4 6.4 Notes: Energy Efficiency Level I is generally cathode cutout, except where cathode cutout is not available (then baseline option). 2 is electronic, except for four-foot Ti 2s, which are cathode cutout. 3 is electronic rapid start, except for classes where only electronic instant start ballasts are available. 4 is same as level 3, except for T8s, which are electronic instant starts.



### 4-33

### Table 4.25 Cost (1994$) and Energy Use Summary: Fluorescent Ballasts (3F40T12)

Present Value Ballast (at 8%) Lamp Annual Annual Annual Installed Replacement Electricity ' Lamp Electricity Technology Cost Cost . Cost Replacement Lifecycle Cost Use 2000 Option (1994$) (1994$) (1994$) Cost (1994$) kWh/year Distribution ERS 58.40 12.11 30.03 2.19 240.30 400 100.0% Note: The only ballast type in this product class is the rapid start ballast. Weighted averages, LCC differences, Payback and' CCE cannot be computed.


### Table 4.26 Cost (1994$) and Energy Use Summary: Fluorescent Ballasts (4F40T12)

Present Value Ballast (at 8%) Lamp Annual Annual Annual Installed Replacement Electricity Lamp Electricity Technology Cost Cost Cost Replacement Lifecycle Cost Use 2000 Option (1994$) (1994$) (1994$) Cost (1994$) kWh/vear Distribution ERS 67.71 17.43 45.81 3.16 344.00 611 100.0% Note: The only ballast type in this product class is the rapid start ballast. Weighted averages, LCC differences, Payback and CCE cannot be computed.



### 4-34

## Table 4.27.a Cost (1994$) and Energy Use Summary: Fluorescent Ballasts (2F96T12)

echnology Ballast

Installed Cost Present Value

(at 8%) Lamp Replacement Cost Annual

Electricity Cost Annual

Lamp Replacement Lifecycle Cost Annual Electricity Use 000 Option (1994$) (1994$) (1994$) Cost (1994$) kWh/vear Distribution 

### EEM 60.18 30.45 40.05 5.23 334.00 534 76.3% EIS 81.56 30.45 35.60 5.23 328.00 475 23.7%


### Table 4.27.b Weighted Averages of Units Sold Below Levels: Fluorescent Ballasts (2F96T12)

<------------------ Level --------------------> 1 2 3 4 Ballast Installed Cost (1994 $) NA 60 .18 60

. 18 60.18 Annual Operating Cost (1994 $) NA 45.28 45.28 45.28 

### Life-Cycle Cost at 8 % (1994 $) NA 334.00 334.00 334.00 Energy Use (kwh/yr.) NA 534 534 534


### Table 4.27.c Life-Cycle Cost Diff erences ( 1994$), Payback Periods (years) and Cost of Conserved Energy (at 8% real) Fluorescent Ballasts (2F96T12)

<------------------ Levels --------------------> 1 2 3 4 

### LCC Savings NA 6.00 6.00 6.00 Payback NA 

### 4.8 4.8 4.8 CCE (cent/kWh) NA 

### 6.0 6.0 6.0 Notes: Energy Efficiency Level. 1 is generally cathode cutout, except where cathode cutout is not available (then baseline option). 2 is electronic, except for four-foot TI 2s, which are cathode cutout. 3 is electronic rapid start, except for classes

- where only electronic instant start ballasts are available. 4 is same as level 3, except for T8s, which are electronic instant starts.



### 4-35

### Table 4.28.a Cost (1994$) and Energy Use Summary : Fluorescent Ballasts (2F96T12HO)

Ballast Present

Value (at 8 %) Lamp Annual Annual Annual Technology Installed

Cost Replacement

Cost Electricity

Cost Lamp

Replacement Lifecycle

Cost Electricity

Use 2000 Option (1994$) (1994$ (1994$) Cost (1994$) kWh/year Distribution EEM 89.32 54.69 51.00 10.63 413.20 1020 68.7% CC 122.37 54.69 47.40 10.63 427.70 948 0.1% ERS 104.58 54.69 45.21 10.63 397.90 904 31.2%


### Table 4.2&.b Weighted Averages of Units Sold Below Levels: Fluorescent Ballasts (2F96T12HO)

<------------------ Level --------------------> 1 2 3 4 Ballast Installed Cost (1994 $) 89.32 89.39 89.39 89.39 Annual Operating Cost (1994 $) 61.63 61.63 61.63 61.63 Life-Cycle Cost-at 8 % (1994 $) 413.20 413.23 413.23 413.23 Energy Use (kWh/yr.) 1020 1020 1020 1020


### Table 4.28.c Life-Cycle Cost Differences (1994$), Payback Periods (years) and Cost of

Conserved Energy (at 8 %® real) Fluorescent Ballasts (2F96T12ITO)
<------------------ Level --------------------> 1 2 . 3 LCC Savings -14.50 15.33 15.33 15.33 Payback 9.2 2.6 2:6 2.6 CCE (cent/kWh) 8.7 2.5 2.5 2.5 Notes: Energy Efficiency Level I is generally cathode cutout, except where cathode cutout is not available (then baseline option). 2 is electronic, except for four-foot T12s, which are cathode cutout. 3 is electronic rapid start , except for classes where only electronic instant start ballasts are available. 4 is same as level 3. except for T8s, which are electronic instant starts.



### 4-36

### Table 4.29.a Cost (1994$) and Energy Use Summary: Fluorescent Ballasts (IF32T8)

echnology Ballast

Installed Cost Present Value

(at 8%) Lamp Replacement Cost Annual

Electricity Cost Annual

Lamp Replacement Lifecycle Cost Annual Electricity Use 000 Option (1994$) (1994$) (1994$) Cost (1994$) kWh/year Distribution 

### EEM 37.79 9.81 12.47 1.78 118.00 166 

### 6.6% ERS 50.30 9.81 10.40 1.78 119.00 139 13.8% EIS 49.83 19.07 10.15 3.55 126.00 135 79.6%


### Table 4.29.b Weighted Averages of Units Sold Below Levels: Fluorescent Ballasts (1F32T8)
<------------------ Level --------------------> 1 2 3 4 Ballast Installed Cost (1994 $) NA 37.79 37.79 46.27 Annual Operating Cost (1994 $) NA 14.25 14.25 12.84 

### Life-Cycle Cost at 8% (1994 $) . NA 118.00 118.00 118.68 Energy Use (kWh/yr.) NA 166 166 148


### Table 4.29.c Life-Cycle Cost Differences (1994$), Payback Periods (years) and Cost of.

Conserved Energy (at 8 %® real), Fluorescent Ballasts (IF32T8)
------------------ Level --------------------> 1 2 3 4 LCC Savings NA -1.00 -1.00 -7.32 Payback NA 6.0 6.0 CCE (cent/kWh) NA 8.2 8.2 5.0 Notes: Payback does not occur since the operating costs increase for level 4. Energy Efficiency Level 1 is generally cathode cutout, except where cathode cutout is not available (then baseline option). 2 is electronic , except for four-foot T1 2s, which are cathode cutout. 3 is electronic rapid start, except for classes where only electronic instant start ballasts are available. 4 is same as level 3 , except for T8s,.which are electronic instant starts.



### 4-37

### Table 4.30.a Cost (1994$) and Energy Use Summary : Fluorescent Ballasts (2F32T8)

Ballast Present

Value (at 8%) Lamp Annual Annual Annual Technology Installed

Cost Replacement

Cost Electricity

Cost Lamp

Replacement Lifecycle

Cost Electricity

Use 2000 Option (19945) (1994$) (1994$) Cost (1994$) kWh/vear Distribution EEM 39.77 11.83 23.54 2.14 184.00 314 2.4% CC 44.81 11.83 22.01 2.14 181.00 293 0.03% ERS 52.21 11.83 20.71 2.14 181.00 276 14.65% EIS 51.74 23.00 20.00 4.29 188.00 267 82.9%



### Table 4.30.b Weighted Averages of Units Sold Below Levels: Fluorescent Ballasts (2F32T8)
<------------------ Level --------------------> 1 2 3 4 Ballast Installed Cost (1994 $) 39.77 39.84 39.84 50.44 Annual Operating Cost (1994 $) 25.68 25.66 25.66 23.25 Life-Cycle Cost at 8% (1994 $) 184.00 183

.96 183 .96 181.42 Energy Use (kWh/yr.) 314 314 314 281


### Table 4.30.c Life-Cycle Cost Differences (1994$), Payback Periods (years) and Cost of

Conserved Energy (at 8% real), Fluorescent Ballasts (2F32T8)
<------------------ Level --------------------> 1 2 3 4. LCC Savings 3.00 2.96 2.96 -6.58 Payback 3.3 4.4 4.4 CCE (cent/kWh) 4.3 5.8 5.8 1.6 Notes: Payback does not occur since the operating costs increase for level 4. Energy Efficiency Level 1 is generally cathode cutout, except where cathode cutout is not available (then baseline option). 2 is electronic, except for four

-foot T12s, which are cathode cutout. 3 is electronic rapid start. except for classes where only electronic instant start ballasts are available. 4 is same as level 3, except for T8s, which are electronic instant starts.



### 4-38 .

### Table 4®31,a Cost (1994$) and Energy Use Summary: Fluorescent Ballasts (MM)

echnology Ballast

Installed Cost Present Value , (at 8%) Lamp Replacement Cost Annual

Electricity Cost Annual

Lamp Replacement Lifecycle Cost Annual Electricity Use 000 

### Option (1994$) (1994$) (1994$) Cost (1994$) kWh/year 

### Distribution ERS 61.09 13.85 28.43 2.51 235.00 379 15.1% EIS 60.58 26.92 27.09 5.02 240.00 361 84.9%



### Table ®31® Weighted Averages of Units Sold Below Levels : Fluorescent Ballasts (3F32T8)

Level 1 2 3 4 Ballast Installed Cost (1994 $) NA NA NA 61.09 Annual Operating Cost (1994 $) NA NA NA 30.94 Life-Cycle Cost at 8% (1994 $) NA NA NA 235.00 Energy Use (kWh/yr.) NA NA NA 379


### Table 4e31oc Life-Cycle Cost Diff erences (1994$), Payback Periods (years) and Cost of Conserved Energy (at 8 %® real), Fluorescent Ball asts (3F32T8)

<------------------ Level --------------------> 1 2 3 4 LCC Savings NA NA NA -5.00 Payback NA NA NA CCE (cent/kWh) NA NA NA ** Notes: *The payback is not well defined since the purchase price does not increase with more efficient design while the total operating cost increases. Cost of conserved. energy is not well defined since the purchase price does not increase with design option. Energy Efficiency Level 1 is generally cathode cutout , except where cathode cutout is not available (then baseline option). 2 is electronic , except for four-foot TI 2s, which are cathode cutout. 3 is electronic rapid start, except for classes where only electronic instant start ballasts are available. 4 is same as level 3 , except for T8s, which are electronic instant starts.



### 4-39

### Table 4.32.a Cost (1994$) and Energy Use Summary : Fluorescent Ballasts (4F32T8)

Ballast Present

Value (at 8%) Lamp Annual Annual Annual Technology Installed

Cost Replacement

Cost Electricity

Cost Lamp

Replacement Lifecycle

Cost Electricity

Use 2000 Option (1994$)(1994$) (1994$) Cost (1994$) kWh/year Distribution ERS 65.74 15.87 37.02 2.87 290.00 494 15.2% EIS 65.18 30.85 34.76 5.75 292.00 463 84.8%


### Table 4.32.b Weighted Averages of Units Sold Below Levels: Fluorescent Ballasts (4F32T8)
<------------------ Level --------------------> 1 2 3 4 Ballast Installed Cost (1994 $) NA NA NA 65.74 Annual Operating Cost (1994 $) NA NA NA 39.89 Life-Cycle Cost at 8% (1994 $) NA NA NA 290.00 Energy Use (kWh/yr.) NA NA NA 494 

### Table 4.32.c Life-Cycle Cost Differences (1994$), Payback Periods (years) and Cost of

Conserved Energy (at 8 %® real), Fluorescent Ballasts (4F32T8)
<------------------ Level ---------------- >

.2 3 4 LCC Savings NA NA NA -2.00 Payback NA NA NA CCE (cent/kWh) NA NA NA Notes: * The payback is not well defined since the purchase price does not increase with more efficient design while the total operating cost increases. ** Cost of conserved energy is not well defined since the purchase price does not increase with design option. Energy Efficiency Level I is generally cathode cutout, except where cathode cutout is not available (then baseline option). 2 is electronic. except for four-foot T12s, which are cathode cutout. 3 is electronic rapid start, except for classes where only electronic instant start ballasts are available. 4 is same as level 3, except for T8s, which are electronic instant starts.



### 4-40

### ,REFERENCES

1. Chiang, J.H., ed. 1994. Means Electrical Cost Data, 17th Annual Edition. R.S. Means Company, Inc, Kingston, MA. 2. Department Of Energy. 1995. Annual Energy Outlook 1995. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. DOE/EIA-0383(95). 3. Department Of Energy. 1992. Lighting in Commercial Buildings. Energy Information Administration, U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D.C. DOE/EIA/-0555(92)/1. 4. Abesamis, R.S., Black, P., Kessel, J.; IEEE Transactions On Industrial Applications, Vol. 26, No. 5, Sept/Oct. 1990, and updated statistics through March 1993 by personal communication. 

### 5. E-Source, E-Source Atlas, Boulder, CO., p. 141-142, 1994.

## CHAPTER 5. NATIONAL ENERGY AND ECONOMIC IACTS

Analyzing the impacts of alternative ballast energy efficiency levels requires comparing, projected U.S. commercial and industrial energy consumption with and without implementation of these levels

. In this analysis, we project the lighting energy savings , as well as the energy impacts of the lighting systems on heating, ventilating, and air conditioning systems, which would result from possible energy efficiency levels for fluorescent l amp ballasts

. The cases without imposed changes in energy efficiency levels are referred to as base case projections. These base case projections are compared to projections of conditions that would be likely to prevail if the possible energy efficiency levels were implemented

. The difference between the two projections is defined as the impact of possible energy efficiency levels. Projections are made for a number of demographic, economic, and energy variables, which hold true for all end uses, including energy prices, building floor space growth, building starts, mix of building types (small office, large office, retail, etc), and building shell thermal characteristics. Additional (product-specific) variables include equipment prices, and system wattage inputs.



## 5.1 ECONOMIC AND DEMOGRAPHIC DATA
EPRI's COMMEND 4. 0 commercial sector end

-use forecasting model (described in detail in Appendix B) provides projections of commercial and industrial energy demand by end use and fuel. These projections depend upon floor space growth , gross national product (GNP), and energy prices. Appendix B describes the inputs specific to interior lighting.
5.1.1 Commercial Floor Space Projections Table 5.1 shows the forecasted total U.S. commercial and industrial sector floor space -(including federal buildings) by building types, based on data developed by Regional Economic Research (RER). Floor space growth drives the overall growth in demand for energy services in the, COMMEND model. The base year commercial floor stock is estimated by R based on the 1992 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS)(1). This base year estimate is combined with commercial floor space forecast by building categories provided by Data Resources Incorporated (DRI) to generate the year-to-year forecast of surviving and new commercial building floor space by ECS building category. The industrial floor space forecast is estimated by R based on the 1991 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey ( MECS)(2), and on the 1995 Annual Energy Outlook (3) manufacturing employment forecast to 2010 and then extended to 2030, using the same growth rate. The survival functions, provided as defaults in COMMEND 4.0, characterize the retirement rate of buildings and are used to estimate annual additions from 1950 to 1992.



## 5-1

### Table 5.1 US Commercial and Industrial Floor Space Projections (Billions of square feet) Small Office Large

Office Retail Restarrant Grorani Weshnnca School Col IPAe Health Lodgina Assemh1v Misc Indus- Total

trial 1980 4.64 5.65 9.20 1.10 0.57 9.41 4.73 2.82 1.23 1.75 5.91 5.66 9.87 62.54 1985 4.93 6.01 10.70 1.28 0.66 10.13 4.83 2.86 1.43 2.17 6.76 6.47 11.28 69.53 1990 5.39 6.56 11.98 1.44 0.74 11.11 5.24 3.01 1.68 2.68 7.88 7.54 13.15 78.39 1995 5.89 7.17 13.26 1.59 0.82 12.06 5.59 3.16 1.93 3.13 8.68 8.44 13.96 85.66 2000 6.36 7.75 14.58 1.75 0.90 13.09 5.57 3.16 2.05 3.46 9.27 9.30 14.11 91.36 2005 6.78 8.26 16.01 1.92 0.98 13.99 5.48 3.14 2.12 3.59 9.78 .10.26 14.28 96.5.9 2010 7.19 8.76 17.64 2.11 1.08 14.67 5.39 3.13 2.18 3.63 10.10 11.40 14.40 101.68 2015 7.66 9.34 19.49 2.33 1.20 15.55 5.30 3.12 2.26 3.72 10.54 12.69 14.54 107.73 2020 8.13 9.91 21.34 2.56 1.31 16.44 5.22 3.10 2.33 3.80 10.99 13.98 14.68 113.78 2025 8.60 10.48 23.19 2.78 1.43 17.32 5.13 3.09 2.40 3.89 11.44 15.26 14.83 119.82 2030 9.07 11.05 25.04 3.00 1.54 18.20 5.04 3.07 2.47 3.98 11.89 16.55 14.97 125.87
Note: To convert values above to metric units, divide by 10.764 to get square meters (m). Sources: COMMEND national database, RER/1992 CBECS, and 1991 MECS.



### 5.1.2 New Construction/Building Starts Building starts are calculated by R using the floor stock forecast and the decay function assumed in COMMEND. The commercial and industrial building starts are listed in Table 5.2. The COMMEND building decay functions are shown in Table 5.3.



### Table 5.2 Commercial Building Starts, 1980

-2030 (Billions of square feet) Small Office Large Retail Rest Grocery

Office - aurant Ware '-house School College Health Lodging Asse mbly Misc Industrial Total 1980 0.14 0.17 0.04 0.36 0.02 0.36 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.22 0.21 0.37 2.17 1985 0.11 0.13 0.05 0.40 0.02 0.21 0.05 0.03 .0.05 0.09 0.20 0.19 0.33 1.85 1990 0.17 0.21 0.05 0.38 0.02 0.03 0.14 0.06 0.06 '0.12 0.28 0.27 0.46 2.5 1995 0.19 0.23 0.05 0.42 0.03 0.31 0.09 0.05 0.06 0.11 0.18 0.21 0.12 .2.04 2000 0.19 0.23 0.05 0.45 0.03 0.34 0.06 0.04 0.03 0.07 0.21. 0.26 0.17 '2.11 2005 0.18 0.22 0.06 0.51 0.03 0.31 0.07 0.04 31.5 0.04 0.19 0.3 0.19 2.17 2010 0.18 0.22 0.07 0.59 0.03 0.27 0.07 0.06 36.8 0.04 0.17 0.35 0.2 2.29 2015 0.20 0.24 0.08 0.64 0.04 0.35 0.06 0.05 41.7 0.06 0.22 0.38 0.24 2.59 2020 0.21 0.26 '0.08 0.65 0.04 0.37 0.06 0.04 44.7 0.07 0.23 0.39 0.25 2.68 2025 0.23 0.28 0.08 0.67 0.04 0.38 0.06 0.04 47.5 0.08 0.24 0.41 0.26 2.8 2030 0.23 0.28 0.08 0.70 0.04 0.38 0.06 0.04 49.1 0.08 0.25 0.42 0.26 2.89 Note: To convert values above to metric units, divide by 10.764 to get square meters (m'). Sources: COMMEND national database, RER.



### 5-2

## Building Type

Small Office Large Office Restaurant Retail Grocery Warehouse School College Health. Lodging Industrial Miscellaneous 

### Table 5,3 Building Retirement Rates Percentage Percentage Percentage Age Remaining Age Remaining Age Remaining Years % Years % Years %
15 99.00 36 50.00 15 99.00 36 . 50.00 15 99.00 36 50.00 15 99.00 36 50.00 15 99.00 36 50.00 15 99.00 48 50.00 15 99.00 48 50.00 15 99.00 48 50.00 15 99.00 48 50.00 15 99.00 48 50.00 15 99.00 48 50.00 15 99.00 48 50.00 80 20.00 80 20.00 80 20.00 80 20.00 80 20.00 90 20.00 90 20.00 90 20.00 90 20.00 90 . 20.00 90 20.00 90 20.00 Sources: COMMEND national database, RER.



### 5.1.3 Commercial Energy Prices Table 5. 4 shows the energy price forecasts used in this analysis

. Non-electric energy prices are important here because they affect the choice of heating energy in COMMEND forecasts, which ultimately influences the estimates of lighting interactions with heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVVAC). The COMMEND default fuel price files are developed by RER ; prices prior to 1995 are taken from DOE/ EIA's Monthly Energy Review (4) and price forecasts are taken from DOE/EIA' s 1995 Annual Energy Outlook (3) to 2010 and extrapolated to 2030 using the same growth rate

. The real prices for electricity, natural gas, and fuel oil

. used in the analysis are in constant 1994 dollars

. The base year ( 1992) electricity costs are $0.07 per kWh for commercial sector and $0.05 per kWh for industrial sector..

### Table 5.4 Enemy Prices for Commercial and Industrial Sectors (1994 Dollars) Electricity ($/kWh) Natural Gas ($/therm) Distillate Oil ($/gal) Ind Com Ind Com Ind Com 1980 0.07 0.08 0.45 0.45 0.87 1.08 1981 0.07 0.08 0.50 0.49 0.91 1.14 1982 0.08 0.08 0.59 0.55 0.92 1.07 1983 0.07 0.08 0.61 0.61 .0.87 1.04 1984 0.07 0.08 0.59 0.59 0.83 1.00 1985 0.07 0.08 0.53 0.56 0.73 0.90 1986 0.06 0.07 0.42 0.50 0.59 0.57 1987 0.06 0.07 0.37 0.49 0.57 0.54 1988 0.06 0.07 0.36 0.47 0.52 0.58 1989 0.05 0.07 0.35 0.46 0.49 0.66 1990 0.05 0.07 0.33 0.47 0.55 0.58 1991 0.05 0.07 0.29 0.48 0.53 0.56 1992 0.05 0.07 0.30 0.49 0.50 0.56 1993 0.05 0.07 0.32 0.50 0.48 0.57 1994 0.05 0.07 0.31 0.52 0.50 0.58 1995 0.05 0.07 0.31 0.55 0.52 0.60 1996 0.05 0.06 0.32 0.55 0.54 0.62 1997 0.05 0.06 0.32 0.56 0.56 0.63 1998 0.05 0.06 0.33 0.56 0.57 0.66 1999 0.05 0.06 0.33 0.56 0.60 0.68 2000 0.05 0.06 0.33 0.57 0.62 0.69 2005 0.05 0.07 0.43 0.61 0.67 0.78 2010 0.05 0.07 0.47 0.74 0.73 0.84 2015 0.05 0.07 0.47 0.74 0.73 0.84 2020 0.05 0.08 0.47 0.74 0.73 0.84 2025 0.05 0.08 0.47 0.74 0.73 0.84 2030 0.05 0.08 0.47 0.74 0.73 0.84 Note: To convert units to $/gigajoule, multiply $/therm by 9.47817, and multiply $/gallon by 6.834.



### 5.2 BASE CASE FORECAST The Base Case was created to project national energy consumption accounting for changes in ballast energy efficiency levels due to market forces and existing programs. Forecasts of policy assumptions are compared to the Base Case forecast to estimate savings potential beyond existing and currently planned programs and therefore savings are less than those from forecasts that compare with frozen-efficiency scenarios (where efficiency levels remain constant at base year levels.) The Base Case assumes that significant lighting efficiency improvements are stimulated by state building codes and standards, electric utility DSM programs, and market pull programs such as Environmental Protection Agency's Green Lights Initiative. The utility DSM programs are assumed


### 5-4

### to end after 1995.. Substantial retrofit from magnetic fluorescent systems to electronic fluorescent systems is assumed to continue after 1995. The other market pull programs persist throughout the 2000 - 2030 period. Projected efficiency levels are primarily based on the Lighting Research Institute's (LRI) survey of manufacturers, utilities, and lighting maintenance companies, which provides projected trends in the mix of lighting technologies through the year 2000. (5). Lighting energy consumption is projected to decrease owing to the retrofit of magnetic ballasts with more efficient electronic ballasts, and owing to switching from 40 watt fluorescent lamps to energy-saving 34 watt fluorescent lamps. As the conversion process nears an end after year 2000, the growth of floor space results in increased energy consumption. Section 5.4 below in this chapter presents a Sensitivity Analysis, specifically a Low Efficiency Base Case scenario. Future prices and market shares of efficient technologies, partly dependent upon the extent to which current electric utility company programs promoting them will continue, are difficult to predict. If electric utility programs are short-lived or ineffective, this will lead to a lower market share for efficient lighting technologies in the base case. This will cause greater savings to be predicted for alternative ballast energy efficiency levels than if the base case assumption is that electric utility programs will be effective. In Section 5.4, annual energy consumption over time is presented in three figures for the Base Case, and for the Sensitivity Analysis.



## 5.3 ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVELS F ORECASTS The COMMEND model (6) projects a number of economic and energy-use variables that are used to assess the impact of ballast energy efficiency levels on commercial and industrial consumers, electric utilities, the environment, and ballast manufacturers.. This chapter presents the model's projections, assuming various energy efficiency levels. The principal outputs from COMMEND are annual energy consumption by end use and fuel and energy use intensity (EUI, kWh/sq ft-yr, or kWh/m2-yr) for 13 commercial and industrial building types. Differences in energy consumptions between a base case and each energy efficiency levels case are calculated from COMMEND outputs. These outputs are provided annually (or for selected years) and are summed cumulatively over a period of time, i.e., 2000-2030. Energy savings are given for each year from implementation of energy efficiency levels in 2000 to the end of the period.. COMMEND output is used to evaluate the net present value of each energy efficiency level. The sensitivity of the outputs to the key assumptions and data is analyzed; the results of this analysis are also presented. Section 5.3.1 presents the alternative energy efficiency levels analyzed. Section 5.3.2 presents the historical and projected interior lighting energy consumption for the commercial and industrial sectors under different energy efficiency levels for fluorescent ballasts. Section 5.3.3 presents annual installations of fluorescent ballasts. Section 5.3.4 describes equipment prices used in this analysis. Section 5.3.5 presents net present value of alternative energy efficiency levels.


## .5-5

### Appendix B of this report describes the CO MMEND methodology and assumptions used in the

current analysis. 

### 5.3.1 Energy Efficiency Levels Table 5.5 shows the correspondence between the ballast energy efficiency levels and the engineering technology design options. The following abbreviations are used in the table to indicate the ballast type: 

### EEM = Energy-Efficient Magnetic ERS = Electronic, Rapid-Start CC = Cathode Cutout EIS = Electronic, Instant-Start The EEM and CC ballasts do not exist as 3-F40, 4-F40, 3-F32 or 4-F32 types. The 3-F40 and 4-F40 types aie assumed to be a combination of one- and two-lamp F40 ballasts, and the 3-F32 and 4-F32 types are assumed to be a combination of one- and two-lamp F32 ballasts in the COM MEND analysis. These cases are indicated with an asterisk in Table 5.5. The EEM ballast is chosen as the baseline. The CC ballast is chosen as Level 1, with the EEM ballast selected if the CC ballast does not exist. The ERS ballast is chosen for Level 2, except for the 1-F40 and 2-F40 ballasts where the CC ballast is selected, and the EIS ballast is selected for the 2-F96 ballast since the ERS ballast does not exist. The ERS ballast is chosen for Level 3, with the EIS ballast selected if the ERS ballast does not exist. The EIS ballast is selected for Level 4, with the ERS ballast selected if the EIS ballast does not exist.



### Table 5

.5 Energy Efficiency Levels for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts Energy Efficiency Level 1-F40 2-F40 2-F96 2-F96HO 3-F40 4-F40 1-F32 2-F32 3-F32 4-F32

Baseline EEM EEM EEM EEM EEM* EEM* EEM EEM EEM* EEM* 1 2 3 4 CC

CC ERS ERS CC

CC ERS ERS EEM

EIS EIS EIS CC

ERS ERS ERS CC*

ERS ERS ERS CC*

ERS ERS ERS EEM ERS ERS EIS CC

ERS ERS EIS EEM*

ERS ERS EIS CC*

ERS ERS EIS Al A2 CC

CC CC CC EEM EIS EEM

ERS CC*

CC CC*

CC EEM ERS CC

ERS EEM*

ERS CC*

ERS * EEM and CC ballasts do not exist as three- lamp or 4 lamp types and are assumed to be a combination of one- lamp and twolamp ballasts in the COMMEND analysis.



