5-i 

### CHAPTER 5. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

5.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 5 -1

5.2 METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW .................................................................................... 5 -1

5.3 GENERAL SERVICE FLUORESCENT LAMPS .......................................................... 5 -2

5.3.1 Representative Product Classes ........................................................................... 5 -2

5.3.2 Baseline Lamps .................................................................................................... 5 -3

5.3.3 More Efficacious Substitutes ............................................................................... 5 -4

5.3.4 Candidate Standard Levels .................................................................................. 5 -4

5.3.5 GSFL Systems ..................................................................................................... 5 -5

5.3.5.1 Ballast Selection .................................................................................... 5 -6

5.3.5.2 System Input Power Calculation ........................................................... 5 -9

5.3.6 Engineering Results by Representative Product Classes ................................... 5 -11

5.3.6.1 Four-Foot MBP GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K ................................... 5 -11

5.3.6.2 Eight-Foot SP Slimline GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K ........................ 5 -22

5.3.6.3 Eight-Foot RDC HO GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K ............................ 5 -28

5.3.6.4 Four-Foot T5 MiniBP SO GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K.................... 5 -33

5.3.6.5 Four-Foot T5 MiniBP HO GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K ................... 5 -39

5.3.7 Scaling to Product Classes Not Analyzed .......................................................... 5 -45

5.3.7.1 2-foot U-Shaped GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K .................................. 5 -45

5.3.7.2 Lamps with CCTs Above 4,500 K ...................................................... 5 -45

5.3.8 Summary of All Candidate Standard Levels for Covered GSFLs ..................... 5 -46

5.4 INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS ................................................................... 5 -47

5.4.1 Representative Product Classes ......................................................................... 5 -47

5.4.2 Baseline Lamps .................................................................................................. 5 -47

5.4.3 More Efficacious Substitutes ............................................................................. 5 -48

5.4.4 Candidate Standard Levels ................................................................................ 5 -48

5.4.5 Scaling to Product Classes Not Analyzed .......................................................... 5 -52

5.4.5.1 Modified Spectrum .............................................................................. 5 -52

5.4.5.2 Diameters Less Than or Equal To 2.5 Inches ..................................... 5 -53

5.4.5.3 Operating Voltages Greater Than or Equal to 125 Volts .................... 5 -54

5.4.6 Summary of All Candidate Standard Levels for Covered IRLs ........................ 5 -55

REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 5 -56

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 5.3.1 Candidate Standard Levels for 4-foot MBP GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K .......... 5 -13 Figure 5.3.2 All Compliance Report Data for 4-foot MBP GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K ....... 5 -14 Figure 5.3.3 Candidate Standard Level for 8-foot SP Slimline GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K . 5 -23 Figure 5.3.4 All Compliance Report Data for 8-foot SP Slimline GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K . 5

- 25 Figure 5.3.5 Candidate Standard Level for 8-foot RDC HO GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K ..... 5 -295- ii



### Figure 5.3.6 All Compliance Report Data for 8-foot RDC HO GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K . 5 -30 Figure 5.3.7 Candidate Standard Level for 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K,

a t 35 °C ...................................................................................................................................... 5 -35 Figure 5.3.8 All Compliance Report Data for 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K, at 25 °C ................................................................................................................................. 5 -36 Figure 5.3.9 Candidate Standard Level for 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K,

at 35 °C ...................................................................................................................................... 5 -41 Figure 5.3.10 All Compliance Report Data for 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K, at 25 °C ................................................................................................................................. 5 -42 Figure 5.4.1 Initial Candidate Standard Level for Standard Spectrum, Large Diameter, Low Voltage IRLs .............................................................................................................................. 5-50 Figure 5.4.2 Compliance Report Data for Standard Spectrum, Large Diameter, Low Voltage

IRLs............................................................................................................................................ 5 -51

LIST OF TABLES

Table 5.3.1 Representative Product Classes for General Service Fluorescent Lamps ................ 5 -3 Table 5.3.2 GSFL Baseline Lamps .............................................................................................. 5-4 Table 5.3.3 Representative Lamp-and-Ballast System Pairings .................................................. 5 -8 Table 5.3.4 High Frequency Reference Lamp Arc Powers ......................................................... 5-9 Table 5.3.5 Baseline Lamp for the 4-foot MBP Representative Product Class ......................... 5-12 Table 5.3.6 4-foot MBP Representative Lamps ......................................................................... 5 -13 Table 5.3.7 CSL 1 and CSL 2 for 4-foot MBP GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K .......................... 5-15 Table 5.3.8 Lamp Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Two-Lamp Instant Start 32 W T8, 4,100 K System in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors ....................................................... 5-16 Table 5.3.9 Lamp Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Two-Lamp Programmed Start 32 W T8, 4,100 K System in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors ................................................. 5 -17 Table 5.3.10 Lamp Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Four-Lamp Instant Start 32 W T8, 4,100 K System in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors ....................................................... 5-17 Table 5.3.11 Lamp Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Four-Lamp Programmed Start 32 W T8, 4,100 K System in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors ................................................. 5 -17 Table 5.3.12 Lamp Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Two-Lamp Instant Start 32 W T8, 4,100 K System in the Residential Sector .................................................................................. 5 -18 Table 5.3.13 Lamp-and-Ballast Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Two-Lamp Instant Start

32 W T8, 4,100 K System in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors ....................................... 5 -19 Table 5.3.14 Lamp-and-Ballast Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Two-Lamp

P rogrammed Start 32 W T8, 4,100 K System in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors ......... 5 -19 Table 5.3.15 Lamp-and-Ballast Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Four-Lamp Instant Start

32 W T8, 4,100 K System in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors ....................................... 5 -20 Table 5.3.16 Lamp-and-Ballast Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Four-Lamp

P rogrammed Start 32 W T8, 4,100 K System in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors ......... 5 -20 Table 5.3.17 Lamp-and-Ballast Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Two-Lamp Instant Start

32 W T8, 4,100 K System in the Residential Sector ................................................................. 5 -21 Table 5.3.18 Baseline Lamp for the 8-foot SP Slimline Representative Product Class ............ 5 -22 Table 5.3.19 8-foot SP Slimline Representative Lamps ............................................................ 5-24 Table 5.3.20 CSL 1 for 8-foot SP Slimline GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K ................................ 5-255- iii



### Table 5.3.21 Lamp Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Two-Lamp Instant Start 59 W T8, 4,100 K System in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors ....................................................... 5-26 Table 5.3.22 Lamp-and-Ballast Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Two-Lamp Instant Start

59 W T8, 4,100 K System in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors ....................................... 5 -27 Table 5.3.23 Baseline Lamp for the 8-foot RDC HO Representative Product Class ................ 5 -28 Table 5.3.24 8-foot RDC HO Representative Lamps ................................................................ 5-29 Table 5.3.25 CSL 1 for 8-foot RDC HO GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K .................................... 5 -30 Table 5.3.26 Lamp Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Two-Lamp Instant Start 86 W T8, 4,100 K System in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors ....................................................... 5-31 Table 5.3.27 Lamp-and-Ballast Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Two-Lamp Instant Start

86 W T8, 4,100 K System in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors ....................................... 5 -32 Table 5.3.28 Baseline Lamp for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP Standard Output Representative Product

C lass ........................................................................................................................................... 5 -33 Table 5.3.29 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO Representative Lamps ....................................................... 5-35 Table 5.3.30 CSL 1 for 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K........................... 5-36 Table 5.3.31 Lamp Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Two-Lamp Programmed Start 28 W T5, 4,100 K System in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors ................................................. 5 -37 Table 5.3.32 Lamp-and-Ballast Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Two-Lamp

