CHAPTER 9. SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

9.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 9­1

9.2 SHIPMENTS MODEL METHODOLOGY.................................................................... 9­1

9.2.1 General Service Fluorescent Lamps ................................................................................ 9­2

9.2.1.1 Lamp Replacement ........................................................................................ 9­2

9.2.1.2 Lamp­and­Ballast System Replacement........................................................ 9­3

9.2.1.3 Lamp­and­Ballast System New Purchase...................................................... 9­4

9.2.2 Incandescent Reflector Lamps......................................................................................... 9­4

9.2.2.1 Emerging Technologies................................................................................. 9­5

9.3 BASE­CASE INPUTS AND FORECASTS ................................................................... 9­5

9.3.1 General Service Fluorescent Lamps ................................................................................ 9­5

9.3.1.1 Historical Shipments...................................................................................... 9­5

9.3.1.2 Shipments Projections to 2011 and Calculations of 2011 Lamp and

Ballast Stocks................................................................................................. 9­6

9.3.1.3 Base­Case Market­Share Matrices................................................................. 9­7

9.3.1.4 Base­Case Forecast Results......................................................................... 9­12

9.3.1.5 Base­Case Forecast by Market Segment...................................................... 9­15

9.3.2 Incandescent Reflector Lamps....................................................................................... 9­18

9.3.2.1 Historical Shipments.................................................................................... 9­18

9.3.2.2 Shipments Projections to 2011 and Calculations of 2011 Lamp Stock....... 9­19

9.3.2.3 Base­Case Market­Share Matrices............................................................... 9­19

9.3.2.4 Base­Case Forecast Results......................................................................... 9­21

9.3.2.5 Base­Case Forecast by Market Segment...................................................... 9­23

9.4 STANDARDS­CASE INPUTS..................................................................................... 9­24

9.4.1 General Service Fluorescent Lamps .............................................................................. 9­24

9.4.1.1 Shipments Scenarios.................................................................................... 9­24

9.4.1.2 Standards­Case Market­Share Matrices....................................................... 9­25

9.4.1.3 Early Retirement of Ballasts in the Standards Cases................................... 9­42

9.4.2 Incandescent Reflector Lamps....................................................................................... 9­44

9.4.2.1 Shipments Scenarios.................................................................................... 9­44

9.4.2.2 Standards­Case Market­Share Matrices....................................................... 9­45

9.5 RESULTS ...................................................................................................................... 9­48

9.5.1 General Service Fluorescent Lamps .............................................................................. 9­48

9.5.1.1 Shipments Forecasts: Base and Standards Cases......................................... 9­48

9.5.1.2 Cumulative Shipments Impacts (2012 – 2042)............................................ 9­54

9.5.2 Incandescent Reflector Lamps....................................................................................... 9­56

9.5.2.1 Shipments Forecasts: Base and Standards Cases........................................ 9­56

9.5.2.2 Cumulative Shipments Impacts (2012–2042).............................................. 9­58

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 9­60

9­i
LIST OF TABLES

Table 9.2.1 Modeled GSFL Lamp­and­Ballast Replacement Trends.......................................... 9­3

Table 9.3.1 GSFL Total Historical Shipments (millions)........................................................... 9­5

Table 9.3.2 2011 Lamp and Ballast Stocks (millions)................................................................ 9­7

Table 9.3.3 Base­Case Market­Share Matrix for Four­Foot T8 Medium Bipin Systems........... 9­8

Table 9.3.4 Base­Case Market­Share Matrix for Four­Foot T12 Medium Bipin Systems ........ 9­9

Table 9.3.5 Base­Case Market­Share Matrix for Eight­Foot T8 Single Pin Slimline

Systems.............................................................................................................. 9­10

Table 9.3.6 Base­Case Market­Share Matrix for Eight­Foot T12 Single Pin Slimline

Systems.............................................................................................................. 9­10

Table 9.3.7 Base­Case Market­Share Matrix for Four­Foot T8 Medium Bipin Systems

Replacing 8­foot T12 Single Pin Slimline Systems........................................... 9­11

Table 9.3.8 Base­Case Market­Share Matrix for Eight­Foot T12 Recessed Double

Contact High Output Initial and New Ballast Systems...................................... 9­12

Table 9.3.9 IRL Historical Shipments (millions)...................................................................... 9­19

Table 9.3.10 Base­Case Market­Share Matrix for Commercial IRL Sockets .......................... 9­20

Table 9.3.11 Base­Case Market­Share Matrix for Residential IRL Sockets............................ 9­21

Table 9.4.1 Description of Base­Case and Standards­Case GSFL Market­Share Matrices,

Initial and New Ballast Models.......................................................................... 9­26

Table 9.4.2 Standards­Case Initial Ballast Market­Share Matrix for Four­Foot T8

Medium Bipin Systems (Shift Scenario) ........................................................... 9­27

Table 9.4.3 Standards­Case Initial Ballast Market­Share Matrix for Four­Foot T8

Medium Bipin Systems (Roll­up Scenario)....................................................... 9­28

Table 9.4.4 Standards­Case Initial Ballast Market­Share Matrix for Four­Foot T12

Medium Bipin Systems (Shift and Roll­up Scenarios)...................................... 9­29

Table 9.4.5 Standards­Case New Ballast Market­Share Matrix for Four­Foot T8 Medium

Bipin Systems (Shift Scenario).......................................................................... 9­30

Table 9.4.6 Standards­Case New Ballast Market­Share Matrix for Four­Foot T8 Medium

Bipin Systems (Roll­Up Scenario)..................................................................... 9­30

Table 9.4.7 Standards­Case Initial Ballast Market­Share Matrix for Eight­Foot T8 Single

Pin Slimline Systems (Shift Scenario)............................................................... 9­32

Table 9.4.8 Standards­Case Initial Ballast Market­Share Matrix for Eight­Foot T8 Single

Pin Slimline Systems (Roll­up Scenario) ......................................................... 9­33

Table 9.4.9 Standards­Case Initial Ballast Market­Share Matrix for Eight­Foot T12

Single Pin Slimline Systems (Shift and Roll­up Scenarios)............................. 9­34

Table 9.4.10 Standards­Case New Ballast Market­Share Matrix for Eight­Foot T8 Single

Pin Slimline Systems (Shift Scenario)............................................................... 9­35

Table 9.4.11 Standards­Case New Ballast Market­Share Matrix for Eight­Foot T8 Single

Pin Slimline Systems (Roll­up Scenario) .......................................................... 9­36

Table 9.4.12 Standards­Case New Ballast Market­Share Matrix for Four­Foot T8

Medium Bipin Systems Replacing Eight­Foot Single Pin Slimline Systems

(Shift Scenario).................................................................................................. 9­37

9­ii
Table 9.4.13 Standards­Case New Ballast Market­Share Matrix for Four­Foot T8

Medium Bipin Systems Replacing Eight­Foot Single Pin Slimline Systems

(Roll­up Scenario).............................................................................................. 9­38

Table 9.4.14 Standards­Case Initial Ballast Market­Share Matrix for Eight­Foot T12

Recessed Double Contact High Output Systems (Shift and Roll­up

Scenarios)........................................................................................................... 9­39

Table 9.4.15 Standards­Case New Ballast Market­Share Matrix for Eight­Foot T12

Recessed Double Contact High Output New Ballast Systems (Shift

Scenario) ............................................................................................................ 9­40

Table 9.4.16 Standards­Case New Ballast Market­Share Matrix for Eight­Foot T12

Recessed Double Contact High Output New Ballast Systems (Roll­up

Scenario) ............................................................................................................ 9­41

Table 9.4.17 Standards­Case Market­Share Matrix for Eight­Foot T8 Recessed Double

Contact High Output New Ballast Systems (Shift Scenario)............................. 9­42

Table 9.4.18 Standards­Case Market­Share Matrix for Eight­Foot T8 Recessed Double

Contact High Output New Ballast Systems (Roll­up Scenario)........................ 9­42

Table 9.4.19 Early Retirement of Four­Foot T12 Medium Bipin and Eight­Foot Single

Pin Slimline Ballasts in the Standards Cases..................................................... 9­43

Table 9.4.20 Description of Base­Case and Standards­Case IRL Market­Share Matrices ...... 9­46

Table 9.4.21 Standards­Case Market­Share Matrix for Commercial IRL Sockets (Main

Shipment Scenario)............................................................................................ 9­47

Table 9.4.22 Standards­Case Market­Share Matrix for Residential IRL Sockets (Main

Shipment Scenario)............................................................................................ 9­48

Table 9.5.1 Four­Foot Medium Bipin Lamp: Cumulative Shipments Impacts Caused by

Standards, 2012–2042 (Shift Scenario) ............................................................. 9­55

Table 9.5.2 Four­Foot Medium Bipin Lamp: Cumulative Shipments Impacts Caused by

Standards, 2012–2042 (Roll­up Scenario)......................................................... 9­55

Table 9.5.3 Eight­Foot Single Pin Slimline: Cumulative Shipments Impacts Caused by

Standards, 2012–2042 (Shift and Roll­up Scenarios)........................................ 9­55

Table 9.5.4 Eight­Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output: Cumulative Shipments

Impacts Caused by Standards, 2012–2042 (Shift and Roll­up Scenarios) ........ 9­56

Table 9.5.5 Commercial Incandescent Reflector Lamps: Cumulative Shipments Impacts

Caused by Standards, 2012–2042 (Main Shipment Scenario)........................... 9­58

Table 9.5.6 Residential Incandescent Reflector Lamps: Cumulative Shipments Impacts

Caused by Standards, 2012–2042 (Main Shipment Scenario)........................... 9­59

9­iii
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 9.3.1 Four­Foot Medium Bipin Historical, Projected, and Base­Case Forecasted

Shipments........................................................................................................... 9­13

Figure 9.3.2 Eight­Foot Single Pin Slimline Historical, Projected, and Base­Case

Forecasted Shipments ........................................................................................ 9­14

Figure 9.3.3 Eight­Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Historical, Projected, and

Base­Case Forecasted Shipments ...................................................................... 9­15

Figure 9.3.4 Four­Foot Medium Bipin Base­Case Shipment Forecast by Market Segment .... 9­16

Figure 9.3.5 Eight­Foot Single Pin Slimline Base­Case Shipments Forecast by Market

Segment.............................................................................................................. 9­17

Figure 9.3.6 8­Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Base­Case Shipments

Forecast by Market Segment ............................................................................. 9­18

Figure 9.3.7 Commercial IRL Historical, Projected, and Base­Case Forecasted

Shipments........................................................................................................... 9­22

Figure 9.3.8 Residential IRL Historical, Projected, and Base­Case Forecasted Shipments..... 9­23

Figure 9.3.9 Commercial and Residential IRL Base­Case Shipments Forecast by Market

Segment.............................................................................................................. 9­24

Figure 9.4.1 Retrofit Rate Effect on Four­Foot T12 Shipments at CSL 1................................ 9­44

Figure 9.5.1 Four­Foot Medium Bipin Base­Case and Standards­Case Shipments

Forecasts (Shift Scenario)*................................................................................ 9­50

Figure 9.5.2 Four­Foot Medium Bipin Base­Case and Standards­Case Shipments

Forecasts (Roll­Up Scenario)............................................................................. 9­51

Figure 9.5.3 Eight­Foot Single Pin Slimline Base­Case and Standards­Case Shipments

Forecasts (Shift Scenario).................................................................................. 9­52

Figure 9.5.4 Eight­Foot Single Pin Slimline Base­Case and Standards­Case Shipments

Forecasts (Roll­up Scenario).............................................................................. 9­53

Figure 9.5.5 Eight­Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Base­Case and

Standards­Case Shipments Forecasts (Shift and Roll­up Scenarios)................. 9­54

Figure 9.5.6 Commercial IRL Base­Case and Standards­Case Shipment Forecasts (Main

Shipment Scenario)............................................................................................ 9­57

Figure 9.5.7 Residential IRL Base­Case and Standards­Case Shipments Forecasts (Main

Shipment Scenario)............................................................................................ 9­58

9­iv
CHAPTER 9. SHIPMENTS ANALYSIS

9.1 INTRODUCTION

Lamp shipment estimates are key inputs to the national energy savings (NES) and net

present value (NPV) calculations. Shipments are also a necessary input to the manufacturer

impact analysis (MIA), which the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) conducts for its Notices of

Proposed Rulemaking (NOPRs). This chapter describes DOE’s methodology for projecting

annual shipments and presents initial inputs and results for general service fluorescent lamps

(GSFL) and incandescent reflector lamps (IRL)

In the shipments analysis, DOE develops a base­case shipment forecast for each lamp

type to depict what would happen to energy use and consumer costs for the purchase and

operation of lamps in the absence of new or revised Federal energy conservation standards. In

determining the base case, DOE considers historical shipments, the mix of efficacies sold in the

absence of any new or revised standards, and how that mix might change over time. To evaluate

the impacts of standards for GSFL and IRL, collectively referred to in this rulemaking as the

“two categories of lamps,” DOE compares the base­case projection against forecasts of what

could happen if DOE promulgates standards. DOE considers multiple shipments scenarios to

characterize standards­case shipments. In both the base and standards cases, DOE forecasts

shipments over the NIA analysis period, 2012 to 2042.

The shipments model and the national impacts model are integrated into single Microsoft

® Excel spreadsheets for GSFL and IRL. The two spreadsheets are accessible on the Internet at

http://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/. Appendix 10A discusses how to

access the spreadsheets and provides basic instructions for using them. This chapter explains the

shipments models. Section 9.2 presents the shipments model methodology for GSFL and IRL;

section 9.3 describes the data inputs and historical and base­case shipments forecasts; section 9.4

discusses the impacts of standards on the mix of lamp designs and lamp­and­ballast designs; and

section 9.5 presents the shipments results for the different candidate standard levels (CSLs).

9.2 SHIPMENTS MODEL METHODOLOGY

For the ANOPR, DOE is developing separate shipment models for GSFL and IRL. To

forecast shipments for these two categories of lamps, DOE is following a four­step process.

First, DOE uses 2001 to 2005 historical shipment data from the National Electrical

Manufacturers Association (NEMA) to estimate the total historical shipments (i.e., NEMA

1 member and non­NEMA member shipments) of each lamp type analyzed. Second, using total

historical shipments, DOE projects shipments to 2011. Then, based on the average service

lifetimes of products, DOE estimates a 2011 lamp stock for each lamp type. Third, DOE

forecasts the shipments of lamp and lamp­and­ballast designs over the analysis period (2012 to

2042) by modeling purchasing events, such as lamp replacement or new construction. Finally,

DOE develops base­case and standards­case market­share matrices. DOE uses market­share

matrices for its analysis because the shipments of lamp designs and lamp­and­ballast designs

9­1
depend on their properties. The market­share matrices characterize the efficacy, power rating,

light output, and lifetime of the lamp and lamp­and­ballast designs and input the percentage

market share of each design. DOE uses these market­share matrices to forecast lamp stock and

shipments based on lifetimes, and to determine the aggregate characteristics of the market (e.g.,

average light output, efficacy, and power rating).