### In addition , two other alternative efficiency levels are considered under the Base Case


### 5-6

### scenario. Alternate level one (Al) is the same as level one except that the ballast-that operates the 2F96T 12HO lamps is changed from a'cathode cutout to an energy efficient magnetic ballast. Alternate level two (A2) is the same as level two except that for ballasts operating three and four T 12 lamps, the efficiency level remains at cathode cutout rather than changing to electronic rapid start. 5.3.2 Energy Consumption Table 5.6 and Figures 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 show the past and projected average "energy use of new lighting equipment for two sectors, the commercial sector averaged over all commercial building types, and the industrial sector (expressed as primary energy, or the amount of energy in fuel consumed at the electric power plant to produce the required electricity). The average commercial sector energy use intensity (EUI) of interior lighting is projected to decrease from 3.61 kWh/ft2-yr (38.9 kWh/rp2-yr) in 1992 to 3.13 kWh/ft2-yr (33.6 kWh/m2-yr) in 2030 in the Base case. For various energy efficiency levels, the interior lighting EUI ranges from 3.08 to 2.96 kWh/ft2-yr (33.2 to 31.9 38.9 kWh/m2-yr) in 2030. The industrial EUI for interior lighting is projected to drop from 3.8 kWh/ft2-yr (40.9 kWh/m2-yr) in 1992 to 3.01 kWh/ft2-yr (32.4 k m2-yr) in 2030 in the absence of any ballast energy efficiency levels, while the projected EUI for various energy efficiency level scenarios ranges from 2.97 to 2.87 kWh/ft2-yr (32.0 to 30.9 kWh/m2-yr) in 2030. The drop in EUIs reflects penetration of more efficient lighting technologies in the "market place.

Table 5.6 Average Interior Lighting EUIs (kWh/ft2-yr) 1992 1995 2000 2005 2010 

### 2015' 2020 2025 2030 Commercial Base case 3.61 3.46 3.19 3.12 3.11 3.11 3.12 3.12 3.13 Level 1 3J8 3.06 3.03 3.04 3.05 3.07 3.08 Level 2 3.16 2.97 2.92 2.94 2.96 2.98 3.00 Level 3 3.15 2.94 2.87 2.90 2.92 2.95 2.97 Level 4 3.15 2.93 2.87 2.89 2.91 2.94 2.96
Industrial Base case 

### 3.80 3.61 3.34 3.19 3.13 3.09 3.06 3.03 3.01 Level 1 3.33 3.14 3.05 3.02 3.00 2.98 2.97 Level 2 3.31 3.07 2.93 2.92 2.91 2.90 2.89 

### Level 3 3.30 3.05 2.91 2.89 2.88 2.88 " 2.87 Level4 

### 3.30 3.05 2.91 2.89 2.88 2.88 2.87
Note: To convert values to k m2, multiply values here by 10.764.



## 5-7Quads (EJ=1.055 x Quads) na na ss us w sa 1992 -- • _
1994 --
1996 --
.1998
2000 -

^• 2002 -

2004

2006 -

2008 -
e 2010 -
®• ! 2012 -•-

2014 --
2016 -
2018 -
2020 --
^ 2022 --

t _ 2024 -
2026

2028
2030 - us 4 CD CDQuads (EJ=1.055 x Quads) co w w D. ® o 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0 0

1994

° 1998 +
1998

01 ° i 2000 P 2002-

2004

2006 '

2008
2010 % . V
2012 ® 2014 ' ®®

2016 s
re 2018

! nnnn ° °° ® \\ 

### i° %
2022 ^ ° ® \

2024

2026

2028 

# -1 

# -r 2030 L ... a°1992

1994

1996 -
1998 •'-

2000

2002 •

0 2004 i^a n

? 0
2006

2008

2010

2012
2014-
2016

2018
2020 

## 2022

2024

2026

2028 -

2030 Quads (EJ=1.055 x Quads) 0 0 0 0• 0 o N A 0 0 0 w 0 fig

### There is an impact on the energy required for heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC). The net effect on energy savings is projected to be negative since the energy required for building heating is greater than the energy saved from the reduction in air conditioning when more efficient ballasts are used in buildings. As Table 5.7 and Figures 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3 indicate, higher energy savings would be achieved at higher energy efficiency levels. In the commercial sector, ballast energy efficiency levels are projected to generate cumulative savings from 1.78 to 3.41 Quads during the period of 2000-2030. In the industrial sector, projected savings range from 0.25 Quads to 0.54 Quads. Total cumulative savings (accounting for HVAC interactions) range from 1.75 to 3.41 Quads for the period. For the year 2010, commercial sector energy savings range from 2.6% to 4.8% of 2.69 Quads/yr. Table 5.7 lists the interior lighting energy consumption under alternate energy efficiency levels Al and A2. Compared with level one, alternate level one produces almost the same amount of energy savings. In contrast, alternate level two produces much less energy savings (roughly 15% less) than level two, due to the efficiency loss by switching from electronic rapid start ballasts to cathode cutout ballasts for 3 and 4 T12 lamps, which have substantial market shares in interior lighting.

### Table 5.7 Interior Lighting Energy Cons umption (Quadrillion Btu, Pri mary) Energy Efficiency Levels Base case Level I Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Al A2 Commercial 

### 1995 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.68 2000 2.55 2.54 2.54 2.53 2.53 2.54 2.54 2005 2.61 2.55 

### 2.53 2.52 2.51 2.56 2.54 2010 2.69 2.62 2.59 2.57 2.56 2.62 2.60 2015 2.82 2.76 2.72 2.70 2.70 2.76 2.73 2020 2.95 2.89 2.85 2.84 2.83 2.89 2.87 2025 3.09 3.03 2.99 2.97 2.97 3.03 3.01 2030 3.22 3.17 3.13 3.11 3.11 3.17 3.14 Commercial Energy Savings 2000-2030 1.78 

### 2.84 3.26 3.41 1.71 2.41 HVAC Energy Loss 2000-2030 -0.27 -0.45 -0.52 -0.54 -0.26 -0.39
Industrial 1995 0.56 0.56 

### 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 2000 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 2005 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.51 0.50 2010 0.51 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.50 0.49 2015 0.52 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.51 0.50 2020 0.52 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.51 0.51 2025 0.53 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.52 0.51 2030 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.53 0.53 Industrial Energy Savings 2000-2030 0.25 

### 0.50 0.53 0.54 0.21 

### 0.45 Total Energy Savings 2000-2030 1.75 

### 2.89 3.28 3.41 .1.65 2.47 Note: To convert above values to exajoules, multiply values here by 1.055.



### 5-12

### 5.3.3 Annual Installations

As shown in Table 5.8, installations' of fluorescent ballasts in the Base Case scenario are projected to remain at the same level in 2030 as in 1995, roughly 75 million, while in the intervening years the installation figures fluctuate at a lower level.. The fluctuation is controlled by the interaction of several factors, a) the initial distribution of ballast stock life, b) floor stock growth, c) the penetration of more efficient lighting technology leading to fewer systems installed while maintaining the same level of illuminance on the work plane, and d) the replacement in three- and four-Jamp fixtures of two magnetic ballasts by one electronic ballast. A decrease in the number of ballasts installed is greater in the higher energy efficiency level scenarios. For energy efficiency levels 2 through 4, the number of ballasts installed would drop from 75 million in 1995 to 66 million in 2030.
Table 5 .8: Installation of Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts (millions)

Base case Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 1995 75.3 75.3 75.3 75.3 75.3 2000 62.3 62.1 53.6 53.5 53.5 

### 2005 68.0 67.4 58.1 58.0 58.0 2010 63.9 63.8 55.6 55.6 55.6 2015 68.9 68.8 60.5 60.4 60.4 2020 73.2 73.6 64.3 64.2 64.2 

### 2025 70.3 70.4 63.3 63.2 63.2 2030 74.9 75.3 66.5 66.4 66.4 Totals 

### 2000-2030 2128.6 2127.9 1861.0 1859.5 1859.5


### 5.3.4 Equipment Prices The consumer purchase prices for new fluorescent ballasts in 1994 dollars are shown in Table 5.9. These are unit prices paid for ballasts by large commercial or industrial consumers. Prices are assumed to remain constant in real terms throughout the analysis period. At all levels for the 3- F40T12 and at the baseline and level 1 for the 3-F32T8 ballasts, the price is based on a weighted price for the non-tandem wired and the tandem wired configuration. The non-tandem wired installation consists of one one-lamp and one two-lamp ballast combination for one three-lamp fixture; and the tandem wired installation consists of three two-lamp ballasts wired to power two three-lamp fixtures. The weighting is 80% for non-tandem and 20% for tandem. At all levels for

' If there are no imports or exports , then annual installations are equivalent to domestic shipments. Domestic shipments can be calculated as annual installations, less imports, plus exports. 

### 5-13

### the 4-1740T 12 and at the baseline and level I for the 4-F32T8 ballast, the prices are based on two

two-lamp ballasts.


### Table 5. 9 Consumer Purchase Prices for New Fluorescent Ballasts ($1994) Energy Efficiency Levels Baseline 1 2 3 4 1-F40T12 $12.87 $ 19.51 $19.51 $29.62 $29.62 2-F40T12 12.44 18.86 18.86 28.94 28.94 3-F40T12 23.98 36.35 32

.20 32.20 32.20 4-F40T12 24

. 88 37.72 34.23 34.23 34.23 2-F96T12 20

.74 20.74 42.13 42

. 13 42.13 2-1796T121.10 39.33 72.37 54.67 54.67 54.67 1F32T8 17.32 17.32 29

. 84 29

.84 29.37 2-F32T8 16.70 21.74 29.14 29

. 14 28.67 3-F32T8 32

.23 32.57 32

.43 32.43 31.92 4-F32T8 33.40 43.48 34

.47 34.47 33.91
Source: Reference 5


### 5.3.5 Net Present Value (NPV) The net present value (NPV) to society of possible energy efficiency levels for any product is calculated by first determining the present values of the energy savings and of the additional equipment and labor costs of the energy efficiency levels cases as compared to the base case. The differences between the present values of energy savings and those of equipment costs are the net present values of ballast energy efficiency levels. In the current analysis, such calculations are carried out for the period 2000-2030, discounted back to 1994 at the discount rate of 7%. A positive NPV for energy efficiency levels results when the mix of lighting technologies corresponding to the energy efficiency levels have on-average lower life-cycle costs than the mix of technologies in the base case. Table 5.10 shows the NPV for the four energy efficiency levels and two alternate energy efficiency levels. These energy efficiency levels for fluorescent ballasts would yield energy savings that range from 1.8 to 4.1 billion dollars. Among the energy efficiency levels analyzed here, level 2, which includes both cathode cutout and electronic ballasts, has the highest net present value. The decrease in equipment cost from level 1 to level 2 results from the replacement of two cathode cutout ballasts used in three- and four-lamp fixtures by one electronic rapid start three-lamp ballast.
Alternate level one (Al) produces a-little less energy savings than level one, but also costs a little less, so the net present value is almost the same as that of level one. Alternate level two (A2) 

### 5-14

### produces substantially less energy savings than level two and also costs more than level two. As

a result, the net present value of alternate level two is 30% lower than that of level two, and drops below those of levels three and four.
Table 5.10: Net Present Value, Energy Savings and Equipment Costs of Energy Efficiency

Levels for Fluorescent Ballasts Purchased from 2000-2030 (Billion 1994 Dollars, Discounted at 7% Real) Efficiency Level 

### 1 2 3 4 Al A2 Energy Cost Savings 3 .27 5.26 5.99 6.23 3.11 4.52 Equipment Costs 1.43 1.16 2.11 2.42 1.28 1.71 Net Present value 1.84 4.10 3.88 3.81 1.83 2.81



## 5.4 LOW EFFICIENCY BASE CASE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS The base case and energy efficiency levels as described above constitute our Base Case scenario. The extent to which existing programs, such as utility lighting efficiency programs, will continue is uncertain. The sensitivity analysis is performed by running CO MMEND projections for another base case scenario, the Low-Efficiency Base Case, and forecasting the impacts of the energy efficiency levelscompared to this sensitivity case. The main difference between the Base Case and the LowEfficiency Base Case is that the latter assumes the efficiency retrofit activities from lighting systems with magnetic ballasts to those with electronic ballasts will disappear after 1995. While elimination of all those retrofit activities is unlikely, this provides a test of the sensitivity of results above to the Base Case assumptions. Thus, in the Low-Efficiency Base Case, interior lighting energy consumption is higher,'so the impacts of ballast energy efficiency levels are also higher. Figure 5.4 shows annual energy consumption for interior lighting for both the commercial and industrial sectors, projected from 1992 to 2030. The Base Case, which includes existing private and government programs, shows lower electricity consumption than the Low-Efficiency Base Case, which assumes that lighting retrofit stops after 1995. Figures 5.5 and 5.6 show the annual interior lighting energy consumption for the commercial and industrial sectors, respectively. All three figures show primary energy consumption, or the amount of energy in fuel consumed at the electric power plant to produce the required electricity.

### °®

3.2i 3.1 ®°

N 0) 14 CO

0) CO 0) 0 N 0 ® 11

0 co ® aD ® V_ 0 N Co Co 0 0) 0) 0) 0) 0 

### 0 

### ® e- T
-- T_ T_ N N N N N N N 0

N 0 N 0 0 0 

### 0 0 0 

### 0 0 0 0 ' 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N 

### Basecase Low-Efficiency Basecase 

# Figure 5.4 Commercial and Industrial Interior Lighting Energy Consu mption B aselines

### 3.5 3.4 3.3 3.2 3.1 x w 3 2.9 II w 2.9 2.7 2.6 _f a°® -®.® 2.5 f--1rI--+--+---+----- f---f---1-+ N It (® M 

### ® N 1 (0 CO O N Iq eD (0 0 N 1 (0 0 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) ® Q r- 

### ® e_ 0 T, 0 N 

### ® N 

### ® N 0 N N M '- e- - - N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 

### Low-Efficiency asecase


## Figure 5.5 Commercial Interior Lighting Energy Consump tion B aselines

5-17

### 0.62

0.5E ^-+ -+-+ -+ + - I ► -+- ; +-I +-+-++ E- +-I =-^-^ F L;+ +-+1 N (® 0 0 N 

### et 

## a) w 0) 0) 

### 0 0 0 0) 0 0) 0) 0 0 0 T- r r - N N N CO CO 0 N 0 0 0 N d 0 0 0 0 0 

## r ' r r r r. N N N N N 

## m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N 

## - Easecase -- - - Low-Efficiency Basecase



# Figure 5e6 Industrial Interi or Lighting Energy C onsumption Baselines

### Tale 5.11: Interior Lighting Energy Consumption (Quadrillion Btu, Primary), Low Efficiency Base Case Sensitivity

Energy Efficiency Levels Base case Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Commercial



### 1995 .2.68 2.68 2.68 2.68. 2.68 2000 2.60 2.59 2.58 2.58 2.58 2005 2.67 2.60 2.56 2.55 2.55 2010 2.76 2.66 2.61 2.59 2.59 2015 2.89 2.79 2.74 2.72 2.72 2020 3.02 2.93 2.88 2.86 2.85 2025 3.16 3.07 3.01 2.99 2.99 2030 3.29 . 3.21 3.15 3:13 3.13 Commercial Energy Savings 2000-2030 

### 2.54 3.95 4.51 4.63 HVAC E 2000-20 nergy Loss 30 -0.41 -0.64 -0.74 -0.76
Industrial 

### 1995 0.56 0.56 -0.56 0.56 0.56

2000 0.53 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.52 2005 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51 2010 0.52 0.51 0.49 0.49 0.49 2015 0.53 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.50 

### 2020 0.54 0.52 0.51 0.50 0.50 2025 0.54 0.53 0.51 0.51 0.51 2030 0.55 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.52 Industrial Energy Savings 2000-2030 0.40 0.77 0.82 0.82 Total Energy Savings 2000-2030 2.53 4.08 4.59 4.69

Note: To convert values to exajoules, multiply values above by 1.055.



### 5-19

### Table 5.11 lists the interior lighting energy consumptions under the Low-Efficiency Base Case

scenario. The results show the same pattern as in the Base Case scenario (Table 5.7), i.e., the higher the energy efficiency level is set, the higher are the energy savings, which range from 2.53 in level 1 to 4.69 Quads in level 4. Table 5.12 presents the net present values of ballast energy efficiency levels to society under the Low-Efficiency Base Case scenario. Both energy savings and additional equipment costs are greater under the Low-Efficiency Base Case scenario than in the Base case scenario (Table 5.10), as are the net present values of ballast energy efficiency levels.


### Table 5.12 Net Present Value, Energy Savings, and Equipment Costs of Energy Efficiency Levels for Fluorescent Ballasts Purchased from 2000-2030 (Billion 1994 Dollars, Discounted to 1994 at 7% Real), Low Efficiency Base Case Sensitivity Energy Efficiency Level 1 2 4 Energy Cost Savings 4.65 7.26 8.23 8.42 Equipment Costs 2.32 2.41 3.71 3.96
Net Present Value 2.34 4.85 4.52 4.46
Note: To convert Quads to exajoules in table above, multiply by 1.055.


### In Table 5.13, energy savings and NPVs under the Base Case and Low-Efficiency scenarios are compared. Under the Low-Efficiency scenario, energy savings would be higher. For example,energy savings from energy efficiency level 4 would be 4.69 Quads (4.95 EJ) under the LowEfficiency scenario (where efficiency retrofit from lighting systems with magnetic ballasts to those with electronic ballasts disappears with utility incentive programs), 1.28 Quads (1.35 EJ) higher than if such retrofits are continued at the pre-1995 level. The NPV of ballast energy efficiency levels would also be greater. For energy efficiency level 4, the NPV would be 4.46 billion dollars in the Low-Efficiency scenario, versus 3.81 billion dollars in the Base Case scenario.



### 5-20

### Table 5® 13: Co parison Between Base Case and Low-Efficiency Sensitivity , 2000-2030 Energy Efficiency Levels Level I Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Energy Savings (Quads primary) Base Case scenario 1.75 2.89 3.28 3.41 Low-Efficiency Base Case scenario 2.53 4.08 4.59 4.69 NPV (Billion 1994$, 7%) Base Case scenario 1.84 4.10 3.88 3.81 Low-Efficiency Base Case scenario 2.34 4.85 4.52 4.46

Note: To convert Quads to exajoules in table above, multiply by 1.055.

### REFERENCES

1. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA) 1994. Commercial Buildings Characteristics 1992: Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey.Energy Information Administration, United States Department of Energy. DOE/EIA0246(92). 2. DOE/EIA 1994. Manufacturing Consumption of Energy 1991: Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey. Energy Information Administration, United States Department of Energy . DOE/EIA-0512(91). DOE/EIA 1995. Annual Energy Outlook, Energy Information Administration, United States Department of Energy, Washington, DC. 4. DOE/EIA 1995. Monthly Energy Review, Energy Information Administration, United States Department of Energy, Washington DC. 5. Lighting Research Institute, 1995. Research for Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Energy Analysis Program, by the Lighting Research Institute under LBNL Subcontract No. 4602810; A. Gough, LRI Principal Investigator; J. Burke, Burke and Associates subcontractor to LRI. 

### 6. Regional Economic Research, Inc. COMMEND 4.0 User 's Guide, San Diego 1993.

5-22

## CHAPTER 6. IMPACTS OF BALLAST ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVELS ON ELECTRIC UTILITIES

6.1 INTRODUCTION Ballast energy efficiency levels have four principal effects on electric utilities: 1) they allow utilities to avoid fuel and other operating costs because less electricity needs to be generated; 2) they may allow utilities to defer construction of new generating capacity; 3) they may allow utilities to defer construction of new or upgraded transmission and distribution (T&D) capacity; and 4), they reduce revenues from electricity sales. The second section of this chapter presents the results of the avoided cost calculations. The third section presents the expected peak load and reliability savings for the analyzed energy efficiency levels. The fourth section presents the results of the revenue loss calculation. The fifth section presents a sensitivity analysis. More details on methodology may be found in Appendix C. 6.2 AVOIDED ENERGY AND AVOIDED CAPACITY COSTS Table 6.1 shows avoided energy and capacity costs for electricity savings from ballasts'. These costs are estimates based on the forecast prices of generation fuels and generating capacity. The value per EJ of avoided capacity costs is the same as in the case of low efficiency base case sensitivity analysis.'- As explained in Appendix C, this component implicitly contains the costs avoided when power plants are deferred or canceled. These avoided costs represent a simple summary of the utility analysis and they are a measure of the societal benefit of the electricity saved in each year. The first three columns of this table report the rates at which utilities save from the first three effects l)-3) listed in the paragraph above. 1) The Avoided Energy Cost Rate is the rate at which the utilities avoid burning fuel; 2) the Avoided Capacity Cost Rate is the rate at which utilities save by not having to build new generating capacity; and 3) the Avoided Transmission and Distribution Cost Rate is the rate at which utilities save by not having to build new transmission capacity. These results multiplied by primary energy savings, that is the total amount of energy entering power stations that is saved by a standard level in EJ, is the cost saving to the country's electric utility industry generated by the standard.

'Fuel price forecasts for the period 1995 to 2010 are taken from the DOE/EIA Annual Energy Outlook 1995, (DOE/EIA - 0383(95)). The forecasts for years after 2010 were linearly extrapolated. 2 This chapter shows results in S.I. units with American customary conversions shown where appropriate. Conversions are given in Appendix D. 1.0 EJ = 10'$ J.


### 6-1

### Table 6.1 Avoided Cost Rate

AVOIDED COST RATES (1994$/GJ)

Year Avoided

Energy Avoided

Capacity Avoided

Transmission and Total

Avoided Cost Rato Cost

Rato Distribution

Cost to Cost

Rato 1998 2.37 0.63 0.29 3.28 2000 2.45 1.06 0.37 3.87 2005 2.65 1.06 0.39 4.09 2010 2.85 1.06 0.40 4.31 2015 3.05 1.06 0.42 4.53 2020 3.26 1.06 0.43 4.74 2025 3.46 1.06 0.45 4.96 2030 3.66 1.06 0.46 5.18 

### AVOWED COST RATES (1994 Btu)

Year Avoided

Energy Cost Ra 

### to Avoided Capacity Cost Rate Avoided Trans mission and Distribution Cost R a to Total

Avoided cost to 1998 2.51 0.67 0.31 3.48 2000 2.59 1.01 0.35 3.69 2005 2.81 1.01 0.37 3.90 2010 3.02 1.01 0.38 4.10 2015 3.24 1.01 0.40 4.31 2020 3.45 1.01 0.41 4.52 2025 3.67 1.01 0.42 4.73 2030 3.88 1.01 0.44 4.93



### 6.3 PEAK LOAD AND CAPACITY REDUCTIONS Table 6.2 shows peak demand. reductions resulting from the listed energy efficiency levels. The base case peak load in the second column of Table 6.2 shows the coincident peak load of all such devices in the commercial sector. This column says, for example, that in 2025 the total electrical load caused by ballasts is predicted to be about 63 GW at the time of system peak. This load increases over time as more buildings are constructed and fluorescent lighting replaces other technologies. Energy consumption figures under the base and energy efficiency cases are obtained from COMMEND, and the peak impacts are calculated using the ASEUM model described in Appendix C.3 ASEUM calculated the net impact on the peak electrical demand of the energy efficiency levels, as shown in the other 4 columns. For example, at energy efficiency level 2, the biggest net reduction in electrical peak occurs around 2010, when the load is reduced by about 2.5 GW.

3 COMMEND is EPRI's Commercial Sector End Use Planning System , the model used in this analysis to forecast energy use. 

### 6-2

### Table 6.2 Peak Demand Savings (GW) - Ballasts

Base Case Year PeakLoad PEAKDEWAND 

## SA VING 

## S (GM)
Le 

### vel I Le

### -ml 2 Le

### vel 3 Le

### vel 4 2000 53.42 •0.23 0.37 0.41 0.43 

### 2001 53.45 0.43 0.67 0.76 0.78 2002 53.62 0.62 0.96 1.08 1.12 

### 2003 53.8 0.8 1.24 1.4 1.46 

### 2004 54.05 1.03 1.56 1.77 1.85 2005 54.31 1.21 1.85 2.11 2.18 

### 2006 54.57 1.4 2.13 2.43 2.5 

### 2007 54.85 1.53 2.36 2.68 2.77 

### 2008 55.15 1.58 2.47 2.8 2.89 2009 55.45 1.61 2.54 2.89 

### 2.98 2010 55.76 1.6 2.54 2.89 2.98 2011 56.23 1.58 2.52 2.87 2.96 2012 56.69 1.58 2.5 2.86 2.96 2013 57.17 1.54 2.48 2.82 2.93 2014 57.63 1.54 2.47 2.82 

### 2.93 2015 58.09 151 2.45 2.79 2.89 2016 58.57 1.49 2.43 2.77 2.87 2017 59.05 1.47 2.41 2.75 2.86 2018 59.51 1.46 2.4 2.73 2.84 2019 59.99 1.44 2.38 2.71 2.82 

### 2020 60.47 1.4 2.36 2.68 2.8 2021 60.95 1.38 234 2.68 2.8 2022 61.44 1.38 2.34 

### 2.66 2.79 2023 61.92 1.35 2.32 2.64 2.77 

### 2024 62.42 1.33 229 2.61 2.73 2025 62.91 1.33 2.29 2.61 2.75 2026 63.39 1.28 2.25 2.57 2.71 

### 2027 63.88 1.28 225 2.57 

### 2.7 2028 64.38 128 2.25 2.57 

### 2.7 2029 64.88 1.24 2.24 256 

### 2.68 2030 65.37 1.22 2.24 2.54 2.68

### Table 6.3 Capacity Savings (GW) o Ballasts

Year 

### CAPACITY SAVINGS (GVV)

Le vel1 Lew] 2 Level3 Level4 2000 0.28 0.45 0.49 0.51 2001 0.51 0.81 0.92 0.94 2002 0.75 1.15 1.30 1.34 2003 0.96 1.49 1.68 1.75 2004 1.24 1.87 2.13 2.21 2005 1.45 2.21 2.53 2.62 2006 1.68 2.56 2.92 3.00 2007 1.83 2.83 3.22 3.32 

### 2008 1.90 2.96 3.36 3.47 2009 1.94 3.04 3.47 3.58 2010 1.92 3.04 3.47 3.58 2011 1.90 3.02 3.45 3.56 2012 1.90 3.00 3.43 3.56 2013 1.85 2.98 3.39 3.51 2014 1.85 2.96 3.39 3.51 2015 1.81 2.94 3.34 3.47 2016 1.79 2.92 3.32 3.45 2017 1.77 2.90 3.30 3.43 2018 1.75 2.87 3.28 3.41 2019 1.72 2.85 3.26 3.39 2020 1.68 2.83 3.22 3.36 2021 1.66 2.81 3.22 3.36 2022 1.66 2.81 3.19 3.34 2023 1.62 2.79 3.17 3.32 2024 1.60 2.75 3.13 3.28 2025 1.60 2.75 3.13 3.30 2026 1.53 2.70 3.09 3.26 2027 1.53 2.70 3.09 3.24 2028 1.53 2.70 3.09 3.24 2029 1.49 2.68 3.07 3.22 2030 1.47 2.68 3.04 3.22

### ASEUM uses the appropriate conservation load factors , a T&D loss factor of 7,5%, and estimates of energy consumption calculated using COMMEND. The method of conservation load factors is shown in section C.4.2 of Appendix C. The capacity savings (Table 6.3) are peak demand savings multiplied by 1.2 to account for reserve margin needed for adequate power generation reliability. Peak demand reductions from the energy efficiency levels for ballasts range from 0

.2 to 0.4 GW in 2000, and from 1

.2 to 2.7 GW in 2030 for energy efficiency levels 1 through 4. Capacity savings for ballasts range from 0

.3 to 0

.5 GW in 2000, and from 1.5 to 3.2 GW in 2030 for energy efficiency levels 1 through 4.

6.4 REVENUE LOSSES Ballast energy efficiency levels allow utilities to avoid the variable costs of generating electricity, but energy efficiency levels also reduce electricity sales

. In a rate case, the utility and the local regulator agree on the revenue requirements and rates based on some estimate of future sales. If the effects of ballast energy efficiency levels are not included in this forecast , actual sales will be less than forecasted sales , which implies that the utility will not be able to recover some of the fixed costs that were included in the original revenue requirements calculation

. Fuel costs are typically guaranteed through a fuel adjustment mechanism, and are therefore recovered whether the energy efficiency levels are implemented or not. 