P rogrammed Start 28 W T5, 4,100 K System in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors ......... 5 -38 Table 5.3.33 Baseline Lamp for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP High Output Representative Product Class

................................ .................................................................................................................... 5 -39 Table 5.3.34 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO Representative Lamps ...................................................... 5 -41 Table 5.3.35 CSL 1 for 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K .......................... 5-42 Table 5.3.36 Lamp Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Two-Lamp Programmed Start 54 W T5, 4,100 K System in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors ................................................. 5 -43 Table 5.3.37 Lamp-and-Ballast Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Two-Lamp

P rogrammed Start 54 W T5, 4,100 K System in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors ......... 5 -44 Table 5.3.38 Efficacy Requirements for 2-foot U-Shaped Lamps with CCTs Less Than or Equal To 4,500 K ................................................................................................................................. 5 -45 Table 5.3.39 Efficacy Requirements for Product Classes with CCTs Greater Than 4,500 K ... 5 -46 Table 5.3.40 Summary of All Candidate Standard Levels for Covered GSFLs ........................ 5-46 Table 5.4.1 Product Classes for Incandescent Reflector Lamps ................................................ 5 -47 Table 5.4.2 IRL Baseline Lamps ............................................................................................... 5-48 Table 5.4.3 IRL Representative Lamps ..................................................................................... 5 -50 Table 5.4.4 CSL 1 for Standard Spectrum, Large Diameter, Low Voltage IRLs ...................... 5 -52 Table 5.4.5 CSL 1 for Modified Spectrum, Large Diameter, Low Voltage IRLs ..................... 5 -52 Table 5.4.6 CSL 1 for Standard Spectrum, Small Diameter, Low Voltage IRLs ...................... 5 -54 Table 5.4.7 CSL 1 for Standard Spectrum, Large Diameter, High Voltage IRLs ..................... 5 -55 Table 5.4.8 Summary of Candidate Standard Levels for Covered IRLs ................................... 5 -555-1 

### CHAPTER 5. ENGINEERING ANALYSIS

5.1 INTRODUCTION

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) performed engineering analyses for both general service fluorescent lamps (GSFLs) and incandescent reflector lamps (IRLs). This chapter of the preliminary technical support document (TSD) provides the analyses DOE used to study representative lamps, to select candidate standard levels (CSLs), and to develop power rating estimates for the products analyzed. After selecting representative product classes, DOE then selects lamps that represent the baseline efficacy, as well as more efficacious substitutes for those baseline lamps. DOE uses these more efficacious lamps to develop CSLs. While DOE

e stablishes CSLs based on lamp designs for the engineering analysis, for GSFLs it also develops lamp -and-ballast systems for use in the life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis and national impact

a nalysis (NIA ) because fluorescent lamps and ballasts operate together in practice.

I n energy conservation rulemakings for other products, DOE often develops costefficiency relationships in the engineering analysis. However, for this rulemaking, DOE derives CSLs in the engineering analysis and end-user prices in the product price determination. By

c ombining the results of the engineering analysis and the product price determination, DOE

de rives typical inputs for use in the LCC and NIA. See chapter 7 of this TSD for discussion of

DO E’s methodology for determining product prices.

5.2 METHODOLOGY OVERVIEW

To the extent possible, DOE bases the engineering analysis on commercially available lamps that incorporate the design options identified in the technology assessment and screening analysis (chapters 3 and 4 of this TSD ). The engineering analysis for each of the two categories of lamps DOE analyzes in this rulemaking ( i.e. , GSFLs and IRLs) follows a similar approach:

1. Select representative product classes: DOE first reviews covered lamps and the associated product classes. When multiple product classes are needed, DOE selects certain classes as

“ representative” and concentrates its analytical effort on these classes. DOE selects representative product classes primarily because of their high market volumes.

2. Select Baseline Lamps: For each representative product class, DOE selects a baseline lamp as a reference point against which to measure changes resulting from energy conservation standards. Typically, a baseline lamp is the most common, least efficacious lamp sold in a given product class. For this preliminary analysis, DOE uses performance data presented in

manuf acturer catalogs to determine lamp efficacy. DOE also considers other lamp

c haracteristics in choosing the most appropriate baseline for each product class such as

wa ttage, lumen output, and lifetime. For some of the representative product classes, DOE selects multiple baseline models to ensure consideration of different consumer economics.

3. Identify More Efficacious Substitutes: DOE selects higher efficacy lamps as replacements for each of the baseline lamps. When selecting higher efficacy lamps, DOE considers only design options that meet the criteria outlined in the screening analysis (chapter 4 of th is TSD). For GSFLs, DOE pairs each lamp with an appropriate ballast because fluorescent lamps a re a component of a system, and their performance is related to the ballast on which5-2



### they operate. DOE generally selects commercially available lamps as substitutes. For this

rule making, however, DOE may also consider a model lamp developed for the 4-foot T5 miniature bipin (MiniBP) high output (HO) product class (see section 5.3.3 and appendix 5A of this TSD for further detail).

4. Determine Candidate Standard Levels

. After identifying more efficacious substitutes for each baseline lamp, DOE develops CSLs. DOE bases its analysis on three factors: (1) the

de sign options associated with the specific lamps studied; (2) the ability of lamps across

wa ttages to comply with the CSL of a given product class ; a 

### and (3) the maximum technologically feasible efficacy level. DOE then scales the CSLs of representative product

c lasses to those product classes not directly analyzed.

The sections that follow discuss how DOE applies this methodology to each GSFL and IRL product class to create the engineering analysis.

5.3 GENERAL SERVICE FLUORESCENT LAMPS

5.3.1 Representative Product Classes

As discussed in the market and technology assessment (chapter 3 of this preliminary TSD), D OE considered 12 product classes for GSFLs based on three class-setting factors: correlated color temperature (CCT), physical constraints, and lumen package. Of these product classes, DOE chose the following five classes as representative because of their high shipment volumes: 4-foot medium bipin (MBP), 8-foot single pin (SP) slimline, 8-foot recessed double contact (RDC) HO, 4-foot T5 MiniBP standard output (SO), and 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO – all with a CCT less than or equal to 4,500 kelvins (K). DOE directly analyzed these representative product classes. As indicated in shipment data, 4 -foot MBP lamps constitute the vast majority of

GSF L sales. These are followed, in decreasing order, by 4-foot MiniBP SO and HO lamps, 8-

foot S P slimline lamps, 8-foot RDC HO lamps, and 2-foot U-shaped lamps. Given the relatively small market share of 2-foot U-shaped lamps, DOE did not directly analyze these products. In addition, as lamps with CCTs greater than 4,500 K represent small market shares of total GSFL sales, DOE only directly analyzed lamps with CCTs less than or equal to 4,500 K. See chapter 3 of this TSD for more information on lamp shipments.