9.2.1 General Service Fluorescent Lamps

In line with observed market applications, DOE forecasts annual shipments for 4­foot

medium bipin and 8­foot single pin slimline lamps in the commercial sector, and 8­foot recessed

double contact high output (HO) lamps in the industrial sector. The standards­case shipment

forecasts presented in this chapter include both T8 and T12 lamp shipments together, with both

types of lamps at the same CSL. The shipment model analyzes these lamp types at separate

CSLs for each of the analyzed product classes. Due to their relatively small shipment­based

market share of the total GSFL market (approximately four percent), DOE is not forecasting

shipments or analyzing the national impact of standards for 2­foot U­shaped lamps in the

ANOPR. In addition, because GSFL of different correlated color temperatures (CCTs) were not

segregated in the NEMA historical shipment data, DOE decided to analyze and forecast

shipments of each lamp type (e.g. 4­foot medium bipin), aggregating across the lamps of low

(less than or equal to 4,500K) and high (greater than 4,500K) CCT. In each case, DOE used a

representative product class (lamps with CCT less than or equal to 4, 500K) to evaluate lamp

designs and believes that the national impacts will be similar for those product classes not

directly analyzed. In addition, by aggregating the low and high CCT product classes, DOE

assumes that there will be no significant migration of shipments or stock between lamps of

different CCTs.

In its GSFL shipment model, DOE considers specific market segments to develop

estimates of annual shipments. DOE accounts for four lamp purchase events that correspond to

those DOE uses in the life­cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) analyses (Chapter 8):

lamp failure (Event I), ballast failure (Event III), lamp­and­ballast system retrofit (Events II and

IV), and new construction (Event V). For each market segment, DOE makes certain

assumptions about how consumers are likely to purchase new lamps or lamp­and­ballast

systems. DOE uses these purchasing assumptions to develop the GSFL shipment forecasts.

9.2.1.1 Lamp Replacement

For those consumer purchases triggered by a lamp failure, DOE assumes that the

consumer will purchase a lamp identical to the one that has retired, if it is available. If in the

standards case the base­case lamp design is not standards­compliant, then DOE assumes that

upon lamp failure, consumers will purchase a new lamp that is compatible with the existing

ballast. If no standards­compliant lamps are compatible with existing ballasts, DOE models

consumers as retiring their lamp­and­ballast system before the ballast’s end of life. The

consumer purchase decision is then identical to that of a lamp­and­ballast system retrofit.

9­2
DOE establishes the timing of lamp replacements by tracking the shipments of lamps and

then predicting when lamps will retire based on their average service lifetime. Instead of using

each particular lamp design’s individual lifetime, DOE uses the lamp service lifetime (lamp life

divided by operating hours) to establish a representative service lifetime for each lamp type. For

4­foot medium bipin lamps, DOE uses a representative lamp service lifetime of six years. For 8­

foot singlepin slimline lamps, DOE uses a representative lamp service lifetime of four years. For

8­foot recessed double contact high output lamps, DOE uses a representative service lifetime of

two years.

9.2.1.2 Lamp­and­Ballast System Replacement

For consumer purchases triggered by a ballast failure or lamp­and­ballast system retrofit,

DOE assumes that consumers will discard their existing lamps with the failed ballasts, even if

lamp life remains. Consumers will then purchase new lamp­and­ballast systems compatible with

their existing fixtures to replace their retired system.

Historical shipments and discussions with industry experts indicate that there are several

lamp­and­ballast replacement and retrofit trends within the GSFL market. DOE models these

trends in both the base­case and standards­case shipment models. For example, in the

commercial sector, DOE models a natural shift upon ballast retirement and replacement from 4­

foot T12 medium bipin magnetic ballasts (one­ and two­lamp per ballast systems) to 4­foot T8

medium bipin electronic ballasts (three­lamp per ballast systems). Also, the commercial

shipment model reflects a similar shift from 8­foot T12 single­pin slimline magnetic ballasts to

8­foot T8 single­pin slimline electronic ballasts and a system of two 4­foot T8 medium bipin

electronic ballasts. DOE also models early retirement of lamp­and­ballast systems in the

standards case. Section 9.4.1.3 provides more on the assumptions DOE makes regarding these

retrofits. Table 9.2.1 presents the modeled lamp and ballast replacement trends.

Table 9.2.1 Modeled GSFL Lamp­and­Ballast Replacement Trends

Retired Lamp­and­Ballast System Replacement Lamp­and­Ballast System

4­foot T12 medium bipin

(one­ and two­lamp per ballast system)

4­foot T8 medium bipin

(three­lamp per ballast system)

4­foot T8 medium bipin

(three­lamp per ballast system)

4­foot T8 medium bipin

(three­lamp per ballast system)

8­foot T12 single pin slimline

10% 8­foot T8 single pin slimline

(two­lamp per ballast system)

(two­lamp per ballast system) 90% 4­foot T8 medium bipin

(two two­lamp per ballast systems)

8­foot T8 single pin slimline

(two­lamp per ballast system)

8­foot T8 single pin slimline

(two­lamp per ballast system)

8­foot T12 recessed double contact HO

(two­lamp per ballast system)

8­foot T12 recessed double contact HO

(two­lamp per ballast system)

8­foot T8 recessed double contact HO

(two­lamp per ballast system)

8­foot T8 recessed double contact HO

(two­lamp per ballast system)

DOE establishes the timing of ballast replacements in response to ballast failure by

tracking ballast shipments and then predicting when these ballasts are expected to retire based on

their service lifetime. Based on average operating hours and ballast lifetimes, DOE assumes that

9­3
the average ballast service lifetime is 14 years in the commercial sector and 10 years in the

industrial sector.

9.2.1.3 Lamp­and­Ballast System New Purchase

Finally, for consumer purchases triggered by new construction, DOE assumes that

consumers may purchase a variety of new lamp­and­ballast systems to service their particular

lumen demand. Because only 4­foot T8 medium bipin lamp historical shipments have shown

significant growth, DOE models all purchases due to new construction in the commercial sector

as being 4­foot T8 medium bipin lamp­and­ballast system purchases. DOE’s determination of

shipments due to new construction assumes lumen growth of 1.6 percent per year. DOE

estimates annual lumen growth based on the latest Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption

Survey (CBECS) data on growth of building floor space.

2,3 In the industrial sector, historical

shipments of 8­foot recessed double contact HO lamps indicate that the market is relatively flat.

Therefore, DOE assumes that all lighting system purchases due to new construction are emerging

substitution technologies (e.g., T5 fluorescent lamps). Therefore, the assumed annual lumen

growth rate in the 8­foot recessed double contact HO model is set to zero.

9.2.2 Incandescent Reflector Lamps

Similar to DOE’s treatment of separate product classes based on CCT for GSFL, DOE

forecasts IRL shipments by aggregating across the standard­spectrum and modified­spectrum

lamps. In both of these cases of aggregation, DOE used a representative product class

(standard­spectrum IRL) to evaluate lamp designs and believes that the national impacts will be

similar for modified­spectrum lamps not directly analyzed. By aggregating the two product

classes, DOE assumes that there will be no significant migration of shipments or stock between

lamps of different spectrums.

The IRL shipments model forecasts growth in the number of IRL sockets in both the

commercial and residential sectors, reflecting new construction in each sector. DOE assumes 1.6

percent growth in lamp sockets per year for the commercial sector and 1.3 percent growth per

4

year for the residential sector. DOE based these estimates on the latest CBECS and Residential

5 Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) forecast of square footage growth in the commercial and

residential sectors. The model ships lamps every year to replace retiring lamps and to meet

growth in the stock of lamps. DOE models lamp designs based on three lumen packages in the

commercial and residential sectors: 580, 1,050 and 1,310 lumens (lm). Consumers who purchase

lamps with a particular lumen package in the base case generally purchase lamps with that same

lumen package in the standards case.

Similar to the GSFL shipments forecast, DOE establishes the timing of lamp

replacements by tracking lamp shipments and then predicting when those lamps will retire based

on their service lifetimes. As discussed in the LCC and PBP analysis (Chapter 8), DOE

calculates the service lifetimes of lamps by dividing the lamp lifetime in hours by the annual

operating hours. As discussed in the energy use characterization (Chapter 6), DOE uses five

different operating hours to characterize the usage of reflector compact fluorescent lamps. By

9­4
using different operating hours, DOE effectively varies the service lives of the modeled lamps,

thereby affecting shipments.

9.2.2.1 Emerging Technologies

A significant effect on the IRL shipments forecasts is the potential for rapidly emerging

new lighting technologies to enter the IRL market. These technologies, such as reflector

compact fluorescent lamps (CFL), ceramic metal­halide (CMH), and solid­state lighting (SSL),

already can be or eventually will be significantly more efficacious and longer lasting than the

IRL they are replacing. If these emerging technologies achieve their potential, they may

significantly affect the benefit calculations from the IRL efficacy standards. However, to

calculate the energy savings and NPV benefits, DOE would need to accurately forecast the

anticipated price and performance points of an emerging technology such as SSL, which would

be difficult and highly speculative. Consequently, DOE does not directly model a shift from IRL

to CFL and other technologies in its base­case main shipment scenario or sensitivity scenarios.

DOE accounts for the market impact of these emerging technologies in the shipments

forecast by deducting the anticipated emerging technology market share from the installed base.

DOE estimates the future market shares of these technologies, absent standards, and deducts that

market share of the installed IRL base. This method effectively reduces the size of the market

affected by energy conservation standards. DOE estimates that the market penetration of these

emerging technologies (e.g., SSL, CMH, etc.) will be 50 percent of the commercial and

residential IRL sockets in the installed base by 2042.

9.3 BASE­CASE INPUTS AND FORECASTS

This section does the following: 1) describes the base­case input market­share matrices

for GSFL and IRL, 2) presents the base­case forecasts for each lamp type along with historical

lamp shipments data, and 3) presents base­case forecasts for each lamp type specifically for each

lamp design and lamp­and­ballast design. The base­case input market­share matrices correspond

to the matrices introduced above in Section 9.2.

9.3.1 General Service Fluorescent Lamps

9.3.1.1 Historical Shipments

As discussed in Chapter 3, DOE received historical shipments of GSFL from 2001 to

2005 from NEMA. These shipments were broken down by lamp length, diameter, shape, and

high output. Recognizing that these shipment estimates reflect only the shipments of NEMA

members, DOE increases these estimates to account for the volume of GSFL that non­NEMA

lamp companies import or manufacture. DOE believes that these NEMA shipments represent

about 90 percent of the GSFL market. Table 9.3.1 provides historical GSFL shipments estimates

for the entire U.S. market.

Table 9.3.1 GSFL Total Historical Shipments (millions)

9­5
Year 4­foot T12

medium

bipin

4­foot T8

medium

bipin

8­foot T12

single pin

slimline

8­foot T8

single pin

slimline

8­foot T12

recessed double

contact HO

8­foot T8 recessed

double contact

HO

2001 236.2 182.4 48.1 4.9 26.5 0.7

2002 228.9 181.8 46.0 5.9 27.1 0.6

2003 202.1 191.4 41.3 5.8 26.9 0.5

2004 195.4 217.4 40.3 6.4 27.3 0.7

2005 180.7 239.5 37.4 5.8 28.3 0.4

9.3.1.2 Shipments Projections to 2011 and Calculations of 2011 Lamp and Ballast

Stocks

To forecast GSFL shipments from 2012 to 2042, DOE first estimates lamp and ballast

stocks in 2011 (the year before the effective date of the standard) of T8 and T12 4­foot medium

bipin GSFL, 8­foot single pin slimline GSFL, and 8­foot recessed double contact HO GSFL. To

calculate 2011 lamp stocks, DOE linearly fits and extrapolates historical lamp shipments to

2011. For 4­foot T8 medium bipin, 8­foot T8 single pin slimline, and 8­foot recessed double

contact HO lamps, DOE calculates the 2011 lamp stock by summing annual shipments backward

from 2011 for the years that correspond to the service lifetime (i.e., the lifetime in hours divided

by operating hours per year) of each lamp type. DOE disregards the 2011 stock of 8­foot T8

recessed double contact HO lamps in its analysis because the stock was relatively small. Using

the 2011 lamp stocks, DOE calculates installed ballast stocks by dividing the total stocks of

lamps by the number of lamps per ballast system. Finally, to accurately forecast lamp and ballast

shipments, DOE establishes a ballast age distribution for the installed ballast stocks. For 4­foot

T8 medium bipin and 8­foot single pin slimline ballasts, DOE bases its ballast age distribution on

growth in historical lamp shipments and the 1.6 percent lumen growth assumption in the

commercial sector. Because historical shipments indicate that the 8­foot recessed double contact

HO market is relatively flat, DOE uses a constant ballast age distribution for these ballast

systems.

Based on manufacturer interviews, DOE assumes 4­foot T12 medium bipin and 8­foot T12

single pin slimline GSFL represent lamp shipments for installation on magnetic ballasts. DOE

assumes that historical shipments of all other GSFL represented lamps shipped for installation on

electronic ballasts. As discussed in Chapter 3, the 2000 rule on GSFL ballasts, 62 FR 56740, and

the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT 2005), Pub. L. 109­058, effectively bans the sale of all

4­foot T12 medium bipin and 8­foot T12 single pin slimline magnetic ballasts in 2010 and after.

As this will significantly affect magnetic ballast (and their corresponding lamp) shipment trends,

DOE extrapolates historical lamp shipments for 4­foot T12 medium bipin and 8­foot T12 single

pin slimline to 2009. Then, in a similar manner as discussed earlier, DOE estimates a 2009 lamp

and ballast stock for these lamps. DOE establishes the corresponding ballast age distributions

based on the decline in magnetic ballast shipments obtained from 2002 and 2005 U.S. Census

Bureau data.

6,7 DOE then ages this lamp and ballast stock by two years, assuming no additional

magnetic ballast shipments, to obtain a 2011 lamp and ballast stock. Table 9.3.2 provides lamp

and ballast stocks in 2011 for all analyzed GSFL.