### Despite the ongoing deregulation of the electric utility industry , this analysis maintains the traditional view of the industry , which is that regulation will ensure companies are made whole for costs in the long

-run. This is not to say that the cost savings reported here are not real, from a societal point of view they are. If ballasts consume less energy, less fuel will be burned in power stations and less generating, transmission, and distribution capacity will be needed. Under the current market structure , investor

-owned utilities routinely petition regulators for rate adjustments

. In the course of such a petition, the utility's forecasted sales can be adjusted to account for ballast energy efficiency levels and

. hence eliminate these "lost " revenues. Those revenues lost as a result of time lags in regulation are not a true economic cost, but are a transfer payment from the utility to utility customers. The size of this transfer payment depends on regulatory behavior and on the net change in revenues , which is equal to the difference between sales reductions and avoided costs. Net revenue loss is the difference between revenue reduction and avoided costs in any particular year

. If the revenue reduction is less than the avoided cost, there will be a net revenue gain. Since the magnitude of these losses is dependent on assumptions about regulatory behavior, and because this behavior is so varied among states, it is difficult to calculate these losses for the nation. An additional complication is that unanticipated sales growth from other sectors may compensate for the revenue shortfall

. Two cases are presented here. In one we assume that

6-5

### regulators adjust the rates to reflect the reduced sales in five years, and in the other we assume that

they never adjust the rates. Since these are all conservative assumptions, it is likely that actual losses will be less than what we calculate here. These cases also assume that there is no unanticipated sales growth. These results are presented both on a year-by-year and apresent-value basis. The case which assumes no regulation of rates is included as an absolute upper bound. Figure 6.1 and Table 6.4 show net revenue losses or gains for all ballast energy efficiency levels for the case where the rates are never adjusted. Cumulative undiscounted net revenue losses to 2030 for ballasts range from $2.9 billion to 5.6 billion for the four ballast energy efficiency levels. While these may sound like large losses, note that this is the undiscounted cumulative total over 30 years, and that annual revenues to U.S. electric utilities are about $200 billion. Figure 6.1 shows utility revenue losses, assuming no regulatory adjustment. When this adjustment is made, rates will be increased over the base case forecast and utilities will cease to lose revenue. Total commercial and industrial rates would increase on average by 0.0050/kWh in 2000, increase by 0.0330/kWh in 2010, and increase by 0.0280/kWh in 2020, if ballasts are subject to level 4 energy efficiency levels and regulators only change commercial and industrial rates to compensate for any loss in revenue.

250 T

Level 1 l -----Level 2 ®® -Level 31

Level 41

o N Co CO 0 N er CO O 0 N m CO O O O O O O N N N N N M O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O M M N N CV M N N CV N N CV N M N N 

### Year

Figure 6.1 Net Revenue Losses

6-6

### Table 6.4 Net Revenue Losses - Ballasts ( °llion 1994$)
NET REVENUE LOSS (MM1994$) Year I Level1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 2000 17 27 30 31 2001 30 48 54 56 2002 43 

### 67 76 78 2003 55 86 97 101 2004 71 108 122 127 2005 82 

### 126 144 149 

### 2006 97 147 167 172 2007 106 164 187 193 .2008 112 174 198 204 2009 116 182 207 214 2010 115 183 208 215 2011 114 181 207 213 2012 1.14 180 205 213- 2013 111 178 203 210 2014 111 177 203 210 2015 108 176 200 208 2016 107 175 199 207 2017 106 173 197 205 2018 104 172 196 204 2019 103 171 195 202 2020 101 169 192 201 2021 

### 99 168 192 201 2022 99 168 191 200 2023 

### 97 167 190 199 2024 96 164 187 196 2025 95 164 187 197 2026 92 162 185 195 2027 92 162 185 193 2028 92 162 185 194 2029 89 161. 183 192 1030 S2 1-61- 182_ T® 

### 2861 4702 5355 5573

### Table 6.5 shows the present value. of net revenue losses at a 5% real utility discount rate

for all ballast energy efficiency levels and for the two assumptions about Public Utility Commission regulatory behavior. This discount rate is based on an assumed average utility capital structure and current rates of return.



### Table 6.5 Present Value of Revenue Losses - Ballasts (Million 1994$)
CUMULATIVE PRESENT VALUE OF LOST REVENUES (MM$1994) Regulatory Lag Level1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 None 0 0 0 0 1998-2002 47 ' 74 83 

### 86 1998-2030 699 1125 1281 1329


### For ballasts, the present value of net lost revenues may range from $47 to 86 million for a five-year lag, and would be as large as $1.3 billion loss if the regulators did not make adjustments. The present values over the period 1998 to 2030 also represent the rate increases needed over this period to compensate for lost revenues, assuming that regulators adjust immediately. 

### 6.5 LOW EFFICIENCY BASE CASE SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS Tables 6.6 and 6.7 show the peak demand reductions and revenue loss for the low efficiency base case sensitivity analysis. Table 6.8 shows the present value of net lost revenues for the same case. This sensitivity case is an exact parallel to the prior case, but it uses the assumptions described in Section 5.4. Peak demand reductions and net revenue losses are considerably higher in the sensitivity case.

### Table 6.6 Sensitivity Case: Peak Demand Savings (Gib) - Ballasts Low Efflcienc3 Base Case Year P Load 

### PEAKD 

### EMAM SA S 

## (G
Level1 Level2 

### Le

### vel 3 Level 4 2000 54.48 0.3 0.44 0.51 0.51 2001 54.54 0.59 0.87 0.98 

### 0.99 2002 54.74 0.83 1.24 1.4 1.44 

### 2003 54.97 1.1 1.61 1.83 1.88 2004 55.23 1.38 2.04 2.32 2.38 

### 2005 55.53 1.65 2.43 2.77 2.82 

### 2006 55.83 1.9 2.8 3.19 3.25 

### 2007 56.11 2.08 3.11 3.53 3.6 

### 2008 56.42 2.16 3.28 3.74 3.8 2009 56.74 2.24 3.42 3.89 3.96 2010 57.07 2.24 3.46 3.92 3.99 2011 57.55 2.24 3.46 3.92 3.99 2012 58.02 2.24 3.48 3.92 4.01 2013 58.5 2.22 3.46 3.92 4.01 2014 58.98 2.2 3.46 3.9 

### 3.99 2015 59.46 2.18 3.46 3.9 3.99 2016 59.96 2.16 3.46 3.9 3.99 2017 

### 60.43 2.15 3.44 3.89 3.97 

### 2018 60.91 2.15 3.44 3.89 3.97 2019 61.39 2.13 3.44 3.87 3.97 2020 61.89 2.11 3.42 3.87 3.97 2021 62.37 2.09 3.42 3.87 3.96 2022 62.86 2.08 3.41 3.83 3.94 

### 2023 63.36 2.06 

### 3.41 3.83 3.94 2024 63.84 2.04 3.41 3.82 3.92 2025 64.33 

### 2.02 3.39 3.8 3.9 2026 64.83 2.01 

### 3.37 3.78 3.9 

### 2027 65.3 1.99 3.37 3.78 3.9 2028 65.8 1.97 3.35 3.76 3.89 2029 66.29 .1:95 3.35 3.76 3.87 

### 2030 66.79 1.95 3.37 3.76 3.89

### Table 6.7 Sensitivity Case: Net Revenue Losses ® Ballasts (Million 1994$)
NET REVENUE LOSS (MM1994$) Year Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 2000 

## 22 32 37 37 2001 42 62 70 71 2002 58 87 98 101 2003 76 112 127 130 2004 95 140 160 164 2005 112 166 

### 189 192 2006 131 193 220 224 2007 145 216 246 251 2008 -153 232 264 268 2009 160 245 279 284 2010 161 249 282 287 2011 161 249 282 287 2012 161 249 282 288 2013 159 248 282 288 2014 158 249 280 287 2015 157 248 280 286 2016 155 248 280 287' 2017 154 247 279 285 2018 154 247 279 285 2019 153 247 277 285 2020 151 246 278 285 2021 

### 150 246 277 284 ,2022 149 244 275 283 2023 147 244 275 282 2024 146 , 244 274 281 2025 145 243 272 280 2026 144 242 271 280 2027 143 242 271 280 2028 141 241 270 279 2029 140 241 270 277

140 242_ 27(1 279. 

### Total ! 4165 ' I , 6643 7496 7678

### Table 6.8 Sensitivity Case: Present Value of Revenue Losses - Ballasts (Million 1994$) CUMULATIVE PRESENT VALUE OF LOST REVENUES (MM$1994) Regulatory Lag Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 None 0 0 0 0 1998-2002 63 94 106 108 1998-2030 996 1555 1759 1798



### 6.6 NET REVE NUE LOSS EXAMPLE This section gives an example of the net revenue loss calculation. In any year, the net revenue loss is the difference between revenue reduction and avoided costs:

net revenue loss = revenue reduction - avoided cost Revenue reduction is revenue loss that electric utilities experience when sales fall and prices are fixed. At the same time, the, reduced need to generate electricity lowers costs, notably fuel purchase costs. This cost savings is called avoided cost.

=6.45 _ J ® 0.069 [E J] = 445 M $

and For example, in the year 2030, at the level 1 standard,
revenue reduction



### avoided cost

= avoided cost rate ® energy savings = 5.18 J 0.069 [E J] = 357 M $ = average electricity rate ® reduction in electricity salesso, 

### net revenue loss 

### = 445 - 357 = 88 M $

Notice that in both calculations, the energy value is 0.069 EJ (see Table 5.7). This is because in all calculations, primary energy equivalent is used, as is explained in Appendix C. The result of 88 'appears in Table 6.4.



### 6-12

## APPENDIX A. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION

A.1 ENGINEERING CALCULATIONS SUMMARY The ballast energy efficiency levels set minimum Ballast Efficacy Factor (BEF) values. BEF is a measure of ballast system performance or efficacy. This factor is defined as: BEF = Percent Ballast Factor/Input Power The BEF is defined as the ballast factor in percent divided by the ballast input power in watts. The ballast factor (BF) for a specific ballast is the ratio of the light output of a lamp tested on the specific ballast to the light output of the same lamp tested on a "reference" ballast under identical environmental conditions. The data set reproduced in Section A.3 below was used to determine BEF and watt values for each lamp/ballast combination. The method used to select design option values for BEF , 'BF, and ANSI watts ' from the data was different for different design options as described below. Baseline case (energy-efcient magnetic) and design option 1 (cathode cutout). The BEF value used for the baseline case was the average value of the BEF computed from the data set. BF values for this design option were chosen to be typical of current models ( 1)(2). Once the values for BEF and BF are selected, the power is computed from these values with the formula : Watts = BF/BEF. It is assumed that this calculated power would be equivalent to the ANSI watts of a ballast that has both its BEF and BF values equal to the selected BEF and BF

. A ballast with this exact combination of BEF , BF and ANSI watts may not presently exist in the market. The linear relationship observed between measured values of BF and input watts

. supports the assumption that a ballast with the calculated values of BF , watts, and BEF could be manufactured. Design options 2 and 3 (electronic rapid start and electronic instant start). For these design options, "representative" ballasts were chosen from the data set. The ballast whose BEF is closest to the median but on the high side of 50% was usually selected from the data, since no real ballast had a BEF that exactly placed it at the median. The one exception to this was for 4F32T8 electronic instant start ballasts, where the ballast below the median was chosen since a comparison to the other ballasts in that class showed that the BF for the ballast on the high side of the median was abnormally low. The BF and ANSI watts for each "representative" ballast were selected from the data set and used in the energy calculations. These ballasts exist in the market.

### The explanation for these different methods is that the design options representing well1 watts as measured by procedures established by the American National Standards Institute. 

### A-1

### established technologies should be based on the average properties of current market products, while

design options representing newer technologies should be based on the properties of an actual ballast that is characteristic of that design option in the market. Described below are the details of applying power input corrections to the ANSI watts used for each design option. Corrections were applied to ANSI watts for 3- and 4-lamp ballast design options to account for thermal effects on power input and light output. The correction factors were derived from empirical data that will be described later in this Appendix. A third power correction was also applied to each design option in all classes to "normalize" (equalize) light output to the baseline option. For classes with only one design option (the. baseline), this normalization need not be performed. For those product classes where the baseline is the electronic rapid start ballast, the design option wattage is normalized using the ballast factor of the electronic rapid start ballast. 

### Fixture Watts The following equation performs all three corrections described above. Fixture Watts (FW) represent the wattage of the lamp/ballast combination in the fixture, installed in a plenum, and normalized to a baseline BF as shown in the following equation:



### Fixture Watts = ANSI watts - WTF/LTF • BFo/ BFn
where: WT'F is the Wattage Thermal Factor that corrects the ANSI watts to actual watts used when the ballast is installed in a fixture and a ceiling plenum.
LTF is the Light Output Thermal Factor that adjusts the wattage for the change in light output. when the ballast is installed. in a fixture and ceiling plenum. BF, is the ballast factor for the baseline design option. B.' is the ballast factor of design option n and BFI BF,, is referred to as the normalization factor.
The baseline ballast factors were chosen as follows: 

### (1) F32T8 BF = 95% (2) F40T 12 BF = 95% (3) F40T12/ES BF = 88% (4) F96T12 and F96T12HO BF = 88% The following section describes the three correction factors.



### A-2

### Thermal Factor Energy Input Correction Factor

Performance data are available for some but not all of the lamp-ballast system combinations covered in this report under typical fixture operating conditions. The available data from the Advanced Lighting Guidelines (3), the work of Sleeker and Veenstra (4), and National Lighting Product Information Program published data (5) have been used to derive the values in Table A.1 for 3- and 4-lamp ballast systems. This table lists the thermal correction factors for power input and light output (WTF and LTF) and the ambient operating temperature of a recessed static enclosed fixture. The VV7F for a particular ballast system is the ratio of the power input for a recessed static enclosed fixture at the indicated ambient temperature to the power input for a suspended open fixture at 25°C with the same lamp/ballast system. The LTF is the corresponding ratio for light output, and .is applied to the fixture wattage. The suspended open fixture power input and light output are assumed to be identical to the values obtained under the ANSI test conditions. Thermal corrections are only applied to the input power and light output for 3- and 4-lamp luminaires. For single and double-lamped fixtures, the elevation in ambient temperature is sufficiently small that there is little change in lumen output and input power from the ANSI values.

Table A.i Ambient TemDeratures and Thermal Correction Factors

Product Design Option Ambient Temperature Recessed Static Enclosed 

### VnT LTF 

### Class cc 3-F40T12 Electronic RS 50% 43 0.93 0.94 3-F40TI2/ES Electronic RS 50% 43 0.98 , 1 4-F40T12 Electronic RS 50% 43 0.93 0.94 3-F32T8 Electronic RS 50% 37 0.95 1

Electronic IS 50% 37 0.95 1 4-F32T8 Electronic RS 50% 37 0.95 1



### Electronic IS 50% 37 0.95 1


## A,2 MANUFACTURING COST DATA Table A.2 lists the weighted- average ballast prices'- paid by lighting management companies (LMCs) and luminaire manufacturers (OEMs) as determined by a Lighting Research Institute survey3, with the exception of the 2F96HO and 2F96HO/ES- ballasts where the prices are a discounted manufacturer list price.

2 Weighted as described in Chapter 3, Section 3.5, and Chapter 4, Section 4.1.1. 3 Surveys of ballast manufacturers, luminaire manufacturers, and lighting management companies performed and aggregated by Lighting Research Institute, 1995. 

### A-3

### Tables A.3 through A. 17 show estimated manufacturer costs for each design option of the

fifteen product classes of fluorescent lamp ballasts. Cost data received from ballast manufacturers could not be directly used for reasons of confidentiality, although they were used to test the consistency of various computed costs and assumptions. The manufacturer costs to produce a ballast have been reverse-calculated from price data in Table A.2 as described in Chapter 3, Section 3.5. The column labeled Total in Tables A.3 through A. 17 lists these manufacturer costs (1994$)., The total cost is disaggregated into four subcategories: labor, materials and purchased parts, shipping/packaging, and tooling/equipment: The costs for each design option are per unit produced and are not cumulative. The disaggregated costs are determined as follows. The shipping and packaging costs were estimated from industry data. The electronic ballast tooling costs (which include tooling and capital equipment) are an average of a) industry data for the cost of procuring and installing a new electronic ballast production line, including the cost of a newbuilding, and b) industry data for the cost of the line excluding the building cost. The energyefficient magnetic ballast tooling costs are assumed to be 2% of the electronic ballast tooling cost and include only the costs to replace equipment in a production line that is already in operation. The cathode cutout ballast tooling costs are assumed to be an average of a) industry data for the cost of procuring and installing a new non-electronic ballast production line, including the cost of a new building, and b) industry data for the cost of the line excluding the building cost. The ratio of material to labor (costs) was assumed to be 4 to 1 for semi-automated production capability, which is in general agreement with ballast industry data. The sum of the labor and, material costs were calculated by subtracting the shipping, packaging, and.tooling costs from the average manufacturing cost. The labor cost was then calculated by multiplying the sum of the labor and material costs by 0.20. 

### 11

A-4

### Table A.2 Weighted Average Ballast Prices Paid in Dollars by L Cs and OEMs

Lamp EE Magnetic Cathode Cutout Electronic Rapid Start Electronic Instant Start I F40 

### 12.87 19.51 

### 29.62 NA 1 F40/ES 12.87 19.51 29.62 

### NA 2 F40 12.44 

### 18.86 28.94 NA 2F40/ES 12.44 

### 18.86 28.94 NA 3 F40 NA NA 32.20 NA 3F40/ES NA NA 32.20 NA 4F40 NA 

### NA 34.23 NA 2 F96 20.74 NA NA 42.13 

### 2F96/ES 20.74 NA NA 42.13 2 F96HO 39.33 72.37 54.67 

### NA 2F96HO/ES 39.33 72.37 54.67 

### NA 1 F32T8 17.32. NA 

### 29.84 29.37 2 F32T8 16.7 21.74 29.14 

### 28.67 3 F32T8 NA NA 

### 32.43 31.92 4 F32T8 NA NA 34.47 

### 33.91



### Table A.3 Manufacturer Costs ( 1994$) 1-Lap F40T12 Ballast Shipping/ Level Design Labor Materials ' Packaging Tooling Total 0 Baseline 1.05 4.22
. 0.91 0

.01 6.19

Cathode Cutout 1.58 6.34 0
. 91 0.55 9.38 2 Electronic, RS 2.52 10.09 0.91 0 .72 14.24
*Includes materials and parts.



### Table A.4 Manufacturer Costs (1994$) 1-Lap F4OT1 S Ballast Shipping/ Level Design Labor Materials' 

### 0 Baseline 1.05 4.22

Cathode Cutout 1.58 6.34 2 Electronic, RS 

### 2.52 10.09 Packaging Tooling Total 

### 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.01 6.19

0.55 9.39 0.72 14.24
*Includes materials and parts.

### Table A®5 Manufacturer Costs (1994$) 2-Lamp F40T12

Level Design Labor Materials* Shipping/ Packaging Tooling 0 Baseline 1.05 4.18 0.95 0.01 I Cathode Cutout 1.58 6.30 0.95 0.55 2 Electronic, RS 2.51 10.06 0.95 0.72 * Includes materials and parts.



### Table A.6 Manufacturer Costs (1994$) 2-Lamp F40T 12/ES Ballast Total 6.19 9.38 14.24

Level Design Labor Materials* Shipping/ Packaging Tooling Total 0 Baseline 1.05 

### 4.18 0.95 0.01 6.19 I Cathode Cutout 1.58 6.30 0.95 0.55 9.38 2 Electronic, RS 2.51 10.06 0.95 0.72 14.24 *Includes materials and parts.



### Table A.7 Manufacturer Costs (1994$) 3-Lamp F40T12 Ballast
Level Design 0 Electronic, RS *Includes materials and parts. Shipping/ Labor Materials * Packaging Tooling Total 2.75 10.99 1.02 0.72 15.48



### Table A

.8 Manufacturer Costs (1994$) 3-Lamp F40T12/ES Ballast Shipping/ Level Design Labor Materials* Packaging Tooling Total 0 Electronic. RS 2.75 10.99 1.02 0.72 15.48 *Includes materials and parts.



### Table AS Manufacturer Costs (1994$) 4-Lamp F40T12 Ballast Shipping/ Level Design Labor Materials" Packaging Tooling Total 0 Electronic, RS 2.92 11.70 1.12 0.72 16.46 *Includes materials and parts.

### Table Ae10 Manufacturer Costs (1994$) 2-Lamp F96T12 Ballast

Level 0 1 Electronic, IS

Design Baseline Labor Materials' 1.80 7.21 3.72 14.87 *Includes materials and parts. .

Level Shipping/ Packaging Toolin 0.95 0.95 0.01

0.72


### Table A..11 Manufacturer Costs (1994$) 2-La p F96T1 S Ballast
Design Total 9.97 20.26

Shipping/ Labor Materials' Packaging Tooling Total 0 Baseline 1.80 7.21 0.95 0.01 9.97 1 Electronic, IS *Includes materials and parts. 3.72 14.87 0.95 0.72 20.26



### Table A.12 Manufacturer Costs (1994$) 2-Lamp F96T12HO Ballast Shipping/ Level Design Labor Materials' Packaging Tooling Total 0 Baseline 3.59 14.35 0.95 0.01 18.89 1 Cathode Cutout 6.66 26.64 0.95 0.55 34.80 2 Electronic, RS 5.01 20.03 0.95 0.72 26.70 *Includes materials and parts.



### Table A.13 Manufacturer Costs (1994$) 2-Lamp F96T12HO/ES Ballast Shipping/ Level Design Labor Materials' Packaging Tooling Total 0 Baseline 3 .59 14.35 0.95 0 .01 18.89 1 Cathode Cutout 6.66 26.64 0.95 0.55 34.80 2 Electronic, RS 5.01 20.03 0.95 0.72 26.70 *Includes materials and parts.

### Table Ao14 Manufacturer Costs (1994$) 1-Lamp F32T8 Ballast

Level Design Labor Materials* Shipping/ Packaging Tooling Total 0 Baseline 1.48 5.92 0.91 0.01 8.32

Electronic, RS .2.48 9.90 0.91 0.72 14.01 2 Electronic, IS 2.43 9.73 0.91 0.72 13.79 *Includes materials and parts.



### Table A.15 Manufacturer Costs (1994$) 2-Lamp F32T8 Ballast

Level Design Labor Materials* Shipping/ Packaging Tooling Total 0 Baseline 1.47 5.89 0.95 0.01 8.32 1 Cathode Cutout 1.79 7.17 0.95 0.55 10.46 2 Electronic, RS 2.47 9.87 0.95 0.72 14.01 3 Electronic, IS 2.42 9.70 0.95 0.72 13.79 *Includes materials and parts.



### Table Aa16 Manufacturer Costs (1994$) 3-La MR F32T8 Ballast Shipping/ Level Design Labor Materials* Packaging Tooling Total 0 Electronic, RS 2.77 11.09 1.02 0.72 15.60

Electronic, 15 2.72 10.89 1.02 0.72 15.35 *Includes materials and parts.



### Table A.17 Manufacturer Costs (1994$) 4-Lamp F32T8 Ballast Shipping/ Level Design Labor Materials` Packaging Tooling Total 0 Electronic, RS 2.95 11.78 1.12 0.72 16.57 1 Electronic, IS 2.89 11.58 1.12 0.72 16.31 *Includes materials and parts.

### A.3 BEF, BF, AND POWER CONSUMPTION DATA Table A. 18 is a summary of computed BEFs based on the data submitted by the National Association of Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA), the New York State Energy Office (NYSEO), and the Seattle Lighting Design Lab (SLDL). These data are listed in Tables A. 19 through A.54 and are used in the analysis presented in the previous chapters

. The abbreviations ES, EEM, CC, ERS, and EIS represent: energy saver, energy-efficient magnetic , cathode cutout, electronic rapid start, and electronic instant start ballasts, respectively. The BEFs in the Table A. 18 are computed values representing the 10, 50 (median), and 90 percentile rankings for each class. As an example of interpreting the table, 10 percent of the ballasts in the database for the 1F40 Cathode Cutout ballast will have BEFs below 1.91, 50 percent below 1.94, and 90 percent below 1.97. In cases where the BEFs are identical at all levels ,, only one data point was available.

Table A.18 Overview of Ballast Efficacy Factor, (ND=No Data) Lamp EE Magnetic Cathode Cutout Electronic RS Electronic IS

10% 50% 90% 10% 50% 90% 10% 50% 90% 10% 50% 90% 1 F40 1:82 1.85 1.92 1.91 1.94 1.97 2.29 2.34 2.43 ND ND ND IF40/ES 2.01 2.09 2.16 2.26 2.26 2.26 2.61 2.71 2.84 ND ND ND 2 F40 1.05 1.07 1.08 1.13 1.15 1.16 1.17 1.19 1.22 ND ND ND 2F40/ES 1.21 1.22 1.22 1.30 1.34 1.37 1.35 1.42 1.45 ND ND ND 3 F40 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.76 0.78 0.81 ND ND ND 3F40/ES ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.90 0.91 0.93 ND ND ND 4F40 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.60 0.60 0.60 ND ND ND 2 F96 0.58 0.59 0.60 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.63 0.65 0.66 2F96/ES 0.69 - . 0.7 0.71 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.77 0.79 0.80 2 F96HO 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.42 0.42 0.42 0.43 0.43 0.44 ND ND ND 2F96H0/ES 0.42 0.45 0.46 0.47 0:48 0.48 0.49 0.50 0.52 ND ND ND I F32T8 2.43 2.45 2.46 ND ND ND 2.73 2.88 2.96 2.84 2.95 2.99 2 F32T8 1.26 1.28 1.29 1.37 1.37 1.37 1.40 1.43 1.49 1.47 1.5 1.53 3 F32T8 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.92 0.97 1.01 1.01 1.03 1.04 4 F32T8 ND ND ND ND ND ND 0.72 0.72 0.73 0.77 " 0.77 0.78



### A-9

### Table A.19 Volts 

### Data for 1-Lamp F'40T12 EEM Ballast Watts BF BEF 120 49.5 95 1.92 277 49 94 1.92 120 49.8 93

. 1 1.869 277 51.2 94.9 1.454 120 51 94.3 1.85 277 50.7 93.3 1.84 120 52 95 1.82 277 52 95 1.82



### Table A.20 NE Data for 1 -La p F40T12 CC Ballast Volts Watts BF BEF 120 45 89 1.978 277 47 89.2 1.898 

### Table A.21 NE Data for 1-La p F40T12 ERS Ballast Volts Watts BF BEF 120 36.6 90.9 2.484 120 36.2 88.2 2.436 277 37 89.6 2.422 120 37.6 91 2.41 2'77 37.4 90 2.407 120 38.4 89.9 2.342 120 36.5 85.4 2.342 277 38 89 2.335 277 40.3 93.7 2.325 277 37.4 86.9 2.324 277 39 87 2.29 120 38 85 2.24



### Table A.22 NE Data for 1-Lamp F40T12 Energy Saver EEM Ballast Volts Watts BF BEF 277 43.6 85;9 1.97 120 43.7 88.2 2.02 277 41.9 86.5 2.07 277 44.6 92.6 2.08 120 42.3 88.2 2.1 120 43.7 91.3 2.09 277 41 88 2.15 120 40 87 2.18



### A-10Table A.23 NYSEO Data for 1-Lamp F40T12 Energy Saver CC Ballast Volts Watts BF BEF 120 36.7 83 2.26



### Table A.24 NEMA Data for 1-La p 140T12 Energy Saver ERS Ballast Volts Watts BF BEF 120 30.2 88 2.91 277 303 86.3 2.85 277 31.2 88.1 2.82 120 30.4 85.1 2.8 120 31.1 87 2.8 277 29.8 83.2 2.79 277 31.1 84.5 2.72 120 31.3 84.2 2.69 120 33 88.7 2.69 277 34.3 91.6 2.67 120 33 .87 2.64 277 34 89 2.62 120 32.4 84.4 2.61 277 32.2 83 2.58

• Table A.25 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F40T12 EEM Ballast Volts Watts BF BEF 120 86.2 93.9 1.089 277 87.6 94.7 1.081 120 89 95 1.07 120 90.4 96.6 1.069 120 90

.4 96.6 1.069 277 90 95 1.06 277 90 94.8 1.053 277 90 94.8 1.053

### Volts 

### Table A.26 NE Data for 2-Lamp F40T12 CC Ballast Watts BF BEF 120 80.9 94.2 1.164 120 68 79 1.16 f 277 69 80 1.15 120 73.7 85.4 1.159 277 72.5 83.4 1.15 277 81.7 93.5 1.144 120 83 93.9 1.129 277 84.8 93 1.097 277 84.1 74.4 1.13 120 82.9 70.7 1.173