Ta ble 5.3

. 1 lists the 12 product classes and identifies the representative product classes (indicated by gray shading) that DOE is considering in this preliminary analysis.

a CSLs span multiple lamps of different wattages. In selecting CSLs, DOE considered whether these multiple lamps

can meet the standard levels.5-3



### Table 5.3. 1 Representative Product Classes for General Service Fluorescent Lamps

Lamp Type CCT

4

- foot medium bipin ≤ 4

, 500 K

> 4

, 500 K

2

- foot U

- shaped ≤ 4

, 500 K

> 4

, 500 K

8

- foot single pin slimline ≤ 4

, 500 K

> 4

, 500 K

8

- foot recessed double contact high output ≤ 4

, 500 K

> 4

, 500 K

4

- foot T5 miniature bipin standard output ≤ 4

, 500 K

> 4

, 500 K

4

- foot T5 miniature bipin high output ≤ 4

, 500 K

> 4

, 500 K



### 5.3.2 Baseline Lamps

For each representative product class, DOE selects baseline lamps that are typically the most common, least efficacious lamps that meet existing standards. To identify baseline lamps, DOE reviews product offerings in catalogs, shipment information, and manufacturer feedback obtained during interviews. Common lamp types are selected based on characteristics such as diameter, wattage, CCT, and lifetime. DOE used rated efficacy b 

### to evaluate baseline lamps for this analysis.

DOE published a final rule in July 2009 (hereafter the “2009 Lamps Rule”) that adopted standards for certain fluorescent lamps that required compliance in July 2012 (hereafter the “July

2012 standards ”)

. 74 FR 34080 (July 14, 2009). Although these standards are based on performance and do not restrict the sale of specific products, it is difficult for T12 lamps to comply with the July 2012 standards. For products classes that may include both T12 and T8 products (the 4-foot MBP, 8-foot SP slimline, and 8-foot RDC HO product classes), DOE chose baseline lamps with T8 diameters.

Based on DOE’s review of the market, a limited number of T12 lamps are currentlyavailable that comply with the July 2012 standards. DOE only considers non-exempt, standardscompliant lamps in the engineering analysis. Further, it will be difficult for T12 electronic ballasts to comply with the standards adopted by the 2011 Ballast Rule, c 

### thus further shifting the market away from T12 lamps. Additionally, historical shipments of most T12 lamps have been decreasing steadily and manufacturer feedback suggests that shipments will likely to continue to do so. For these reasons, DOE concluded that a T12 lamp is not representative of a commonly available lamp type and subsequently elected not to analyze a T12 baseline.

b For GSFLs, the rated efficacy is the initial lumen output published in manufacturer catalogs divided by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) rated wattage. For lamp types that do not have a defined ANSI rated wattage, DOE utilized the lamp’s nominal wattage to calculate rated efficacy.

c The final rule amending energy conservation standards for fluorescent lamp ballasts published in 2011 with a compliance date of November 14, 2014. 76 FR 70548 (Nov. 14, 2011). The full text and all related documents of the 2011Ballast Rule can be found on regulations.gov, docket number EERE- 2007

- BT -STD-0016 at www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE- 2007

- BT -STD- 0016

.5-4



### A summary of the GSFL baseline lamps is shown in Table 5.3

. 2

.

Table 5.3. 2 GSFL Baseline Lamps

Representative

Product Class Baseline Lamps

Lamp

Diameter Nominal

Wattage ANSI

Rated Wattage Rated

Efficacy ** Initial

L umen Output 

### † Mean

L umen Output 

### ‡ Life

(IS) Life (PS) CRI

W W l m/W lm lm hr hr

4

- foot MBP T8 32 32.5 89.2 2,900 2,725 24,000 40,000 83

8

- foot SP

slimline T8 59 60.1 98.2 5,900 5,430 24,000

- 82

8

- foot RDC HO T8 86 84.0 95.2 8,000 7,600 18,000

- 78

4

- foot T5

MiniBP SO* T5 28 27.8 104.3 2,900 2,697

- 30,000 85

4

- foot T5

MiniBP HO* T5 54 53.8 92.9 5,000 4,850

- 24,000 86

* 4

- foot T5 MiniBP SO and HO rated efficacy, initial lumen output, and mean lumen output given at 35 °C. ** Rated efficacy is catalog initial lumen output divided by the ANSI rated wattage. 

### † Initial lumen output is a lamp’s light output after 100 hours of seasoning. 

### ‡ Mean lumen output is a measure of light output midway through the rated life of a lamp

.



### 5.3.3 More Efficacious Substitutes

After choosing a baseline lamp for each representative product class, DOE identifies more efficacious substitutes. Similar to the selection of baseline lamps, DOE used the rated efficacy to evaluate more efficacious replacement lamps in its analysis. DOE also sought to keep other characteristics of substitute lamps as similar as possible to the baseline lamps, such as rated life, color rendering index (CRI), and CCT.

Higher efficacies are achieved through a variety of technologies. As discussed in the

sc reening analysis (chapter 4 of this TSD), DOE considered commercially available GSFLs that use highly emissive electrode coatings, higher efficiency lamp fill gas composition, higher efficiency phosphors, glass coatings, or higher efficiency lamp diameter to achieve more

e fficacious lamp designs. These technologies are discussed in further detail in chapter 3 of this TSD. DOE utilized a database of commercially available lamps when identifying the more efficacious substitutes. However, for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO product class, DOE is analyzing a modeled lamp because, although there are no commercially available higher efficacy full wattage replacements, DOE believes that such a lamp could be manufactured with commercially available technologies (see section 5.3.6.5 and appendix 5A of this TSD for further details).

5.3.4 Candidate Standard Levels

After identifying more efficacious substitutes for each of the baseline lamps, DOE develops CSLs based on the consideration of several factors, including: (1) the design options associated with the specific lamps being studied ( e.g. , grades of phosphor); (2) the ability of lamps across wattages to comply with the standard level of a given product class; and (3) the maximum technologically feasible (“max-tech”) level. Although fluorescent lamps are a

c omponent of a system that often includes ballasts and fixtures, DOE based its CSLs only on lamp pe rformance because GSFLs are the subject of this rulemaking. DOE acknowledges, however, that the energy consumption of fluorescent lamps is related to the ballast on which they5-5



### operate. Therefore, DOE pairs each lamp with an appropriate ballast to better approximate realwor ld conditions. Lamp-and-ballast systems are discussed in more detail in section 5.3.5

.

When selecting CSLs, DOE only considered CSLs at which a full wattage version of the lamp type was available because reduced wattage lamps have limited utility. Manufacturer feedback indicated that reduced wattage lamps have problems starting in cold temperature applications below 60-65 °F, and may also exhibit striations in this temperature range. In

manuf acturer interviews, it was noted that striations remain an issue for reduced wattage lamps because not all ballasts contain striation control circuitry, and those that are equipped with striation control circuitry do not completely eliminate striation.

As described in the previous section, DOE used a database of commercially available lamps, when possible, and their associated rated efficacies (catalog initial lumen output divided by the ANSI rated wattage) to determine appropriate CSLs. However, DOE acknowledges that efficacies of lamps when reported for compliance purposes can vary from catalog rated values. Therefore, DOE also analyzed publicly available data submitted to DOE by manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with existing energy conservation standards. d 

### Because the compliance

re quirements for GSFLs require the reported efficacy to be the lower of the average efficacy or

the lowe r confidence limit divided by 0.97 and also impose specific sampling requirements, the efficacy reported for compliance may differ from the rated efficacy reported in catalogs.

The refore, DOE adjusted CSLs to account for compliance data when available. DOE notes that

ther e is a limited amount of publicly available compliance information for lamps covered under this rulemaking. DOE found there to be compliance data for only 40 percent of covered GSFL

pr oducts compliant (based on catalog efficacy) with the July 2012 standards. For more

infor mation on specific adjustments to the CSLs, see section 5.3.6

.