9­6
Table 9.3.2 2011 Lamp and Ballast Stocks (millions)

System Type Lamp Stock Ballast

Stock

Ballasts in

First Year of

Service

Ballasts Halfway

through Service

Lifetime*

Ballasts in

Last Year of

Service

4­foot T8 medium bipin 1,669.7 556.6 21.4 41.2 58.1

4­foot T12 medium

bipin 625.9 208.6 0 14.0 29.7

8­foot T8 single pin

slimline

28.1 14.1 1.2 1.0 0.8

8­foot T12 single pin

slimline

71.5 35.8 0 2.4 5.1

8­foot T8 recessed

double contact HO 0.9 N/A N/A N/A N/A

8­foot T12 recessed

double contact HO 62.6 31.3 3.1 3.1 3.1

* Fifth year of service for 8­foot recessed double contact HO systems and seventh year of service for all other

system types

9.3.1.3 Base­Case Market­Share Matrices

As discussed in the engineering analysis (Chapter 5) and the LCC and PBP analyses

(Chapter 8), consumers have a variety of choices in lamp and lamp­and­ballast systems. When

choosing lighting systems, consumers often make their choices considering lamp attributes such

as lifetime, efficacy, price, lumen output, rated wattage, and total system power. As discussed

earlier, the shipments for GSFL depend on such input assumptions as lamp lifetime and system

lumen output. In addition, other lamp or lamp­and­ballast system properties such as price and

energy consumption are key inputs to the NES and NPV calculations. Therefore, within each

product class, DOE believes it necessary to directly account for the mix of technologies that

consumers select in the base case and standards case. To account for the range of possible

consumer choices, DOE develops and populates technology market­share matrices. These

market­share matrices allocate percentage market shares to each lamp­and­ballast design for the

base case and standards case by proportioning shipments. As discussed in the NIA (Chapter 10),

the base­case and standards­case efficacy forecasts also depend on the market­share matrices.

The GSFL shipments model incorporates several separate market­share matrices to

characterize shipments of lamps and lamp­and­ballast systems at different times during the

analysis period. Because the lamp design technology mix may change over time, DOE defines

separate market­share matrices for systems purchased in 2012 and earlier and for systems

purchased in 2042 for each analyzed system type (e.g., 4­foot T8 medium bipin). To determine

the technology mix of the shipments for the intermediate years of the analysis period, DOE used

a linear progression from 2012 to 2042. For each lamp type and market­share matrix, DOE

generates the lamp­and­ballast designs by pairing each lamp design (as presented in Chapter 5)

with commercially available ballasts that exhibit the most common ballast factors. This

produces both energy­saving and non­energy­saving options.

Table 9.3.3 through Table 9.3.8 illustrate the base­case market­share matrices for GSFL.

DOE is developing the percentage inputs to these matrices based on discussions with

manufacturers and industry experts. In addition, DOE is analyzing the quantities of

9­7
commercially available product to develop the breakdown of percentage shipments by lamp

efficacy. As Table 9.3.3, Table 9.3.5, and Table 9.3.8 indicate, DOE assumes that in the base

case, the technology mix of 4­foot T8 medium bipin, 8­foot T8 single pin slimline, and 8­foot

T12 recessed double contact HO lamp­and­ballast designs is constant over the analysis period.

Table 9.3.3 Base­Case Market­Share Matrix for Four­Foot T8 Medium Bipin Systems

CSL Lamp

Efficacy

Lamp

Wattage

Lamp

Lifetime

System

Input

Power

Installed

Lamp

Price

Mix of

Systems

Purchased

in 2012 and

Earlier

%

Mix of

Systems

Purchased

in 2042

lm/W* W hrs W $ %

2 86.2 32.5 20,000 87.5 3.93 43 8

3 90.8 32.5 20,000 87.5 4.96 29 10

4 92.3 32.5 24,000 87.5 5.10 11 14

0.88

4 95.0 30.0 18,000 80.5 5.39 0 3

5 95.4 32.5 24,000 87.5 5.62 7 12

5 97.3 28.0 18,000 71.1 5.19 0 3

5 96.0 25.0 24,000 66.8 6.64 0 4

2 86.2 32.5 20,000 78.5 3.93 0 4

Electronic

Ballast Factor

3 90.8 32.5 20,000 78.5 4.96 0 0

4 92.3 32.5 24,000 78.5 5.10 0 6

0.78

4 95.0 30.0 18,000 72.4 5.39 2 6

5 95.4 32.5 24,000 78.5 5.62 0 6

5 97.3 28.0 18,000 63.3 5.19 3 7

5 96.0 25.0 24,000 58.1 6.64 0 4

2 86.2 32.5 20,000 75.9 3.93 0 0

3 90.8 32.5 20,000 75.9 4.96 0 0

4 92.3 32.5 24,000 75.9 5.10 0 0

0.75

4 95.0 30.0 18,000 70.0 5.39 2 6

5 95.4 32.5 24,000 75.9 5.62 0 0

5 97.3 28.0 18,000 60.9 5.19 3 7

5 96.0 25.0 24,000 55.5 6.64 0 0

Total 100 100

* lm/W = lumens per watt

9­8
Table 9.3.4 Base­Case Market­Share Matrix for Four­Foot T12 Medium Bipin Systems

CSL Lamp

Efficacy

Lamp

Wattage

Lamp

Lifetime

System

Input

Power

Installed

Lamp

Price

Mix of

Systems

Purchased

before

2010*

lm/W W hrs W $ %

Magnetic

Ballast

0

0

1

1

2

2

3

3

80.0

77.9

82.5

82.4

85.0

85.3

90.0

91.2

40

34

40

34

40

34

40

34

20,000

20,000

20,000

20,000

24,000

20,000

24,000

24,000

129

108

129

108

129

108

129

108

4.60

3.68

6.80

4.91

8.35

7.25

8.45

8.32

12

44

8

14

6

8

5

3

Total 100

* In 2010, the sale of magnetic 4­foot T12 medium bipin ballasts is banned.

9­9
Table 9.3.5 Base­Case Market­Share Matrix for Eight­Foot T8 Single Pin Slimline Systems

CSL Lamp

Efficacy

Lamp

Wattage

Lamp

Lifetime

System

Input

Power

Installed

Lamp

Price

Mix of

Systems

Purchased

in 2012 and

Earlier

%

Mix of

Systems

Purchased

in 2042

lm/W W hrs W $ %

3 94.8 60.1 15,000 112.8 6.31 30 6

4 98.2 60.1 15,000 112.8 8.50 32 11

0.88

5 101.5 60.1 18,000 112.8 9.35 8 11

5 101.8 57.0 24,000 107.5 8.69 0 6

Electronic

Ballast Factor

5 103.6 55.0 18,000 102.0 8.28 0 6

3 94.8 60.1 15,000 109.1 6.31 7 7

4 98.2 60.1 15,000 109.1 8.50 8 8

0.85

5 101.5 60.1 18,000 109.1 9.35 0 6

5 101.8 57.0 24,000 106.0 8.69 0 6

5 103.6 55.0 18,000 98.5 8.28 0 6

3 94.8 60.1 15,000 100.4 6.31 7 7

4 98.2 60.1 15,000 100.4 8.50 8 8

0.78

5 101.5 60.1 18,000 100.4 9.35 0 6

5 101.8 57.0 24,000 102.5 8.69 0 3

5 103.6 55.0 18,000 90.2 8.28 0 3

Total 100 100

Table 9.3.6 Base­Case Market­Share Matrix for Eight­Foot T12 Single Pin Slimline

Systems

CSL Lamp

Efficacy

Lamp

Wattage

Lamp

Lifetime

System

Input

Power

Installed

Lamp

Price

Mix of

Systems

Purchased

before

2010*

lm/W W hrs W $ %

Magnetic

Ballast

0

1

1

2

2

3

85.6

87.3

87.6

92.0

92.6

97.5

75.0

75.0

60.5

75.0

60.5

60.5

12,000

12,000

12,000

15,000

12,000

15,000

158

158

126

158

126

126

8.02

11.20

5.60

12.15

7.94

9.65

32

29

12

2

17

8

Total 100

* In 2010, the sale of magnetic 8­foot T12 single pin slimline ballasts is banned.

9­10
Table 9.3.7 Base­Case Market­Share Matrix for Four­Foot T8 Medium Bipin Systems

Replacing 8­foot T12 Single Pin Slimline Systems

CSL Lamp

Efficacy

Lamp

Wattage

Lamp

Lifetime

System

Input

Power

Installed

Lamp

Price

Mix of

Systems

Purchased

in 2012

%

Mix of

Systems

Purchased

in 2042

lm/W W hrs W $ %

2 86.2 32.5 20,000 117.0 4.91 43 8

3 90.8 32.5 20,000 117.0 5.94 29 10

4 92.3 32.5 24,000 117.0 6.08 11 14

0.88

4 95.0 30.0 18,000 109.4 6.37 0 3

5 95.4 32.5 24,000 117.0 6.61 7 12

5 97.3 28.0 18,000 95.6 6.17 0 3

5 96.0 25.0 24,000 87.9 7.62 0 4

2 86.2 32.5 20,000 103.8 4.91 0 4

Electronic

Ballast Factor

3 90.8 32.5 20,000 103.8 5.94 0 0

4 92.3 32.5 24,000 103.8 6.08 0 6

0.78

4 95.0 30.0 18,000 98.2 6.37 2 6

5 95.4 32.5 24,000 103.8 6.61 0 6

5 97.3 28.0 18,000 85.0 6.17 3 7

5 96.0 25.0 24,000 77.8 7.62 0 4

2 86.2 32.5 20,000 99.8 4.91 0 0

3 90.8 32.5 20,000 99.8 5.94 0 0

4 92.3 32.5 24,000 99.8 6.08 0 0

0.75

4 95.0 30.0 18,000 94.8 6.37 2 6

5 95.4 32.5 24,000 99.8 6.61 0 0

5 97.3 28.0 18,000 82.0 6.17 3 7

5 96.0 25.0 24,000 74.8 7.62 0 0

Total 100 100

9­11
Table 9.3.8 Base­Case Market­Share Matrix for Eight­Foot T12 Recessed Double Contact

High Output Initial and New Ballast Systems

CSL Lamp

Efficacy

Lamp

Wattage

Lamp

Lifetime

System

Input

Power

Installed

Lamp

Price

Mix of

Systems

Purchased

in 2012 and

Earlier

%

Mix of

Systems

Purchased

in 2042

lm/W W hrs W $ %

0 82.3 110 12,000 205.4 9.78 13 3

0 82.5 97 12,000 177.0 6.88 5 2

0.88

1 85.5 110 12,000 205.4 15.56 7 8

2 86.1 97 12,000 177.0 9.94 3 6

3 87.6 97 12,000 177.0 16.10 4 9

Electronic

Ballast Factor

3 88.9 97 12,000 177.0 16.41 2 4

0 80.1 110 12,000 208.4 9.78 13 3

0 82.5 97 12,000 181.3 6.88 5 2

0.89

1 83.2 110 12,000 208.4 15.56 7 9

2 86.1 97 12,000 181.3 9.94 2 9

3 87.6 97 12,000 181.3 16.10 4 8

3 88.9 97 12,000 181.3 16.41 2 4

0 80.1 110 12,000 211.5 9.78 13 3

0 82.5 97 12,000 185.6 6.88 5 2

0.90

1 83.2 110 12,000 211.5 15.56 7 8

2 86.1 97 12,000 185.6 9.94 2 6

3 87.6 97 12,000 185.6 16.10 4 8

3 88.9 97 12,000 185.6 16.41 2 6

Total 100 100

9.3.1.4 Base­Case Forecast Results

Figure 9.3.1, Figure 9.3.2, and Figure 9.3.3 present the base­case shipments forecasts

from 2012 to 2042 with historical shipments from 2001 to 2005 and projected shipments from

2006 to 2011. Figure 9.3.1, Figure 9.3.2, and Figure 9.3.3 correspond to 4­foot medium bipin

shipments, 8­foot single pin slimline shipments, and 8­foot recessed double contact HO

shipments, respectively.

In accordance with historical shipment data, Figure 9.3.1 shows a decline in shipments of

4­foot T12 medium bipin lamps. These retired 4­foot T12 medium bipin lamp­and­ballast

systems are replaced with 4­foot T8 medium bipin lamp­and­ballast systems upon ballast

retirement. As discussed earlier, DOE forecasts that 90 percent of retired 8­foot T12 single pin

slimline systems will be replaced with 4­foot T8 medium bipin lamp systems. Along with the 4­

9­12
0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

S

hip

m

e

nts (billio

n

s)

4­foot T8 MBP Base­Case Forecast

4­foot T8 MBP Projection

4­foot T8 MBP Historical Shipments

4­foot T12 MBP Base­Case Forecast

4­foot T12 MBP Projection

4­foot T12 MBP Historical Shipments

foot T8 systems purchased for new construction, this accounts for the increase in 4­foot T8

medium bipin shipments through the analysis period.

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040

Year

Figure 9.3.1 Four­Foot Medium Bipin Historical, Projected, and Base­Case Forecasted

Shipments * MBP = medium bipin

9­13
In accordance with historical shipment data, Figure 9.3.2 shows a decline in shipments of

8­foot T12 single pin slimline lamps. Ten percent of these retired 8­foot T12 single pin slimline

lamp­and­ballast systems are replaced with 8­foot T8 single pin slimline lamp­and­ballast

systems upon ballast retirement. This accounts for the growth in 8­foot T8 single pin slimline

lamp shipments until 2025. After 2025, all 8­foot T12 single pin slimline lamp­and­ballast

systems have been replaced and the T8 shipments remain constant.

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.03

0.04

0.05

0.06

S

hip

m

e

nts (billio

n

s)

8­foot T8 SP Base­Case Forecast

8­foot T8 SP Projection

8­foot T8 SP Historical Shipments

8­foot T12 SP Base­Case Forecast

8­foot T12 SP Projection

8­foot T12 SP Historical Shipments

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040

Year

Figure 9.3.2 Eight­Foot Single Pin Slimline Historical, Projected, and Base­Case

Forecasted Shipments * SP = single pin

9­14
In accordance with historical shipment data, Figure 9.3.3 shows that 8­foot T12 recessed

double contact HO lamp shipments are flat. As discussed earlier, DOE decided not to model the

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

shipments in the base case.

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.02

0.02

0.03

0.03

0.04

S

hip

m

e

nts (billio

n

s)

8­foot T8 RDC HO Base­Case Forecast

8­foot T8 RDC HO Projection

8­foot T8 RDC HO Historical Shipments

8­foot T12 RDC HO Base­Case Forecast

8­foot T12 RDC HO Projection

8­foot T12 RDC HO Historical Shipments

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040

Year

Figure 9.3.3 Eight­Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Historical, Projected, and

Base­Case Forecasted Shipments * RDC = recessed double contact, HO = high output

9.3.1.5 Base­Case Forecast by Market Segment

Figure 9.3.4, Figure 9.3.5, and Figure 9.3.6 present the base­case shipments forecast by

market segment (i.e., lamp replacement, ballast replacement, or new construction) for 4­foot

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

lamps, respectively. Figure 9.3.4 shows that although DOE accounts for shipments due to new

construction, lamp shipments due to replacing a failed lamp and failed ballast dominate this

market. In addition, lamp replacement shipments are greater than ballast replacement shipments

for all three product classes of GSFL. This effect is due to the much longer lifetime, and

therefore fewer replacements of ballasts versus lamps.