### Table A.27 NE Data for 2-Lamp F40T12 ERS Ballast. Volts Watts BF BEF 277 70.8 87.1 1.23 120 71 86 1.22 277 71 86 1.22 120 71.5 87 1.217 277 73.6 89 1.21 277 . 71.9 85.9. 1.195 120 72.2 86.1 1.193 277 71.4 85.2 1.193 120 74.8 89 1.19 277 74.4 88.1 1.184 120 72.2 85.3 1.181 120 72.9 85.9 1.178 120 76.1 89.1 1.171 277 77.9 90.1 1.157

Table A.28 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F40T12 Energy Saver EEM Ballast Volts Watts BF BEF 120 72 88 1.22 120 74.4 90.6 1.22 120 73 88.8 1.22 277 72.4 87.8 1.21 277 75.5 91.2 1.21 277 73 88 1.21



### A-12Table A.29 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F40T12 Energy Saver CC Ballast Volts Watts BF BEF 120 57.9 79.5 1.37 120 59 81 1.37 277 60 81 1.35 120 66.9 89.8 1.34 277 60.7 80.8 1.33 120 68.7 90.8 1.32 277 68.8 90.3 1.31 277 70 90 1.29 

### Table A.30 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F40T12 Energy Saver ERS Ballast Volts Watts BF BEF 277 60 88 1.47 120 60 87 1.45 277 62.9 90.6 1.44 277 63.4 91.3 1.44 120 60.1 86.3 1.44 277 63.2 90.4 1.43 277 65.8 93.5 1.42 120 62.6 87.6 1.4 120 63.8 88.7 1.39 120 64.3 88.7 1.38 120 64.6 88.5 1.37 120 64 86.6 1.35 277 65 87.2 1.34

Table A.31 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F96T12 EEM Ballast VOLTS WATTS BF BEF 277 160.4 96.1 0.599 120 156.7 92.8 0.592 120 158 94 0.59 277 158 94 0.59 277 163.2 95.6 0.586 120 160.7 93.1 0.579

### Table A.32 NE VOLTS 

### Data f or 2-La F96T12 EIS Ballast WATTS BF BEF 277 129 86 0.666 277 136.1 88.8 0.652 277 136.1 .88.6 0.651 120 132 86 0.651 277 131.8 85.8 0.651 120 139.2 90 0.647 120 140 88.1 0.629 120 149 91.9 0.617 

### Table Ae33 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F96T12 Energy Saver EEM Ballast Volts Watts BF BEF 120 125.6 89.5 0.71 277 126.9 89.7 0.71 277 129.6 91.2 0.7 120 127.2 88.3 0.69 120 124 85 0.69 277 124 85 0.69



### Table A.34 NE Data for 2-Lamp F96T12 Energy Saver EIS Ballast Volts Watts BF BEF 277 111.3 89.1 0.79 120 108 86 0.8 277 108 86 0.8 120 113.4 89.5 0.79 277 113.7 . 89.4 0.79 277 110.1 86.5 0.79 120 115.7 89.1 0.77 120 122.8 92.9 0.76


### Table A.35 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F96T12HO EEM Ballast VOLTS 120 277 277 120 277 120 WATTS BF BEF 237 95.3 0.402 237 97 0.4 241.2 96.5 0.4 237 96 0.4 245.2 97.9 0.399 241.2 95.8 0.397



### A-14

### Table A.36 NE for 2-Lamp F96T12H0 CC Ballast VOLTS WATTS BF BEF 120 211.6 89.8 0.424 277 219.2 91.2 0.416


### Table A.37 NE Data for 2-Lamp F96T12H0 ERS Ballast Volts Watts BF BEF 277 205.5 90 0.438 120 195 85 0.435 277 195 85 0.435 120 207.6 89.2 0.43 277 196.3 84.2 0.429 120 194.5 82.6 0.425



### Table A.38 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F96T12IH0 Energy Saver EEM Ballast Volts Watts BF BEF 120 196.1 89.4 0.46 277 198.4 89.5 0.45 120 204 91 0.45 277 205 91 0.44 277 201.1 84.9 0.42 120 200.7 84.3 0.42


### Table A.39 NEMA Data for 2-Lamp F96T12IH0 Energy Saver CC Ballast Volts Watts BF BEF 120 180

.8 86.4 0.48 277 186.6 87.7 0.47 

### Table A.40 NE Data for 2-Lamp F96T12H0 Energy Saver ERS Ballast Volts Watts BF BEF 120 164 85 0.52 277 164 85 0.52 277 176.3 87.9 0.5 120 177.3 87.6 0.49 277 169.4 82.3 0.49 120 169.2 81.2 0.48



### A-15

### Table Aa41 NE Data for 3-La p F'40T12 ERS Ballast Volts Watts 

### BF BEF 277 104.4 90 0.859 120 109.2 88.8 0.813 277 107.1 86 0.803 277 109.8 86.1 0.784 277 109.8 85.7 0.781 120 109 85 0.78 120 108.1 84 0.774 120 114.3 87.8 0.768 120 112.6 86.4 0.767 277 114.3 87.3 0.764 120 114.6 86.5 0.755



### Table A.42 NEMA Data for 3-Lamp F40T12 Ener Volts Watts BEF 277 277 120 277 277 120 120 120 277 120 90 86 92.8 86.2 89.1 82.6 94.4 86.6 95.1 86.7 92.8 84.4 94.7 86.1 97.6 88.5 90.6 81.7 99.3 88.6 0.96 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.9 0.89 

### Table A.43 SLDL Data for 4-Lamp F40T12 ERS Ballast Volts Watts BF BEF 120 146 .87 0.6



### Table A.44 NE Data for 1-La p F32T8 EEM Ballast Volts Watts BF BEF 277 38.6 95.1 2.464 120 38.7 95.1 2.457 120 39.3 95.8 2.44 277 41 95:4 2.43 

### Saver ERS Ballast

### Table A.45 NE Data for 1-Lamp F32T8 ERS Ballast Volts Watts BF BEF 277 31.9 94 2.974 120 29.8 88.2 2.96 277 27.2 79 2.905 277 29.7 86.1 2.9 120 30 85.5 2.85 120 27 75 2.792 120 31.1 85 2.753 277 32.1 86.3 2.688


### Table A.46 NE Data f or 1-Lamp F32T8 EIS Ballast Volts Watts BF BEF 277 30 90 3.00 277 30 89.7 2.99 120 31 92.4 2.98 120 30.7 91.2 2.97 277 29.1 85 2.92 120 30 89 2.9 120 32.9 89 2.9 277 32.8 88 2.68

Table A.47 NE Volts Watts 

### Data f or 2-Lamp F32T8 EEM Ballast .

BF BEF 120 73.8 95.8 1.298 120 75.3 97.1 1.29 277 76 97.9 1.288 277 74.4 94.6 1.272 120 76 97 1.27 277 77 96 1.25



### Table A.48 NE 

### Data f or 2-Lamp F32T8 CC Ballast Volts Watts BF BEF 120 62.6 85.5 1.366 277 61.8 84.4 1366 277 62.3 85 1.365 120 61.7 84.2 1.365



### A-17

### Table A.49 NE Data for 2-La p F32T8 EIS Ballast Volts Watts BF BEF 277 62.2 '94.7 1.523 277 85.5 130 1.465 120 63.8 95.4 1.495 277 60.4 89.7 1.485 120 54.2 80 1.42 120 61 90 1.45 120 89.2 130 1.431 120 61.3 89.2 1.456 277 62 90 1.45 120 61.9 88.8 1.435 277 55.9 80 1.43 120 61.5 88 1.43 277 61.5 88 1.43 277 62.8 88.3 1.406 120 61.6 .85.9 1.394 277 63.9 89 1.393



### Table A.50 NE Data for 2-Lam F32T8 EIS Ballas Volts Watts BF BEF 277 58.5 89.8 1.535 120 61.7 94.4 1.53 277 59 90 1.53 277 58.5 88.5 1.513 277 51.4 77.5 1.508 120 58.8 88.6 1.507 120 51.5 77.6 1.507 120 62 93 1.5 277 62 93 1.5 277 58.5 87.7 1.499 277 58.2 87.2 1.498 120 59.3 88.6 1.494 120 59 88 1.5 120 

### 59.4. 88.4 1.488 120 59.5 86.4 1.45 277 59.7 86.5 1.45



### A-18

### Table A. 51 NEMA Data f or 3-La F32T8 ERS Ballast Volts Watts BF BEF 277 75.7 77 1.02 277 90.5 91 1.009 120 86.8 87 1.005 277 94.3 93 0.986 120 96.9 94.1 0.971 120 78.4 76 0.971 120 92 88.7 0.964 277 91.8 87.9 0.958 277 95.7 88.1 0.921 120 97.4 88.5 0.909



### Table A.52 NEAIA Data for 

### 3-Lamp F32T8 EIS Ballast Volts Watts BF BEF 120 87.9 93 1.058 277 86.5 89.7 1.037 277 76.1 78.5 1.032 277 90.9 93.9 1.03 120 90.6 93.3 1.03 277 90.5 93.2 1.03 277 85 88 1.03 120 76 78 1.026 120 87.7 89.8 1.024 120 86 87 1.02 277 88.2 89.7 1.017 277 86.6 87.8 1.015 120 88.3 89 1.008 120 86.1 85.8 0.995 

### Table A.53 NE 'Data for 4-Lamp F32T8 ERS Ballast Volts Watts BF BEF 120 122.8 89.1 0.726 277 124.8 89.5 0.717

### Table A.54 NE Data for 4-La F32T8 EIS Ballast Volts Watts BF BEF 277 112.1 87.7 0.782 277 100 78.1 0.781 277 112.1 87.4 0.78 277 101 79 0.78 120 114.2 89 0.779 120 113.3 88.3 0.779 120 101.2 78.5 0.776 277 108.2 83.6 0.773 120 111 86 0.77 277 111 85 0.77 120 106.9 82.3 0.77 120 101 78 0.77 277 114.1 87.3 0.765 120 113 85.1 0.753



### A.4 LIGHTING HOURS DATA The lighting operating hours used in the engineering analysis were derived from a database of lighting equipment audits conducted by Xenergy Inc. Extracts of Xenergy's XENCAP database containing over 32,000 audits for the commercial and industrial sectors were obtained. These were aggregated to the three-digit zip code level to protect the confidentiality of Xenergy's customers. This database includes information on building type, building floor space, audit year, building operating hours, whether the lighting is interior or exterior, average lighting hours for each type of lighting equipment, and lamp counts. Lighting equipment is identified by its lamp type (including wattage), the number of lamps per fixture, and, in the case of fluorescent lamps, by its ballast type. We used a database management program to aggregate the Xenergy data. Data from audit years 1990-1995 (over 24,000 buildings) were aggregated across these audit years and across all zip codes to estimate national average lighting hours by Xenergy building type. This aggregation was done for each of the fluorescent lamp types used in the engineering analysis: fluorescent 4-foot T12, fluorescent 4-foot T8, fluorescent 8-foot, and fluorescent 8-foot high output. To obtain averages, lighting hours for each of the original Xenergy database records were weighted by the lamp count in each record. For those building types where one COMMEND building type corresponds to more than one Xenergy building type, data were combined to get average lighting hours by fluorescent lamp type and by COMMEND building type. Finally, we obtained an average across the commercial sector building types. We used the Xenergy lighting hours for the COMMEND commercial building types, weighted by ballast shipments to each building type as reported in the Lighting Research Institute (LRI) survey. For this survey, luminaire manufacturers and lighting management companies estimated the percentage of total new ballast shipments by type that would go into each building type for the year 2000. The commercial sector building type estimates were weighted by the relative size of the market covered


### A-20

### by the two types of respondents, as provided by LRI. Because 4-foot T12 and T8 systems substitute for each other, we used an arithmetic average of the calculated T12 and T8 hours to represent all 4- foot fluorescent systems. The average lighting hours by building type for the 12 commercial building types can be found in the first column of Tables A.55 through A.60. These tables also show how the data were weighted to obtain the lighting hours used in the analysis, which are shown in Table A.61. For this analysis, industrial lighting is represented by one building type. We simply used the average -for each lamp type obtained for the Xenergy industrial building type. The average annual industrial lighting hours were 4434 for 4-foot lamps, 40754 for 8-foot lamps, and 50454 for 8-foot high output lamps. Table A.55 Commercial Lighting Hours and Weightings by Building Type for 4-Foot

. Lamps (Year 2000) from Lu inaire Manufacturer Survey

<-------- 4-ft Magnetic -------> <-------- 4-ft Electronic --------> Bldg. Type Lighting

I Hours* % Total

Shipments** Commercial

Sector % Average

Hours % Total

Shipments ** Commercial

Sector % Average

Hours Small Office 4006 23.00 - 27.38 1097 30.00 31.58 1265 Large Office 4006 10.00 11.90 477 17.00 17.89 717 Restaurant 5192 10.00 11.90 618 4.00 4.21 219 Retail 4329 4.00 4.6 206 8.00 8.42 365 Grocery 5674 5.00 5.95 338 3.00 3.16 179 Warehouse 3846 5.00 5.95 229 1.00 1.05 40 School 2454 4.00 4.76 117 10.00 10.53 258 College 4143 3.00 3.57 148 5.00 5.26 218 Health 5855 3.00 3.57 209 8.00 8.42 493 Lodging 5023 9.00 10.71 538 1.00 1.05 53 Assembly 1988 3.00 3.57 71 3.00 3.16 63 Other 4005 5.00 5.95 238 5.00 5.26 211 Totals 84.00 100.00 4286 95.00 100.00 4081 Extract of Xenergy, Inc's XENCAP database for lighting equipment and lighting hours of operation for over 24,000 buildings for the years 1990 - 1995. ** Surveys of luminaire manufacturers performed and aggregated by Lighting Research Institute, 1995.

4 These were rounded up to 4080 and 5050 hours, respectively, for the LCC analysis.


### A-21

### Table A®56 Commercial Lighting Hours and Weightings by Building Type for 8-Foot 

### Lamps (Year 2000) from Luminaire Manufacturer Survey

<-------- 8-ft Magnetic --------> <-------- 8-ft Electronic --------> Bldg. Type Lighting

Hours* % Total

Shipments ** Commercial

Sector % Average

Hours % Total

Shipments ** Commercial

Sector % Average

Hours Small Office 3750 1.00 1.41 53 1.00 1.15 43 Large Office 3750 1.00 1.41 53 1.00 1.15 43 Restaurant 4414 1.00 1.41 62 1.00 1.15 51 Retail 3955 13.00 18.31 724 21.00 24.14 955 Grocery 6130 13.00 18.31 1122 15.00 17.24 1057 Warehouse 3521 24.00 33 .80 1190 19.00 21.84 769 School 2317 1.00 1.41 33 3.00 3.45 80 College 3805 1.00 1.41 54 3.00 '3.45 131 Health 5226 1.00 1.41 74 3.00 3.45 180 Lodging 4402 1.00 1.41 62 1.00 1.15 51 Assembly 1692 7.00 9.86 167 13.00 14.94 253 Other 4005 7.00 9.86 395 6.00 6.90 276, Totals 71.00 100. 3988 87.00 100. 3888

** Extract of Xenergy, Inc's XENCAP database for lighting equipment and lighting hours of operation for over 24,000 buildings for the years 1990 - 1995. Surveys of luminaire manufacturers performed and aggregated by Lighting Research Institute, 1995.



### A-22

### Table A.57 Commercial Lighting Hours and Weightings by Building Type for 8-Foot HO

.s (Year 2000) from Luminaire Manufacturer Survey Lamp <-------- 8-ft Magnetic HO --------> I <-------- 8-ft Electronic HO --------> Bldg. Type Lighting

Hours* % Total

Shipments** Commercial

Sector % Average

Hours % Total

Shipments** Commercial

Sector % Average

Hours Small Office 4165 1•.00 2.33 97 1.00 2.00 83 Large Office 4165 1.00 2.33 97 1.00 - 2.00 83 Restaurant 5021 1.00 2.33 117 1.00 2.00 100 Retail 3985 5.00 11.63 463 8.00 16.00 638 Grocery 6721 8.00 18.60 1250 9.00 18.00 1210 Warehouse 4164 10.00 23.26 968 12.00 24.00 999' School 2625 1.00 2.33 61 1.00 2.00 53 College 4259 1.00 2.33 99 1.00 2.00 85 Health 3597 1.00 2.33 84 1.00 2.00 72 Lodging 4959 1.00 2.33 115 1.00 2.00 99 Assembly 1582 9.00 20.93 331 7.00 14.00 221 Other 4005 4.00 9.30 373 7.00 14.00 561 Totals 43.00. 100.00 4055 50.00 100.00 4205 

# 1

** Extract of Xenergy, Ines XENCAP database for lighting equipment and lighting hours of operation for over 24,000 buildings for the years 1990 - 1995. Surveys of luminaire manufacturers performed and aggregated by Lighting Research Institute, 1995.



### A-23

### Table A.58 Commercial Lighting Hours and Weightings by Building Type for 4-Foot 

### Lamps (Year 2000) from Lighting Management Co an Survey <-------= 4-ft Magnetic --------> <-------- 4-ft Electronic -------->

Small Office 4006 10.00 13.33 .534 Large Office 4006 16.00 21.33 855 Restaurant 5192 1.00 1.33 69 Retail 4329 13.00 17.33 750 Grocery 5674 11.00 14.67 832 Warehouse 3846 3.00 4.00 154 

### School 2454 6.00 8.00 196 College 4143 7.00 9.33 387 Health 5855 4.00 5.33 312 Lodging 5023 3.00 4.00 201 Assembly 1988 1.00 1.33 27 Other 4005 0.00 0.00 0 Totals 15.00 15.79 633 32.00 33.68 13.45 1.00 1.05 55 11.00 11.58 501 9.00 9.47 538 1.00 1.05 

### 40 7.00 7.37 181 8.00 8.42 349 8.00 8.42 493 2.00 2.11 106' 1.00 1.05 21, 0.00 0.00 0 95.00 100.00 4265`; Extract of Xenergy, Inc's XENCAP database for lighting equipment and lighting hours of operation for over 24,000 buildings for the years 1990 - 1995. ** Surveys of lighting management companies performed and aggregated by Lighting Research Institute, 1995. % Total Commercial Average Shipments ** Sector % Hours Hours



### A-24

### Table Ae59 Co ercial Lighting Hours and Weightings by Building Type for 8 -Foot Lamps (Year 2000) from Lighting Management Company Survey <-------- 8-ft Magnetic --------> I <-------- 8-ft Electronic --------> Bldg. Type Lighting % Total Commercial Average % Total Commercial Average

Hours* Shipments ** Sector % Hours Shipments ** Sector % Hours Small Office 3750 1.00 1.49 56 0.00 0.00 Large Office 3750 1.00 1.49 56 

## 0.00 0.00 0 Restaurant 4414 1.00 1.49 66 1.00 1.64 72 Retail 3955 17.00 25.37 1004 19.00 31.15 1232 Grocery 6130 20.00 29.85 1830 22.00 36.07 2211 Warehouse 3521 15.00 22.39 788 14.00 22.95 808 School 2317 4.00 5.97 138 2.00 3.28 76 College 3805 6.00 8.96 341 2.00 3.28 125 Health 5226 1.00 1.49 78 1.00 1.64 86 Lodging 4402 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 Assembly 1692 1.00 1.49 25 0.00 0.00 0 Other 4005 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 Totals 67.00 100.00 4382 61.00 100.00 4610 

# 1 Extract of Xenergy, Inc's XENCAP database for lighting equipment and lighting hours of operation for over 24,000 buildings for the years 1990 - 1995. ** Surveys of lighting management companies performed and aggregated by Lighting Research Institute, 1995.



### A-25.

### Table A.60 Con ^rcial Lighting Hours and Weightings by Building Type for 8-Foot 

### Lan is (Year 2000) from Lighting Manage ent Co pang Surve <-------- 8-ft Magnetic HO --------> <-------- 8-ft Electronic HO --------> Bldg. Type Lighting % Total Commercial Average % Total Commerci al Average

Hours* Shipments** Sector % Hours Shipments ** Sector % Hours Small Office 4165 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 Large Office 4165 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0 Restaurant 5021 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 01 Retail 3985 9.00 2 0.45 815 

### 7.00 14.5 8 581 Grocery 6721 14.00 31 .82 2139 20.00 41.67 2800 Warehouse 4164 19.00 43 .18 1798 12.00 25.0 0 1041 School 2625 1.00 2 .27 60 2.00 4.1 7 109 College 4259 1.00 2 .27 97 5.00 10.42 444 Health 3597 0.00 0 .00 0 1.00 2.0 8 75 Lodging 4959 0.00 0 .00 0.00 0.00 

### 0 Assembly 1582 0.00 0 .00 0 0.00 0.00 0 Other 4005 0.00 0 .00 0 1.00 2.08 83 Totals 44.00 100 .00 4908 48.00 100.00 5134 * Extract of Xenergy, Inc's XENCAP database for lighting equipment and lighting hours of operation for over 24,000 buildings for the years 1990 - 1995. ** Surveys of lighting management companies performed and aggregated by Lighting Research Institute, 1995.


### Table A.61 Weighted Lighting Hours 4-Foot 4-Foot Mag Elec 8-Foot 8

-Foot 8-Foot 8-Foot Mag Elec HO Mag HO Elec Luminaire Manufacturers 4286 4081 .3988 3888 4055 4205 Lighting Maintenance 4317 4265 4382 4610 4908 5134 Avg. For Luminaire Mfg. 4183 3938 4130 Avg. For Lighting Maint. 4291 4496 5021
Wt. By Market Share 4223 4144 4460 Notes: Market Share is 0.63 for Luminaire, 0.37 for Lighting Maintenance. Lighting hours in this table differ slightly from those used in the engineering tables in Chapter 4 because of a minor spreadsheet error which is corrected here.



### A-26

### A.5 LABOR TIME DATA The table below lists the labor times to replace fluorescent lamps and ballasts. The lamp replacement times are a weighted average of time to change lamps under a group relamping and a spot relamping practice. The group relamping percentages from LRI are used to calculate an average time to change. The analysis uses the table values for the Ballast + Lamps time to change; note that subtracting the average relamp time from this time will give the ballast change time.


### Table A.62 Replacement Labor Times (minutes) for Fluorescent Lamps and Ballasts Lamps Group Relamp Time Spot Relamp

Time Average Relamp

Time I-lamp fixture, 4 foot 13.5 26.5 23.0 2-lamp fixture, 4 foot 14.0 27.0 23.5 3-lamp fixture, 4 foot 14.5 27.5 24.0 4-lamp fixture, 4 foot 15.0 28.0 24.5 I-lamp fixture, 8 foot 10.0 " 20.0 16.5 2-lamp fixture, 8 foot 10.5 20.5 17.0 1-lamp fixture, 8 foot HO 13.0 26.0 22.0 2-lamp fixture, 8 foot HO 13.5 26.5 22.5
Ballasts Ballast Time Ballas t + Lamps Time 1-lamp ballasts . 1 per fixture EEM and CC 7 30 Electronic 7 30 2-lamp ballasts, 1 per fixture EEM and CC 7.5 30 Electronic 7.5 30 3-lamp, Electronic , 1 per fixture 11.5 35 3-lamp, Magnetic, 2 per fixture 43.3 66.8 weighted for tandem fixtures 4-lamp, Electronic , I per fixture 10.5 35 4-lamp, Magnetic, 2 per fixture 40 63.5 8-foot, EEM, I per fixture 38 55 8-foot, Electronic, I per fixture 38 55 8-foot HO; EEM and CC, 1 per fixture 37.5 60 8-foot HO. Electronic . I per fixture 37.5. 60



### A-27

### REFERENCES

1. National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA). 1994 Revised Procedure For Determining Luminaire Efficacy Ratings For Fluorescent Luminaires Revision 1: Draft #6. NEMA Standards Publication No. LE5. 12/23/94. 2. U.S. Department of Energy, Advanced Lighting Guidelines: 1993. DOE/E-008, Washington, D.C. U.S. Department of Energy. 

### 3. Ibid. 4. Sleeker, N. And W. Feenstra. 1990. The Performance of Four-Foot Fluorescent Lamps as a Function of Ambient Temperature on 60 Hz and High Frequency Ballasts. In: 1990 IESNA Annual Conference; Technical Papers, Baltimore, MD. July 29-August 2, 1990. New York, NY: Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. 5. Lighting Research Center, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute . 1995. Lighting Answers. National Lighting Product Information Program , Vol. 2, No. 3, March 1995.

A-28

## APPENDIX B. FORECASTING MODEL

B.1 COMMEND END-USE FORECASTING MODEL The COMMEND end-use forecasting model(1) provides a framework for organizing and analyzing commercial-sector market data. COMMEND was originally developed by the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) for use by its member utilities. COMMEND 4.0 has .a detailed lighting technology module that permits custom modeling of fluorescent ballast electricity consumption using input disaggregated at the product class level. Output on energy consumption and ballast shipments are easily incorporated into additional analyses (utility and environmental). Economic calculations (net present value by energy efficiency level) are performed directly from COMMEND output.



### B.1.1 The COMMEND Framework The COMMEND framework segments the commercial market by building type, end use, and fuel type. The elements are listed in Table B.1. The detailed focus is needed to address emerging market issues and analytical needs. The primary use of the COMMEND framework is longterm forecasting.



### Table B.1 COMMEND Framework Building End Uses Fuels Small Offices (SMO) Space Heating Electricity Large Offices (LGO) Space Cooling Natural Gas Restaurant (RES) Ventilation Fuel Oil Retail (RET) Water Heating Grocery (GRC) Cooking Warehouse (WRH) Refrigeration Schools (SCH) Lighting Colleges (COL) Office Equipment Health (HLT) Miscellaneous Lodging (LDG) Assembly (ASM) Miscellaneous (MSC) Industrial. (IND)



### B-1

### 13.1.2 The COMMEND Models LBNL used COMMEND Version 3.2 for the previous fluorescent ballast analysis and report. While COMMEND 3.2 was the most current analysis tool available at that time, its analytical framework for the lighting end use had some limitations. All lighting technologies were modeled using one technology cost/efficiency tradeoff curve to represent the range of consumer decisions. Discrete lighting components (lamps, ballasts, fixtures, controls) were not directly input into the model. Instead, lighting energy use intensities (EUIs in kWh/ft2-year) were input for each building type. LBNL developed spreadsheet models to pre-process the specific efficiency, cost, and market penetration data for the discrete lighting system components and their combinations. The analysis presented in this document uses COM MEND Version 4.0. Regional Economic Research (RER), developed a discrete interior lighting technology module for COMMEND 4.0.' This module allows detailed inputs for lighting system components, their penetrations in the building stock, and their operating conditions. In addition, RER added two industrial sector building types; this analysis uses an aggregate of those two building types to represent the industrial sector.



### B.1.3 COMMEND Data Bases COMMEND is distributed with a national data base, which is refined and updated as new information becomes available. Included are data on floor space growth, fuel price forecasts , energy use characteristics by building type and end use , cost/efficiency trade-off trends, - and current efficiency standards and other DSM programs. The detailed lighting technology file, a major feature of COMMEND 4.0, is developed by LBNL based in large part on data from two comprehensive data sources. The first of these is the Lighting Research Institute ' s surveys on the market penetration of different lighting technologies and their components (such as lamps , ballasts , and luminaires). The other is an extract from Xenergy's XENCAP database of tens of thousands of lighting energy audits throughout the U.S.



### B.2 DISCUSSION OF THE COMMEND MARKET FRAMEWORK The COMMEND model provides a conceptual framework for organizing market information. The purpose of the following discussion is to describe this framework and to introduce the main analytic concepts

. Some of the discussion in this section refers to non-lighting end uses

. Features of the detailed lighting technology model , which is most relevant to the current ballast analysis, are described in section B.3.

' COMMEND 4.0 has a discrete HVAC technology module as well. 

### B-2

### B.2®1 Market Segments To forecast energy consumption, assumptions must be made about the projected market behavior of various energy consumers. The purpose of segmenting a market is to group consumers into segments with common properties. The COMMEND framework uses a two-way primary segmentation scheme. The dimensions are building type and end use.


### B.2.1.1Building-Type SegmentsBuilding types define the primary market segments. This approach is useful because energyuse patterns differ significantly across building types. These differences reflect: - Different operating hours, - Different types of energy-using activities, -, Different types of energy-using equipment, and - Different energy-using technologies.