5.3.5 GSFL Systems

Because fluorescent lamps operate on a ballast in practice, DOE analyzed lamp-andba llast systems in the engineering analysis. DOE believes that pairing a lamp with a ballast more accurately captures real-world energy use and light output.

DO E is aware that lumen package is an important consideration for consumers. I f consumers do not have the option to purchase substitute lamp -and -ballast systems with similar lumen packages, a modification in the lighting design of their space ( e .g. , change in fixture spacing) may be required to maintain a similar light output. In assessing light output of the representative systems, DOE made a distinction between mean and initial lumen output. Consistent with industry consensus on efficacy measurements, DOE requires initial lumen output be used to determine lamp efficacy in its test procedures for GSFLs. Therefore, as stated in

section 5.3.2 , DOE used catalog initial lumen output to calculate efficacy when determining CSLs. However, the light output of a lamp decreases over time. To account for this real-world depreciation in lumens, DOE analyz ed more efficacious systems that maintain mean lumen output within 10 percent of the baseline, when possible. Mean lumen output is a measure of light

d The publicly available compliance information for GSFLs can be found in DOE’s Compliance Certification

Database available here: www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/

.5-6



### output midway through the rated life of a lamp, and a 10 percent change is a common parameter

used by lighting designers to specify acceptable substitute products on the basis of light output.

In the LCC analysis, DOE considers lamp purchase events, or events that cause a consumer to purchase a new lamp. For GSFLs, DOE determined that consumers may purchase anew lamp to operate on an existing ballast or purchase a new lamp as part of a new lamp-andba llast system. Therefore, DOE considered two different scenarios in the engineering analysis. For both scenarios, DOE only selected replacement systems that do not have higher energy consumption than the baseline system. The NIA allows consumers to make other choices, including selecting an alternative lighting technology. See chapter 9 of this TSD for more detail.

F or the first event, known as the lamp replacement scenario, DOE selects reduced

wa ttage replacement lamps that can operate on the installed ballast, as this is the only way to

re duce energy consumption. These lower-wattage replacement lamps have a higher efficacy andproduce similar light output as the baseline lamp. For the second event, known as the lamp-andba llast replacement scenario, DOE selects lamps that have the same or lower wattage compared to the baseline lamp and also selects a new ballast with potentially different performance

c haracteristics, such as ballast factor ( BF ) or ballast luminous efficiency (BLE). For example, a lamp -and-ballast system with a more efficacious, similar wattage lamp and lower BF ballast will

c onsume less energy while maintain ing similar light output compared to the baseline system.

F or both substitution scenarios, DOE determined energy consumption by calculating the system input power of the lamp-and-ballast system. The system input power represents the

e nergy consumption rate of both the lamp and ballast, and therefore is greater than the rated power of the lamp alone. In addition to the rated lamp power, the system power is also affected by the number of lamps operated per ballast, type of ballast used ( i.e.

, electronic or magnetic), starting method, and the BF of that ballast.

The following sections discuss in more detail how DOE selected ballasts for each representative lamp-and-ballast pairing.

5.3.5.1 Ballast Selection

DOE used manufacturer feedback and information provided in the 2011 Ballast Rule to determine which fluorescent lamp ballasts were representative of the market. DOE first identified the most common number of lamps operated per ballast, the most common starting methods by ballast type, and the most common mode of operation ( i.e.

, electronic or magnetic). DOE then selected an appropriate ballast for each representative lamp-and-ballast pairing.

Representative Ballast Types

Fluorescent lamp ballasts can often operate different numbers of lamps; some ballast types can operate up to six individual lamps. In the 2011 Ballast Rule, DOE identified the number of lamps most commonly operated by fluorescent ballasts. In that rule, DOE estimated5-7



### th at approximately 40 percent of ballasts that operate F32T8 e 

### lamps (the most common 4-foot MBP lamp) are two-lamp ballasts, 30 percent are four-lamp ballasts, 20 percent are three-lamp ballasts, and 10 percent are one-lamp ballasts. Thus, DOE directly analyzed both two-lamp and

four -lamp ballasts that operate 4-foot MBP lamps. For ballasts designed to operate 8-foot SP slimline, 8 -foot RDC HO, 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO, and 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO lamps, DOE

e stimated that the majority are two-lamp ballasts and therefore concentrated its analytical effort on two-lamp ballasts for these lamp types. In this preliminary analysis, to most accurately represent the market, DOE chose to analyze ballasts that operate the same number of lamps as those analyzed in the 2011 Ballast Rule. Manufacturer feedback confirmed that these are the most common products.

In addition to operating different numbers of lamps, fluorescent lamp ballasts can also have different starting methods. The 2011 Ballast Rule identified the most common starting

methods for

each ballast type. In the 2011 Ballast Rule, for ballasts that operate 4-foot MBP lamps, DOE directly analyzed the instant start (IS)/rapid start (RS) f 

### product class and programmed start (PS) product class in the commercial and industrial sectors, and the IS/RS product class in the residential sector. DOE found that the majority of T8 ballasts were IS and therefore analyzed an IS T8 representative ballast type for 4-foot MBP lamps, 8-foot SP slimline lamps, g 

### and 8 -foot RDC HO lamps. DOE also directly analyzed PS ballasts for 4-foot MBP lamps due to their increasing market share. For ballasts that operate 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO lamps

a nd 4 -foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps, DOE directly analyzed PS ballasts, which represent the vast majority of ballasts for these lamp types. In this preliminary analysis, to accurately reflect the market, DOE selected ballasts with the same starting methods analyzed in the 2011 Ballast Rule.

Manufacturer feedback confirmed that the se starting method combinations are the most common

for each lamp type.

As noted in the 2011 Ballast Rule, it is difficult for magnetic ballasts to comply with the standard levels adopted by the previous final rule amending fluorescent lamp ballast energy conservation standards (65 FR 56740 [Sept. 19, 2000]) and the standards established by the

Ene rgy Policy Act of 2005 (Pub.L. 109-58). As a result, electronic ballasts make up the majority of ballasts available on the market. Standards adopted by the 2011 Ballast Rule, which require compliance in November 2014, will effectively eliminate any remaining magnetic ballasts on the

mar ket. Therefore, DOE analyzes only electronic ballasts in this preliminary analysis.

Table 5.3

. 3 shows the representative lamp-and-ballast system pairings that DOE analyzed in this preliminary analysis.

e Lamp types are identified by a series of letters and numbers. The letter “F” designates a fluorescent lamp. The twodigit number following identifies either the nominal lamp wattage for 4-foot lamps or the lamp length in inches for 8-foot lamps. The two-digit number is then followed by the letter “T” for tubular and the lamp diameter in eights of

an inch.

f Although IS and RS are different starting method technologies, DOE determined in the 2011 Ballast Rule that IS and RS ballasts were commonly used as substitutes for each other, and therefore separate product class es were not established. See chapter 3 of the TSD for the 2011 Ballast Rule for more information available on regulations.gov,

docket number EERE- 2007

- BT -STD-0016 at www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE- 2007

- BT -STD- 0016

. g Instant start is the only starting method compatible with 8-foot slimline lamps.5-8



### Table 5.3. 3 Representative Lamp-and-Ballast System Pairings

Lamp Type Ballast Type

4

- foot MBP 2

- lamp IS, electronic

2

- lamp PS, electronic

4

- lamp IS, electronic

4

- lamp PS, electronic

2

- lamp IS for residential use,

electronic

8

- foot SP slimline 2

- lamp IS, electronic

8

- foot RDC HO 2

- lamp IS, electronic

4

- foot T5 MiniBP SO 2

- lamp PS, electronic

4

- foot T5 MiniBP HO 2

- lamp PS, electronic



### Ballast Models Used in Representative Lamp-And-Ballast Pairings

After determining the representative lamp-and-ballast system pairings, DOE selected

spec ific ballast models to use in each system analyzed. DOE utilized the commercially available

ba llast models analyzed and tested for the 2011 Ballast Rule h 

### to pair with the representative lamp units. DOE believed this to be an accurate representation of ballasts cu rrently available on the market, and the most complete source of ballast efficiency in terms of the BLE metric, which is

de fined as total lamp arc power divided by ballast input power.