9­15
0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

0.80

0.90

1.00

S

hip

m

e

nts (billio

n

s)

New Construction

Ballast Replacement

Lamp Replacement

2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042

Year

Figure 9.3.4 Four­Foot Medium Bipin Base­Case Shipment Forecast by Market Segment

9­16
0.0000

0.0050

0.0100

0.0150

0.0200

0.0250

0.0300

S

hip

m

e

nts (billio

n

s)

Ballast Replacement

Lamp Replacement

2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042

Year

Figure 9.3.5 Eight­Foot Single Pin Slimline Base­Case Shipments Forecast by Market

Segment

9­17
0.03500

S

hip

m

e

nts (billio

n

s) 0.03000

0.02500

0.02000

0.01500

0.01000

0.00500

0.00000

Ballast Replacement

Lamp Replacement

2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 2022 2024 2026 2028 2030 2032 2034 2036 2038 2040 2042

Year

Figure 9.3.6 8­Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Base­Case Shipments Forecast

by Market Segment

9.3.2 Incandescent Reflector Lamps

9.3.2.1 Historical Shipments

As discussed in Chapter 3, DOE received historical shipments of IRL aggregated for the

commercial and residential sectors from 2001 to 2005 from NEMA. NEMA broke these

shipments down into parabolic reflector (PAR) incandescent, reflector (R) incandescent, PAR38

halogen, and PAR30 and PAR20 halogen lamps. Recognizing that these shipment estimates

only reflect shipments of NEMA members, DOE increases these estimates to account for the

volume of IRLs that are imported or manufactured by non­NEMA lamp companies. DOE

believes that these NEMA shipments represent approximately 85 percent of the IRL market.

Because certain ER, BR, and R shaped IRL (e.g. BR 30 and BR40 65 Watt) are exempted

from energy conservation standards, DOE estimated the market share of these exemptions by

using a combination of manufacturer product catalog research and additional shipment data

8 submitted by NEMA. As research indicated that these exemptions constitute approximately 60

percent of all incandescent (non­halogen) IRL shipments, DOE decreased the NEMA historical

incandescent shipments accordingly.

9­18
In addition, because DOE’s IRL shipment model separately forecasts IRL shipments in

the commercial and residential sectors, DOE estimates certain portions of IRL shipments to each

sector. DOE used a reflector lamp study conducted by the New York State Energy Research and

9 Development Authority to approximate that about 33 percent of non­halogen shipments serve

the commercial sector and about 67 percent serve the residential sector. Similarly, DOE

allocates 60 percent of halogen lamp shipments to the commercial sector and 40 percent to the

residential sector.

Table 9.3.9 shows the resulting historical covered IRL shipments estimates for the entire

U.S. market.

Table 9.3.9 IRL Historical Shipments (millions)

Year Commercial Residential

2001 67 66

2002 68 67

2003 71 70

2004 79 77

2005 83 85

9.3.2.2 Shipments Projections to 2011 and Calculations of 2011 Lamp Stock

To forecast IRL shipments from 2012 to 2042, DOE first estimates the IRL stock in 2011

(before the effective date of the standard). To calculate 2011 lamp stock, DOE linearly fits and

extrapolates historical IRL shipments in the commercial and residential sectors to 2011. DOE

calculates the 2011 lamp stock by summing annual shipments backward from 2011 for the years

that correspond to the average lamp service lifetime. This average lifetime is based on the

assumed base­case technology mix of IRL in the commercial and residential sectors, as indicated

by the market­share matrices in section 9.3.2.3. In addition, DOE accounts for efficacy

standards (effective in 2008) for small diameter and ER and BR shaped lamps, as prescribed by

the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007). DOE expects that these

standards will cause all IRL covered in this rulemaking to be of halogen technology by the year

2008. Because halogen lamps generally have longer lifetimes than their incandescent

counterparts, and are therefore replaced (and shipped) less often, DOE applies a lifetime­scaled

reduction to its projection of IRL shipments after 2007. DOE calculates that the 2011 stock of

covered IRL is approximately 297 million lamps in the residential sector and 77 million lamps in

the commercial sector.

9.3.2.3 Base­Case Market­Share Matrices

As discussed in the engineering analysis (Chapter 5) and the LCC analysis (Chapter 8),

consumers have a variety of choices in IRL. IRL shipments strongly depend on lamp lifetime.

In addition, other lamp properties such as price and energy consumption are key inputs to the

NES and NPV calculations. Therefore, within IRL in the commercial and residential sectors,

DOE believes it necessary to directly account for the mix of technologies that consumers select

in the base case and standards case. To account for the range of possible consumer choices,

9­19
DOE develops and populates technology market­share matrices. As discussed in the national

impact analysis (NIA; Chapter 10), the base­case and standards­case efficacy forecasts also

depend on the market­share matrices.

The IRL market­share matrices allocate percentage market shares to each IRL lamp

design by proportioning the installed lamp stock in 2011 and 2042. Given these two inputs,

DOE creates a dynamic base case and assumes that the percentage stock values change linearly

through the analysis period. Once DOE establishes the percentage stock in each year, DOE then

ships lamps to maintain the stock distribution, taking into account lamp replacements and new

construction.

DOE develops the percentage inputs to the base­case market­share matrices based on

discussions with industry experts and an examination of manufacturer product catalogs. As

stated earlier, DOE models three separate lumen packages in the commercial and residential

sectors: 580, 1,050 and 1,310 lm. These lumen packages correspond to the 50W, 75W, and 90W

baseline halogen technologies, respectively. An examination of manufacturer product catalogs

indicates that 27 percent of the covered IRL market is at 580 lm, 32 percent is at 1,050 lm, and

51 percent is at 1,310 lm. DOE applies these percentages to the 2011 inputs to the base­case

market­share matrices for the commercial and residential sectors.

In addition, based on manufacturer interviews, in the commercial sector DOE assumes

that 80 percent of the 2011 installed IRL stock is the halogen baseline technology, while the

remaining 20 percent of installed IRL is of the more efficacious halogen infrared (HIR)

technology. As DOE expects a natural migration toward more efficacious IRL, DOE assumes

that the installed IRL stock in the commercial sector in 2042 is 50 percent halogen and 50

percent halogen infrared. In contrast, in the residential sector, in the base case DOE assumes that

100 percent of installed IRL is halogen technology in 2011 and remains constant throughout the

analysis period.

Table 9.3.10 and Table 9.3.11 provide the base­case market­share matrices for IRL in the

commercial and residential sectors.

Table 9.3.10 Base­Case Market­Share Matrix for Commercial IRL Sockets

Candidate

Standard

Level Lamp Design

Price with

Sales Tax

$

Stock in

2011

%

Stock in

2042

%

90W, 14.6 lm/W, 2,500 hrs, Halogen 6.16 33 21

75W, 14.0 lm/W, 2,500 hrs, Halogen 6.16 26 16

50W, 11.6 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Halogen 5.56 22 14

Base Case 70W, 18.0 lm/W, 3,000 hrs, HIR 7.73 8 21

60W, 17.5 lm/W, 3,000 hrs, HIR 7.73 6 16

41.3W, 15 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 7.12 5 14

Total 100 100

9­20
Table 9.3.11 Base­Case Market­Share Matrix for Residential IRL Sockets

Candidate

Standard

Level Lamp Design

Price with

Sales Tax

$

Stock in

2011

%

Stock in

2042

%

90W, 14.6 lm/W, 2,500 hrs, Halogen 5.13 41 41

Base Case 75W, 14.0 lm/W, 2,500 hrs, Halogen 5.13 32 32

50W, 11.6 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Halogen 4.52 27 27

Total 100 100

9.3.2.4 Base­Case Forecast Results

Figure 9.3.7 and Figure 9.3.8 depict the base­case shipment forecasts for commercial and

residential IRL from 2012 to 2042, with historical shipments from 2001 to 2005 and projected

shipments from 2006 to 2011. The forecasted shipments in both the commercial and residential

sectors decrease over the analysis period. DOE believes that there are three reasons why IRL

shipments would decrease over time:

1) increased penetration of CFL and other long­lived emerging technologies

2) a shift toward longer­lasting HIR technologies in both the commercial sector,

lowering the frequency of replacements

3) historical growth in IRL stock (approximately 8 to 10 percent annually), which is

significantly higher than the historical growth rate in building floor space (1.6

percent annually in the commercial sector and 1.3 percent annually in the

residential sector).

DOE believes this high historical growth rate in IRL stock is unsustainable in the long term.

Instead, DOE bases IRL socket growth after 2011 on the historical growth in building floor

space. This decrease in stock growth contributes to the decline in IRL shipments.

9­21
0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

S

hip

m

e

nts (billio

ns)

Base­Case Forecast

Shipments Projection

Historical Shipments

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040

Year

Figure 9.3.7 Commercial IRL Historical, Projected, and Base­Case Forecasted Shipments

9­22
S

hip

m

e

nts (billio

ns)

0.12

0.10

Base­Case Forecast

Shipments Projection

Historical Shipments

0.08

0.06

0.04

0.02

0.00

2000 2004 2008 2012 2016 2020 2024 2028 2032 2036 2040

Year

Figure 9.3.8 Residential IRL Historical, Projected, and Base­Case Forecasted Shipments

9.3.2.5 Base­Case Forecast by Market Segment

Figure 9.3.9 depicts the base­case shipments forecast by market segment for IRL sockets

in the residential and commercial sector. As seen in the figure, DOE accounts for both lamp

replacements and new construction. However, lamp shipments due to replacing a failed lamp

dominate this market.

9­23
0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

S

hip

m

e

nts (billio

ns)

Shipments due to New Construction

Shipments due to Replacements

2012 2015 2018 2021 2024 2027 2030 2033 2036 2039 2042

Year

Figure 9.3.9 Commercial and Residential IRL Base­Case Shipments Forecast by Market

Segment

9.4 STANDARDS­CASE INPUTS

9.4.1 General Service Fluorescent Lamps

9.4.1.1 Shipments Scenarios

To characterize consumer behavior in the standards case, DOE is considering many

lamp­and­ballast system properties that consumers take into account when purchasing their

commercial GSFL system. Specifically, DOE regards system price, system energy consumption,

and system lumen output as three key drivers of consumer purchases. To characterize consumers

that may weigh each factor differently, DOE is developing two shipment scenarios for

fluorescent lamps: “roll­up” and “shift.” The roll­up scenario represents the standards case,

assuming that all product efficacies in the base case that do not meet the standard would roll up

to meet the new standard level. Those product efficacies that were above the standard level are

considered unaffected. Therefore, consumers continue to purchase the same base­case lamp or

lamp system. The roll­up scenario characterizes consumers primarily driven by the first­cost of

the lamp, and they are restricted to replacing their base­case lamp with an equal wattage lamp

when possible. The shift scenario models the standards case, assuming that all base­case

9­24
consumer GSFL purchases are affected by the standard (whether or not their base­case efficacy

meets the standard). In this scenario, any consumer may purchase a reduced wattage lamp. The

shift scenario characterizes consumers primarily concerned with system energy consumption.

The following discussion presents the decision­making process characterized by the rollup scenario. Lamp­and­ballast designs from which consumers choose are presented in the

market­share matrices.

1) If consumers buy a system in the base case that complies with the standard, they then

buy the base­case system.

2) If consumers do not buy a standards­compliant system in the base case, they then

a. consider only systems that have a lumen output that is within 10 percent of the

base lumen output;

b. select the lowest first­cost lamp­and­ballast design; or

c. if there are two lamp­and­ballast designs with equal installed prices, they select

the one with a lumen output that is closest to the base­case lumen output.

The following discussion presents the decision­making process characterized by the shift

scenario.

1) If consumers buy the least efficacious lamp­and­ballast design in the base case, they

then

a. consider only systems that have a lumen output that is within 10 percent of the

base lumen output;

b. select the lowest first­cost lamp­and­ballast design; or

c. if there are two lamp­and­ballast designs with equal installed prices, they select

the one with a lumen output that is closest to the base­case lumen output.

2) If consumers do not buy the least efficacious lamp­and­ballast design in the base case,

they then

a. never buy a system that has a greater input power than the base­case system;

b. consider only systems that have a lumen output within 10 percent of the base­case

lumen output. If none exist, buy the base­case system (if it is standardscompliant);

c. consider only systems that use less input power than the base­case system. If

none exist, they buy the lowest first­cost (if two lamp­and­ballast designs have

equal installed prices, select the one with a lumen output that is closest to the

base­case lumen output);

d. select the lowest first­cost lamp­and­ballast design; or

e. if there are two lamp­and­ballast designs with equal installed prices, select the one

with a lumen output that is closest to the base­case lumen output.

9.4.1.2 Standards­Case Market­Share Matrices

Similar to in the base case, DOE is constructing market­share matrices to characterize

shipments of lamps and lamp­and­ballast systems in the standards case. These market­share

matrices provide the same lamp­and­ballast designs as the base­case market­share matrices.

9­25
However, in the standards case, some lamp designs (and therefore lamp­and­ballast designs) are

not standards­compliant and therefore precluded from being shipped. In addition, in the

standards case, the shipments model defines separate market­share matrices for the ballasts

installed before 2012 (initial ballasts) versus new ballasts installed after 2011. This is important

in the standards case since consumer purchase decisions may vary in these two situations. If a

consumer with an existing installed ballast in 2012 is forced to replace a base­case lamp with a

different standards­compliant lamp, the consumer is limited to only those lamp­and­ballast

designs that maintain the current ballast. However, when a consumer purchases a new lamp­andballast system, either for retrofitting, ballast replacement, or new construction, all lamp­andballast systems, including those with ballast factors different from the base­case system

purchase, are available. Table 9.4.1 describes the inputs to the base­case and standards­case

market­share matrices for initial and new ballasts.

Table 9.4.1 Description of Base­Case and Standards­Case GSFL Market­Share Matrices,

Initial and New Ballast Models

Case

Initial Ballast Matrix

(ballasts installed before 2012)

New Ballast Matrix

(ballasts installed in 2012 and later)

Base *#

Technology mix of the lamp and ballast

purchases before 2012

*Technology mix of new lamp­andballast systems purchased in

2012 and 2042

Standards

**#Technology mix of first­lamp purchases

shipped for installation on ballasts purchased

before 2012.

*Technology mix of new lamp­andballast systems purchased in

2012 and 2042

* Lamp replacement purchases are always the same lamp design as the retiring lamp.

** With the exception of the first lamp purchase after 2011, lamp replacement purchases are always the same as the

retiring lamp.

# Though they are presented as lamp­and­ballast designs, during the analysis period these matrices result in

shipments of lamps for lamp replacement purposes only.

DOE uses the shift and roll­up scenarios to populate the standards­case market­share

matrices. Table 9.4.2 through Table 9.4.18 present the standards­case market­share matrices for

all analyzed GSFL. As seen in the standards­case market­share matrices for initial ballast

systems, the proportions of lamp­and­ballast systems at each ballast factor are equivalent in the

base case to the standards case. This is because these standards­case matrices represent only

lamp replacements on previously existing ballasts. In these situations, consumers are limited in

their lamp­and­ballast designs and therefore may not always be able to match the lumens of their

base­case system. As seen in the standards­case market­share matrices for new ballasts, the

distribution among ballast factors in the standards­case shows a clear migration to lower ballast

factors. By using a lower ballast factor with a higher efficacy lamp, consumers are better able to

match the lumens of their lamp­and­ballast purchases with the lumens of their base­case

purchase.