### Bm2.1.2 End-Use Segments An energy end use is the ultimate service delivered by energy-using equipment. In COMMEND 4. 0 the end

-use categories are: 

### - Space heating - Cooling - Ventilation - Water heating - Cooking Refrigeration Exterior lighting Interior lighting Office equipment Miscellaneous. These segments are defined in terms of the final service being provided by energy inputs. Within each end-use segment, three classes of decisions described below will impact the type of fuel and. the level of energy use: Efficiency decisions refer to decisions about equipment features and structure features that determine how much energy is required to deliver a given level of end-use service.



### B-3

### Utilization refers to the frequency and duration of equipment usage. This is impacted by

occupant behavior and equipment operating controls. For the ballast analysis, utilization is represented by annual lighting operating hours. Fuel choice refers to choices between different equipment options that provide the same service but use different types of fuel. The main competitive end uses are heating and cooling and the main fuels are electricity, natural gas, and. fuel oil. In the current analysis of ballast energy efficiency levels, all lighting is assumed to use electricity. Typically, all of the end-use segments appear in each of the building types. For example, space conditioning and lighting are important end uses in all building categories.. Others, such as cooking and refrigeration , are more concentrated in particular building types.


### B.2.1.3 Other Segments The COMMEND framework also tracks buildings according to the year of construction, referred to as the building vintage. This allows fuel and efficiency decisions to be analyzed separately for new construction versus retrofits and replacements. In many applications, building types are further split on the basis of size

. The most common example "of this is the separate treatment of large versus small office buildings. This separate treatment is used since large buildings have different thermal properties and tend to utilize different types of HVAC technologies than do smaller buildings.
B.2.2 Central Energy Equation
The COMMEND framework provides an analytic structure for describing energy-use patterns. Again, the following description pertains to non-lighting uses, since COMMEND 4.0 has added a new lighting technology module to deal with discrete technology choice in lighting end use. In section B

.3, the lighting technology module will be explained in greater detail.
The basic concepts in COMMEND' s framework are as follows: - Floor stock (square feet of building space), - Energy intensity (total energy per square 'foot), - Fuel share (percent of area served by an end use and fuel type), Energy

-use index (energy per square foot per year for an end use). These are the key concepts used in commercial

-sector energy an alysis. By developing data for these concepts , a complete profile of the commercial sector can be produced. For each market segment, the central energy equation in COMMEND defines current energy use as the product of three factors. These are floor stock, fuel share, and energy use index (EUI). 

### B-4

### For a single building/end-use segment, the central equation is: 

### Annual Energy Use = F ® S ® EUI where: 

### F is square footage of floor stock, S is average share of space served by the end use and fuel, and EUI is average energy use for served space. In this definition, the floor stock is the total floor space across all building vintages, and the EUI values are averaged across buildings of all vintages. As an average, the EUI value embodies both average equipment efficiencies and average usage levels across the consumer base in the segment. As an example of this equation, if we have 50 million square feet (4.6 million square meters) of office space with 25% space heated by electricity and an electric heating EUI value of 10 kWh/ft2- yr (107 kWh/m2-yr), this gives:



### Annual energy use = 50 million feet ® 0.25 ® 10 kWh/ft2 = 125 gWh/year (B=1)
B.2e3 Example of Market Profiles RER updated the COMMEND national database using data from the Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey 1992(2). Figure B.1 provides an illustration. of the types of results that can be obtained from COMMEND.GAS (2407 TBtu)

27 TWh Mlscellancoua Heating Office Equipment 39 Tv 76 TWHh

Cooling 164 TWHh

Heating 109 TBtu

Figure E.1 1992 U. S. Commercial Energy Sales by End Use Note: To convert TBtu to exajoules, multiply by 1.055 * (10';).



### B-6

### B.3 COMMEND LIGHTING TECHNOLOGY MODEL The interior lighting technology module is a new addition to COMMEND 4.0. It greatly enhances the capability of COMMEND to model specific lighting technologies at the component level (lamps, ballasts, and fixtures). 

### The main features of the detailed interior lighting model are as follows: ® Specific Lighting Systems . The model deals directly with a user

-defined list of specific lighting systems

. These systems are defined by combinations of lamps , ballasts , and fixtures. ® Lighting Terminology

. In place of general end-use concepts, such as EUI, an expanded set of lighting terms is used in the model: -- Illuminance, or the delivered lighting level at the workplane, is computed in footcandles.

-- Source lumens is the amount of light produced by the lamps. -- Fixture efficiency and room factor are fractions that convert source lumens to illuminance, accounting for losses within the fixture and the room. -- System efficacy is the amount of light (source lumens) per watt of electricity input. 

### -- Usage is the hours of use. ® Lighting Shares.. For each lighting system, fixture and system shares give the fraction of lighting capacity that is provided by that system. System capacity is expressed in delivered lumens per square foot (footcandles), which is a measure of delivered light output, adjusting source lumens for lamp efficiency, ballast losses, fixture efficiency, and room factor. ® Decision Models. System shares in years following a base year are computed using a set of decision models. These models include the following: The new construction model gives system shares in new buildings.

The lamp replacement model allows lamp type changes at the time of lamp decay (end of useful life). 

### The ballast replacement model allows changes in ballast type at the time of ballast decay. The system conversion model allows changes in lamps, ballasts, lamp/ballast combinations, and fixtures,' as well as conversion from one light source to another.

### B.3.1 Discussion of Lighting Systems For modeling purposes, lighting data are categorized by lighting use, fixture type, and specific system. These three levels of detail are described below.



### B.3.1.1 Lighting Uses The two main categories of lighting uses are interior lighting and exterior lighting. These are treated as separate end uses in COMMEND. The following description applies to the interior lighting end use.



### B.3.1.2 Fixture Types In COMMEND 4.0, lighting options are grouped by "fixture type." The intention is to group options among which lamp and ballast changes can be made without incurring major fixture conversion costs. For example, The conversion from a system with 4-foot F40T12 lamps and standard magnetic ballasts to a system with F40T12/ES lamps and standard ballasts requires only that the lamps be changed. There are no major conversion costs, whether the lamp change is performed at the time of lamp failure or as part of a group relamping effort.
® In many cases, the conversion from a standard 60 watt incandescent lamp to a 17 watt compact fluorescent lamp does not require major fixture conversion costs. Both lamps have a standard base and fit into a standard socket.

® The conversion from incandescent fixtures to 4-foot fluorescent fixtures implies major conversion costs. Costs include the cost of the fluorescent lamps and ballasts, the fixture, and installation costs. In the existing stock of lighting equipment, there is a strong correlation between fixture type and light source. For example, for "fluorescent 4 foot" fixtures, the light source is exclusively the fluorescent lamp. For "Edison-base" fixtures, the main light source is incandescent, with a small but growing share for compact fluorescent lamps.



### B-8

### B.3.1.3 System Types Within each fixture type, lighting equipment is organized by "system type." For each fixture type, a set of specific systems is used to represent the_range of efficiency options. For modeling purposes, these prototype options for a given fixture type should provide roughly the same level of service, and should not vary significantly in terms of size, function, or lumen capacities. For each light source, the user defines the number of specific systems and provides data for each system. 

### B.3.2 Lighting Central Energy Equation The central energy equation for computing lighting energy use is given below. This equation applies separately to each building type (b), year (t),, and lighting system (s).

6c hbis = Fsb • FCb " SHARE' • 1 9 • 1 • HOURS b,s Fix EFFS RM FCTRb SVSEFFF



### where: kWh`b 3 is electricity sales in year tin building b for lighting system s, Fs`b is floor stock in year t for building type b, Fc`b is the design illuminance level (footcandles) in year t for building type b, SHARE`b.S is share of illuminance in year t for building type b provided by system s, HOURS1b,S is annual operating hours in year t for lighting system s in building type b. FixEFF`b s is the fixture efficiency for system s in building type b and year t, R1viFCTRb is the room factor for building 'type b, SYSEFFS is the efficacy (lumens per Watt) of system s, and

The following discussion covers the relationship between the level of illuminance (footcandles at the work surface), the amount of light produced by the lamps (source lumens), and the level of power input (Watts).



### B-9

### M Footcandle level is a measure of the level of illuminance at the work surface. Typical levels for office space vary from 10 footcandles to 100 footcandles (0.9 to 9 lux), depending on the -function being performed. A typical reference value is 50 footcandles (5 lux). Footcandles represent lumens per square foot (lux represent lumens per square meter).
® Source lumens is the amount of light given off by the lamps in a fixture (the rated lamp lumens times number of lamps). Only a fraction of this light reaches the work surface, since some portion is absorbed by the luminaire, and some is absorbed by the floors, ceiling and walls of the room.
® Fixture efficiency accounts for the optical and thermal efficiency of the fixture

. It gives the fraction of lamp light output that is available from the fixture

. Fixture efficiencies are input by system type, and can vary across building types according to the share of high-reflectance fixtures (see below).

® Room factor accounts for room reflectances and geometry

. It gives the fraction of light output from the fixture that is available at the work surface. Room factors are input by building type.
® The conversion between source lumens required per square foot of space and the desired lighting level in footcandles is: Source Lumens/Square Foot = Footcandles / (Fixture Efficiency ® Room Factor) For example, with a fixture efficiency of 0.8 and a room factor of 0.8, to obtain a given level of delivered illuminance (say 50 footcandles or 5 lux) will require about 78 source lumens per square foot (840 lumens per square meter) of work surface.
® System efficacy is measured in source lumens per watt. Efficacy measures the amount of light emitted by the lamps per watt of electric input. This value depends on the combination of lamps and ballasts, the operating temperature within the fixture, and other factors. A typical value for fluorescent systems is 65 lumens/watt.
® With a source lumen requirement of 78 lumens/square foot (840 lumens/square meter), this implies a connected load of about 1.2 Watts/square foot (12.9 W/m2) if all lighting is delivered by fluorescent systems, computed as 78 lm/ft2 - 65 lm/watt (840 lm/ni = 65 lm/watt).
Operating hours correspond to the number of full-load hours of lighting. For example, a typical value for an office building is 4,000 hours. This would result from the following behavior: 

### E-10

### 10 operating hours on 250 working days, with 85% of the lights on during operating hours, plus,
14 non-operating hours on 250 working days, with 30% of the lights on during nonoperating hours, plus,
24 non-operating hours on 115 weekend and holidays, with 30% of the lights on during these hours.
Applying 4,000 hours of operation to a connected load of 1.2 W/ft2 (12.9 W/m2) gives an annual EUI value of about 4 .8 kWh/ft2 (51.6 kWh/m'--). The fixture share is the share of illuminance provided by a fixture type. For example, in -office buildings, about 80% of the space uses standard fluorescent systems. Applying this fraction to the above results gives a fluorescent EUI value of about 3.84 kWh/ft2 (41.3 kWh/rn2). Applied to a floor stock of 50 million square feet (4.6 million square meters), this gives annual energy use for fluorescent systems in office buildings. of 192 gWh.



### B,4 COMMEND FORECASTING FRAMEWORK FOR INTERIOR LIGHTING
For the base year, the market profiles discussed above (fixture and system shares) provide a detailed depiction of energy-use patterns by building type and end-use. The purpose of the COMMEND forecasting framework is to project these detailed profiles into the future. By forecasting at the end use level, it is possible to isolate the influences on energy sales of economic growth, changes in fuel shares, changes in efficiencies, and changes in usage levels. This approach allows consideration of key issues in future markets, such as fuel competition, technology competition, building and equipment standards, and customer behavior.
As discussed above, COMMEND divides the entire commercial energy market into segments defined by building type and end-use. The COMMEND forecast framework applies separately to each segment. Results from each segment are then aggregated over end use and/or building type to provide a forecast of the total commercial market.
Within each market segment, COMMEND computes energy sales using the central energy equation. An illustration is given in Figure B.2, for the lighting end-use.

B-11kWhb.$ = FSb - FCb - SIAREb,S

Footcandie Model

Floorstock (Exogenous Input) 1 FIX EFFS

Fixture Efficiency

Share Model -New Construction - Replacements - Conversion



### Figure B

.2: Lighting Model Structure RMFCTRb SYSEFFS

Room Factor Utilization Model



### o Floor Stock Forecast. Floor stock forecast is an exogenous input to COMMEND. This forecast of floor stock is usually tightly linked to population growth, employment growth, and regional income. Data about historical stock (e.g., from 1941 to 1992) and a set of survival rates are also used to construct historical building additions and attritions.
o Footcandle Model. These data are used to compute changes in footcandle levels in new construction.
o System Share Models. These models include decision equations for fixture and system shares in new construction, lamp and ballast replacement decisions, and system conversion decisions. These models are probabilistic, and their outcomes determine the choices of lighting equipments in new buildings, in retrofits, and when existing lamps and ballasts fail in current buildings. System Efficacy



### B-12

### ® Fixture Efficiency and Room Factor. Data on fixture efficiency and room factors are used for each system to convert from lighting level requirements (footcandles) to source lumen requirements. These values are treated as fixed constants during the forecast period.
em Efficacy. Data on system efficacy are used to convert from source lumen requirements to connected loads in Watts. These values are treated as fixed constants during the forecast period.
Utilization Model. The lighting hours model is used to estimate changes in the utilization of lighting equipment over time due to changes in energy prices, operating hours, vacancy rates, and other factors.


### Ee5 COMMEND FORECAST LOGIC SUMMARY
Given the model parameters, the key, steps in the forecast logic are summarized as follows:
- Compute price forecast, - Compute floor stock forecast, Compute efficiency/cost changes (for non-lighting uses only), - Input trends and standards, which move curves (for non-lighting uses only), - Input'simulated elasticities which give changes along curves (for non-lighting uses only), - Compute share changes, - Compute replacement impacts, - Compute average EUIs, - Compute utilization impacts, and - Apply central energy equation.

Forecast Results

COMMEND 4.0 forecast results are summarized below.
- Price forecast, - Floor stock forecast, - Energy sales forecast, - Sales forecast by building type, - Sales forecast by end use, 

### B-13

### - Summer peak demand forecast,

- Winter peak demand forecast, and - Lighting equipment purchases and expenditures.

Figure B.3 presents an example of forecast results using the COMMEND national data base.

Figure B.3 Forecast of Commercial Energy Sales by End Use (U.S. Total)


### E.6 ASSUMPTIONS AND DATA INPUT TO COMMEND FOR FLUORESCENT BALLASTS
This section describes the assumptions and data used as input to COMMEND 4.0 for fluorescent ballast analysis described in this document. It also discusses the operation and calibration of the model for this project.
B-14

### Floor Stock
The base year commercial floor stock is estimated based on the 1992 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS). This base year estimate is combined with a commercial floor, stock forecast by building categories provided by Data Resources Incorporated (DRI) to generate the year-to-year forecast of surviving and new commercial building floor stock by CBECS building category. y
The industrial floor stock forecast is estimated by RER based on 1991 Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey (MECS), and 1995 Annual Energy Outlook's manufacturing employment forecast to 2010 and then extended to 2030, using the same growth rate.
Building floor stock demolished each year is estimated by COMMEND from default retirement rates. The survival functions, provided as defaults in COMMEND 4.0, characterize the retirement rate of buildings and are used to estimate annual additions from 1950 to 1992. The functional form used for building retirement rate is the logistic function.
Energy Prices Prices prior to 1995 are taken from EIA's Monthly Energy Review. Price forecasts to 201.0 are taken from EIA's 1995 Annual Energy Outlook and extrapolated to 2030 using the same growth rate. Fixture Types The fixture types used in the analysis are:
Fluorescent 4-foot (FL4) Fluorescent 8-foot (FL8) Fluorescent 8-foot High Output (FL8HO) Fluorescent Other (FLOTHER) Edison-base General Service (EDGS) Edison-base Reflector (EDR) Mercury Vapor (MV) Metal Halide (MH) High Pressure Sodium (HPS)



### B-15

### System Types
In this analysis, system types are lamp/ballast combinations. The large majority of these are fluorescent systems. These correspond to the design options from the engineering analysis and are listed by lamp type, ballast type, and number of lamps per fixture. In addition to the systems from the 15 product classes for the engineering analysis, 3- and 4- lamp systems with magnetic and cathode cutout ballasts were added (assuming multiple ballasts per fixture) to model such systems in the existing and base case stock. Also, for each lamp type and number of lamps, a system with standard magnetic ballast was also added, since the modeling.begins in the year 1992 when some standard magnetic ballasts still exist.
Non-fluorescent systems were also included so that COMMEND could calculate lighting energy consumption for the entire commercial and industrial sectors. While the fluorescent systems are quite detailed, the non-fluorescent systems are simply represented by "generic" input values that are an aggregate of various individual systems. Their derivation is described below:
Below is the list of 86 system types used in this analysis grouped by their fixture types:


### 4-Foot Fixtures: One 40-watt lamp with standard magnetic ballast Two 40-watt lamps with standard magnetic ballast Three 40-watt lamps with standard magnetic ballast Four 40-watt lamps with standard magnetic ballast One 40-watt lamp with energy-efficient magnetic ballast Two 40-watt lamps with energy-efficient magnetic ballast Three 40-watt lamps with energy-efficient magnetic ballast Four 40-watt lamps with energy-efficient magnetic ballast One 40-watt lamp with cathode cutout ballast Two 40-watt lamps with cathode cutout ballast Three 40-watt lamps with cathode cutout ballast Four 40-watt lamps with cathode cutout ballast One 40-watt.lamp with electronic ballast Two 40-watt lamps with electronic ballast Three 40-watt lamps with electronic ballast Four 40-watt lamps with electronic ballast One 34-watt lamp with standard magnetic ballast Two 34-watt lamps with standard magnetic ballast Three 34-watt lamps with standard magnetic ballast Four 34-watt lamps with standard magnetic ballast 

### B-16

### One 34-watt lamp with energy-efficient magnetic ballast Two 34-watt lamps with energy-efficient magnetic ballast Three 34-watt lamps with energy-efficient magnetic ballast Four 34-watt lamps with energy-efficient magnetic ballast One 34-watt lamps with cathode cutout ballast Two 34-watt lamp with cathode cutout ballast Three 34-watt lamps with cathode cutout ballast Four 34-watt lamps with cathode cutout ballast One 34-watt lamp with electronic ballast Two 34-watt lamps with electronic ballast Three 34-watt lamps with electronic ballast Four 34-watt lamps with electronic ballast
One 34-watt Rare Earth lamp with energy-efficient magnetic ballast Two 34-watt Rare Earth lamps with energy-efficient magnetic ballast Three 34-watt Rare Earth lamps with energy-efficient magnetic ballast Four 34-watt Rare Earth lamps with energy-efficient magnetic ballast One 34-watt Rare Earth lamp with cathode cutout ballast Two 34-watt Rare Earth lamps with cathode cutout ballast Three 34-watt Rare Earth lamps with cathode cutout ballast Four 34-watt Rare Earth lamps with cathode cutout ballast One 34-watt Rare Earth lamp with electronic ballast Two 34-watt Rare Earth lamps with electronic ballast Three 34-watt Rare Earth lamps with electronic ballast Four 34-watt Rare Earth lamps with electronic ballast
One 32-watt lamp with energy-efficient magnetic ballast Two 32-watt lamps with energy-efficient magnetic ballast Three 32-watt lamps with energy-efficient"magnetic ballast Four 32-watt lamps with energy-efficient magnetic ballast Two 32-watt lamps with cathode cutout ballast Three 32-watt lamps with cathode cutout ballast Four 32-watt lamps with cathode cutout ballast One 32-watt lamp with electronic rapid start ballast Two 32-watt lamps with electronic rapid start ballast Three 32-watt lamps with electronic rapid start ballast Four 32-watt lamps with electronic rapid start ballast One 32-watt lamp with electronic instant start ballast 

### B-17

### Two 32-watt lamps with electronic instant start ballast Three 32-watt lamps with electronic instant start ballast Four 32-watt lamps with electronic instant start ballast



### 8-Foot Fixtures: Two 75-watt lamps with a standard magnetic ballast Two 75-watt lamps with aenergy-efficient magnetic ballast Two 75-watt lamps With an electronic ballast. 

### Two 60-watt lamps with a standard magnetic ballast Two 60-watt lamps with a energy-efficient magnetic ballast Two 60-watt lamps with an electronic ballast Two 75-watt Rare Earth lamps with a energy-efficient magnetic ballast Two 75-watt Rare Earth lamps with an electronic ballast 

### 8-Foot High-Output Fixtures: -- Two 110-watt lamps with a standard magnetic ballast -- Two 110-watt lamps with aenergy-efficient magnetic ballast -- Two 110-watt lamps with an electronic ballast 

### -- Two 95-watt lamps with a standard magnetic ballast -- Two 95-watt lamps with a energy-efficient magnetic ballast -- Two 95-watt lamps with an electronic ballast 

### -- Two 110-watt Rare Earth lamps with a energy-efficient magnetic ballast -- Two 110-watt Rare Earth lamps with an electronic ballast
® . Edison-base General Service: -- Incandescent Lamp, generic with aggregate characteristics from Xenergy data (INC) -- Compact Fluorescent Lamp, generic with aggregate characteristics from Xenergy survey (CFL) 

### ® Edison

-base with Reflector: -- Incandescent. Lamp, generic with aggregate characteristics from Xenergy survey (INCR), -- Compact Fluorescent Lamp, generic with aggregate characteristics from Xenergy survey (CFLR) ® Mercury Vapor:. Generic lamp with aggregate characteristics from the Xenergy survey



### B- 18

### Metal Halide : Generic lamp with aggregate characteristics from the Xenergy survey High Pressure Sodium : Generic lamp with aggregate characteristics from the Xenergy survey
Existing Building System and Fixture Shares The Xenergy audit database(3) was used to calculate fixture and system shares for lighting equipment in existing buildings for each fluorescent system type (lamp/ballast combination) used in the consumer analysis, as well as estimates of aggregate characteristics for lighting systems other than the fluorescent systems being studied. Audits performed in 1990-1995 were assumed to represent typical existing buildings. These other lighting systems include compact fluorescents (CFL), compact fluorescent reflector lamps (CFLR), other fluorescents (FLOTHER), incandescents (INC), incandescent reflectors (INCR), high pressure sodium (HPS), metal halide (MH), and mercury vapor (MV). For these systems, the Xenergy data was used to estimate average lumens'per lamp, average watts, average efficacy (lumens/watt), average lamp price, average ballast price, average fixture price, and average relamping time, as described below. Major fluorescent systems For the major fluorescent systems (those under study in this analysis), the systems were identified by lamp type, ballast type, and lamps per ballast. Xenergy data reports lamps per fixture rather than lamps per ballast. Generally, the assumption was made that lamps per fixture equals lamps per ballast, with the following exceptions. For eight foot lamps, it was assumed that equipment identified as having three lamps per fixture consisted of one 1-lamp ballast and one 2-lamp ballast, and that equipment reported as having four lamps per fixture consisted of two 2-lamp ballasts. Xenergy data does not differentiate between electronic rapid start and electronic instant start ballasts. It was assumed that the electronic ballasts reported by Xenergy would consist of 85% instant start and 15% rapid start, consistent with LRI survey data. The aggregated data was used to obtain system counts for each lamp/ballast combination.' This was done by simply adding up the number of systems in the original Xenergy database records for each of.the aggregated records. For the FL8 and FL8HO systems, where 4-lamp fixtures were assumed to consist of two 2-lamp ballasts, the fixture count was multiplied by two to give system counts. . The system counts were then used to calculate system and fixture shares. The count for each system type was multiplied by the number of lamps per system and lumen output per lamp to give total lumen output for each system type. Delivered lumens were calculated by multiplying the output lumens by a coefficient of utilization (CU) for each system type in each building type.


### B-19

### System shares were then calculated by adding up the delivered lumens and determining what fraction of total delivered lumens was delivered by each system type over the total for the fixture type. System shares were calculated separately for each building type. Xenergy database results showed a smaller fraction of F32T8 systems than found in analyses of existing buildings conducted by RER. For commercial building types, the F32T8 system shares from the Xenergy data were adjusted higher to an average of 13 percent of the 4-foot fluorescent shares. System shares from Xenergy data of F40T12 lamps with standard magnetic ballasts, which were higher than expected, were decreased accordingly. Fixture shares were calculated as the total of all delivered lumens for each fixture type over the total from all fixture types for each building type. For the industrial sector, the Xenergy data yielded smaller shares of high pressure sodium and metal halide fixtures than expected from RER audits. Fixture shares for these fixture types were increased from 10 to 15 percent each, and 8-foot fluorescent shares were decreased from 32.6 to 22.6 percent to compensate. Fixture shares for the major fluorescent systems are shown in Table B.2, and system shares are shown in Tables B.4 through B.6. Annual Lighting Hours An average of lighting hours was first obtained for each lamp/ballast combination separately, and lighting hours for each of the original Xenergy database records was weighted by the lamp count in each record. The total watthours for each aggregated record was then calculated by multiplying the system counts by watts per system,, and the. data were further aggregated to obtain average lighting hours for each fixture type (FL4, FL8, and FL8HO) weighted by watts. These average lighting hours are calculated for each building type. t^ ID Because of the assignment of systems that are not part of the major fluorescent categories to Fluorescent Other, the data used to derive annual operating hours for the consumer analysis was not identical to the data used to derive annual operating hours for the engineering analysis, where operating hours were obtained for each lamp type. 

### Other systems

V Other lighting systems were grouped into the following "systems": incandescent (INC), incandescent with reflectors (INCR), compact fluorescents (CFL), compact fluorescents with reflectors (CFLR), high pressure sodium (HPS), metal halide (MH), and mercury vapor (MV), and fluorescent other (FLOTHER). For systems other than FLOTHER, the number of "systems" was assumed equal to the number of lamps. For FLOTHER, the number of lamps per system was assumed equal to the number of lamps per fixture, except where lamps per fixture equaled four, which was counted as two 2-lamp systems and fixture count was doubled to give system counts.



### B-20

### Fluorescent lamps combined with ballasts not under study here were included in the FLOTHER category, even if the lamp was one of the types (F40T12, F32T8, F96T12, F96T 12HO, and energy saving versions of same) under study. Eight foot lamps with other than two-lamp ballasts were also included in FLOTHER. The more detailed grouping of Xenergy data for the consumer analysis was needed to obtain market shares for each technology type under study. The data were first aggregated to the level of Xenergy technology types by COMMEND building types, with average lighting hours weighted by lamp counts in the original Xenergy database records. Data were gathered from manufacturer catalogs for input watts, lamp lumens, price per lamp, relamping time, and, for the HID lamps, fixture price and ballast price for each technology type. This information was gathered for lamps accounting for'at least 70% to 80% of the total lamp counts within the eight system types listed above. The lamps for which these data were not gathered accounted for no more than about 4% of the total lamp counts for any one building type. The data were then further aggregated to the level of the eight system types by COMMEND building types. Average lighting hours were weighted by the watts for each equipment type within each of the eight categories. Total lumen output was determined for each category, and delivered lumens were determined by multiplying lamp rated (source) lumens by a CU for each system type (only one CU was used per system for all building types). Delivered lumens were then used to calculate system shares and fixture shares, as described above for the major fluorescents. For the industrial sector, RER audits showed a higher fraction of metal halide and high pressure sodium lighting and a lower fraction of 8-foot fluorescent lighting than found in the Xenergy database . For the COMMEND input file, the Xenergy 8-foot fluorescent shares were adjusted downward and the metal halide and HPS shares were adjusted upward. 'Fixture shares are shown in Table B2 and system shares are found in Table B.7. Average lamp lumens, average watts, average lamp price, average relamping time, and, for HID, average fixture price and average ballast price were determined for each building type. These quantities were then further aggregated across all commercial building types. COMMEND runs were done separately for the commercial and industrial sectors.
Miscellaneous Building Type The COMMEND model includes a "miscellaneous" commercial building type. Since the Xenergy data did not include a miscellaneous building type, we took an average across all commercial building types, weighted by the square footage of each building type as reported in CBECS to obtain average shares, lighting hours, etc. for this building type. The miscellaneous


### B-21

### building type is necessary for calibration purposes with total commercial sector lighting consumption.


### New Building (Marginal) System Shares LRI surveys provided percentages projected for the year 2000 of the fluorescent ballast market that were electronic and magnetic for each major lamp/ballast combination. They also provided projected lamp sales for the year 2000. These were combined to provide estimates of system shares. These shares were adjusted by CUs for each system type. 