For the lamp replacement scenario, DOE selected a ballast that represents the product that is most likely to be installed in 2014. DOE utilized the representative units associated with the efficiency levels adopted in the 2011 Ballast Rule or ballasts with comparable performance characteristics so as to best represent the market in terms of efficiency. For example, because

DO E adopted EL3 for ballasts that operate 4-foot MBP lamps, DOE used the ballast performance characteristics for the representative units at EL3 to pair with 4-foot MBP lamps in

the la mp replacement scenario.

As stated previously, DOE tried to select lamp-and-ballast systems that maintained mean lumen output within 10 percent of the baseline system, when possible. However, in some cases

DOE was unable to pair reduced wattage lamps with ballasts that would provide a system mean

lum en output within 10 percent of the baseline while still achieving energy savings. Reduced

wa ttage lamps typically have lower lumen output compared to full wattage versions. In order to achieve system mean lumen output within 10 percent of a full wattage baseline, some reduced wattage lamps require the use of a hi gh BF ballast. However this combination could increase the overall energy consumption of the system relative to the baseline. In such cases, priority was

g iven to achieving energy savings over maintaining lumen output as only systems that do not

incr ease energy consumption are considered in the engineering analysis.

h The ballast test data from the 2011 Ballast Rule is publicly available on at www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE- 2007

- BT -STD- 0016 -0054

.5-9



### For the lamp -and -ballast replacement scenario, DOE select ed ballast models using a different methodology. For this scenario, DOE selected a higher efficiency (based on BLE)

ba llast at the baseline than selected in the lamp replacement scenario because it was assumed that

a newly purchased ballast would likely be more efficient than an installed ballast. For th e

re presentative units at higher CSLs, DOE select ed a ballast with a lower BF than the normal BF baseline ballast, when possible, in order to further improve energy savings. Thus, at each CSL above the baseline, DOE identified a commercially available ballast that had the lowest BF possible while still maintaining a system mean lumen output within 10 percent of the baseline

s ystem. When multiple ballasts with the same BF existed, DOE selected the most efficient ballast

ba sed on BLE as this was considered to be the most likely substitute in a ballast replacement

sc enario designed to achieve energy savings. In some cases, DOE was unable to pair a reduced

wa ttage representative unit with a ballast that would provide a system mean lumen output within 10 percent of the baseline while still achieving energy savings. As stated previously, priority was

g iven to energy savings over maintaining lumen output as only systems that do not increase energy consumption relative to the baseline are considered in the engineering analysis.

5.3.5.2 System Input Power Calculation

After selecting ballasts to pair with the representative units at each CSL, DOE then calculated the system input power. The system input power depends on both the total lamp arc power operated by the ballast and the ballast’s efficiency, or BLE. DOE first calculated the total lamp arc power of the system by multiplying the catalog BF, number of lamps operated by the ballast, and the high frequency reference lamp arc power. Because DOE only analyzed electronic ballasts in this rulemaking, all lamp-and-ballast systems were high frequency. The high

fr equency reference lamp arc powers are shown in Table 5.3. 4 . If a high frequency reference arc power was not available for a specific lamp type, DOE used the nominal wattage.

T able 5.3. 4 High Frequency Reference Lamp Arc Powers

Lamp Type Nominal Wattage High Frequency Reference Lamp Arc Power

T8 4

- foot MBP 32 29.0

28 26.0

25 24.2

T8 8

- foot SP slimline 59 60.1

54 N/A

50 N/A

T8 8

- foot RDC HO 86 84.0

T5 MiniBP SO 28 27.8

26 N/A

25 N/A

T5 MiniBP HO 54 53.8

50 N/A

47 N/A



### For ballasts paired with full wattage lamps, DOE was able to use the publicly available tested BLE value for the selected ballast model to determine the system input power. Using the calculated total lamp arc power and tested BLE value of the ballast model, DOE then calculated

the s ystem input power, equivalent to ballast input power, using Eq

. 5

. 1

. This process was repeated for each full wattage lamp-and-ballast system pairing.5- 10



### Where:

β = 1.0 for high frequency ballasts Eq. 5

. 1

Because the 2011 Ballast Rule did not test ballasts when operating reduced wattage lamps, DOE had to determine the expected BLE using the test results of the ballast operating full wattage lamps and the known power-efficiency relationship of ballasts. In the 2011 Ballast Rule, DOE developed a power law equation to model the trend between total lamp arc power and average BLE. The power law equation followed the form:

Where:

power = total lamp arc power Eq. 5

. 2

Similar to the full wattage system, DOE first calculated the total lamp arc power of the reduced wattage lamp-and-ballast system. DOE assumed that BF does not change when operating reduced wattage lamps and therefore used the catalog BF of the ballast when operating full wattage lamps to calculate the total lamp arc power for both full wattage and reduced
wattage systems.

In general, as lamp arc power increases or decreases, BLE increases or decreases as well. i


### In the 2011 Ballast Rule, DOE defined this relationship using the equation above. In this rulemaking, DOE assumed that this relationship holds true for individual ballasts. Therefore,

DOE assumed that an individual ballast operating full wattage lamps would have the same

c oefficient B when operating reduced wattage lamps. Using this assumption, DOE calculated the

selected ballast model’s coefficient B when operating full wattage lamps using the tested BLE value from the 2011 Ballast Rule, the calculated total lamp arc power at full wattage

 ̧ and the appropriate exponent C

, which is dependent on the ballast starting method. j 

### The coefficient A
was assumed to be one. k 

### DOE was then able to calculate the new BLE when operating reduced

wa ttage lamps by using the total lamp arc power when operating reduced wattage lamps and keeping the coefficient B , the exponent C , and the coefficient A the same. Given this expected

i For more information on the power versus efficiency relationship of ballasts, please see TSD chapter 3 of the 2011 Ballast Rule, available on regulations.gov, docket number EERE- 2007

- BT -STD-0016 at www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE- 2007

- BT -STD- 0016

. j The exponent C

was found to be 0.25 for IS/RS ballasts and 0.37 for PS ballasts in the 2011 Ballast Rule. See chapter 5 of the 2011 Ballast Rule TSD, available on regulations.gov, docket number EERE- 2007

- BT -STD-0016 at www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE- 2007

- BT -STD- 0016

. k The coefficient A was used as an adjustment factor for testing variation when developing efficiency levels in the

2011 Ballast Rule. In this rulemaking, A was assumed to be one as no adjustments were made to the ballast test data

used in the calculation.5- 11



### BLE and total lamp arc power calculated in the previous steps, DOE determined the system input power of the reduced wattage lamp-and-ballast system using Eq. 5

. 1

. This process was repeated for each unique reduced wattage lamp-and -ballast pairing.

5.3.6 Engineering Results by Representative Product Classes

The following sections discuss the lamp models DOE is considering for the five

re presentative product classes considered in the engineering analysis.