9­26
Table 9.4.2 Standards­Case Initial Ballast Market­Share Matrix for Four­Foot T8

Medium Bipin Systems (Shift Scenario)

Mix of New Lamps Purchased as Replacements on Ballasts Installed before 2011

at Various Candidate Standard Levels

C

S

L

Lamp

Efficacy

Lamp

Wattage

S

ystem

L

u

mens

S

ystem In

p

ut

Power

Installed

Lam

p

Price

Base Case

C

S

L1

C

S

L2

C

S

L3

C

S

L4

C

S

L5

lm/W W lm W $ % % % % % %

Electronic

Ballast Factor

0.88

2

3

4

4

5

5

5

86.2

90.8

92.3

95.0

95.4

97.3

96.0

32.5

32.5

32.5

30.0

32.5

28.0

25.0

6,653

7,154

7,524

7,075

7,696

6,758

6,019

87.5

87.5

87.5

80.5

87.5

71.1

66.8

3.93

4.96

5.10

5.39

5.62

5.19

6.64

43

29

11

0

7

0

0

43

29

11

0

7

0

0

43

29

11

0

7

0

0

­

43

0

18

0

29

0

­

­

0

18

0

72

0

­

­

­

­

18

72

0

0.78

2

3

4

4

5

5

5

86.2

90.8

92.3

95.0

95.4

97.3

96.0

32.5

32.5

32.5

30.0

32.5

28.0

25.0

5,897

6,341

6,669

6,271

6,821

5,990

5,335

78.5

78.5

78.5

72.4

78.5

63.3

58.1

3.93

4.96

5.10

5.39

5.62

5.19

6.64

0

0

0

2

0

3

0

0

0

0

2

0

3

0

0

0

0

2

0

3

0

­

0

0

0

0

5

0

­

­

0

0

0

5

0

­

­

­

­

0

5

0

0.75

2

3

4

4

5

5

5

86.2

90.8

92.3

95.0

95.4

97.3

96.0

32.5

32.5

32.5

30.0

32.5

28.0

25.0

5,670

6,098

6,413

6,030

6,559

5,760

5,130

75.9

75.9

75.9

70.0

75.9

60.9

55.5

3.93

4.96

5.10

5.39

5.62

5.19

6.64

0

0

0

2

0

3

0

0

0

0

2

0

3

0

0

0

0

2

0

3

0

­

0

0

0

0

5

0

­

­

0

0

0

5

0

­

­

­

­

0

5

0

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

9­27
Table 9.4.3 Standards­Case Initial Ballast Market­Share Matrix for Four­Foot T8

Medium Bipin Systems (Roll­up Scenario)

Mix of New Lamps Purchased as Replacements on Ballasts Installed before 2011 at

Various Candidate Standard Levels

C

S

L

Lam

p

Efficacy

Lam

p

Wattage

S

ystem

L

u

mens

S

ystem

In

p

ut Power

Installed

Lamp

Price

Base Case

C

S

L1

C

S

L2

C

S

L3

C

S

L4

C

S

L5

lm/W W lm W $ % % % % % %

Electronic

Ballast Factor

0.88

2

3

4

4

5

5

5

86.2

90.8

92.3

95.0

95.4

97.3

96.0

32.5

32.5

32.5

30.0

32.5

28.0

25.0

6,653

7,154

7,524

7,075

7,696

6,758

6,019

87.5

87.5

87.5

80.5

87.5

71.1

66.8

3.93

4.96

5.10

5.39

5.62

5.19

6.64

43

29

11

0

7

0

0

43

29

11

0

7

0

0

43

29

11

0

7

0

0

­

72

11

0

7

0

0

­

­

83

0

7

0

0

­

­

­

­

90

0

0

0.78

2

3

4

4

5

5

5

86.2

90.8

92.3

95.0

95.4

97.3

96.0

32.5

32.5

32.5

30.0

32.5

28.0

25.0

5,897

6,341

6,669

6,271

6,821

5,990

5,335

78.5

78.5

78.5

72.4

78.5

63.3

58.1

3.93

4.96

5.10

5.39

5.62

5.19

6.64

0

0

0

2

0

3

0

0

0

0

2

0

3

0

0

0

0

2

0

3

0

­

0

0

2

0

3

0

­

­

0

2

0

3

0

­

­

­

­

0

5

0

0.75

2

3

4

4

5

5

5

86.2

90.8

92.3

95.0

95.4

97.3

96.0

32.5

32.5

32.5

30.0

32.5

28.0

25.0

5,670

6,098

6,413

6,030

6,559

5,760

5,130

75.9

75.9

75.9

70.0

75.9

60.9

55.5

3.93

4.96

5.10

5.39

5.62

5.19

6.64

0

0

0

2

0

3

0

0

0

0

2

0

3

0

0

0

0

2

0

3

0

­

0

0

2

0

3

0

­

­

0

2

0

3

0

­

­

­

­

0

5

0

Total 100 100 100 100 100 100

9­28
Table 9.4.4 Standards­Case Initial Ballast Market­Share Matrix for Four­Foot T12

Medium Bipin Systems (Shift and Roll­up Scenarios)

Mix of New Lamps Purchased as Replacements on Ballasts Installed before 2010 at

Various Candidate Standard Levels

C

S

L

Lam

p

Efficacy

Lam

p

Wattage

S

ystem

L

u

mens

S

ystem

In

p

ut Power

Installed

Lamp

Price

Base Case

C

S

L1

C

S

L2

C

S

L3

C

S

L4

C

S

L5

lm/W W lm W $ % % % % % %

Magnetic

Ballast

0

0

1

1

2

2

3

3

80.0

77.9

82.5

82.4

85.0

85.3

90.0

91.2

40

34

40

34

40

34

40

34

8,208

6,072

8,550

6,494

8,721

6,890

9,263

7,366

129

108

129

108

129

108

129

108

4.60

3.68

6.80

4.91

8.35

7.25

8.45

8.32

12

44

8

14

6

8

5

3

­

­

20

58

6

8

5

3

­

­

­

­

26

66

5

3

­

­

­

­

­

­

19

81

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

­

Total 100 100 100 100 0 0

9­29
Table 9.4.5 Standards­Case New Ballast Market­Share Matrix for Four­Foot T8 Medium Bipin Systems (Shift Scenario)

Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Candidate Standard Levels

CSL5

2042

% %

­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­

7 12

72 36

0 0

­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­

11 14

0 8

3 7

­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­

0 07 19

0 4

100 100

2012

CSL4

2042

% %

­ ­­ ­

0 0

11 14

7 120 3

0 0

­ ­­ ­

72 18

0 00 00 4

3 7

­ ­­ ­

0 190 00 07 19

0 4

100 100

2012

CSL3

2042

% %

­ ­

0 00 0

11 14

7 120 3

0 0

­ ­

43 829 10

0 00 00 4

3 7

­ ­

0 100 90 00 07 19

0 4

100 100

2012

CSL2

2042

% %

43 829 1011 14

0 37 120 3

0 4

0 40 00 62 60 63 7

0 4

0 00 00 02 60 03 7

0 0

100 100

2012

CSL1

2042

% %

43 829 1011 14

0 37 120 3

0 4

0 40 00 62 60 63 7

0 4

0 00 00 02 60 03 7

0 0

100 100

2012

Base Case

2042

% %

43 829 1011 14

0 37 120 3

0 4

0 40 00 62 60 63 7

0 4

0 00 00 02 60 03 7

0 0

100 100

2012

dellatsnI

ecirPpmaL

$

3.934.965.105.395.625.19

6.64

3.934.965.105.395.625.19

6.64

3.934.965.105.395.625.19

6.64

Total

tupnImetsyS

rewoP

W

87.587.587.580.587.571.1

66.8

78.578.578.572.478.563.3

58.1

75.975.975.970.075.960.9

55.5

metsyS

snemuL

lm

6,6537,1547,5247,0757,6966,758

6,019

5,8976,3416,6696,2716,8215,990

5,335

5,6706,0986,4136,0306,5595,760

5,130

pmaL

egattaW

W

32.532.532.530.032.528.0

25.0

32.532.532.530.032.528.0

25.0

32.532.532.530.032.528.0

25.0

pmaL

ycaciffE

lm/W

86.290.892.395.095.497.3

96.0

86.290.892.395.095.497.3

96.0

86.290.892.395.095.497.3

96.0

LSC

234455

5

234455

5

234455

5

88.087.057.0

rotcaFtsallaBcinortcelE

Table 9.4.6 Standards­Case New Ballast Market­Share Matrix for Four­Foot T8 Medium Bipin Systems (Roll­Up Scenario)

9­30
Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Candidate Standard Levels

CSL5

2042

% %

­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­

18 26

0 6

0 4

­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­

29 16

7 19

0 4

­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­

43 18

3 7

0 0

100 100

2012

CSL4

2042

% %

­ ­­ ­

40 24

0 37 120 3

0 4

­ ­­ ­

43 14

2 60 63 7

0 4

­ ­­ ­

0 42 60 03 7

0 0

100 100

2012

CSL3

2042

% %

­ ­

29 1011 14

0 37 120 3

0 4

­ ­

43 8

0 62 60 63 7

0 4

­ ­

0 40 02 60 03 7

0 0

100 100

2012

CSL2

2042

% %

43 829 1011 14

0 37 120 3

0 4

0 40 00 62 60 63 7

0 4

0 00 00 02 60 03 7

0 0

100 100

2012

CSL1

2042

% %

43 829 1011 14

0 37 120 3

0 4

0 40 00 62 60 63 7

0 4

0 00 00 02 60 03 7

0 0

100 100

2012

Base Case

2042

% %

43 829 1011 14

0 37 120 30 40 40 00 62 60 63 70 40 00 00 02 60 03 70 0

100 100

2012

dellatsnI

ecirPpmaL

$

3.934.965.105.395.625.19

6.64

3.934.965.105.395.625.19

6.64

3.934.965.105.395.625.19

6.64

Total

metsyS

tupnI

rewoP

W

87.587.587.580.587.571.1

66.8

78.578.578.572.478.563.3

58.1

75.975.975.970.075.960.9

55.5

metsyS

snemuL

lm

6,6537,1547,5247,0757,6966,758

6,019

5,8976,3416,6696,2716,8215,990

5,335

5,6706,0986,4136,0306,5595,760

5,130

pmaL

egattaW

W

32.532.532.530.032.528.0

25.0

32.532.532.530.032.528.0

25.0

32.532.532.530.032.528.0

25.0

pmaL

ycaciffE

lm/W

86.290.892.395.095.497.3

96.0

86.290.892.395.095.497.3

96.0

86.290.892.395.095.497.3

96.0

LSC

234455

5

234455

5

234455

5

88.087.057.0

rotcaFtsallaBcinortcelE

9­31
Table 9.4.7 Standards­Case Initial Ballast Market­Share Matrix for Eight­Foot T8 Single Pin Slimline Systems (Shift

Scenario)

Mix of New Lamps Purchased as Replacements on Ballasts Installed before 2011 at

Various Candidate Standard Levels

5LSC

%

­­

00

70

­­

00

15

­­

00

15

100

4LSC

%

­

0

0

0

70

­

0

00

15

­

0

00

15

100

3LSC

%

3032

8007800078000

100

2LSC

%

3032

8

00

78

000

78

000

100

1LSC

%

3032

8

00

78

00

078

00

0

100

esaCesaB

%

3032

8

007800078000

100

dellatsnI

ecirPpmaL

$

6.318.509.35

8.698.28

6.318.50

9.358.69

8.286.318.50

9.358.69

8.28

Total

metsyS

rewoPtupnI

W

112.8112.8112.8107.5102.0109.1109.1109.1106.0

98.5

100.4100.4100.4102.5

90.2

metsyS

snemuL

lm

9,0299,553

10,199

9,5929,5305,8976,3416,8215,9905,3355,6706,0986,5595,7605,130

pmaL

egattaW

W

60.160.160.157.055.060.160.160.157.055.060.160.160.157.055.0

pmaL

ycaciffE

lm/W

94.898.2

101.5101.8103.6

94.898.2

101.5101.8103.6

94.898.2

101.5101.8103.6

LSC

345553455534555

88.058.087.0

rotcaFtsallaBcinortcelE

9­32
Table 9.4.8 Standards­Case Initial Ballast Market­Share Matrix for Eight­Foot T8 Single Pin Slimline Systems

(Roll­up Scenario)

Mix of New Lamps Purchased as Replacements on Ballasts Installed before 2011 at Various

Candidate Standard Levels

5LSC

%

­­

70

00

­­

15

00

­­

15

00

100

4LSC

%

­

62

8

00

­

15

00

0

­

15

00

0

100

3LSC

%

3032

8007800078000

100

2LSC

%

3032

8

00

78

000

78

000

100

1LSC

%

3032

8

00

78

00

078

00

0

100

esaCesaB

%

3032

8

007800078000

100

dellatsnI

ecirPpmaL

$

6.318.509.35

8.698.28

6.318.50

9.358.69

8.286.318.50

9.358.69

8.28

Total

metsyS

rewoPtupnI

W

112.8112.8112.8107.5102.0109.1109.1109.1106.0

98.5

100.4100.4100.4102.5

90.2

metsyS

snemuL

lm

9,0299,553

10,199

9,5929,5305,8976,3416,8215,9905,3355,6706,0986,5595,7605,130

pmaL

egattaW

W

60.160.160.157.055.060.160.160.157.055.060.160.160.157.055.0

pmaL

ycaciffE

lm/W

94.898.2

101.5101.8103.6

94.898.2

101.5101.8103.6

94.898.2

101.5101.8103.6

LSC

345553455534555

88.058.087.0

rotcaFtsallaBcinortcelE

9­33
Table 9.4.9 Standards­Case Initial Ballast Market­Share Matrix for Eight­Foot T12 Single Pin Slimline Systems

(Shift and Roll­up Scenarios)

Mix of New Lamps Purchased as Replacements on Ballasts Installed before 2010

at Various Candidate Standard Levels

5LSC

%

­

­

­­­­

0

4LSC

%

­

­

­­­­

0

3LSC

%

­

­

­­­

100

100

2LSC

%

­

­

­

6329

8

100

1LSC

%

­

61

12

2

17

8

100

foxiMesaC­esaB

erofebdellatsnIsmetsyS

0102

%

32

29

12

2

17

8

100

ecirPpmaLdellatsnI

$

8.02

11.20

5.60

12.15

7.949.65

Total

rewoPtupnImetsyS

W

158158126158126126

snemuLmetsyS

lm

11,10311,575

8,209

11,976

9,0689,645

egattaWpmaL

W

75.075.060.575.060.560.5

ycaciffEpmaL

lm/W

85.687.387.692.092.697.5

LSC

011223

tsallaBcitengaM

9­34
Table 9.4.10 Standards­Case New Ballast Market­Share Matrix for Eight­Foot T8 Single Pin Slimline Systems (Shift