### New Building (

Marginal

) Fixture Shares Bureau of Census data on luminaire ' and lamp sales were combined with manufacturer estimates of present and future sales to produce the new building fixture shares for each sector. Existing building system shares from Xenergy data were used as a benchmark. Coefficients of Utilization The coefficient of utilization represents the fraction of the source lumens that actually reach the work plane. It is affected by both fixture efficiency and room factor. Representative CUs for fluorescent fixtures were calculated. from CUs reported on manufacturer product photometric reports. They were aggregated first from a range of 3 typical RCRs (room cavity ratio) based on the typical fraction of floor space for each RCR by building type taken from New York State Energy Office estimates. RCRs were calculated for three major 4-foot fluorescent fixture types and aggregated by market share from LRI projections for the year 2000 of luminaire sales based on 1993 Bureau of Census data. 8-foot and 8-foot HO fluorescent fixtures were represented by CUs of strip fixtures in the commercial sector and industrial fixtures in the industrial sector. CUs for other technology types were taken from manufacturer catalogs and staff experience. Fixture Efficiency and Room Factor In addition to their use in calculating delivered lumen shares, CUs were used as input to the COMMEND model in place of fixture efficiency. These two quantities are not the same, because CU includes room effects (surface reflectances and room geometry). COMMEND input includes Room Factors by building type, but such data are difficult to estimate. COMMEND input also requires Fixture Efficiencies across building types (one input value per system.) Thus, we aggregated CUs calculated by building type as described above over all commercial sector building types by weighting by CBECS floor space. Since CU = Fixture Efficiency * Room Factor, we initially set the Room Factors to 1.0 and input CU as Fixture Efficiency.



### B-22

### System Eff icacies Efficacies are not directly input to the engineering tables, but they are necessary for COMMEND input. System efficacies were calculated from rated lamp lumens, number of lamps per fixture, and fixture watts. Rated lamp lumens from manufacturers' catalogs are published accepted values. Fixture watts are discussed in Chapter X. In the COMMEND input file, efficacies and CUS are input separately. Fixture watts include corrections for the fixture thermal effect on light output beyond that included in photometric test CUS.
Replacement and Conversion Options COMMEND combines the system and fixture shares from the base year with a set of replacement and conversion equations to project future system and fixture shares. Replacement options were developed by LRI from Bureau of Census data, Dodge Construction forecasts , and discussions with lamp companies . When a fluorescent lamp reaches the end of its useful life, we assume the following replacements in the COMMEND model: 

### 4-foot T12: Until 1995, 30% are replaced by the same type (in-kind) and 70% by ES lamps.. After 1995, 90% are replaced by ES lamps and 10% by ES/RE lamps. 8-foot T12: Until 1995, 95% are replaced in-kind and 5% are replaced by RE lamps. After 1995, 90% are replaced by ES lamps and 10% by RE lamps. 8-foot T12 High Output : Until 1995, 99% are replaced in-kind and I% are replaced by ES lamps. After 1995 , 90% are replaced by ES lamps and 10% by RE lamps. T12HO and T12 RE, ES, and ES/RE: assumed to be in

-kind replacement for all years. When a fluorescent ballast reaches the end of its useful life, the model assumes that it is replaced in-kind for all years

. The fluorescent lamps are changed at the same time (and the old lamps are discarded). The fluorescent ballast replacement assumption is based on the LRI survey and discussions with RER

. The lamp changing assumption is based on discussions with lighting management companies and professional lighting equipment installers. System conversion (early retirement retrofit) rates were estimated through calibrating COMMEND ' s projected ballast sales to NEMA's confidential 1993 ballast shipment data.
In the Low Efficiency scenario, the system conversion rate (early retirement) of magnetic to electronic ballasts is zero, and compact fluorescent rebate programs (available in the COMMEND model) are removed

. Since under deregulation, utility DSM program.may be disappearing, this scenario is possible . However, other programs such as Green Lights, FEMP,



### B-23

### and market impacts of past DSM programs still exist, the base case assumes that some system conversion continues. Footcandles, and Model Calibration Existing building footcandle levels are calculated by building type from the Xenergy database , by dividing total lamp lumens adjusted by CU by number of lit square feet. These data provide initial input to the COMMEND model. During calibration , these footcandle levels are adjusted . The Xenergy levels are in general lower, but within range, of footcandle levels estimated using the IES recommended lighting levels for each space type, averaged for each building type using the NYSEO fractions

. For many building types , the footcandle levels are adjusted considerably lower to achieve calibration with the target EUIs. New building footcandle levels are set identical to those of existing buildings. New buildings would be expected to have lower footcandle levels than existing, due to building energy codes and lower recommended lighting levels. However, the existing building footcandle levels from Xenergy had to be adjusted lower during calibration, and the new levels had to be at least as low as those in the input file for existing buildings. The operating hours derived from the Xenergy database as described above are taken to represent national average conditions for existing buildings. These hours are used in the initial COMMEND input file. The model calibration process attempts to match these hours when calculating. EUIs (energy use intensities in kWh/sq ft/yr). These operating hours represent lighting usage in existing buildings (while those in the engineering analysis, averaged over the commercial sector, represent usage of new ballasts sold in the year 2000). To calibrate the model results with those expected from actual data, the following steps were taken. First, footcandle ,levels were adjusted so that the operating hours calculated by COMMEND match the operating hours estimated from the Xenergy audit database. Secondly, new construction lighting EUIs were set to 90% of those for existing stock (which are estimated from 1992 CBECS by RER), so that the aggregate ballast sales are close to NEMA's 1993 total ballast shipments. Thirdly, system conversion rates were calibrated so that the composition of ballast sales matches that of the NEMA 1993. ballast shipments. EUIs estimated by RER from CBECS were taken to be reliable and citable. Ballast shipments estimated by NEMA closely matched data reported to the Bureau of Census when exempted ballasts were subtracted from the BOC totals. Operating hours were reasonably close to those from the 1992 CBECS, with the exception of CBECS' health and lodging building types, which were,suspected of being too high. Overall building footcandle levels are considered more difficult to estimate and verify, and thus they are altered for calibration to the target EUIs. An economic analysis was performed, calculating the net present value, benefits, and costs to the nation from the year 2000 to 2030 for each energy efficiency level. COMMEND projected lighting electricity consumption for the analysis period. The dollar value of this consumption

B-24

### and equipment expenditures were projected by COMMEND. Benefits are the savings in electricity costs and costs are the additional equipment costs from the base case to each energy efficiency level. The net present value is the present value of the benefits minus the costs. The discount rate for the economic analysis was 7 percent real, the discount rate chosen by the Department. Heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC) energy impacts of each energy efficiency level were analyzed. Since more efficient lighting equipment installed in abuilding produces less heat, there are impacts on building cooling load and heating load. The COMMEND model contains both cooling and heating coincidence factors averaged over several national climate zones. These allow the model to calculate the secondary net impacts of changes in lighting efficiency on HVAC consumption (which otherwise remains constant in this analysis). Tables B.2 to B. 11 present the shares of total lighting. (delivered lumens) provided by different fixture types and the share of lighting provided by systems within each fixture type. Shares are presented separately for existing and for new buildings. Note that to keep tables within a readable length,.system shares within each fixture type are aggregated over the number of lamps in the system.

### Table B.2 :.Average Fixture Shares of Total Lighting (%), Existing B uildings Building Type Fixture Type

EDGS EDR FL4 FL8 FL8HO FLOTHER HPS MH MV Small Office 2.5 0.3 80.0 10.9 1.6 2.0 0.8 1.5 0.6 Large Offia 1.8 0.2 84.2 4.5 1.4 1.9 :_, 1.4 1.4 3.4 Restaurant 11.5 1.2 63.1 15.1 1.3 3.2. 1.4 2.0 1.2 Retail 2.6 0.7 44.6 33.2 3.4 3.5 1.8 7.0 3.1 Grocery 0.6 0.1 25.1 48.0 7.3 3.8 2.5 10.2 2.3 Warehouse 1.9 0.6 18.7 19.9 7.0 7.7 21.6 19.0 3.8 School 3.0 0.2 74.2 7.1 1.1 2 0 3.4 5.0 4.1 College 2.9 0.5 75.8 4.1 0.6 3.9 1.3 3.2 7.8 .Health 2.1 0.4 92.7 2.0 0.0 1.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 Lodging 14.7 0.6 71,2' .4.7 0.7 4.6 _ 1.0 1.3 1.3 Miscellaneous 4.8 0.6 56.7 16.2 2.9 3.8 1.3 3.2 7.8 Assembly 14.4 1.2 60.4 13.3 1.5 27'9. 2.2 :Industrial 0.4 0.0 32.4 22.6 9.1 2.2 15.4 15.2. 2.8



### Table B.3 : New Construction Fixture Shares of Total Lighting (%) Building Type Fixture Type

EDGS EDR FL4 . FL8 FL8HO FLOTHER HPS MH MV 

### Small Office 6.0 5.0, 57.0 15.0 1.0 4.0 2.010.0 0.0 

### Large Office 6.0 5.0. 57.0
. 15.0: 1.0' 4.0 2.0 10.0 0.0 Restaurant 5.0 57.0. 15.0. 1.0 4.0. 2.0 10.0 0.0 

### Retail 6.0 5.0 57.0 15.0 1.0 ` 4.0 2.0 10.0 0.0 

### Grocery 6.0 5.0 57.0 15.0. 1
.0d. 4.0. 2.0 10.0 0.0 Warehouse 6.0 5.0 57.0 1 5.0 1
. 0. 4.0 2.0 10.0 0.0 School 6.0 5.0 57.0 15.0 1.0 : 4

.0 2.0 10.0 0.0 

### .College 60 5.0 57.0. 15.0 1.0 4

.0 2.0 10.0 0.0 Health 6.0. 5.0 57.0 15.0 1.0 4

.0 2.0 10.0 0.0 

### Lodging 6.0 5.0 57.0 15.0 1

.0. 4.0 2.0 10.0 0.0 Miscellaneous 6.0 5.0 57.0 15.0 1.0 4.0 2.0 10.0 0.0 Assembly 57 .0 150..,: 10: 4.0 

# 2.0 .,._10.0 0.0 Industrial 0.0 0.0 12

.0 27.0 13.0 2

.0 18.0 27.0 0.0 For Fixture Type abbreviations , see section B.6, Fixture Types.



### B-26

### Table BA: S 

### ystem Shares 

### Within Fixture: Average Shares (%), 

### Existing Buildings 4-foot fixture .System Type
SMAG/F40T12 SMAG/F40T12/ES EMAG/F40T1 2 CCUT/F40T12 ELEC/F40T12 EMAG/F40T12/ES CCUT/F40T12/ES ELEC/F40T12/ES EMAG/F40T12/ES/RE CCUT/F40T12/ES/RE ELEC/F40T12/ES/RE EMAG/F32T8 CCUT/F32T8 ELEC/F32T8/RS ELEC/F32T8/IS TOTAL FL4 SMO LGO 69.4 43.8

.. . . ...................... 9.5 20.1 4.3 5.6 0 . 1 0.0 0.3 0.1 4.3 12.1 0.0 0.0 0.9 2.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.6 0 0.0 0.0 1.5 2.5' 8.2 13.3 Building Type_.._,

RES RET GRC WRH SCH COL. HLT LDG MSC ASM 77.9 56.7' 66.3 68.9 55.5 34.6 47.5 60.2 61.6 82.5 3.8 18.5 13.2 10.0 22.9 21.3 16.6 15.9 14.3. 3.0 5.0. 2.6 7.3 2.5 2.6 8.7 2.2 • 5.0. 3.7 3.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.4 0.3 3 . 5

-6 . 7: ' 5.0 4.8 8 2 8.0 17.3 8.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0 . 0 0 . 9

-- 0.2 0 . 1 0.5 0.0 4.1 1.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 '0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 070 0.0 0.0. 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 8.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 ' 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 . 0 0.0 1.5 2.1 0.0 2.0 1.6 4.3' 1.8 1.4 7.9 11.6 0.0 11.0 8.6 23.2 10.1 8.0' IND 62.3 14.0 4.9 0.3 0.7 12.6 0.0 1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.6 3.6 0.1 0.2 6.5 1.6 0.1 0.0 0.7 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.01 0.0 1.9 1.4 11.1 7.9 100.0 100.0 100

.0 100.0 100

.01 100.0 100

.0 100

. 0 100

.0 100

.0 100

.0 100

.0 100.0



### Table . 5: System Shares Within Fixture : Average Shares (%), Existing B uildings 8-foot fixture System Type
SMAG8/2F96T12 SMAG8/2F96T12/ES EMAG8/2F96T12 Y ... EMAG8/2F96T12/ES Building Type
........._...... ................. .. _.... . SMO LGO RES RET : GRC WRH SCH' COL HLT LDG MSC 88

. 1 55

.0 : 93.2' 66

.9
- 67

.0 84.5 77.975. 6 91

. 1 82 .4 77.9: 4.8 16.3: 1.6 20 .7 21.5 7.2: 14.3' 19.8 1

.6.. 11.0' 11.3 4.0 ' 2.8 2.8' 2.7 4.6 3.0 2.2 3.2 '. 0.8 2.4 3.2 2
. 1. 20.1 2.3. EMAG8/2F96T12/RE ELEC8/2F96T12 ELEC8/2F96T12/ES ELEC8/2F96T12/RE TOTAL FL8 0.0 . 0.0' 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.7 5.1:. 0.0 0.0' 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 ASM IND 91.9 78.1 0.8 10.2 5.0 2.8

7.5 0.0 0.6 0.8 0.0 100.0 5.8 4.3 5.4' 1 . 5- 3.1 2.8. __6.4' 2.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0` 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.1 0.0 0.0? 1.1 0.3 0.0 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.0 0.0 3.4 0.2 0.9 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0: 0.01 0.0' -0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100

.0 100

.0 100

.0 100

.0

.. 100

.0 100

.0 100.0 100.0 For Building Type abbreviations , see Table B. I.

I



### B-27

### Table 13.6: System Shares Within Fixture: Average Shares (%), Existing Buildings 8-foot HO fixture System Type Building Type ,.w...,....._. SMAG8/2F96T12/HO SMO 85.9' LGO

82.9 RES

90.1 RET

65.3 GRC

59.1 WRH

70.6 SCH

71.5 COL

36.7 HLT 100.0 LDG.

51A. MSC

73.7 ASM

90.3 SMAG8/2F96T12/HO/ES 11.3 11.6 9.5` 23.6 23.6` 23.9. 22.9 63.3 0.0 4.6 19.2 9.7 EMAG8/2F96T12/HO 0.2 2.1 0.4 3.1 12.9 1.0 2.6 0.0 0.0 41.6 3.5 0.0 EMAG8/2F96T12/HO/ES 2.0 0.7 0.0. 4.5 4.4 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.4 1.8 0.0 EMAG8/2F96T12/HO/RE 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CCUT8/2F96T12/HO 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CCUT8/2F96T12/HO/ES 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 CCUT8/2F96T12/HO/RE 0.0. 0.0 0 0 0.0 0-0* 0.0 0.0 0.0. 0.0 0.0 0.0

. 0.0 ELEC8/2F96T12/HO Fr 0Z 0.2- 0.0 3.4 0.01 2.5 1.3 0.0: 0.0 0.0 1 3 0.0 ELEC8/2F96T12/HO/ES 0.4 2.4 0.0 0.1 0.0-- 0.0 1 7 off 0.0 .0.0: 0.5 0.0 ELEC8/2F96T12/HO/RE 0.0. 0.0' 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 TOTAL FL8HO 100

.0 100

.0 100

.0 100

.0 100.0 100.0 100

.0 100 , 0 100

.0 100

.0 100

.0 100.0



### Table 13.7: System Shares Within Fixture: Average Shares (%), Existing B uildings Non Fluorescent Systems System Type ^RMmwBuildirog Type...,. IND 66.9 23.3 5.1 4.6 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 100.0

SMO LGO RES. RET' GRC' WRH ' SCH COL: HLT LDG : MSC ASM IND 100.0 ` 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0: 100.0 CFL 5.8 13.2 1.8 2.3

.......... 2.8 INC 94.2 86.8 98.2 97.7' 97.2 97.9 97.3 ' 89.9 78

. 9 93.4

. 97.9 99

.0. 96.6 TOTAL EDGS 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100. 0 100

. 0100

.0 100.0 100.0 ' 102.8 100 .0 100.0 CFLR 1.2 0.8 0.3 1.4 0.2 0.3' 3.0 0.3 0.8 02 0.5: 0.8 INCR 98.2' 98.8 99.2' 99.7 99.8 99 .7 97.0 99.8 99.2 9

-9

.8 :. 99.5 99.2' TOTAL EDR 100.0' 100

. 0 100

. 0

. 100

.0 100.0 100. 0 100.0 100

.0 : 100 0 100

. 0 100

. 0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL MV 100.0 100

.0 100

.0 : 100.0: 100.0 100

.01 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

. 100.0 100.0 100.0 TOTAL MH 100.0 ' 100.0 100

.0 100.03 100.0 100

.0 100.0 100

.0 100

. 0 100 .0. 100. 0' 100.0 100.0 TOTAL HPS 100.0 100.0 100

.0. 100.0. 100.0 1000 100 0 100

. & 100

### . 0 100.0 100.0 100.0 -100.0
For Building Type abbreviations , see Table B.1.



### B-28

### Table B.8: System Shares Within Fixture: New Construction Shares (%) 4-foot fixture

SMAG/F40T 12/ES EMAG/F40T12 CCUT/F40T 12 ELEC/F40T 12 EMAG/F40T 12/ES CCUT/F40T 12/ES ELEC/F40T12/ES EMAG/F40T12/ES/RE CCUT/F40T 12/ES/RE ELEC/F40T 12/ES/RE EMAG/F32T8 3.9 CCUT/F32T8 0.1 ELEC/F32T8/RS 4.2 ELEC/F32T8/IS 23.8 TOTAL FL4___ 100.0 

### Table B.9: System Shares Within Fixture:. New Construction Shares (%®) 8-foot fixture System Type All Building Types SMAG8/2F96T 12 0.0 SMAG/8/2F96T 12/ES 0.0 EMAG8/2F96T12 78.0 EMAG8/2F96T 12/ES • 5.0 EMAG8/2F96T12/RE 1.0 ELEC8/2F96T 12 15.0 ELEC8/2F96T 12/ES .0 ELEC8/2F96T12/RE 0.0 Total FL8 100.0



### Table B.10: System Shares Within Fixture: Table B.11: System Shares Within Fixture:

New Construction Shares (%® ) New Construction Shares (%® ) 8-foot HO fixture Non Fluorescent Systems System TvRe All Building Tv es System Type All Building Types SMAG8/2F96T12/HO 0.0 Total Flother 100.0 SMAG 8/2F96T 12/HO/ES 0.0 CFL 1.0 EMAG8/2F96T12/HO 75.0 INC 99.0 EMAG8/2F96T12/HO/ES 0.0 TOTAL EDGS 100.0 EMAG/2F96T 12/HO/RE 0.0 CFLR 1.0 CCUT8/2F96T 12/HO 0.0 INCR 99.0 CCUT8/2F96T 12/HO/ES 0.0 TOTAL EDR 100.0 CCUT8/2F96T 12/HO/RE 0.0 TOTAL MV 100.0 ELEC8/2F96T 12/HO 25.0' TOTAL MH 100.0 ELEC8/2F96T 12/HO/ES 0.0 TOTAL HPS 100.0 ELEC8/2F96T12/HO/RE 0.0 TOTAL FL8HO 100.0



### B-29

### REFERENCES

1. Regional Economic Research, Inc. COMMEND 4.0 User's Guide, San Diego 1993. 2. Department of Energy/Energy Information Administration (DOE/EIA) 1994. Commercial Buildings Characteristics 1992: Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey. Energy Information Administration, United States Department of Energy. DOE/EIA-0246(92). 3. Extract of Xenergy, Inc's XENCAP database showing lighting equipment and lighting hours of operation for over 32,000 commercial and industrial buildings from nationwide energy, audits for the years 1979-1995.

## APPENDIX C. ELECTRIC UTILITY IMPACT MODELING

C.! INTRODUCTION This appendix summarizes the methods used to calculate utility avoided costs for the energy savings that result from the imposition of fluorescent ballast energy efficiency levels. The conventions and background information used in the analysis, and the basis for valuing the energy and capacity savings of the energy efficiency levels are explained. The goal of this analysis is to calculate the peak and capacity savings and the avoided costs, in dollars per kWh of electricity saved, where the energy is expressed as primary energy. Avoided costs"contain both the marginal fuel and marginal capacity value of each kWh saved by the energy efficiency levels in each year of the period analyzed. 

### Cot AVOIDED COST: BACKGROUND AND CONVENTIONS The analysis adopts the standard utility convention that the value of electricity savings, commonly called avoided cost, can be broadly separated into energy, or variable cost, savings, and capacity, or fixed cost, savings. The variable impact measures the production costs avoided by reduced electrical generation. The largest variable component by far is the cost of the fuel not consumed, but there are also avoided labor and variable operation and maintenance costs to be considered. The fixed component is intended to measure the benefit of reduced system load during peak periods. Since electricity cannot normally be stored on the large scale associated with utilities, all electricity must be generated at the same moment it is consumed. One way to measure the cost avoided by a lower peak demand is to estimate the lowest possible cost of maintaining the cheapest generator available on hand year-around simply to generate the last kW demanded at the peak hour. By convention, this hypothetical generator is a low-cost gas turbine, and its capital cost per kW is called the gas turbine proxy. In addition to the generating capacity itself, lowering peak demand will also deliver a saving in the need for peak transmission and distribution (T&D) capacity, which should be included in the capacity savings. An appliance energy efficiency level analysis typically relies on disaggregation by NationalElectric Reliability Council (NERC) region of capacity savings and energy savings, followed by reaggregation to the national level. Disaggregation is necessary because different regions need capacity at different times, and the relative energy savings attributable to each region for heating, cooling, and all other appliances vary. For the purposes of calculating electric utility avoided costs, heating appliances are defined as electric heat pumps in heating mode and electric resistance heat, cooling appliances are defined as room and central air-conditioning plus heat pumps in cooling mode, and baseload appliances are defined as all other appliances affected by appliance energy conservation legislation, including all lighting.



### C-i

### Ce3 ENERGY COST SAVINGS The energy value of load shape modifications is measured by the marginal cost of electricity, which depends on the variable cost of operating the power plants that will change their output in response to a change in load. This variable cost consists primarily of the cost of fuel for these marginal units

. U.S. utilities are characterized by a substantial difference among the prices of fuels used to generate electricity on the margin

. Marginal resources of a utility can be either more expensive oil and gas or less expensive non-oil-and-gas resources , typically coal or economy purchase of power generated by coal . Very low variable-cost nuclear or run-of

-river hydro resources are usually base loaded and thus only rarely contribute to marginal energy costs

. Even though the relative cost of natural gas as a generation fuel has decreased in recent years , and seasonal price fluctuations often make it cheaper than coal bought under long-term contract, the oil and gas fraction approach defined below is still valid because gas

-fired resources are more likely to be marginal because of their greater operating flexibility. The relevant marginal cost is the cost of each marginal fuel weighted by the fraction of time each fuel is on the margin plus any variable operation and maintenance (O&M). Formally, this relationship can be simplified as follows: 

### Marginal Cost = OGFm ® Natural Gas Price + NOGFm ®Coal Price +Variable O&M To calculate the oil-and-gas fraction on the margin, OGFm, the total amount of oil-and gasgenerated electricity is divided by the total forecasted amount of electricity generation from NERC data ( 1) to obtain the total oil and gas- fraction, OGF,. OGF, can then be related to OGFm with a simplified load-duration curve (LDC) for each region, such as shown in Figure C. 1. In this diagram, the y-axis is the load normalized to the mean load , and the x-axis is the fraction of a year when the utility operates at that load or lower

. The minimum load is the lowest load at which the utility ever operates, and hence is the load at which the fraction of a year equals 1, as shown in the figure. The peak load, or highest load at which the utility operates , is attained only very briefly and hence has a duration of nearly zero

. Since the curve shows load (or power) vs. time, and since energy equals power times time, the area under the curve is proportional to energy, or fuel burned. In Figure C.1, B'is defined to be equal to the OGF,,,. The non-oil-and-gas fraction (NOGF,,,) is simply 1

- OGF,,,. It is assumed that the utility will burn non

-oil-and-gas fuels first, since they are less expensive . Hence, oil-and-gas will not be the fuel 'on the margin until the load exceeds the nonoil-and-gas fired capacity. This point is the point at which the line labeled B'intersects the load curve. For loads above this point, oil-and-gas is the fuel on the margin , for lower loads the marginal fuel is non-oil-and-gas. Hence , the area in the triangle below the load curve and above the line labeled B ' is proportional to the total amount of oil-and-gas burned, and the area under this line and the rest of the load curve is proportional to the total amount of non-oil

-and-gas burned.



### C-2

## Normalized Duration (in fraction of a year)

Peak ^` _ _ -- - Load

Minimum 0 Load N 0



# 0.0 0.0 1100

Figure C

. 1 Simplified Load-Duration Curve

The purpose of the following derivation is to calculate the OGFm (B'). First, note that


### tai = A B and B = 1.0, which implies that


### A= Btaxi =

C-3

### The normalized area of the triangle at the top of the LDC represents the fraction of total generation

from oil and gas (OGFF ). Calculating the area of this triangle yields 

### O G Fe = 0.5A'B ' = 0.5(B'tan Q)E'
B 'can thus be expressed as follows:


### E' = OGFm = 20 G Ft

tan S2 

# N The appropriate value for A = tan ,2 is determined empirically: when OGFF >_ 0.4, OGF,,, = 1.0. The value of A must therefore be greater than or equal to 0.8. Note that when A = 0.8, Normalized peak demand = 1.4 ® mean load

and Normalized minimum load = 0.6 ® mean load. A weighted-average marginal energy cost is determined for each of the NERC regions using the above formulas, and a national weighted-average marginal cost for heating and baseload energy savings is calculated using the regional fuel price multipliers and energy savings fractions. This approach assumes that the marginal oil-and-gas fractions remain constant over the analysis period. Table C.1 shows the annual average OGFm for each NERC region. 

### Table C

. 1 Utility Marginal OGFs, and Year of Capacity Need by NERC Regions*

NERC Marginal Year Capacity Region OGF is Needed

NPCC 0.88 now MAAC 0.61 now ECAR 0.16 now MAIN 0.19 now SPP 0.77 1999 SERC 0.47 now ERCOT 0.92 1999 MAPP 0.15 1997 WSCC 0.55 1999 National Avg. 0.52 * The North American Reliability Council (NERC) regions are shown in Table C.2.



### C-4

### Table C.2 The North American Electric Reliability Council Re 

### ECAR ERCOT MAAC MAIN MAPP NPCC SERC SPP WSCC ASCC East Central Reliability Coordination Agreement

Electric Reliability Council of Texas Mid-Atlantic Area Council Mid-America Interconnected Network Mid-Continent Area Power Pool Notheast Power Coordinating Council Southeastern Reliability Council Southwest Power Pool Western Systems Coordinating Council Alaska Systems Coordinating Council ions



### The calculation of Marginal Energy Costs (MECs) in year j can be summarized as follows: NOGFm = 1 - OGFm

MECJ _ (OGFm ® gas pricey + NOGFm ® coal prices + Variable O&M3) ® 1.06

N 

### OGFm 

# = ESFi®OGFm ,i

i=1



### where: I denotes a particular NERC region, ESF1 represents the energy savings fraction for region I, and 1.06 adjusts for transmission and distribution losses. Variable O&M is calculated using references (2) and (3). Average O&M (fixed and variable) for all fossil-fuel fired steam-electric power plants for investor-owned utilities in 1990 is reported in (4) as 0.5¢/kWh (in 1990 dollars). This can be split into fixed and variable components using (5). The analysis uses the. fraction of O&M that is variable for a supercritical coal steam unit (50%) and for a natural gas combustion turbine (20%), weights these by the appropriate marginal oil and gas fractions, and applies the resulting percentage (variable O&M as a percent of total O&M) to the total O&M (0.5¢/kWh). This calculation results in a variable O&M cost of 0.33¢/kWh (in 1990 dollars). In keeping with industry practice, labor and other variable cost savings are ignored in this analysis. This practice has arisen first, because labor costs are very low relative to fuel and capital,


### C-5

### and, second, because the regulatory treatment of labor cost recovery in the general rate case cycle

makes savings difficult to estimate.