5.3.6.1 Four-Foot MBP GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K

B aseline Lamps

DOE selected baseline lamps as reference points from which to measure changes resulting from potential energy conservation standards. As discussed in section 5.2 , a baseline lamp is typically the most common, least efficacious lamp sold in a given product class. To

de termine energy savings and changes in price, DOE compared representative lamps at each hig her efficacy level with the baseline unit.

DOE considered a number of criteria when selecting which commercially available lamp would serve as a baseline. The 4-foot MBP lamps have traditionally been manufactured in both

T8 a nd T12 diameters. DOE selected a T8 4-foot MBP as a baseline based on its high shipment volume (see section 5.3.2 for an additional discussion of why DOE did not analyze a T12 baseline). In 2011, T8 lamps represented 74 percent of the 4-foot MBP shipments, while shipments of T12 lamps represented 26 percent.

Through a review of product offerings and manufacturer feedback, DOE determined that

32 W is the most common wattage for T8 4-foot MBP lamps by a substantial margin. For the 32 W T8 4-foot MBP baseline lamp, DOE identified typical performance characteristics. DOE selected a baseline lamp that us es an 800 series rare earth phosphor. These lamps typically have a CRI of 80 to 86. For all baseline lamps and more efficacious lamp designs, DOE analyzed fluorescent lamps with a CCT of 4,100 K because it represents the highest volume CCT for this

c ategory of lamps. As mentioned in section 5.3.5 , DOE chose to pair representative lamps with

both an IS ballast and a PS ballast. The typical lifetime for the baseline lamp is 24,000 hours when paired with an IS ballast and 40,000 hours when paired with a PS ballast.

Although DOE is analyzing 4-foot MBP lamps in the residential sector, DOE did not identify a baseline lamp specific to the residential sector. After reviewing available catalog

infor mation, DOE found that the T8 4-foot MBP lamps sold in the residential sector share similar characteristics as those offered in the commercial and industrial sectors. Therefore, DOE did not analyze a separate baseline for the residential sector.

Typically, a baseline product is a unit that just meets the existing energy conservation

st andard for the product (89 lm/W for this product class). DOE identified a lamp with an efficacy of 89.2 lm/W to be the most common, least efficacious 32 W T8 4 -foot MBP lamp available that just meets existing standards. This lamp also represented the lowest efficacy of standards-5- 12



### compliant lamps in this product class. Table 5.3

. 5 lists the characteristics of the 32 W T8 4 -foot MBP baseline lamp.

Table 5.3. 5 Baseline Lamp for the 4 -foot MBP Representative Product Class

Lamp

Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy Initial

Lamp Light Output Mean

Lamp Light Output Rated

Life (IS) Rated

Life (PS) CRI CCT

W W lm/W lm lm hr hr K

T8 32 32.5 89.2 2,900 2,725 24,000 40,000 83 4,100



### Candidate Standard Levels and More Efficacious Substitutes

In general terms, DOE based its CSLs on the design options described below. Because utilizing higher efficiency phosphors is the most common method to achieve higher efficacies, DOE describes the phosphor technology associated with each CSL:

CSL 1 : This level requires the use of an improved 800 series full wattage (32 W) T8 lamp

in which the phosphor mix and/or coating is enhanced to increase efficacy.

CSL 2: This level represents max tech, the most efficacious products available today. The

32 W T8 lamps use premium 800 series rare earth phosphor and are referred to as high lumen products. Reduced wattage 25 W T8 and 28 W T8 lamps that produce similar lumen outputs as

the ba seline unit also meet this CSL.

Figure 5.3

. 1 illustrates the two initial CSLs on a plot with the representative lamps. A line at 89 lm/W denotes the existing energy conservation standard (the July 2012 standards). The square box identifies the baseline lamp. The plot also shows the more efficacious substitutes that DOE considered as replacements. Some of the representative units shown on the plot are at the

sa me wattage as the baseline, but have a higher efficacy; others have a combination of lower wattage and higher efficacy.5- 13



### Figure 5.3. 1 Candidate Standard Levels for 4 -foot MBP GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K

Table 5.3

. 6 provides detailed information on the 4-foot MBP representative lamps used in the engineering analysis and subsequent analyses.

Table 5.3. 6 4 -foot MBP Representative Lamps

CSL Lamp

Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy Initial

Lamp Light Output Mean

Lamp Light Output Rated

Life (IS) Rated

Life (PS) CRI

W W lm/W lm lm hr hr

Baseline T8 32 32.5 89.2 2

, 900 2

, 725 24

, 000 40, 000 83

1 T8 32 32.5 90.0 2

, 925 2

, 770 21

, 000 30, 000 85

2 T8 25 26.6 93.0 2

, 475 2

, 350 24

, 000 40, 000 85

2 T8 32 32.5 95.4 3

, 100 2

, 941 24

, 000 40, 000 85

2 T8 28 28.4 96.0 2

, 725 2

, 560 24

, 000 40, 000 85



### As discussed above, DOE used commercially available lamps, when possible, and their associated rated efficacies (catalog initial lumen output divided by the ANSI rated wattage) to determine each initial CSL. However, to establish the minimum efficacy requirements for each CSL, DOE also considered data submitted to DOE by manufacturers to show demonstrate

c ompliance with existing energy conservation standards. DOE determined if any adjustments were necessary to the initial CSLs to account for compliance efficacies of representative units CSL2

CSL1

Existing Standard

88.0 89.0 90.0 91.0 92.0 93.0 94.0 95.0 96.0 97.0 98.0

24 26 28 30 32 34 36Catalog Rated Efficacy (lm/W)

ANSI Rated Wattage (W)5- 14



### and/or equivalent lamps. DOE considered equivalent lamps to be manufacturer-identified cross references of the representative units or lamps deemed to have equivalent characteristics.

By examining publicly available compliance reports, DOE found that approximately 47

pe rcent of available 4-foot MBP lamps had compliance information. Using this information,

DO E determined that the representative unit and/or equivalent lamps complied with CSL 1. DOE also confirmed that CSL 2 was attainable for full wattage high lumen lamps, 25 W reduced wattage lamps, and 28 W reduced wattage lamps. Therefore, DOE concluded, based on compliance information, that no adjustments were necessary to the initial CSLs being considered for this product class. Figure 5.3. 2 summarizes all available compliance information by lamp design ( i. e. , improved 800 series, high lumen, reduced wattage, and other l 

### ) and the resulting

CSLs.

Figure 5.3. 2 Al l Compliance Report Data for 4-foot MBP GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K

Ta ble 5.3

. 7 summarizes the final efficacy requirements at CSL 1 and CSL 2.

l Lamps labeled as “other” designate lamp designs that are not representative of the most common characteristics

identified. 82.0 87.0 92.0 97.0 102.0 107.0

24 26 28 30 32 34 36Compliance Efficacy (lm/W)

ANSI Rated Wattage (W) Other

Improved 800 Series

High lumen

Reduced Wattage

CSL2

CSL15- 15



### Table 5.3. 7 CSL 1 and CSL 2 for 4-foot MBP GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K

Candidate S tandard Level Efficacy Requirement

lm/W

CSL 1 90.0

CSL 2 93.05- 16



### Engineering Summary

The first set of engineering results present the lamp replacement scenarios for the 4-foot MBP representative product class. In

thi s scenario, energy savings are achieved through the use of higher efficacy, reduced wattage lamps. As stated in section 5.3.4

, replacement lamp options were selected so that the system mean lumen output was within 10 percent of the baseline, when possible. When a ballast could not be selected that maintained system mean lumen output within 10 percent of the baseline system while still

a chieving energy savings, such as the 25 W 4-foot MBP lamp, priority was given to energy savings.