Scenario)

Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Candidate Standard Levels

CSL5

2042

% %

­ ­­ ­

0 00 0

0 0

­ ­­ ­

0 00 0

70 46

­ ­­ ­

0 00 0

30 54

100 100

2012

CSL4

2042

% %

­ ­

0 00 00 0

0 0

­ ­

0 00 00 0

70 46

­ ­

0 00 00 0

30 54

100 100

2012

CSL3

2042

% %

30 632 11

8 110 6

0 6

7 78 80 60 6

0 6

7 78 80 60 3

0 3

100 100

2012

CSL2

2042

% %

30 632 11

8 110 6

0 6

7 78 80 60 6

0 6

7 78 80 60 3

0 3

100 100

2012

CSL1

2042

% %

30 632 11

8 110 6

0 6

7 78 80 60 6

0 6

7 78 80 60 3

0 3

100 100

2012

Base Case

2042

% %

30 632 11

8 110 6

0 6

7 78 80 60 6

0 6

7 78 80 60 3

0 3

100 100

2012

dellatsnI

pmaL

ecirP

$

6.318.509.358.69

8.28

6.318.509.358.69

8.28

6.318.509.358.69

8.28

Total

metsyS

tupnI

rewoP

W

112.8112.8112.8107.5

102.0

109.1109.1109.1106.0

98.5

100.4100.4100.4102.5

90.2

metsyS

snemuL

lm

9,0299,553

10,199

9,592

9,530

5,8976,3416,8215,990

5,335

5,6706,0986,5595,760

5,130

pmaL

egattaW

W

60.160.160.157.0

55.0

60.160.160.157.0

55.0

60.160.160.157.0

55.0

pmaL

ycaciffE

lm/W

94.898.2

101.5101.8

103.6

94.898.2

101.5101.8

103.6

94.898.2

101.5101.8

103.6

LSC

3455

5

3455

5

3455

5

88.087.057.0

rotcaFtsallaBcinortcelE

9­35
Table 9.4.11 Standards­Case New Ballast Market­Share Matrix for Eight­Foot T8 Single Pin Slimline Systems (Roll­up

Scenario)

Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Candidate Standard Levels

CSL5

2042

% %

­ ­­ ­

8 110 6

0 6

­ ­­ ­

32 17

0 6

0 6

­ ­­ ­

60 42

0 3

0 3

100 100

2012

CSL4

2042

% %

­ ­

32 11

8 110 6

0 6

­ ­

38 14

0 60 6

0 6

­ ­

22 22

0 60 6

0 3

100 100

2012

CSL3

2042

% %

30 632 11

8 110 6

0 6

7 78 80 60 6

0 6

7 78 80 60 3

0 3

100 100

2012

CSL2

2042

% %

30 632 11

8 110 6

0 6

7 78 80 60 6

0 6

7 78 80 60 3

0 3

100 100

2012

CSL1

2042

% %

30 632 11

8 110 6

0 6

7 78 80 60 6

0 6

7 78 80 60 3

0 3

100 100

2012

Base Case

2042

% %

30 632 11

8 110 6

0 6

7 78 80 60 6

0 6

7 78 80 60 3

0 3

100 100

2012

dellatsnI

ecirPpmaL

$

6.318.509.358.69

8.28

6.318.509.358.69

8.28

6.318.509.358.69

8.28

Total

tupnImetsyS

rewoP

W

112.8112.8112.8107.5

102.0

109.1109.1109.1106.0

98.5

100.4100.4100.4102.5

90.2

metsyS

snemuL

lm

9,0299,553

10,199

9,592

9,530

5,8976,3416,8215,990

5,335

5,6706,0986,5595,760

5,130

pmaL

egattaW

W

60.160.160.157.0

55.0

60.160.160.157.0

55.0

60.160.160.157.0

55.0

ycaciffEpmaL

lm/W

94.898.2

101.5101.8

103.6

94.898.2

101.5101.8

103.6

94.898.2

101.5101.8

103.6

LSC

3455

5

3455

5

3455

5

88.087.057.0

rotcaFtsallaBcinortcelE

9­36
Table 9.4.12 Standards­Case New Ballast Market­Share Matrix for Four­Foot T8 Medium Bipin Systems Replacing EightFoot Single Pin Slimline Systems (Shift Scenario)

Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Candidate Standard Levels

CSL5

2042

% %

­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­

7 12

72 36

0 0

­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­

11 14

0 8

3 7

­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­

0 07 19

0 4

100 100

2012

CSL4

2042

% %

­ ­­ ­

0 0

11 14

7 120 3

0 0

­ ­­ ­

72 18

0 00 00 4

3 7

­ ­­ ­

0 190 00 07 19

0 4

100 100

2012

CSL3

2042

% %

­ ­

0 00 0

11 14

7 120 3

0 0

­ ­

43 829 10

0 00 00 4

3 7

­ ­

0 100 90 00 07 19

0 4

100 100

2012

CSL2

2042

% %

43 829 1011 14

0 37 120 3

0 4

0 40 00 62 60 63 7

0 4

0 00 00 02 60 03 7

0 0

100 100

2012

CSL1

2042

% %

43 829 1011 14

0 37 120 3

0 4

0 40 00 62 60 63 7

0 4

0 00 00 02 60 03 7

0 0

100 100

2012

Base Case

2042

% %

43 829 1011 14

0 37 120 3

0 4

0 40 00 62 60 63 7

0 4

0 00 00 02 60 03 7

0 0

100 100

2012

dellatsnI

pmaL

ecirP

$

4.915.946.086.376.616.17

7.62

4.915.946.086.376.616.17

7.62

4.915.946.086.376.616.17

7.62

Total

metsyS

tupnI

rewoP

W

117.0117.0117.0109.4117.0

95.6

87.9

103.8103.8103.8

98.2

103.8

85.0

77.8

99.899.899.894.899.882.0

74.8

metsyS

snemuL

lm

8,8709,539

10,032

9,434

10,261

9,011

8,026

7,8628,4558,8928,3629,0957,987

7,114

7,5608,1308,5508,0408,7457,680

6,840

pmaL

egattaW

W

32.532.532.530.032.528.0

25.0

32.532.532.530.032.528.0

25.0

32.532.532.530.032.528.0

25.0

pmaL

ycaciffE

lm/W

86.290.892.395.095.497.3

96.0

86.290.892.395.095.497.3

96.0

86.290.892.395.095.497.3

96.0

LSC

234455

5

234455

5

234455

5

88.087.057.0

rotcaFtsallaBcinortcelE

9­37
Table 9.4.13 Standards­Case New Ballast Market­Share Matrix for Four­Foot T8 Medium Bipin Systems Replacing EightFoot Single Pin Slimline Systems (Roll­up Scenario)

Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Candidate Standard Levels

CSL5

2042

% %

­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­

18 26

0 6

0 4

­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­

29 16

7 19

0 4

­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­

43 18

3 7

0 0

100 100

2012

CSL4

2042

% %

­ ­­ ­

40 24

0 37 120 3

0 4

­ ­­ ­

43 14

2 60 63 7

0 4

­ ­­ ­

0 42 60 03 7

0 0

100 100

2012

CSL3

2042

% %

­ ­

29 1011 14

0 37 120 3

0 4

­ ­

43 8

0 62 60 63 7

0 4

­ ­

0 40 02 60 03 7

0 0

100 100

2012

CSL2

2042

% %

43 829 1011 14

0 37 120 3

0 4

0 40 00 62 60 63 7

0 4

0 00 00 02 60 03 7

0 0

100 100

2012

CSL1

2042

% %

43 829 1011 14

0 37 120 3

0 4

0 40 00 62 60 63 7

0 4

0 00 00 02 60 03 7

0 0

100 100

2012

Base Case

2042

% %

43 829 1011 14

0 37 120 3

0 4

0 40 00 62 60 63 7

0 4

0 00 00 02 60 03 7

0 0

100 100

2012

dellatsnI

ecirPpmaL

$

4.915.946.086.376.616.17

7.62

4.915.946.086.376.616.17

7.62

4.915.946.086.376.616.17

7.62

Total

metsyS

rewoPtupnI

W

117.0117.0117.0109.4117.0

95.6

87.9

103.8103.8103.8

98.2

103.8

85.0

77.8

99.899.899.894.899.882.0

74.8

metsyS

snemuL

lm

8,8709,539

10,032

9,434

10,261

9,011

8,026

7,8628,4558,8928,3629,0957,987

7,114

7,5608,1308,5508,0408,7457,680

6,840

pmaL

egattaW

W

32.532.532.530.032.528.0

25.0

32.532.532.530.032.528.0

25.0

32.532.532.530.032.528.0

25.0

pmaL

ycaciffE

lm/W

86.290.892.395.095.497.3

96.0

86.290.892.395.095.497.3

96.0

86.290.892.395.095.497.3

96.0

LSC

234455

5

234455

5

234455

5

88.087.057.0

rotcaFtsallaBcinortcelE

9­38
Table 9.4.14 Standards­Case Initial Ballast Market­Share Matrix for Eight­Foot T12 Recessed Double Contact High Output

Systems (Shift and Roll­up Scenarios)

Mix of New Lamps Purchased as Replacements on Ballasts Installed before 2011 at

Various Candidate Standard Levels

5LSC

%

­

­

­

­­­

­

­

­

­­­

­

­

­

­­­

0

4LSC

%

­­­

­­­

­­­

­­­

­­­

­­­

0

3LSC

%

­

­­

­

32

2

­

­­

­

31

2

­

­­

­

31

2

100

2LSC

%

­­­

28

42

­­­

27

42

­­­

27

42

100

1LSC

%

­

­

7

21

42

­

­

7

20

42

­

­

7

20

42

100

esaCesaB

%

13

5

7

342

13

5

7

242

13

5

7

242

100

dellatsnI

ecirPpmaL

$

9.786.88

15.56

9.94

16.1016.41

9.786.88

15.56

9.94

16.1016.41

9.786.88

15.56

9.94

16.1016.41

Total

metsyS

tupnI

rewoP

W

205.4177.0205.4177.0177.0177.0208.4181.3208.4181.3181.3181.3211.5185.6211.5185.6185.6185.6

metsyS

snemuL

lm

14,33512,23215,22013,22613,64013,46414,49812,37115,39313,37713,61713,79514,66112,51015,56613,52713,77013,950

pmaL

egattaW

W

113

97

113

979797

113

97

113

979797

113

97

113

979797

pmaL

ycaciffE

lm/W

80.182.583.286.187.688.980.182.583.286.187.688.980.182.583.286.187.688.9

LSC

001233001233001233

88.098.009.0

rotcaFtsallaBcinortcelE

9­39
Table 9.4.15 Standards­Case New Ballast Market­Share Matrix for Eight­Foot T12 Recessed Double Contact High Output

New Ballast Systems (Shift Scenario)

Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Candidate Standard Levels

CSL5

2042

% %

­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­

­ ­

­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­

­ ­

­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­

­ ­

0 0

2012

CSL4

2042

% %

­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­

­ ­

­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­

­ ­

­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­

­ ­

0 0

2012

CSL3

2042

% %

­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­

32 48

2 4

­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­

6 14

0 0

­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­

53 25

7 9

100 100

2012

CSL2

2042

% %

­ ­­ ­­ ­

21 31

4 9

2 4

­ ­­ ­­ ­

13 22

0 0

0 0

­ ­­ ­­ ­

46 17

7 8

7 9

100 100

2012

CSL1

2042

% %

­ ­­ ­

7 9

21 31

4 9

2 4

­ ­­ ­

7 8

13 22

0 0

0 0

­ ­­ ­

0 0

39 9

7 8

0 0

100 100

2012

Base Case

2042

% %

13 3

5 27 83 64 9

2 4

13 3

5 27 92 94 8

2 4

13 3

5 27 82 64 8

2 6

100 100

2012

dellatsnI

ecirPpmaL

$

9.786.88

15.56

9.94

16.10

16.41

9.786.88

15.56

9.94

16.10

16.41

9.786.88

15.56

9.94

16.10

16.41

Total

metsyS

tupnI

rewoP

W

205.4177.0205.4177.0177.0

177.0

208.4181.3208.4181.3181.3

181.3

211.5185.6211.5185.6185.6

185.6

metsyS

snemuL

lm

14,33512,23215,22013,22613,640

13,464

14,49812,37115,39313,37713,617

13,795

14,66112,51015,56613,52713,770

13,950

pmaL

egattaW

W

113

97

113

9797

97

113

97

113

9797

97

113

97

113

9797

97

pmaL

ycaciffE

lm/W

80.182.583.286.187.6

88.9

80.182.583.286.187.6

88.9

80.182.583.286.187.6

88.9

LSC

00123

3

00123

3

00123

3

88.098.009.0

rotcaFtsallaBcinortcelE

9­40
Table 9.4.16 Standards­Case New Ballast Market­Share Matrix for Eight­Foot T12 Recessed Double Contact High Output

New Ballast Systems (Roll­up Scenario)

Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Candidate Standard Levels

CSL5

2042

% %

­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­

­ ­

­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­

­ ­

­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­

­ ­

0 0

2012

CSL4

2042

% %

­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­

­ ­

­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­

­ ­

­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­

­ ­

0 0

2012

CSL3

2042

% %

­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­

24 30

2 4

­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­

6 14

2 4

­ ­­ ­­ ­­ ­

57 33

9 15

100 100

2012

CSL2

2042

% %

­ ­­ ­­ ­

18 12

4 9

2 4

­ ­­ ­­ ­

2 94 8

2 4

­ ­­ ­­ ­

48 2311 16

9 15

100 100

2012

CSL1

2042

% %

­ ­­ ­

7 8

18 12

4 9

2 4

­ ­­ ­

7 92 94 8

2 4

­ ­­ ­

7 8

41 15

4 8

2 6

100 100

2012

Base Case

2042

% %

13 3

5 27 83 64 9

2 4

13 3

5 27 92 94 8

2 4

13 3

5 27 82 64 8

2 6

100 100

2012

dellatsnI

ecirPpmaL

$

9.786.88

15.56

9.94

16.10

16.41

9.786.88

15.56

9.94

16.10

16.41

9.786.88

15.56

9.94

16.10

16.41

Total

metsyS

tupnI

rewoP

W

205.4177.0205.4177.0177.0

177.0

208.4181.3208.4181.3181.3

181.3

211.5185.6211.5185.6185.6

185.6

metsyS

snemuL

lm

14,33512,23215,22013,22613,640

13,464

14,49812,37115,39313,37713,617

13,795

14,66112,51015,56613,52713,770

13,950

pmaL

egattaW

W

113

97

113

9797

97

113

97

113

9797

97

113

97

113

9797

97

pmaL

ycaciffE

lm/W

80.182.583.286.187.6

88.9

80.182.583.286.187.6

88.9

80.182.583.286.187.6

88.9

LSC

00123

3

00123

3

00123

3

88.098.009.0

rotcaFtsallaBcinortcelE

9­41
Table 9.4.17 Standards­Case Market­Share Matrix for Eight­Foot T8 Recessed Double