### CA CAPACITY SAVINGS C.4a1 Value of Capacity Savings The value of capacity is the value associated with having additional generating capacity available to meet load increases. For utility systems with excess capacity, this value may be equal to or very close to zero. When capacity does have value, this value is commonly measured by the cost of the marginal investment a utility would make to expand system capacity, such as the purchase of a combustion turbine (6). This investment adds reliability to the system even if it never operates, since it is ready to prevent outages if another generating unit fails. If the utility chooses to build another type of plant with higher capital costs, such as a baseload coal unit, it must be basing this choice on considerations other than meeting peak demand alone. Baseload coal plants, for example, can have lower operating costs than gas-fired generation and can be used to displace generators with higher variable cost per kWh. The additional capital cost of a coal plant is thus not related to capacity alone but to energy benefits as well (7). The use of capacity valuation based on the gas turbine proxy, therefore, has a rationale behind it and is widespread in the industry. The additional coal plant capital cost, sometimes called energy

-related capital, is contained implicitly in the marginal energy cost described above

. Consider a utility with a large number of expensive oil and gas units on the margin and dwindling adjusted reserves: Such a utility would need capacity to preserve the system 's reliability at an acceptable level. It would also benefit from . installing a baseload unit that would reduce oil and gas consumption at the margin

. This reduction in fuel costs compensates for expending capital in addition to the cost of a combustion turbine. A utility with coal on the margin. a large fraction of the time would not have the same incentive and would probably install a combustion turbine to preserve reliability. The utility will choose to. have a baseload plant come on line when the present value of the energy-related capital cost of the plant is just equal to the present value of the reduction in fuel costs from the operation of the plant

. The reduction in fuel costs and hence the incentive to build a baseload plant depends on the marginal oil and gas fraction. Thus, the marginal energy cost contains an avoided capital component in addition to an avoided fuel component. The following two rules are applied to determine the value of capacity for the year 1998 based on DOE's interpretation of NERC data (8):'



### C-6

### 1. If the NERC region is forecast to have an adjusted reserve margin larger than 5% of forecasted peak demand, there is no reliability value for capacity.' 2. If the NERC region is forecast to have a capacity deficiency (operating adjusted reserves of less than 5%), the capacity value for the combustion turbine is applied.
After 1998, DOE has not calculated adjusted reserve margins and it is assumed that every region will need capacity. Table C.1 shows the year that each region will need capacity based on these rules. Since the rules under analysis here would not take effect until after 2000, full credit is given to capacity savings. The calculations -in this analysis follow standard industry practice developed for determining the value of reductions in peak load caused by cogenerators and other small-power producers (9). First, the present value of revenue requirements is calculated for a combustion turbine based on its capital cost ($400 per kW in 1987 dollars), a discount rate equal to the utility rate of disadvantage or ROD (10.0%), a fixed charge rate (13.0%),2 a turbine lifetime of 25 years, and the assumption of straight-line depreciation. The calculation is repeated for each year of the analysis assuming no real capital cost escalation for the combustion turbine. Next, the present values are spread over time using an economic carrying charge (ECC). The ECC technique yields a current dollar stream of costs, escalating at an inflation rate of 5% that has the same present value, when discounted at the ROD, as the original stream. A stream of costs that escalates at the inflation rate is also constant in real terms, so this technique levelizes the costs to some constant dollar value ($47.07 per kW®a in 1990 dollars). This cost is then converted to dollars per kWh of electricity savings by the method detailed in the next section.


### C.4a2 Amount of Capacity Savings An analysis of the load shape impacts of improved efficiencies for fluorescent ballasts must consider both the magnitude and timing of the impacts relative to periods of high system loads because load shape changes only have reliability value for the system when they coincide with times of high system loads. This relationship is approximated from modeling runs of the LBNL Hourly and Peak Demand Model ( 10) and from two LBNL utility case studies ( 11), (12).

'An equivalent rule.of thumb for adequate reliability is that the overall reserve margin should equal about 20 % of forecasted peak demand

. Adjusted reserves are defined by DOE as [Planned Capacity + Net Power Transfers(in) - (Forced Outages + Scheduled Maintenance + Other Outages) - Forecasted Peak Demand]. Overall reserves are defined as [Planned Capacity + Net Power Transfers(in) - Forecasted Peak Demand]

. This analysis does not account for the possibility that ballast energy efficiency levels could cause a significant change in a region 's adjusted reserves , and hence change the date when capacity is needed. 2 The estimates of ROD and fixed charge rate have been calculated based on current interest rates and the corporate tax rate (34%) adopted in the 1986 tax revisions. The standard utility capital structure from EPRI is used (45% debt, 10% preferred stock, and 10% common stock). Nominal costs of capital are 10% for debt and preferred stock and 13.4% for common stock. 

### C-7

### There are large but varying degrees of coincidence between peak loads and system peak

loads. The case studies show that the average change in the 250 highest hourly loads is a reasonable measure of the system-level capacity value of ballast energy efficiency levels. The results of these studies also indicated that load shape impacts, measured as a conservation load factor (CLF), vary in a predictable fashion across utility service territories. A CLF is the annual average. load savings divided by the peak savings of the conservation measure (13). 'Peak savings are defined as the forecasted differences between the average of the highest 250 hourly loads before and after the appliance energy efficiency levels are implemented. 

### CLFs can be used to characterize the peak load impacts of heating, cooling, and baseload energy savings . More formally, a CLF can be expressed as: 

### CLF = Annual Load Savings

Peak Load Savings
Multiplying both numerator and denominator by 8760 hours gives:

CLF = Annual Energy Savings

Peak Load Savings ® 8760



### CLF ®8760 = Annual Energy Savings

Peak Load Savings The peak load savings can be expressed as a function of the annual energy savings and the CLF. Another useful form of this equation is as follows: Peak Load Savings = Annual

. Energy Savings CLF ® 8760 

### CLF ® 8760 = kWh of energy savings needed to yield 1 kW of peak load, savings.
The CLF used for fluorescent lamp ballasts was 0.57

. Therefore, the calculation of avoided capacity costs can be summarized in the following equation:



### C-8r

- Baseload j C L 

### ®8760

Baseload
where: ARCBaseload j Capacity Value
0.3...

CLFBaseload 1.2...
E ESFBaseloadj 

### Capacity Value ® 0.3 - 1.2 - Z E S FBaseloadj



### Avoided reliability costs in 1990 $/gigajoule in year j, value of 1 kW of peak load savings in 1990 $/kW-a, energy conversion efficiency including T&D losses, conservation load factor for baseload appliances, reserve margin adjustment needed for adequate reliability, sum of baseload Energy Saving Factors for regions that need capacity in year j. 

### Capacity savings are peak load savings for only those regions that need capacity in a given year. Load savings in regions that do not need capacity contribute to deferring capacity additions in future years, but this analysis does not account for the value of such deferrals.

Table C03 Sums of Baseload Energy Savings Fractions for RC Regions That Need Capacity

Year Baseload Regions Needing ESF Capacity

1998 0.596 6

1999 1.000 9

2000 1.000 9



### C-9

### C.4.3 Avoided Transmission and Distribution Capital Costs Recently, utility planners have begun to account for capital costs of the T&D system that can be avoided by reductions in electricity use. There are a wide range of estimates of such costs, depending on the particular characteristics of the utility system and of the conservation programs and policies that lead to such reductions in electricity use. Krause et al. (14) review the most recent studies on this topic and settle on a range for T&D savings of from $10 to $40/kW-a. Krause et al. also cite reasons why this range is probably too low and suggest that further work will probably raise these values. For example, they cite marginal T&D cost estimates of nine different utilities that (on average) totaled more than $100/kW®a. We adopt the lower end of Krause et al.'s range ($10/kW®a) as our estimate for avoided T&D capital costs. We choose this lower bound estimate because of the substantial uncertainties in applying such estimates (which are derived at the level of individual utilities) in national analyses.



### C-10

### REFERENCES

1. North American Electric Reliability Council (NERC). 1990. Electricity Supply and Demand for 1990-99. 2. Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI). 1989. TAG-Technical Assessment Guide: Vol.!: Electricity Supply-1989. EPRI P-6587-L. September 1989. 3. U.S. Department of Energy. 1992. Electric Plant Cost and Power Production Expenses 1990. Energy Information Administration. DOE/EIA-0455(90). June. 

### 4. U.S. Department of Energy

. 1990

. Staff Report: Electric Power Supply and Demand for the Contiguous United States, 1989

-98, DOE/ IE-0008. 5. EPRI, 1989. Op. cit. 6. National Economic Research Associates . 1977. How to Quantify Marginal Costs: Topic 4. EPRI Report No. EURDS-23. 

### 7. Ibid. 8. U.S. Department of Energy, 1990. Op. cit. 9. Ibid. 10. Verzhbinsky, G., H. Ruderman, and M. D. Levine. 1986. The Residential Hourly and Peak Demand Model: Description and Validation, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LB -18698. 11. Eto, J., J. Koomey, J. McMahon, P. Chan. 1986. Financial Impacts on Utilities of Load Shape Changes: The Nevada Power Company, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBNL-21597. 12. Eto, J., J. Koomey, J. McMahon, P. Chan. 1986. Financial Impacts on Utilities of Load Shape Changes: The Texas Utilities Electric Company, Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory Report LBNL-21598. 13. Koomey, J., A. H. Rosenfeld and A. K. Gadgil. 1990. Conservation Screening Curves to Compare Efficiency Investments to Power Plants. Energy Policy. vol. 18, no.8. p. 774. 14. Krause, F., J. F. Busch and J. G. Koomey. 1992. Incorporating Global Warming Risks in Power Sector Planning: A Case Study of the New England Region. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory LBNL-30797 (vols. I and II). November, 1992.



### C-11

## APPENDIX D . SI UNIT CONVERSIONS

1.0 m 2 = 10.764 ft2 1.0 L = 1.0 dm3 = 10-3 M3



### 0.035315 ft3 = 0.423776 board ft. 0.264172 U. S. gals. I EJ = 0.947817 Quads 1 GJ = 0.947817 to 1 kJ = 0.947817 Btu it = 1000 kg=lMg

= 2205 lbs. = 1.102 short tons 1.73 W/rn°K = I Btu/hr-ft- OF

0.144 Btu•inc •ft2°°F

## ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESS MENT FOR ALTERNATIVE ENERGY

EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR FLUORESCENT LAMP BALLASTS

1. INTRODUCTION This Environmental Assessment (EA) on energy efficiency levels for fluorescent lamp ballasts was prepared pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality, Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 1500 through 1508. The energy efficiency levels are being considered pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act, the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act, and the National Appliance Energy Conservation Amendments. The EA presents the results of the associated environmental impacts from new energy efficiency levels for ballasts. The results are presented for each efficiency level. Each measure of possible environmental change is an alternative action , and it is compared to what is expected to happen. if no new energy efficiency levels were finalized, i.e., the "no action" alternative.
The main environmental concern addressed is emissions from fossil

-fueled electricity generation . Most of the design options for ballasts result in decreased electricity use and , therefore, a reduction of power plant emissions

. The ballast energy efficiency levels will generally decrease air pollution by decreasing future energy demand and consumption. The greatest decreases in air pollution will be for sulfur oxides, listed in equivalent weight of sulfur dioxide , or SO,. Reductions of nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide also occur and are listed by weight of NO,, and CO2, respectively. Carbon dioxide emissions from fossil

-fuel burning is considered an environmental hazard because it contributes to the "greenhouse effect" by trapping heat energy from the earth that is emitted as infrared radiation

. The "greenhouse effect" is expected to gradually raise the mean global temperature. Reductions in emissions of SO2 and NO2 would have beneficial effects on the environment. The resultant improvement to air quality and the decreased potential of acid rain formation would help improve the quality of wetlands and fish and wildlife as well as aid in the preservation of historical and archaeological sites. Increased initial cost in ballast raw materials is expected to decrease slightly the number of ballasts sold, resulting in small decreases in raw materials used. The decrease in SO2 emission because of this is small compared to a decrease in SO2 emissions from fuel burning avoided at power plants. In general , the Department of Energy does not attempt to conduct a full fuel cycle analysis of all the effects of energy efficiency levels because the effects of reduced power generation represent the overwhelming share of all environmental effects. The effects on particulate emissions related to an energy efficiency level-induced decrease in electricity generation would be minor compared to effects on decreases in SO2, NOR, and CO2


### EA- 1

### For example , in 1992, power plants contributed only 0.21% of U.S. total particulate emissions as

compared to contributions of 70% and 32% to total SO2 and NO,, emissions , respectively . Though the reduction in particulate emissions would be relatively small, any reduction would improve air quality.



### THODS OF ESTIMATING EIRON NTAL IMPACTS The greatest impacts of the ballast energy efficiency levels would be a reduction in electricity demand growth. The main environmental effects of power plants on air and water quality result from emissions of SO2, NON, and CO . With the energy efficiency levels lessening the need for electricity generation, power plant emissions would be reduced.



### 2.1 Baseline Emissions The estimates of emissions of SO2, NON, and CO2 are expressed as a percentage of U.S. power plant emissions for the year under consideration. In a Service Report that accompanies the 1991 National Energy Strategy (NES), the impact on power plant emissions as a result of revisions to Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act (i.e., H.R. 3030) are estimated (1). We use the emissions projections from this report as our "no energy efficiency levels" baseline. To reduce NOx emissions , the Clean Air Act will require utilities to add low NO,, burners to coal plants greater than 75 megawatts (nameplate). NO,, emissions are required to be reduced by 2 million short tons by the year 2000 under the legislation

. No emissions cap exists for NOR, therefore, as new units are added after the year 2000, NO. emissions will increase. The legislation calls for reductio of SO2 emissions in two phases

. In the first phase of the planned reductions (beginning December 31, 1995 and carrying through the year 2000, electric utilities will have several options for reducing their SO2 emissions to comply with the allowance constraints imposed by the provisions of the clean Air Act. The major options are 1) to decrease the use of high emission units and increase the use of their clean coal , gas, or oil units, 2) to switch from units using high-sulfur coal to low-sulfur coal units, 3) to retrofit plants emitting at a high rate with emissions reduction technologies (e.g., scrubbers), and 4) to purchase allowances from other utilities who reduce their emissions below their permitted levels in order to sell their allowances for a profit. Most utilities will make use of a combination of these options to minimize the cost of complying with the allowance constraints . Total SO2 emissions by utilities cannot exceed 8.1 Mt (8.9 million short tons) after December 31, 2000.
In the second

. phase of the planned SO2 reductions (beginning December 31, 2000), the options available to electric utilities for maintaining the 8

.9 million short ton cap will broaden with the expected introduction of new, advanced generating technologies . However, during this period utilities will be less able to reduce emissions by changing the way they utilize their plants. Since



### EA-2

### most plants Will be fully utilized, there

. will be few opportunities for reducing emissions by decreasing the use of a high emission plant. In the report accompanying the 1991 NES, two possible outcomes are presented, a flexible case and a restricted case, so that the effect of different levels of permitted trading of emission allowances can be evaluated. (The report does not go beyond this explanation in defining the differences between the two cases). As presented in the report, the results for the two cases are virtually identical. Because the two cases are so similar, we chose to use the U.S. power plant emission projections for the three effluents under the assumptions made in the flexible case as our baseline. Table 1 summarizes these emissions.


### 2.2 Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions For each of the energy efficiency levels analyzed, emissions abated from fossil fuel-burning power plants are estimated. In analyzing the impacts, lower sulfur emissions resulting from decreased steel production are not considered. No changes in the amount of steel used per unit are expected. In order to capture the effects of cleaner-burning power plants in future years, emission rates (g/kWh) for power plant fuel-burning are calculated from projected emissions and electrical generation data. The electrical generation data is translated into energy use (EJ) by multiplying the generation data by 11.7 MJ/kWh (11,500 Btu/kWh).' The source of these projected emissions and electrical generation data is the NES Service Report. Tables 1 and 2 present these data and the calculated emission rates for SO2 and NOX in metric and non-metric unts. The calculated emissions rate data listed in Tables 1 and 2 represent the average SO2 and NOX emissions rates for all fossil fuel-burning power plants in the United States. Emissions rates were not calculated for each fuel-burning source as the emissions data supplied by the NES Service Report were not desegregated according to power plant type (i.e. coal, oil, gas). To obtain emission rate values, the amount of emissions were divided by the total energy use of fossil fuel-burning power plants. The total energy use by fossil fuel-burning power plants was. calculated from the electrical generation data supplied by the report accompanying the 1991 NES. The electrical generation data was desegregated by fuel source. To obtain the total fuel input to the power plants, the electrical generation data from each fossil fuel source was summed and then divided by the assumed efficiency of fossil fuel-burning power plants (30.6%).

' This is a typical efficiency for fossil

-fired power plants in the U.S. when transmission and distribution losses are included. 

### EA-3

### The amount of SO2 and NQ emissions abated for any particular year is determined by

multiplying the estimates of energy saved through reduced electricity generation in that year by the emission rate for that particular year. For years not covered in the Service Report, linear interpolation was used to derive emission rates and, in turn, the corresponding abated emissions.



### 2.3 Carbon Dioxide Emissions
Emission rates for carbon dioxide were derived in the same manner as those derived for SO2 and NOR. As presented in Tables 1 and 2, the Service Report also provided emissions data with regard to CO2.2 As with the SO2 and NO,, emissions, the amount of CO2 emissions abated for any particular year is determined by multiplying the estimates of energy saved through reduced electricity generation by the emission rate for that particular year. For years not covered in the Service Report, linear interpolation was used to derive emission rates and, in turn, the corresponding abated emissions. 

### Table EA-1° E °ssion and Emission Rates (British Units)

Emission (million short tons) Emission Rates (1000 short tons/quad) Year SO2 NO, CO, SO2 No, CO2 1995 17.69 10.77 2861.60 1805.57 1101.43 292315.00 2000 10.52 7.83 2928.72 1014.22 755.82 282592.70 2010 8.25. 7.17 3161.64 747.42 649.23 286468.70 2020 5.80 5.80 3435.47 481.27 481.27 284207.70 2030 3.69 4.54 3693.62 277.78 342.38 279007.40

2 Upon phone conversations with David Streets, a contributing author to the 1991 NES report at Argonne National Laboratory,(February 1'992), it was determined that the carbon emissions data provided in the NES Service Report were reported as tons of carbon emitted. Here we reported tons of CO2; i.e., the weights above include the weight of the. oxygen in CO2 as well as the weight of the carbon. 

### EA-4

### Table EA-2. Emission and Emission Rates (S.I. Units)

Year Emission (Mt$

SO2 NON CO2 Emission Rates (g/kWh)) SO2 No. CO, 

### 1995 17.34 10.56 2805.49 5.59 3.41 905 2000 10.31 7.68 2871.29 3.14 2.34 874.9 2010 8.09 7.03 3099.65 2.31 2.01 886.9 2020 5.69 5.69. 3368.11 1.49 1.49 879.9 2030 3.652 4.45 3621.2 0.86 1.06 

### 863.8

3. SUITS The following tabular results indicate what changes can be brought about in the amounts of emitted C021 SO2, and NON by imposing energy efficiency levels for ballasts in this analysis. A table is presented for each of the energy efficiency levels. Each level has been analyzed separately in order to determine the resulting emission changes. Each table details the changes that occur to each of the three emissions (CO2. SO2, and NON) through the imposition of a specific energy efficiency level. Each table includes the following information for a specific year between 1996 and 2030: the amount of emission abated from power plant generation, the amount abated from the building,' the net change in the emission, and the percent the net change comprises of total U.S. power plant emissions. Also included are the cumulative changes of each pollutant (between the years 1998 and 2030).


### 3.1 Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxide Emissions SO2 emissions would be decreased by a cumulative total of up to 646 kt (712,000 short tons) between 1998 and 2030 in the energy efficiency level 4 scenario. In the year 2000, decreases in SO2 emissions will represent about 0.21% of the SO2 emissions estimated to come from commercial and industrial emissions in that year. In the year 2030, decreases in SO2 emissions will represent about 0.94% of the SO2emissions estimated to come from power plants. As discussed earlier, the possible reductions of SO2 emissions caused by energy efficiency levels can be earned as credits. To the extent credits are used for future emissions, the energy efficiency levels' net effect on those SO2 emissions would be only a postponement. Level 4 would result in an estimated decrease in NON emissions of 590 kt (650,000 short tons) between 1998 and 2030. NON emissions decreases would represent 0.19 and 0.83% of the NNo

4 Changes in emissions at the building. 

### EA-5

### emissions estimated to come from commercial and industrial emissions in the years 2000 and 2030,

respectively.



### 3®2 Carbon Dioxide Emissions The cumulative reduction in CO2 emissions from level 4 design changes is 305 Mt (336 million short tons) of CO2. For the year 2000, the estimated CO2emissions reduction is 1.68 Mt (1.9 million short tons) of CO1 or about 0.17% of estimated U.S. commercial and industrial emissions in 2000. For the year 2030, the estimated CO2 emissions reduction is 10.27 Mt (11.3 million short tons) of CO2 or about 0.79% of estimated U.S. commercial and industrial CO2 emissions in 2030.

### Table EA-3. Reduction of Pollutants for Fluorescent Ballasts - Energy Efficiency Level 1
Fluorescent Ballasts Level 1 S02 Year Abated from Power Abated from Building Total Reduction in Reduction as

Plants Emissions a % of Total

kt thousand short tons kt thousand short tons kt thousand short tons Commercial

and Industrial Emissions 2000 3.37 3.71 0.00 0.00 3.37 3.71 0.11 2005 15.01 16.55 -0.13 -0.15 14.88 16.40 0.56 2010 17.16 18.92 -0.13 -0.15 17.03 18.77 0.71 2015 13.00 14.33 -0.13 -0.15 12.87 14.18 0.63 2020 9.68 10.67 -0.13 -0.15 9.55 10.52 0.55 2025 7.06 7.78 -0.13 -0.15 6.92 7.63 0.49 2030 4.91 5.41 -0.13 -0.15 4.77 5.26 0.43 Cumulative S02 reduction (kt): 338

NOx (short tons):

Year Abated from Power Abated from Building Total Reduction in Reduction as

Plants Emissions a % of Total thousand short tons kt thousand short tons kt thousand short tons Commercial

and Industrial Emissions 2000 2.51 2.76 -0.05 -0.05 2.46 2.71 0.10 2005 12.08 13.32 -0.19 -0.21 11.89 13.11 0.52 2010 14.92 16.44 -0.24 -0.26 14.68 16.18 0.66 2015 12.06 13.29 -0.24 -0.26 11.82 13.03 0.58 2020 9.68 10.67 -0.24 -0.26 9.45 10.41 0.50 2025 7.74 8.53 -0.19 -0.21 7.55 8.32 0.45 2030 6.03 6.65 -0.19 -0.21 5.84 6.44 0.38 Cumulative NOx reduction (kt): 307
C02
Year

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Abated from Power

Plants

Mt million short tons
0.94 4.94 6.58 6.19 5.73 5.38 4.91 1.03

5.44 7.25 6.82 6.31 5.93 5.41 Abated from Building

Mt million short tons -0.05 -0.21 -0.26 -0.26 -0.26 -0.21 -0.21 -0.05

-0.24 -0.29 -0.29 -0.29 -0.24 -0.24 (short tons): 373 000

338 000

Total Reduction in Emissions

Mt million short

tons 0.89 4.73 6.32 5.92 5.47 5.17 4.70 0.98

5.21 6.96 6.53 6.03 5.70 5.18 Reduction as

a % of Total Commercial and Industrial Emissions 0.09 0.45 0.58 0.52 0.46 0.41 0.36 Cumulative C02 reduction (Mt): 157 - (short tons): 173 000 000

### Table EA-4. Reduction of Pollutants for Fluorescent Ball asts - Energy Efficiency Level 2 Fluorescent Ballasts

Year

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Standard Level 2

Abated from Power Plants

kt

5.44 22.96 27.27 21.11 16.30 12.14 8.96 thousand short tons
5.99 25.31 30.05 '23.26 17.96 13.38 9.88 Cumulative S02 reduction (kt): S0 2 Abated from Building

kt

0.00 -0.13 -0.27 -0.13 -0.13 -0.27 -0.13 547 thousand

short tons
0.00 -0.15 -0.30 -0.15 -0.15 -0.30 -0.15

NOx Total Reduction in

Emissions

kt thousand

short tons
5.44 22.83 27.00 20.98 16.17 11.87 8.83 (short tons): 5.99

25.16 29.76 23.12 17.81 13.08 9.73 603 000 Reduction as

a % of Total Commercial and Industrial Emissions 0.18 0.86 1.13 1.03 0.93 0.85 0.79

Year Abated from Power

Plants Abated from Building Total Reduction in Emissions Reduction as

a % of Total Commercial thousand thousand thousand and kt kt kt short tons short tons short tons Industrial Emissions 2000 4.05 4.46 -0.05 -0.05 4.00 4.41 0.17 2005 18.48 20.37 -0.28 -0.31 18.20 20.06 0.80 2010 23.70 26.12' -0.43 -0.47 23.27 25.65 1.04 2015 19.57 21.57 -0.37 -0.41 19.20 21.16 0.94 2020 16.30 17.96 -0.33 -0.36 15.97 17. 60 0.85 2025 13.31 14.67 -0.38 -0.42 12.93 14.25 0.76 2030 11.02 12.14 -0.33 -0.36 10.69 11.78 0.70 Cumulative NOx reduction (kt): 498 

### C02 (short tons): 549 000

Year Abated from Power Abated from Building Total Reduction in Reduction as

Plants Emissions a % of. Total

Mt million short tons Mt million shorttons Mt million short tons Commercial

and Industrial Emissions 2000 1.51 1.67 -0.05 -0.05 1.47 1.62 0.15 2005 7.56 8.33 -0.31 -0.34 7.25 7.99 0.70 2010 10.45 11.52 -0.48 -0.52 9.98 10.99 0.92 2015 10.04 11.07 -0.40 -0.44 9.64 10.62 0.84 2020 9.65 10.63 -0.36 -0.39 9.29 10.24 0.78 2025 9..26 10.21 -0.43 -0.47 8.83 9.73 0.71 2030 8.97 9.89 -0.36 -0.39 8.61 9.49 0.66 Cumulative C02 reduction (Mt): 258 (short tons ): 284 000 000 

### EA-8

### Table EA-5. Reduction of Pollutants for Fluorescent Ballasts - Energy Efficiency Level 3
Fluorescent Ballasts

Year

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Standard Level 3 SO2

Abated from Power Total Reduction in Plants Abated from Building Emissions

kt

5.96 26.28 31.09 24.02 18.51 13.84 10.17 thousand

short tons
6.56 28.96 34.26 26.47 20.39 15.25 11.21 Cumulative S02 reduction (kt): kt

0.00 -0.13 -0.27 -0.13 -0.27 -0.27 -0.27 622 thousand

short tons 0.00 -0.15 -0.30 -0.15 -0.30 -0.30 -0.30

NOx
Year

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Abated from Power

Plants

kt

4.43 21.15 27.02 22.27 18.51 15.17 12.51 thousand

short tons 4.89 23.30 29.77 24.54 20.39 16.72 13.78 Abated from Building

kt

-0.05 -0.28 -0.47 -0.42 -0.43 -0.43 -0.43 Cumulative NOx reduction (kt): 568 thousand short tons -0.05 -0.31 -0.52 -0.46 -0.47 -0.47 -0.47

C02 kt

5.96 26.14 30.82 23.88 18.24 13.57 9.90 (short tons): thousand

short tons 6.56 28.81 33.96 26.32 20.10 14.95 10.91 686 000

Total Reduction in Emissions

kt thousand

short tons
4.39 20.86 26.54 21.85 18.08 14.74 12.08 (short tons): 4.84

22.99 29.25 24.08 19.92 16.25 13.31 625 000 Reduction as

a % of Total Commercial and Industrial Emissions 0.20 0.99 1.29 1.17 1.05 0.97 0.88

Reduction as a % of Total Commercial and Industrial Emissions 0.19 0.92 1.19 1.07 0.96 0.87 0.79

Year Abated from Power

Plants Abated from Building Total Reduction in Emissions Reduction as

a % of Total Commercial million million million short and Mt Mt Mt short tons short tons tons Industrial Emissions 2000 1.66 1.83 -0.05 -0.05 1.61 1.78 0.16 2005 8.65 9.53 -0.31 -0.34 8.34 9.19 0.80 2010 11.91 13.13 -0.52 -0.58 11.39 12.55 1.05 2015- 11.43 12.59 -0.45 -0.50 10.98 12.09 0.96 2020 10.95 12.07 -0.48 -0.52 10.47 11.54 0.87 2025 10.55 11.63 -0.48 -0.52 10.08 11.10 0.81 2030 10.18 11.22 -0.48 -0.52 9.70 10.69 0.75 Cumulative C02 reduction (Mt): 293 (short tons ): 323 000 000



### EA-9

### Table EA.-6a Reduction of Pollutants for Fluorescent Ballasts - Energy Efficiency Level 4 Fluorescent Ballasts

Year

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Standard Level 4

Abated from Power Plants

kt

6.22 27.16 32.04 24.93 19.36 14.59 10.74 thousand

short tons
6.85 29.93 35.31 27.48 21.34 16.08 11.84 Cumulative S02 reduction (kt): SO 2 Abated from Building

kt
0.00 -0.13 -0.27 -0.13 -0.27 -0.27 -0.27 646 thousand

short tons 0.00 -0.15 -0.30 -0.15 -0.30 -0.30 -0.30

NOx
Year

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Abated from Power

Plants

kt
4.63 21.86 27.85 23.12 19.36 15.99 13.20 thousand

short tons.
5.10 24.09 30.69 25.48 21.34 17.63 14.55 F Abated from Building

-0.05 -0.28 -0.47 -0.42 -0.47 -0.43 -0.43 Cumulative NOx reduction (kt): 590 thousand short tons -0.05 -0.31 -0.52 -0.46 -0.52 -0.47 -0.47

C02 Total Reduction in

Emissions

kt thousand

short tons 6.22 27.02 31.77 24.80 19.10 14.32 10.47 (short tons): 6.85

29.78 35.01 27.33 21.04 15.78 11.54 712 000

Total Reduction in Emissions

kt thousand

short tons 4.58 21.58 27.37 22.70 18.89 15.57 12.78 (short tons): 5.05

23.78 30.16 25.02 20.82 17.15 14.08 650 000 Reduction as

a % of Total Commercial and Industrial Emissions 0.21 1.02 1.33 1.22 1.10 1.02 0.94

Reduction as a % of Total Commercial and Industrial Emissions 0.19 0.95 1.23 1.11 1.00 0.92 0.83

Year Abated from Power

Plants Abated from Building Total Reduction in Emissions Reduction as

a % of Total Commercial million million million short and Mt Mt Mt short tons short tons tons Industrial Emissions 2000 1.73 1.91 -0.05 -0.05 1.68 1.86 0.17 2005 8.94 9.85 -0.31 -0.34 8.63 9.51 0.83 2010 12.28 13.53 -0.52 -0.58 11.76 12.96 1.08 2015 11.86 13.07 -0.45 -0.50 11.41 12.58 1.00 2020 11.46 12.63 -0.52 -0.58 10.94 12.05 .0.91 2025 11.13 12.26 -0.48 -0.52• 10.65 11.74 0.85 2030 10.75 11.85 -0.48 -0.52 10.27 11.32 0.79 Cumulative C02 reduction (Mt): 305 (short tons): 336 000 000



### EA-10

### 4. LOW EFFICIENCY BASE CASE SENSITANALYSIS The following tables present the results of the low efficiency base case sensitivity analysis which will be referred to as the "sensitivity analysis " in the following sections. The sensitivity case presented here is the same low efficiency base case sensitivity used in the COMMEND analysis, and is described in detail in Chapter 5.