Table 5.3

. 8 presents the engineering analysis results for two-lamp 4-foot MBP IS systems operating in the commercial and

indus trial sectors. Table 5.3

. 9 presents the engineering analysis results for two-lamp 4-foot MBP PS systems operating in the

c ommercial and industrial sectors. Table 5.3. 10 presents the engineering analysis results for four-lamp 4-foot MBP IS systems operating in the commercial and industrial sectors. Table 5.3

. 11 presents the engineering analysis results for four-lamp 4-foot MBP PS systems operating in the commercial and industrial sectors. Table 5 .3

. 12 presents the engineering analysis results for two-lamp 4-foot MBP IS systems operating in the residential sector.

T able 5.3. 8 Lamp Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Two-Lamp Instant Start 32 W T8, 4,100 K System in the

Commercial and Industrial Sectors

Efficacy

Level Lamp

Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy Initial

Lamp Light Output Mean

Lamp Light Output Rated

Life Number

of Lamps Starting

Method Ballast

Factor System

Input

Power BLE System

Initial Light Output System

Mean Light Output

W W lm/W lm lm hr W lm lm

Baseline T8 32 32.5 89.2 2,900 2,725 24,000 2 IS 0.88 56.0 91.2 5,104 4,796

CSL 2 T8 25 26.6 93.0 2,475 2,350 24,000 2 IS 0.88 46.9 90.8 4,356 4,136

CSL 2 T8 28 28.4 96.0 2,725 2,560 24,000 2 IS 0.88 50.3 90.9 4,796 4,5065- 17



### Table 5.3. 9 Lamp Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Two-Lamp Programmed Start 32 W T8, 4,100 K System in the

Co mmercial and Industrial Sectors

Efficacy

Level Lamp

Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy Initial

Lamp Light Output Mean

Lamp Light Output Rated

Life Number

of Lamps Starting

Method Ballast

Factor System

Input

Power BLE System

Initial Light Output System

Mean Light Output

W W lm/W lm lm hr W lm lm

Baseline T8 32 32.5 89.2 2,900 2,725 40,000 2 PS 0.88 56.0 91.2 5,104 4,796

CSL 2 T8 25 26.6 93.0 2,475 2,350 40,000 2 PS 0.88 47.0 90.6 4,356 4,136

CSL 2 T8 28 28.4 96.0 2,725 2,560 40,000 2 PS 0.88 50.4 90.8 4,796 4,506



### Table 5.3. 10 Lamp Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Four-Lamp Instant Start 32 W T8, 4,100 K System in the

Commercial and Industrial Sectors

Efficacy

Lev el Lamp

Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy Initial

Lamp Light Output Mean

Lamp Light Output Rated

Life Number

of Lamps Starting

Method Ballast

Factor System

Input

Power BLE System

Initial Light Output System

Mean Light Output

W W lm/W lm lm hr W lm lm

Baseline T8 32 32.5 89.2 2,900 2,725 24,000 4 IS 0.87 108.0 93.4 10,092 9,483

CSL 2 T8 25 26.6 93.0 2,475 2,350 24,000 4 IS 0.87 90.4 93.1 8,613 8,178

CSL 2 T8 28 28.4 96.0 2,725 2,560 24,000 4 IS 0.87 97.1 93.2 9,483 8,909



### Table 5.3. 11 Lamp Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Four-Lamp Programmed Start 32 W T8, 4,100 K System in the

Co mmercial and Industrial Sectors

Efficacy

Level Lamp

Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy Initial

Lamp Light Output Mean

Lamp Light Output Rated

Life Number

of Lamps Starting

Method Ballast

Factor System

Input

Power BLE System

Initial Light Output System

Mean Light Output

W W lm/W lm lm hr W lm lm

Baseline T8 32 32.5 89.2 2,900 2,725 40,000 4 PS 0.89 111.0 93.0 10,324 9,701

CSL 2 T8 25 26.6 93.0 2,475 2,350 40,000 4 PS 0.89 93.2 92.5 8,811 8,366

CSL 2 T8 28 28.4 96.0 2,725 2,560 40,000 4 PS 0.89 99.9 92.6 9,701 9,1145- 18



### Table 5.3

. 12 Lamp Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Two-Lamp Instant Start 32 W T8, 4,100 K System in the

Residential Sector

Efficacy

Level Lamp

Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy Initial

Lamp Light Output Mean

Lamp Light Output Rated

Life Number

of Lamps Starting

Method Ballast

Factor System

Input

Power BLE System

Initial Light Output System

Mean Light Output

W W lm/W lm lm hr W lm lm

Baseline T8 32 32.5 89.2 2,900 2,725 24,000 2 IS 0.87 56.5 89.3 5,046 4,742

CSL 2 T8 25 26.6 93.0 2,475 2,350 24,000 2 IS 0.87 47.4 88.8 4,307 4,089

CSL 2 T8 28 28.4 96.0 2,725 2,560 24,000 2 IS 0.87 50.9 88.9 4,742 4,454



### The next set of engineering results present the lamp-and-ballast replacement scenarios for the 4-foot MBP representative

pr oduct class. For this scenario, as stated in section 5.3.5 , the ballast with the lowest possible BF was selected that still maintained system mean lumen output within 10 percent of the baseline system. When a ballast could not be selected that maintained system mean lumen output within 10 percent of the baseline system while still achieving energy savings, such as the 25 W 4-foot MBP lamp,

pr iority was given to energy savings.

Table 5.3

. 13 presents the engineering analysis results for the replacement lamp-and-ballast combinations for two-lamp 4-foot

MB P IS systems in the commercial and industrial sectors. Table 5.3

. 14 presents the engineering analysis results for the replacement lamp-and-ballast combinations for two-lamp 4-foot MBP PS systems in the commercial and industrial sectors. Table 5.3. 15 presents the engineering analysis results for the replacement lamp-and-ballast combinations for four-lamp 4-foot MBP IS systems in the

c ommercial and industrial sectors. Table 5.3. 16 presents the engineering analysis results for the replacement lamp-and-ballast combinations for four-lamp 4-foot MBP PS systems in the commercial and industrial sectors. Table 5.3

. 17 presents the engineering analysis results for the replacement lamp-and-ballast combinations for two-lamp 4-foot MBP IS systems in the residential sector.5- 19



### Table 5.3. 13 Lamp-and-Ballast Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Two-Lamp Instant Start 32 W T8, 4,100 K System in

the C ommercial and Industrial Sectors

Efficacy

Level Lamp

Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy Initial

Lamp Light Output Mean

Lamp Light Output Rated

Life Number

of Lamps Starting

Method Ballast

Factor System

Input

Power BLE System

Initial Light Output System

Mean Light Output

W W lm/W lm lm hr W lm lm

Baseline T8 32 32.5 89.2 2,900 2,725 24,000 2 IS 0.88 55.2 92.4 5

, 104 4

, 796

CSL 1 T8 32 32.5 90.0 2,925 2,770 21,000 2 IS 0.78 49.4 91.6 4

, 563 4

, 321

CSL 2 T8 25 26.6 93.0 2,475 2,350 24,000 2 IS 0.88 46.3 92.0 4

, 356 4

, 136

CSL 2 T8 32 32.5 95.4 3,100 2,941 24,000 2 IS 0.77 48.3 92.4 4

, 774 4

, 529

CSL 2 T8 28 28.4 96.0 2,725 2,560 24,000 2 IS 0.87 48.8 92.7 4

, 742 4

, 454



### Table 5.3. 14 Lamp-and-Ballast Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Two-Lamp Programmed Start 32 W T8, 4,100 K