Contact High Output New Ballast Systems (Shift Scenario)

Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Candidate Standard Levels

C

S

L

Lam

p

Efficacy

Lam

p

Wattage

S

ystem

L

u

mens

S

ystem

In

p

ut

Power Installed

Lam

p

Price

Base Case

C

S

L1

C

S

L2

C

S

L3

C

S

L4

C

S

L5

lm/W W lm W $ % % % % % %

Electronic

Ballast

Factor

0.88

3

4

5

91.9

93.0

95.3

86

86

86

12,496

12,672

13,728

160

160

160

9.92

10.08

11.53

7

30

30

7

30

30

7

30

30

7

30

30

­

7

0

­

­

0

0.89

3

4

5

91.9

93.0

95.3

86

86

86

11,502

11,664

12,636

151

151

151

9.92

10.08

11.53

3

15

15

3

15

15

3

15

15

3

15

15

­

18

75

­

­

100

Total 100 100 100 100 0 0

Table 9.4.18 Standards­Case Market­Share Matrix for Eight­Foot T8 Recessed Double

Contact High Output New Ballast Systems (Roll­up Scenario)

Mix of New Systems Purchased after 2011 at Various Candidate Standard Levels

C

S

L

Lam

p

Efficacy

Lam

p

Wattage

S

ystem

L

u

mens

S

ystem

In

p

ut Power

Installed

Lamp

Price

Base Case

C

S

L1

C

S

L2

C

S

L3

C

S

L4

C

S

L5

lm/W W lm W $ % % % % % %

Electronic

Ballast

Factor

0.88

3

4

5

91.9

93.0

95.3

86

86

86

12,496

12,672

13,728

160

160

160

9.92

10.08

11.53

7

30

30

7

30

30

7

30

30

7

30

30

­

37

30

­

­

30

0.89

3

4

5

91.9

93.0

95.3

86

86

86

11,502

11,664

12,636

151

151

151

9.92

10.08

11.53

3

15

15

3

15

15

3

15

15

3

15

15

­

18

15

­

­

70

Total 100 100 100 100 0 0

9.4.1.3 Early Retirement of Ballasts in the Standards Cases

The commercial GSFL shipments model incorporates early retirement (or retrofit) of 4­

foot T12 medium bipin and 8­foot T12 single pin slimline ballast systems in the standards case.

As historical shipments indicate, in the base case, as magnetic T12 ballasts reach their end of

9­42
life, these systems are replaced by their electronic T8 counterpart systems. In the standards

cases, DOE assumes that when consumers who own T12 magnetic ballasts are forced to

purchase more expensive standards­compliant lamps, some consumers may instead discard their

magnetic ballast before its natural end of life to purchase a more cost­effective T8 electronic

system. As the standard level and lamp price increase, this rate of early ballast retirement is

expected to increase as well. Table 9.4.19 summarizes DOE’s assumptions about early ballast

retirements in the standards cases for 4­foot T12 medium bipin and 8­foot T12 single pin

slimline ballasts. Percentage annual retrofit rates represent the percentage of remaining T12

installed ballast stock that is retrofitted each year. Figure 9.4.1 depicts how shipments of 4­foot

T12 lamps change in response to retrofit rates, at CSL1.

Table 9.4.19 Early Retirement of Four­Foot T12 Medium Bipin and Eight­Foot Single Pin

Slimline Ballasts in the Standards Cases

Candidate Standard

Level

Rate of Early Retirement

(% of remaining initial ballast stock retired early per year)

1 10

2 20

3 30

4* 40

5* 50

* In addition to voluntary early retirement, T12 ballasts are automatically retrofitted at the end of lamp life because

no T12 lamps are standards­compliant

9­43
0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

S

hip

m

e

nts (billio

n

s)

0% Retrofit Rate

10% Retrofit Rate

20% Retrofit Rate

30% Retrofit Rate

40% Retrofit Rate

50% Retrofit Rate

2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 2021 2023 2025

Year

Figure 9.4.1 Retrofit Rate Effect on Four­Foot T12 Shipments at CSL 1

9.4.2 Incandescent Reflector Lamps

9.4.2.1 Shipments Scenarios

DOE created one main shipment scenario and two sensitivity scenarios to characterize

how IRL consumers will react to standards in the commercial and residential sectors. For all

three standards­case scenarios in these sectors, DOE assumes that consumers whose base­case

lamp purchase has an efficacy lower than that of the standard would roll up to the least

efficacious lamp design available. However, any IRL consumer whose base­case lamp purchase

meets the efficacy standard remains unaffected. In the main shipment scenario, DOE makes two

assumptions: 1) consumers who purchase covered IRL technology in the base case continue to

purchase covered IRL technology in the standards case (i.e. the total number of installed covered

IRL in the base case is the same as that in the standards case throughout the analysis period), and

2) in the standards case, consumers purchase higher efficacy lamp designs with equivalent lumen

output as their base case lamps.

In addition to modeling one main scenario for IRL shipments, DOE created two

sensitivity scenarios in the IRL shipments analysis. In one sensitivity scenario, termed “65 Watt

BR lamp substitution,” in the standards case DOE models a migration away from covered IRL

toward exempted 65 Watt BR 30 and 65 Watt BR 40 lamps. As discussed earlier, EISA 2007

9­44
extended energy conservation standards coverage to certain ER and BR while leaving others

exempted. DOE believes that as the efficacy standard on IRL increases, some consumers who

would normally purchase a covered IRL may instead choose to purchase higher wattage, lower

first cost, exempted 65 Watt BR lamp. Though these exempted lamps do not fall under the scope

of this rulemaking, DOE includes a sensitivity scenario incorporating this effect as it affects NES

and NPV results.

In the second sensitivity scenario, called the “10­percent lumen increase” sensitivity

scenario, DOE assumes that a portion of residential consumers of IRL will buy a more

efficacious lamp at the same wattage as in the base case. This incorporation of non­energysaving lamp designs results in an overall higher lumen output per IRL in the residential sector.

To quantify the percentage of consumers that purchase same­wattage lamp designs, DOE

assumes that the average initial lumen output of IRL of the standards cases is 10 percent higher

than that of the base case. DOE does not model this sensitivity scenario in the commercial

sector.

Shipment results for the 65 Watt BR lamp substitution and 10 percent lumen increase

sensitivity scenarios are presented in Appendix 9A of this TSD. In addition to modeling these

three scenarios, DOE’s shipment spreadsheet also allows for the user to generate custom inputs

into the base­case and standards­case market­share matrices. In addition to making available all

lamp designs discussed above (both reduced­wattage and same­wattage lamp designs), the

spreadsheet is also capable of modeling an increased shift toward reflector CFL in the standards

case.

9.4.2.2 Standards­Case Market­Share Matrices

Similar to the base case, DOE is constructing market­share matrices to characterize lamp

shipments in the standards case. These market­share matrices provide the same lamp designs as

the base­case market­share matrices. However, in the standards­case, some lamp designs are not

standards­compliant and therefore precluded from being shipped beginning in 2012. In the

standards case, standards compliant lamps do not occupy all IRL sockets until the lamps

purchased before 2012 fail. For example, the longest­lived residential IRL in the base case has a

service life of 3.4 years. Therefore, standards­compliant lamps will not occupy all IRL sockets

until about 2015. For this reason, the residential standards­case market­share matrix,

representing the percentage of sockets occupied by specific IRL, is given in 2015 and 2042.

Because the longest­lived commercial IRL in the base case has a service life of 1.2 years, the

commercial standards­case market­share matrix is given in 2013 and 2042. Table 9.4.20

describes the inputs to the base­case and standards­case IRL market­share matrices for the

commercial and residential sectors.

Table 9.4.21 displays the commercial standards­case market­share matrix for the main

shipment scenario analyzed. As discussed earlier, in the base case, the commercial IRL market

is composed entirely of halogen and HIR lamps. At CSL1 halogen IRL are no longer standard

compliant and consumers purchasing halogen type IRL purchase improved halogen technology.

Consumers who in the base case purchase HIR IRL continue purchasing the same lamps. At

CSL2 only HIR and improved HIR lamps can be sold, and at CSL3 only improves HIR lamps

9­45
are standards compliant. At these CSLs, consumers purchase the least costly standards­compliant

lamp.

Table 9.4.22 displays the residential standards­case market­share matrix in the main

shipment scenario. As discussed earlier in the base case, DOE assumes that the entire residential

market purchases halogen IRL. At all CSLs, consumers choose the least costly standardscompliant lamp. Specifically, at CSL1 the entire residential market is composed of improved

halogen IRL. At CSL2, the residential market shifts toward HIR technology. At CSL4, the

residential IRL market is composed of improved HIR lamps.

Table 9.4.20 Description of Base­Case and Standards­Case IRL Market­Share Matrices

Case Input Description

Base *Technology mix of lamp designs in the lamp stock in

2011 and 2042

Standards * Technology mix of lamp designs in the lamp stock in

2013 (commercial) or 2015 (residential) and 2042. All

lamps are standards­compliant.

* Note: Because CFL penetration into the lamp stock is changing over the analysis period, lamp purchases for lamp

replacement purposes are not necessarily the same as the retiring lamp.

9­46
Table 9.4.21 Standards­Case Market­Share Matrix for Commercial IRL Sockets (Main

Shipment Scenario)

Candidate

Standard

Level Lamp Design

Price with

Sales Tax

Stock in

2011*

Stock in

2013**

Stock in

2042

$ % % %

90W, 14.6 lm/W, 2,500 hrs, Halogen 6.16 33 21

75W, 14.0 lm/W, 2,500 hrs, Halogen 6.16 26 16

Base Case

50W, 11.6 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Halogen 5.56 22 14

70W, 18.0 lm/W, 3,000 hrs, HIR 7.73 8 21

60W, 17.5 lm/W, 3,000 hrs, HIR 7.73 6 16

41.3W, 15 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 7.12 5 14

Total 100 100

79W, 16.6 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved

Halogen 7.55 32 21

66W, 15.9 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved

Halogen 7.55 25 16

CSL1 44.3W, 14 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved

Halogen 6.95 21 14

70W, 18 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 7.73 9 21

60W, 17.5 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 7.73 7 16

41.3W, 15 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 7.12 6 14

Total 100 100

70W, 18 lm/W, 3,000 hrs, HIR 7.73 41 41

CSL2 60W, 17.5 lm/W, 3,000 hrs, HIR 7.73 32 32

41.3W, 15 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 7.12 27 27

Total

66W, 19.8 lm/W, 4,000 hrs, Improved HIR 9.05 41 41

CSL3 55W, 19.1 lm/W, 4,000 hrs, Improved HIR 9.05 32 32

40W, 17 lm/W, 4,000 hrs, Improved HIR 8.44 27 27

Total 100 100

*Base­case input only.

**Standards­case input only.

9­47
Table 9.4.22 Standards­Case Market­Share Matrix for Residential IRL Sockets

(Main Shipment Scenario)

Candidate

Standard

Level Lamp Design

Price with

Sales Tax

Stock in

2011*

Stock in

2015**

Stock in

2042

$ % % %

90W, 14.6 lm/W, 2,500 hrs, Halogen 5.13 41 41

Base Case 75W, 14.0 lm/W, 2,500 hrs, Halogen 5.13 32 32

50W, 11.6 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Halogen 4.52 27 27

Total 100 100

79W, 16.6 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved

Halogen 6.52 41 41

CSL1 66W, 15.9 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved

Halogen 6.52 32 32

44.3W, 14 lm/W, 3000 hrs, Improved

Halogen 5.91 27 27

Total 100 100

70W, 18 lm/W, 3,000 hrs, HIR 6.70 41 41

CSL2 60W, 17.5 lm/W, 3,000 hrs, HIR 6.70 32 32

41.3W, 15 lm/W, 3000 hrs, HIR 6.09 27 27

Total

66W, 19.8 lm/W, 4,000 hrs, Improved HIR 8.01 41 41

CSL3 55W, 19.1 lm/W, 4,000 hrs, Improved HIR 8.01 32 32

40W, 17 lm/W, 4,000 hrs, Improved HIR 7.41 27 27

Total 100 100

*Base­case input only.

**Standards­case input only.

9.5 RESULTS

The following sections show the shipments forecasts for the various CSLs for GSFL and

IRL.

9.5.1 General Service Fluorescent Lamps

9.5.1.1 Shipments Forecasts: Base and Standards Cases

Figure 9.5.1 through Figure 9.5.5 present the shipments forecasts for the base case and

standards cases for 4­foot medium bipin, 8­foot single pin slimline, and 8­foot recessed double

contact HO lamps in both the shift and roll­up scenarios.

Quantities of lamp shipments depend on the occurrence of the lamp purchasing events,

lamp failure, ballast failure, ballast retrofit, and new construction. As discussed earlier, instead

of using each particular lamp design’s individual lifetime to time lamp replacements, DOE uses a

representative lifetime for each analyzed lamp type. For this reason, the rate of lamp

9­48
replacement does not change between the shift and roll­up standards­case scenarios. In addition,

since ballast lifetime does not change, the rate of ballast failure is also the same in both

scenarios. Since the ballast retrofit rate is an input external to the market­share matrices, the rate

of occurrence of ballast retrofits are the same for both scenarios. Using the shift or roll­up

scenarios does affect the average lumen output of the lamp­and­ballast systems shipped, and

therefore the quantities of systems shipped due to new construction. However, new construction

is a fairly small market segment of lamp shipments. Therefore, though presented separately in

the following tables, the shift and roll­up standards­case scenarios result in similar quantities of

shipments for all GSFL lamp types.

As seen in Figure 9.5.1 and Figure 9.5.2 the standards­case forecasts of 4­foot medium

bipin lamps experience similar trends as the base case, though at modified rates. In both the base

case and standards case, the shipments forecast depicts a phase­out, and therefore decrease in

shipments, of 4­foot T12 medium bipin lamps. This trend is matched by a corresponding

increase in shipments of 4­foot T8 medium bipin lamps due to the T12 replacements and also

growth in lumen demand in the commercial sector. In addition, these T8 shipments increase due

to the replacement of 90 percent of 8­foot T12 single pin slimline system with 4­foot T8 medium

bipin systems. With increasing CSL, the early retrofit rates of 4­foot T12 medium bipin systems

increase. Because 4­foot T12 medium bipin and 8­foot T12 single pin slimline lamps are no

longer standards­compliant at CSL4 and CSL5, these systems are automatically retrofitted upon

lamp failure. Both these voluntary retrofits and standard­induced retrofits increase shipments of

4­foot T8 medium bipin, especially in the first few years after the effective date of the standard.

These increased shipments are echoed throughout the analysis period as this large number of

shipped lamps retires simultaneously every 6 years.