### 4.1 Sulfur and Nitrogen Oxide E missions SO2 emissions would be decreased by a cumulative total of up to 878 kt (967,000 short tons) between 1998 and 2030 in the sensitivity case. In the year 2000, decreases in.SO, emissions will represent about 0.25% of the SO2 emissions estimated to come from commercial and industrial sources in that year. In the year 2030, decreases in SO2 emissions will represent about 1.36% of the SO2 emissions from power plants in that year. NOX emissions of 805 kt (887,000 short tons) between 1998 and 2030 are expected in the sensitivity case. NO,. emissions decreases would represent 0.23 and 1.20% of the NQ emissions estimated to come from commercial and industrial emissions in the years 2000 and 2030, respectively.



### 4.2 Carbon Dioxide E °ssions . The cumulative-reduction in CO2 emissions from the sensitivity case is 420 Mt (463 million short tons) of CO2. For the year 2000, the estimated CO2 emissions reduction is 2.0 Mt (2.2 million short tons) of CO2 or about 0.20% of estimated U.S. commercial and industrial CQ emissions in 2000. For the year 2030, the estimated CO2 reduction is 14.88 Mt (16.4 million short tons) of CO2 or about 1.14% of U.S. commercial and industrial CO2 emissions in 2030.

### Table EA-7. Reduction of Pollutants for Fluorescent Ballasts - Energy Efficiency Level Low Efficiency Base Case Sensitivity Analysis

Fluorescent Ballasts Standard Level 1

kt S02

thousand short tons Sensitivity Analysis

Total Reduction in Emissions

kt

4.85 0.00 0.00 4.40 22.63 -0.13 -0.15 20.40 26.48 -0.27 -0.30 23.76 20.73 -0.13 -0.15 18.68 16.07 -0.13 -0.15 14.45 11.82 -0.13 -0.15 10.60 8.62 -0.13 -0.15 7.69 Cumulative S02 reduction (kt): 484 (short tons):

Year Abated from Power

Plants Abated from Building Total Reduction in Emissions Reduction as a % of Total Commercial k thousand thousand thousand and t short tons kt short tons kt short tons Industrial Emissions 2000 3.28 3.61 -0.05 -0.05 3.23 3.56 0.14 2005 16.53 18.21 -0.28 -0.31 16.24 17.90 0.71 2010 20.88 23.01 -0.38 -0.42 20.50 22.59 0.91 2015 17.45 19.23 -0.33 -0.36 17.12 18.87 0.83 2020 14.58 16.07 -0.33 -0.36 14.26 15.71 0.75 2025 11.76 12.96 -0.28 -0.31 11.48 12.65 0.67 2030 9.62 10.60 -0.33 -0.36 9.29 10.24 0.60 Cumulative NOx reduction (kt): 442 C02 (short tons): thousand short tons Reduction as

a% of Total Commercial and Industrial Emissions 4.85 0.15 22.48 0.77 26.18 0.99 20.59 0.91 15.92 0.83 11.68 0.75 8.47 0.68 534 000

487 000

Year Abated from Power

Plants Abated from Building Total Reduction in Emissions Reduction as a'% of Total Commercial million million million and Mt Mt Mt

short tons short tons short tons Industrial Emissions 2000 1.23 1.35 -0.05 -0.05 1.18 1.30 0.12 2005 6.76 7.45 -0.31 -0.34 6.45 7.11 •0.62 2010 9.21 10.15 -0•.43 -0.47 .8.78 9.68 0.80 2015 8.95 9.86 -0 .36 -0.39 8.60 9.47 0.75 2020 8.63 9.51 -0.36 '-0.39 8.27 9.12 0.69 2025 8.18 9.02 -0.31 -0.34 7.87 8.68 0.63 2030 7.83 8.63 -0.36 -0.39 7.48 8.24 0.57 Cumulative C02 reduction (M t): 228 NOx

(short tons ): 25 1 000 000



### EA-12

### Table EA-8. Reduction of Pollutants for Fluorescent Ballasts - Energy Efficiency Level 2, Low Efficiency Base Case Sensitivity Analysis Fluorescent Ballasts Standard Level 2 SO2 Sensitivity Analysis

Year Abated from Power I Abated from Building I Total Reduction in' Reduction as

Plants Emissions a.% of Total

kt thousand short tons kt thousand short tons kt thousand short tons Commercial

and Industrial Emissions 2000 6.47 7.13 0.00 0.00 6.47 7.13 0.22 2005 30.25 33.34 -0.13 -0.15 30.12 33.19 1.13 2010 37.19 40.98 -0.27 -0.30 36.92 40.69 1.53 2015 29.83 32.87 -0.27 -0.30 29.56 32.58 1.44 2020 23.65 26.07 -0.27 -0.30 23.38 25.77 1.34 2025 17.98 19.81 -0.27 -0.30 17.71 19.51 1.25 2030 13.51 14.89 -0.27 -0.30 13.25 14.60 1.18 Cumulative S02 reduction (kt): 759 (short tons):
NOx 837 000

Year Abated from Power

Plants Abated from Buuilding Total Reduction in Emissions Reduction as

a % of Total Commercial thousand thousand thousand and kt kt kt short tons short tons short tons Industrial Emissions 2000 4.82 5.31 -0.09 -0.10 4.73 5.21 0.20 2005 24.34 26.83 -0.37 -0.41 23.97 26.42 1.05 2010 32.32 35.62 -0.56 -0.62 31.76 35.00 1.42 2015 27.66. 30.48 -0.56 -0.62 27.10 29.86 1.32 2020 23.65 26.07 -0.56 -0.62 23.09 25.45 1.22 2025 19.71 21.72 -0.52 -0.57 19.19 21.15 1.13 2030 16.61 18.31 -0.56 -0.62 16.05 17.69 1.04 Cumulative NOx reduction (kt): 696 CO2 (short tons): 767 000

Year Abated from Power

Plants Abated from Building Total Reduction in Emissions Reduction as

a % of Total Commercial million million million and Mt Mt Mt

short tons short tons short tons Industrial. Emissions 2000 1 .80 1.99 -0.09 -0.10 1.71 1.88 0.17 2005 9.95 10.97 -0.40 -0.44 9.55 10.53 0.91 2010 14.25 15.71 -0.62 -0.68 13.64 15.03 1.25 2015 14.19 15.64 -0.62 -0.68 13.57 14.96 1.18 2020 14.00 15.42 -0.62 -0.68 13.38 14.74 1.11 2025 13.71 15.11 -0.57 -0.63 13.14 14.48 1.05 2030 13.53 14.91 -0.62 -0.68 12.91 14.23 0.99 Cumulative C02 reduction (Mt): 363 (short tons ):400 000 000



### EA-13

### Table EA-9. Reduction of Pollutants for Fluorescent Ballasts - Energy Efficiency Level 3, Low Efficiency Base Case Sensitivity Analysis

Fluorescent Ballasts Standard Level 3 S02 Sensitivity Analysis

Year Abated from Power Abated from Building Total Reduction in Reduction as

Plants Emissions a % of Total

kt thousand short tons kt thousand short tons kt thousand short tons Commercial

and Industrial Emissions 2000 7.51 8.28 0.00 0.00 7.51 8.28 0.25 2005 34.45 37.96 -0.27 -0.30 34.18 37.66 1.28 2010 42.15 46.45 -0.40 -0.44 41.75 46.00 1.73 2015 33.65 37.09 -0.27 -0.30 33.38 36.79 1.63 2020 26.72 29.44 -0.27 -0.30 26.45 29.15 1.52 2025 20.14 22.20 -0.27 -0.30 19.87 21.90 1.41 2030 15.08 16.62 -0.27 -0.30 14.81 16.32 1.32 Cumulative S02 reduction (kt): 858 (short tons): 946 000 N O x
Year Abated from Power

Plants Abated from Building Total Reduction in Emissions Reduction as a % of Total Commercial thousand thousand thousand and kt kt kt short-tons short tons short tons Industrial Emissions 2000 5.59 6.16 -0.09 -0.10 5.50 6.06 0.23 2005 27.72 30.55 -0.47 -0.52 27.25 30.03 1.19 2010 36.63 40.37 -0.66 -0.73 35.97 39.63 1.60 2015 31.21 34.39 -0.65 -0.72 30.55 33.67 1.49 2020 26.72 29.44 -0.61 -0.67 .26.11 28.77 1.38 2025 22.08 24.33 -0.61 -0.67 21.47 23.67 1.26 2030 18.54 20.43 -0.61 -0.67 17.93 19.76 1.16 Cumulative NOx reduction (kt): 786 (short tons): 867 000 C02
Year Abated from Power

Plants Abated from Building Total Reduction-in Emissions Reduction as

a % of Total Commercial million million million and Mt Mt Mt

short tons short tons short tons Industrial Emissions 2000 2.09 2.30 -0.09 -0.10 2.00 2.20 0.20 2005 11.34 12.49 -0.52. -0 .58 10.81 11.91 1.03 2010 16.15 17.80 -0.74 -0.81 15.42 16.99 1.41 2015 16.01 17.64 -0.71 -0.79 15.30 16.86 1.33 2020 15.81 17.42 -0.67 -0.73 . 15.14 16.69 1.26 2025 15.36 16.93 -0.67 -0.73 14.70 16.20 1.17 2030 15.09 16.63 -0.67 -0.73 14.43 15.90 1.11- Cumulative C02 reduction (M t): 410 ( short tons ):452 000 000



### EA-14

### Table EA-10, Reduction of Pollutants for Fluorescent Ballasts - Energy Efficiency Level 4, Low Efficiency Base Case Sensitivity Analysis Fluorescent Ballasts Standard Level 4 SO2

Year

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Abated from Power

Plants

kt

7.51 35.1 1 42.91 34.42 27.45 20.71 15.58 thousand

short tons
8.28 38.69 47.29 37.93 30.25 22.82 17.17 Cumulative S02 reduction (kt): Abated from Building

kt

0.00 -0.27 -0.40 -0.27 -0.27 -0.27 -0.27 878 thousand

short tons
0.00 -0.30 -0.44 -0.3.0 -0.30 -0.30 -0.30

NOx Year

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Abated from Power

Plants

kt
5.59 28.25 37.29 31.92 27.45 22.70 19.15 thousand

short tons 6.16 31.14 41.10 35.17 30.25 25.02 21.10 Abated from Building

kt
-0.09 -0.47 -0.71 -0.65 -0.61 -0.61 -0•.65 Cumulative NOx reduction (kt): 805 Sensitivity Analysis

Total Reduction in Emissions

kt thousand

short tons
7.51 34.84 42.51 34.15 27.18 20.44 15.31 (short tons): 8.28

38.39 46.84 37.63 29.96 22.52 16.87 967 000

Total Reduction in Emissions

kt thousand

short tons 5.50 27.78 36.58 31.26 26.85 22.09 18.50 (short tons): 6.06

30.62 40.32 34.45 29.58 24.35 20.38 887 000 Reduction as

a% of Total Commercial and Industrial Emissions 0.25 1.31 1.76 1.66 1.56 1.45 1.36

Reduction as a% of Total Commercial and Industrial Emissions 0.23 1.21 1.63 1.52 1.42 1.30 1.20

Year Abated from Power

Plants Abated from Building Total Reduction in Emissions Reduction as

a % of Total Commercial million million million and Mt Mt Mt

short tons short tons short tons Industrial Emissions 2000 2.09 2.30 -0.09 -0.10 2.00 2.20 0.20 2005 11.55 12.73 -0.52 -0.58 .1 1.03 12.15 '1.06 2010 16.45 18.12 -0.78 -0.87 15.66 17.26 1.43 2015 16.37 18.05 -0.71 -0.79 15'.66 17.26 1.36 2020 16.24 17.90 -0.67 -0.73 15.58 17.17 1.29 2025 '15.79 17.40 -0.67 -0.73 15.13 16.67 1.21 2030 15.59 17.18 --0.71 -0.79 14.88 16.40 1.14 Cumulative C02 reduction (Mt): 420 thousand short tons -0.10 -0.52 -0.78 -0.72 -0.67 -0.67 -0.72

C02

(short tons ):463 000 000



### EA-15

### REFERENCES

1. U.S. Department of Energy. 1991. Improving Technology: Modeling Energy Futures for National Energy Strategy. Service Report to the 1991 National Energy Strategy, 

### S ES/90-01.

### For electricity prices, sensitivities were performed at x'0.055 and vo-105fieW-Pa for the

commercial sector and $0.03 and $0.065 for the industrial sector. For annual operating hours, sensitivities were performed at 2500 and 8000 hours. For ballast prices, sensitivities were performed at plus or minus 20% of the average price

. Sensitivity

.to discount rate (the average is 8% real, or 8% above the inflation rate) was also determined for two other discount rates (4% and 12% real) and shown in Chapter 4.



### example demonstrates how to use Table ES- 1. For ballasts operating two F40T12 energy saver lamps (2F40T121ES), there three alternate technologies or.design options. For -.very e values of the input parameters, the life-cycle cost is $174-per year, $168 per year. and $171 for EEM, CC and E RS ballasts, respectively. Therefore, the. minimum LCC occurs wk a :8s le cutout ballast and, although the LCC increases (relative to the cathode cutout) with eleu nic rapid start ballast, it is lower than for the baseline energy efficient magnetic ballast. The sensitivity of the average LCC to the three p eterr shown in Table ES®1 is shown in the low and high columns for each parameter.

ES4: US. 1 , - - __ -: fall t Sales

Fr --1 SaLaa' Sales ;2iElecaenle

w w year Source: DapL of 6omatesee Data


### ES-2Table ES-1. L 1 Life-Cycle Cost Summary (1994$) Electricity Price Equipment Price

1F40T12 EEM



## cc ERS I F40TI 2/ES EEM



## cc ERS Low _A ve

111 136 115 138 113 131 97 117 99 118 101 116 hi®h 1 1Qw Avg high 172 173 160 147 146 139 136 138 138 142 131 137 117 120 118 122 116 122 2F40T12 EEM 206 208



## cc 200 204 ERS 202 208 2F40T12/ES EEM 172 174



## cc 164 168 ERS 166 171 1F32T8 EEM,

ERS EIS 2F32T8 EEM



## cc ERS EIS 3F32T8 ERS

EIS 4F32T8 ERS 99 118 146 103 119 142 111 126 149 149 184 238 148 181 230 150 181 228 157 188 233 193 235 299 200 240 301- 235 290 374 240 292 371 321 397 510 323 391 493 263 327 422 265 321 406 333 451 539 358 470 553 334 442 522 302 409 489 324 423 497 299 393 464 211 207 214 177 172 177 114 118 121 113 119 125 120 126 132 181 184 188 176 181 185 175 181 187 182 188 193 229 235 242 234 240 247 284 290 297 285 292 299' 393 397 401 382 391 399 322 327 331 313 321 329 118 136 150 122 138 152 118 131 143 103 117 129 104 118 129 105 116 .126

151 174 194 146 168 186 151 171 189 104 118 130 107 119 129 113 126 138 160 184 205 158 181 200 159 181, 199 64 188 208 206 235 260 209 240 267 253 290 322 253 292 325 338 397 450 337 .391 440 279 327 370 278 321 360 370 451 487 392 470 505 367 442 476



### ES-3

### Six energy efficiency levels (which group the technologies for each product class) were

chosen to compare several levels of potential energy savings from fluorescent lamp ballast efficiency improvements and to compare economic parameters such as payback period and net present value (see below). Descriptions of the efficiency levels in terms of their representative technologies (see Table ES-2) is complicated by the fact that each energy-efficient technology is not available for every product class, as noted in the detailed description below. The efficiency levels are organized so as to provide increasing energy savings at higher levels, and where possible, to group like technologies together, such as cathode cutout or electronic rapid start ballasts. Note that for some classes of ballasts, some technologies are not available in the market or are not feasible.Six efficiency levels are considered and described here. Level one (L1) is comprised of nonelectronic ballasts. Where cathode cutout ballasts are available they are chosen, if they are not available ( one lamp' F32T8 and two lamp F96T12 ballasts), then there is no change from the baseline. For three and four lamp F40T12 and F32T8 systems, EEM and CC ballasts are not available; for the consumer analysis their fixtures contain combinations of one and two lamp ballast types. Combinations of ballasts are not considered in the life-cycle cost analyses. Level two (L2) is comprised of a combination of non-electronic and electronic ballasts. The cathode cutout ballast is retained for one and two lamp T 12 systems, this provides a non-electronic ballast for the replacement market and for use with reduced wattage energy saver lamps which may have starting problems with electronic ballasts. The other lamp/ballast combinations use electronic ballasts. All T8 lamps employ rapid start electronic ballasts. At level 2, about 13%• of the present total market would be converted from magnetic to electronic ballasts in 2000.. Level three (L3) is comprised of electronic ballasts, primarily rapid start types. Electronic instant start ballasts are used for the two lamp F96T12 system because the rapid start ballast type is not available. At this level, about 55% to 60% of the present total market would be converted from magnetic to electronic by 2000. Level four (L4) is very similar to level three, the only. difference is that for T8 lamps electronic instant start ballasts are substituted for electronic rapid start ballasts. The instant start ballasts are not always preferred because of reduced lamp life in the instant start mode relative to the rapid start mode, especially if there is increased switching -due to the presence of occupancy sensors. The reduced lamp life is accounted for in the economic analyses. Two alternative efficiency levels (variations of 1 & 2) were also added to the original four. Alternative level one (Al) is the same'as level one except for the ballast that operates the 2F96T12HO lamps, it is changed from a cathode cutout to an energy efficient magnetic ballast. Alternative level two (A2) is the same as level two except that for three and four lamp T12 lamps, the efficiency level remains at cathode cutout rather than changing to electronic rapid start. Table ES-2 shows the payback periods for several lamp/ballast combinations. Paybacks have not been calculated for the two sensitivity cases. Average values for equipment price, electricity price


### ES-4

### and operating hours are used to calculate payback periods. They are weighted by market distributions for each lamp/ballast type; these distributions are projected by the CO MMEND model, a commercial sector forecasting model described in Appendix B. Details of these calculations are found in Chapter 4. Payback periods for F40T12 and F40T12/ES lamps are averaged together because the calculation (see Chapter 4) requires distributions of each lamp/ballast type and the present version of COMMEND does not disaggregate such output data for energy saver and nonenergy saver lamps. Payback periods for four efficiency levels are shown below. These efficiency levels require one of the four technologies (listed below the table) as a minimum efficiency level for each lamp/ballast combination. A superscript in Table ES-2 indicates the required technology for each lamp/ballast combination at each of the four efficiency levels. A payback period that is "never" means that the operating cost increases relative to the baseline and the added initial cost is never recovered. "Undefined" means that the initial installed cost decreases relative to the baseline (no added initial cost to recover) while at the same time operating cost increases. NA means not applicable. It should be noted that there is a negative impact at level four for T-8 lamps, that is a reduction in lamp lifetime under instant start operation. _

Table ES-2: Payback Period (Years) for Lamp/Baffast Combinations Efficiency Level 1 2 3 4 1 F40T 12 6.4b 6.4b 5.2` 5.2c 2F40T 12 2.9b 2.9b 4.9` 4.9` 2F96T12 NAa 4.8d 4.8' 4.8d 2F96T12H0 9.2b 2.6c 2.6c 

### 2.6c 1F32T8 NAa 6.0` 6.0` neverd 2F32T8 3.3b 4.4` 4.4` neverd 3F32T8 NA` NA` NA` undefinedd 4F32T8 NA` 

### NA` NA` undefinedd a Energy Efficient Magnetic (EEM) b Cathode Cutout (CC) c Electronic Rapid Start (ERS) d Electronic Instant Start (EIS) 

### Table ES-3 shows the results of a national consumer analysis that estimates annual and cumulative national energy savings. Table ES-4 shows national net present benefit to consumers.

ES-5

### Table ES-3: Interior Lighting Energy Consu ption (Quadrillion Btu, Primary) Baseline Level1 Level 2 

### Level 3 Level 4 Al A2 Commercial

1995 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.68 2.68 2000 2.55 2.54 2.54 2.53 2.53 2.54 2.54 2005 2.61 2.55 2.53 2.52 2.51 2.56 2.54 2010 2.69 2.62 2.59 2.57 2.56 2.62 2.60 2015 2.82 2.76 2:72 2.70 2.70 2.76 2.73 2020 2.95 2.89 2.85 2.84 2.83 2.89 2.87 2025 3.09 3.03 2.99 2.97 2.97 3.03 3.01 2030 3.22 3.17 3.13 3.11 3.11 3.17 3.14 Cumulative Commercial Energy Savings 2000-2030 1.78 2.84 3.26 3.41 1.71 2.41 HVAC Energy Loss 2000
-2030 -0.27 -0.45 -0.52 -0.54 -0.26 -0.39 Industrial

1995 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 0.56 2000 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 2005 0.51 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.51 0.50 2010 0 .51 0.50 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.50 0.49 2015 0.52 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.51 0.50 2020 0 .52 0.51 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.51 0.51 2025 0.53 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.51 0.52 0.51 2030 0 .53 0.53 0.53 0.52 0.52 0.53 0.53 Cumulative Industrial Energy Savings 2000-2030 0.25 0.50 0.53 0.54 0.21 0.45 Total Energy Savings 2000-2030 1.75 2.89 3.28 3.41 1.65 2.47 To convert above values to exajoules, multiply values here by 1.055.

### Table ES-4: Net Present Value, Benefits, and Costs to Society of Alternative Efficiency Levels

for Fluorescent Ballasts Purchased from 2000-2030 (B illion 1994 Dollars, Discounted at 7 %® Real) Efficiency Level 1 2 3 4 Al A2 Energy Cost Savings 3.27 5.26 5.99 6.23 3.11 4.52 Equipment Costs 1.43 1.16 2.11 2.42 1.28 1.71 Net Present value 

### 1.84 4.10 3.88 3.81 1.83 2.81 

### An example of how to interpet the results in Tables ES-3 and ES-4 is discussed for efficiency level 2. At that level, the cumulative primary energy savings for the period 2000-2030 is 2.89 Quads relative to the baseline energy use. At level 2, there is a reduction in annual energy use in the year 2020 of 3.7%. The net present value of benefits less costs to society is maximized at level 2 at a value of $4.1 billion in 1994$. The discount rate is 7% real, which represents a societal discount rate and is different from the 8% consumer discount rate used in the life-cycle cost analysis. The maximum energy savings, 3.41 Quads, occurs at level 4.
In Figure ES-2, the contents of Table ES-4 are illustrated. The subtraction of added equipment costs (relative to the base case) from energy cost savings to obtain NPV can be visualized here. It can be seen that the maximum energy savings .(at level 4) does not correlate with the maximum NPV (level 2) because of increased equipment costs. It can also be seen that if alternative levels Al and A2 are substituted for levels 1 and 2, the maximum NPV would occur at, level 3 with a value of $3.88 billion.
Table ES-5 summarizes the results of the environmental impact.analysis for one of the efficiency levels, level 2. The reduction in power plant emissions of sulfur oxides, nitrogen oxides and carbon dioxide are shown for level two. The chapter on environmental assessment shows similar data for all four efficiency levels.



## ES-7

### Figure ES-2: Cost, Benefits and NPV of Alternative Efficiency Levels for Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts (Purchased from 2000 - 2030 in billions of 1994$, discounted at 7% real)

$7.0- $6.0

M

^ 1.3

i

L1 L2 L3 L4 Al A2

Billion 1994$ $5 $4 - $3 -I $2 -I

$0 

# KEY

### Table ES-5: Projected Emissions at Efficiency Level 2 for Sulfur Dioxide, Oxides of Nitrogen, and Carbon Dioxide
Fluorescent Ballasts Level 2 S02

Year Abated from Power

Plants Building

Abated from Reduction in Emissions Reduction as

a % of Total Commercial kt thousand kt thousand kt thousand and short tons short tons short tons Industrial 2000 5.44 5.99 0.00 0.00 5.44 5.99 0.18 2005 22.96 25.31 -0.13 -0.15 22.83 25.16 0.86 2010 27.27 30.05 -0.27 -0.30 27.00 29.76 1.13 2015 21.11 23.26 -0.13 -0.15 20.98 23.12 1.03 2020 16.30 17.96 -0.13 -0.15 16.17 17.81 0.93 2025 12.14 13.38 -0.27 -0.30 11.87 13.08 0.85 2030 8.96 9.88 -0.13 -0.15' 8.83 9.73 0.79 Cumulative S02 reduction (kt): 547 (short tons): '603 000 NOx
Year Abated from Power

Plants Abated from Building Total Reduction in Emissions Reduction as

a%ofTotal Commercial thousand thousand thousand and kt kt kt short tons short tons short tons Industrial Emissions 2000 4.05 4.46 -0.05 -0.05 4.00 4.41 0.17 2005 18.48 20.37 -0.28 -0.31 18.20 20.06 0.80 2010 23.70 26.12 -0.43 -0.47 23.27 25.65 1.04 2015 19.57 21.57 -0.37 -0.41 19.20 21.16 0.94 2020 16.30 17.96 -0.33 -0.36 15.97 17.60 0.85 2025 13.31 14.67 -0.38 -0.42 12.93 14.25 0.76 2030 11.02 12.14 -0.33 -0.36 10.69 11.78 0.70 Cumulative NOx reduction (kt): 498 (short tons): CO2 549 000

Year Abated from Power

Plants Abated from Building Total Reduction in Emissions Reduction as

a % of Total Commercial million million million short and ' Mt Mt Mt short tons short tons tons Industrial Emissions- 1 2000 1.51 1.67 -0.05 -0.05 1.47 1.62 0.15 2005 7.56 8.33 -0.31 -0.34 7.25 7.99 0.70 2010 10.45 11.52 -0.48 -0.52 9 .98 10.99 0.92 2015 10.04 11.07 -0.40 -0.44 9.64 10.62 0.84 2020 9.65 10.63 -0.36 -0.39 9.29 10.24 0.78 2025 9.26 10.21 -0.43 -0.47 8.83 9.73 0.71 2030 8.97 9.89 -0.36 -0.39 8.61 9.49 0.66 Cumulative C02 reduction (Mt): 258 (short tons): 284 000 000 

### ES-9