9­49
Figure 9.5.1 Four­Foot Medium Bipin Base­Case and Standards­Case Shipments

Forecasts (Shift Scenario)* * These forecasts assume that 8­foot single pin slimline lamps are in the base case.

1.2

1.4

Base Case 4­foot T8 MBP

CSL1 4­foot T8 MBP

CSL2 4­foot T8 MBP

CSL3 4­foot T8 MBP

CSL4 4­foot T8 MBP

CSL5 4­foot T8 MBP

Base Case 4­foot T12 MBP

CSL1 4­foot T12 MBP

CSL2 4­foot T12 MBP

CSL3 4­foot T12 MBP

CSL4 4­foot T12 MBP

CSL5 4­foot T12 MBP

1.0

0.8

S

hip

m

e

nts (billio

n

s) 0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Year

2035 2040 2045

9­50
1.2

1.4

Base Case 4­foot T8 MBP

CSL1 4­foot T8 MBP

CSL2 4­foot T8 MBP

CSL3 4­foot T8 MBP

CSL4 4­foot T8 MBP

CSL5 4­foot T8 MBP

Base Case 4­foot T12 MBP

CSL1 4­foot T12 MBP

CSL2 4­foot T12 MBP

CSL3 4­foot T12 MBP

CSL4 4­foot T12 MBP

CSL5 4­foot T12 MBP

1.0

S

hip

m

e

nts (billio

n

s) 0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

Year

2035 2040 2045

Figure 9.5.2 Four­Foot Medium Bipin Base­Case and Standards­Case Shipments

Forecasts (Roll­Up Scenario) * These forecasts assume that 8­foot single pin slimline lamps are in the base case.

As seen in Figure 9.5.3 and Figure 9.5.4, the standards­case forecasts of 8­foot single pin

slimline lamps experience similar trends as the base case, though at modified rates. In both the

base case and standards case, the shipment forecast depicts a phase­out, and therefore decrease in

shipments, of 8­foot T12 single pin slimline lamps. This trend is matched by a corresponding

increase in shipments of 8­foot T8 single pin slimline lamps due to the replacement of 10 percent

of 8­foot T12 single pin slimline system with 8­foot T8 single pin slimline systems. With

increasing CSL, the early retrofit rates of 8­foot T12 single pin slimline systems increase.

Because 8­foot T12 single pin slimline lamps are no longer standards­compliant at CSL4 and

CSL5, these systems are automatically retrofitted upon lamp failure. Both these voluntary

retrofits and standard­induced retrofits increase shipments of 8­foot T8 single pin slimline,

especially in the first few years after the effective date of the standard. These increased

shipments are echoed throughout the analysis period as this large number of shipped lamps

retires simultaneously every 4 years.

9­51
Figure 9.5.3 Eight­Foot Single Pin Slimline Base­Case and Standards­Case Shipments

Forecasts (Shift Scenario)

0.018 Base Case 8­foot T8 SP Base Case 8­foot T12 SP

CSL1 8­foot T8 SP CSL1 8­foot T12 SP

0.016 CSL2 8­foot T8 SP CSL2 8­foot T12 SP

CSL3 8­foot T8 SP CSL3 8­foot T12 SP

CSL4 8­foot T8 SP CSL4 8­foot T12 SP

0.014 CSL5 8­foot T8 MBP CSL5 8­foot T12 SP

0.012

S

hip

m

e

nts (billio

n

s) 0.010

0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002

0.000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

Year

9­52
0.018 Base Case 8­foot T8 SP Base Case 8­foot T12 SP

CSL1 8­foot T8 SP CSL1 8­foot T12 SP

0.016 CSL2 8­foot T8 SP CSL2 8­foot T12 SP

CSL3 8­foot T8 SP CSL3 8­foot T12 SP

0.014 CSL4 8­foot T8 SP

CSL5 8­foot T8 MBP

CSL4 8­foot T12 SP

CSL5 8­foot T12 SP

0.012

0.010

S

hip

m

e

nts (billio

n

s) 0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002

0.000

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

Year

Figure 9.5.4 Eight­Foot Single Pin Slimline Base­Case and Standards­Case Shipments

Forecasts (Roll­up Scenario)

As seen in Figure 9.5.5, the standards­case shipment forecasts of 8­foot recessed double

contact HO lamps are identical to the base case at CSL1, CSL2, and CSL3. The only difference

between the base case and these standards levels is that higher efficacy lamps are being shipped

in the standards cases. However, because 8­foot T12 recessed double contact HO lamps are no

longer standards­compliant at CSL4 and CSL5, these systems are automatically retrofitted upon

lamp failure to 8­foot T8 recessed double contact HO systems. These ballast retrofits and lamp

replacements are a one­to­one replacement, resulting in the same quantity of T8 shipments in the

standards case as T12 shipments in the base case.

9­53
0.000

0.005

0.010

0.015

0.020

0.025

0.030

0.035

S

hip

m

e

nts (billio

n

s)

Base Case 8­foot T12 HO Base Case 8­foot T8 HO

CSL1 8­foot T12 HO CSL1 8­foot T8 HO

CSL2 8­foot T12 HO CSL2 8­foot T8 HO

CSL3 8­foot T12 HO CSL3 8­foot T8 HO

CSL4 8­foot T12 HO CSL4 8­foot T8 HO

CSL5 8­foot T12 HO CSL5 8­foot T8 HO

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

Year

Figure 9.5.5 Eight­Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output Base­Case and StandardsCase Shipments Forecasts (Shift and Roll­up Scenarios)

9.5.1.2 Cumulative Shipments Impacts (2012 – 2042)

Table 9.5.1 through Table 9.5.4 show the cumulative shipments impacts from 2012 to

2042 caused by each of the five standards cases considered for 4­foot medium bipin, 8­foot

single pin slimline, and 8­foot recessed double contact HO lamps in the shift and roll­up

scenarios. As discussed earlier, quantities of lamp shipments in the standards case are based on

lamp replacement rates, ballast replacement rates, shipments due to new construction, and ballast

retrofit rates. However, because all lamps within a particular product class are assumed to have

the same lifetime, lamp replacement rates in the base case and standards case are equivalent. In

addition, because the ballast lifetime never varies from 15 years, ballast replacement rates are

equivalent in the base case and standards case. The only aspects that do vary are the shipments

due to new construction (because average lumen outputs per system vary) and ballast retrofit

rates (for 4­foot medium bipin and 8­foot single pin slimline systems).

Table 9.5.1 and Table 9.5.2 show that as ballast retrofit rates increase with standard

levels, 4­foot medium bipin cumulative lamp shipments generally increase as well. With higher

retrofit rates, consumers are discarding their existing, working lamps and therefore must make

more total lamp purchases. However, the average lumen output per system affects these

cumulative shipments as well. For example, as seen in Table 9.5.2, a high average lumen output

9­54
per lamp system at CSL4 results in fewer shipments due to new construction, and therefore fewer

cumulative shipments.

Table 9.5.1 Four­Foot Medium Bipin Lamp: Cumulative Shipments Impacts Caused by

Standards, 2012–2042 (Shift Scenario)

Candidate Standard Level Cumulative Impacts (millions of lamps)

1 39.9

2 76.8

3 386.7

4 236.2

5 228.9

Table 9.5.2 Four­Foot Medium Bipin Lamp: Cumulative Shipments Impacts Caused by

Standards, 2012–2042 (Roll­up Scenario)

Candidate Standard Level Cumulative Impacts (millions of lamps)

1 39.9

2 76.8

3 176.2

4 ­24.6

5 134.1

Because there is no assumed 8­foot single pin slimline and 8­foot recessed double contact

HO markets due to new construction, cumulative shipment impacts do not vary when changing

the technology mix of shipments. Table 9.5.3 and Table 9.5.4 present cumulative shipments

impacts for both the shift and roll­up scenarios. As seen in Table 9.5.3, cumulative impacts

decrease with increasing standard levels because of the large number of 8­foot single pin slimline

systems that experience an early turnover to 4­foot medium bipin systems. Table 9.5.4 shows no

cumulative shipment impacts for 8­foot recessed double contact HO lamps because the shipment

model for the industrial sector does not incorporate retrofits.

Table 9.5.3 Eight­Foot Single Pin Slimline: Cumulative Shipments Impacts Caused by

Standards, 2012–2042 (Shift and Roll­up Scenarios)

Candidate Standard Level Cumulative Impacts (millions of lamps)

1 ­21.0

2 ­34.9

3 ­44.5

4 ­70.4

5 ­70.3

9­55
Table 9.5.4 Eight­Foot Recessed Double Contact High Output: Cumulative Shipments

Impacts Caused by Standards, 2012–2042 (Shift and Roll­up Scenarios)

Candidate Standard Level Cumulative Impacts (millions of lamps)

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

9.5.2 Incandescent Reflector Lamps

This section presents shipment results for the IRL main shipment scenario. The results

for the 65 Watt BR lamp substitution and the10­percent lumen increase sensitivity scenarios are

presented in Appendix 10B.

9.5.2.1 Shipments Forecasts: Base and Standards Cases

Figure 9.5.6 and Figure 9.5.7 present the shipments forecasts for the base case and

standards cases for commercial and residential IRLs in the main shipment scenario.

Figure 9.5.6 displays the commercial IRL base­case and standards­case shipment

forecasts. At CSL1, consumers who in the base case purchase halogen IRL (some of which are

2,500 hours), instead purchase improved halogen IRL (with a lifetime of 3,000 hours) in the

standards case. Similarly, at CSL2 all consumers purchase HIR IRL with a lifetime of 3,000

hours. Because the lifetimes of the CSL1 and CSL2 lamp designs are longer than that of the

base case lamps, lamp replacements occur less frequently, thereby causing a reduction in

shipments. The longer lifetimes (4,000 hours) of improved halogen lamps designs at CSL3

cause an even further reduction in IRL shipments.

9­56
0.12

S

hip

m

e

nts (billio

ns)

0.10

0.08

0.06

0.04

Base­Case Forecast

CSL1 0.02

CSL2

CSL3

0.00

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

Year

Figure 9.5.6 Commercial IRL Base­Case and Standards­Case Shipment Forecasts (Main

Shipment Scenario)

Figure 9.5.7 displays the residential IRL base­case and standards­case shipments in the

main shipment scenario. Similar to the commercial sector shipments, average shipments in the

standards cases are lower than the base case shipments due to the integration of longer lifetime

lamp designs. As seen in the figure, in the residential sector, shipments exhibit oscillatory

behavior in the standards case. These oscillations are primarily due to the shifting from lamp

designs in the base case to standards­case lamp designs with significantly longer service

lifetimes. For example, IRL shipments at CSL1 oscillate because of the shift from lamps whose

service life is 2.8 years to lamps whose service life is 3.4 years. As these 2.8 year lifetime lamps

purchased before 2011 fail, consumers will purchase longer­lived lamps that do not need to be

replaced for another 3.4 years. Therefore, standards­case shipments drop in 2014, when basecase consumers would replace lamps whose service life is 2.8 years. Standards­case shipments

rise again in 2016, approximately 3.4 years after the majority of lamps purchased before 2011

fail. These oscillations in shipments continue for the entire 30­year analysis period. Oscillations

do not appear in the commercial shipment forecasts because lower operating hours do not result

in as large of a spread in service lifetimes. For example, halogen lamps (90W and 75W)

operating in the commercial sector have a lifetime of 0.7 years, while halogen improved lamps

operating in the commercial sector have a lifetime of 0.9 years.

9­57
0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

S

hip

m

e

nts (billio

ns)

Base­Case Forecast

CSL1

CSL2

CSL3

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045

Year

Figure 9.5.7 Residential IRL Base­Case and Standards­Case Shipments Forecasts (Main

Shipment Scenario)

9.5.2.2 Cumulative Shipments Impacts (2012–2042)

Table 9.5.5 and Table 9.5.6 present cumulative shipment impacts for commercial and

residential IRL in the main shipment scenario. Shipment impacts are associated with the

increased lifetime of standards­case lamps. Because the service life generally increases with

each CSL, cumulative impacts become more negative.

Table 9.5.5 Commercial Incandescent Reflector Lamps: Cumulative Shipments Impacts

Caused by Standards, 2012–2042 (Main Shipment Scenario)

Candidate Standard Level IRL Cumulative Impacts (billions of lamps)

1 ­0.244

2 ­0.244

3 ­0.879

9­58
Table 9.5.6 Residential Incandescent Reflector Lamps: Cumulative Shipments Impacts

Caused by Standards, 2012–2042 (Main Shipment Scenario)

Candidate Standard Level IRL Cumulative Impacts (billions of lamps)

1 ­0.340

2 ­0.340

3 ­0.920

9­59
REFERENCES

1 National Electrical Manufacturers Association. 2006. No. 12 at p. 7. This written comment,

document number 12, is available in Docket # EE–2006–STD–0131. For more information,

contact Brenda Edwards­Jones at (202) 586­2945.

2 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. Commercial Building Energy

Consumption Survey: Table A1: Summary Table for All Buildings (Including Malls). 2003.

Washington, D.C.

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/detailed_tables_2003/2003set1/2003excel/a1.xl

s>

3 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 1999 Commercial Building

Energy Consumption Survey: Table B1: Summary Table: Totals and Means of Floorspace,

Number of Workers, and Hours of Operation. 1999. Washington, D.C.

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/excel/b1.xls>

4 Ibid.

5 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 2001 Residential Building

Energy Consumption Survey: Table CE1­5.2u: Total Energy Consumption and Expenditures by

Square Feet and Household Demographics, 2001. 2001 Washington, D.C.

<http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/ce_pdf/enduse/ce1­52u_sqft_demo2001.pdf>.

U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration. 1997 Residential Building

Energy Consumption Survey: Table CE1­1c: Total Energy Consumption in U.S. Households by

Climate Zone, 1997. 1997. Washington, D.C.

<ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/consumption/residential/ce_tables/enduse_consump.pdf>.

6 U.S. Census Bureau. Current Industrial Reports, Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts: 2005: Table 1.

Summary of Shipments of Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts: 1995 to 2005. 2006. Washington, D.C.

<http://www.census.gov/industry/1/mq335c055.pdf>.

7 U.S. Census Bureau. Current Industrial Reports, Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts: 2005: Table 1.

Summary of Shipments of Fluorescent Lamp Ballasts: 1992 to 2002. 2003. Washington, D.C.

<http://www.census.gov/industry/1/mq335c025.pdf>.

8 This written comment, document number 17, was submitted in response to the Energy

Conservation Program for Commercial and Industrial Equipment: High­Intensity Discharge

(HID) Lamps and is available in Docket # EE–DET­03­001.

9 New York State Energy Research and Development Authority. Incandescent Reflector Lamps

Study of Proposed Energy Efficiency Standards for New York State. 2006 (Last accessed

October 7, 2006) <http://www.nyserda.org/publications/Report%2006­07­Complete%20report9­60
web.pdf> The October 7, 2006 material from this website is available in Docket # EE–2006–

STD–0131. For more information, contact Brenda Edwards­Jones at (202) 586­2945.

9­61