S ystem in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors

Efficacy

Level Lamp

Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy Initial

Lamp Light Output Mean

Lamp Light Output Rated

Life Number

of Lamps Starting

Method Ballast

Factor System

Input

Power BLE System

Initial Light Output System

Mean Light Output

W W lm/W lm lm hr W lm lm

Baseline T8 32 32.5 89.2 2,900 2,725 40,000 2 PS 0.88 56.0 91.2 5

, 104 4

, 796

CSL 1 T8 32 32.5 90.0 2,925 2,770 30,000 2 PS 0.88 56.0 91.2 5

, 148 4

, 875

CSL 2 T8 25 26.6 93.0 2,475 2,350 40,000 2 PS 0.88 47.0 90.6 4

, 356 4

, 136

CSL 2 T8 32 32.5 95.4 3,100 2,941 40,000 2 PS 0.88 56.0 91.2 5

, 456 5

, 176

CSL 2 T8 28 28.4 96.0 2,725 2,560 40,000 2 PS 0.88 50.4 90.8 4

, 796 4

, 5065- 20



### Table 5.3. 15 Lamp-and-Ballast Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Four-Lamp Instant Start 32 W T8, 4,100 K System in

the C ommercial and Industrial Sectors

Efficacy

Level Lamp

Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy Initial

Lamp Light Output Mean

Lamp Light Output Rated

Life Number

of Lamps Starting

Method Ballast

Factor System

Input

Power BLE System

Initial Light Output System

Mean Light Output

W W lm/W lm lm hr W lm lm

Baseline T8 32 32.5 89.2 2,900 2,725 24,000 4 IS 0.87 107.1 94.2 10,092 9,483

CSL 1 T8 32 32.5 90.0 2,925 2,770 21,000 4 IS 0.78 96.8 93.4 9,126 8,642

CSL 2 T8 25 26.6 93.0 2,475 2,350 24,000 4 IS 0.87 89.7 93.9 8,613 8,178

CSL 2 T8 32 32.5 95.4 3,100 2,941 24,000 4 IS 0.77 96.0 93.0 9,548 9,058

CSL 2 T8 28 28.4 96.0 2,725 2,560 24,000 4 IS 0.87 96.2 94.0 9,483 8,909



### Table 5.3. 16 Lamp-and-Ballast Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Four-Lamp Programmed Start 32 W T8, 4,100 K

S ystem in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors

Efficacy

Level Lamp

Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy Initial

Lamp Light Output Mean

Lamp Light Output Rated

Life Number

of Lamps Starting

Method Ballast

Factor System

Input

Power BLE System

Initial Light Output System

Mean Light Output

W W lm/W lm lm hr W lm lm

Baseline T8 32 32.5 89.2 2,900 2,725 40,000 4 PS 0.89 111.0 93.0 10,324 9,701

CSL 1 T8 32 32.5 90.0 2,925 2,770 30,000 4 PS 0.88 110.7 92.3 10,296 9,750

CSL 2 T8 25 26.6 93.0 2,475 2,350 40,000 4 PS 0.89 93.2 92.5 8,811 8,366

CSL 2 T8 32 32.5 95.4 3,100 2,941 40,000 4 PS 0.88 110.7 92.3 10,912 10,352

CSL 2 T8 28 28.4 96.0 2,725 2,560 40,000 4 PS 0.88 98.5 92.9 9,592 9,0115- 21



### Table 5.3. 17 Lamp-and-Ballast Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Two-Lamp Instant Start 32 W T8, 4,100 K System in

the Residential Sector

Efficacy

Level Lamp

Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy Initial

Lamp Light Output Mean

Lamp Light Output Rated

Life Number

of Lamps Starting

Method Ballast

Factor System

Input

Power BLE System

Initial Light Output System

Mean Light Output

W W lm/W lm lm hr W lm lm

Baseline T8 32 32.5 89.2 2,900 2,725 24,000 2 IS 0.87 56.5 89.3 5,046 4,742

CSL 1 T8 32 32.5 90.0 2,925 2,770 21,000 2 IS 0.83 53.7 89.7 4,856 4,598

CSL 2 T8 25 26.6 93.0 2,475 2,350 24,000 2 IS 0.87 47.4 88.8 4,307 4,089

CSL 2 T8 32 32.5 95.4 3,100 2,941 24,000 2 IS 0.83 53.7 89.7 5,146 4,882

CSL 2 T8 28 28.4 96.0 2,725 2,560 24,000 2 IS 0.87 50.9 88.9 4,742 4,4545- 22



### 5.3.6.2 Eight-Foot SP Slimline GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K

B aseline Lamps

DOE selected baseline lamps as reference points from which to measure changes resulting from potential energy conservation standards. As discussed in section 5.2 , a baseline lamp is typically the most common, least efficacious lamp sold in a given product class. To

de termine energy savings and changes in price, DOE compared representative lamps at each hig her efficacy level with the baseline unit.

DOE considered a number of criteria when selecting which commercially available lamp would serve as a baseline. The 8-foot SP slimline lamps have traditionally been manufactured in

both T8 a nd T12 diameters. DOE selected a T8 8-foot SP slimline lamp as a baseline based on manufacturer feedback and recent shipment trends (see section 5.3.2 for an additional discussion of why DOE did not analyze a T12 baseline).

Through a review of product offerings and manufacturer feedback, DOE determined that

59 W is the most common wattage for T8 8-foot SP slimline lamps. For the 59 W T8 8 -foot SP slimline lamp, DOE identified typical performance characteristics. The most common lamp at this wattage uses an 800 series rare earth phosphor. DOE selected a CCT of 4,100 K because it is

the most common CCT for this lamp type. The typical lifetime of the baseline lamp was 24,000

hours when paired with an IS ballast. This lamp type cannot operate on PS ballasts.

Typically, a baseline product is a unit that just meets the existing energy conservation standard for the product (97 lm/W for this product class). DOE selected the lamp with the most common efficacy as the baseline (98.2 lm/W). Table 5.3. 18 lists the characteristics of the 59 W

8 -foot SP slimline baseline lamp.

Table 5.3. 18 Baseline Lamp for the 8 -foot SP Slimline Representative Product Class

Lamp

Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy Initial

Lamp Light Output Mean

Lamp Light Output Rated

Life CRI CCT

W W lm/W lm lm hr K

T8 59 60.1 98.2 5,900 5,430 24,000 82 4,100



### Candidate Standard Levels and More Efficacious Substitutes

In general terms, DOE based CSL 1 on the design options described below. Because utilizing higher efficiency phosphors is the most common method to achieve higher efficacies, DOE describes the phosphor technology associated with the CSL:

C SL 1 : This level requires the use of improved 800 series full wattage (59 W) T8 lamps in which the phosphor mix and/or coating is enhanced to increase efficacy. Reduced wattage lamps, including the 54 W T8 and 50 W T8, that produce similar lumen output as the baseline5- 23



### unit also meet this CSL. This level represents max tech, the most efficacious products available

toda y.

Figure 5.3

. 3 illustrates the initial CSL on a plot with the representative lamps. A line at

97 lm /W denotes the existing energy conservation standard (the July 2012 standards). The square box identifies the baseline lamp. The plot also shows the more efficacious substitutes DOE

c onsidered as replacements. Some of the representative units shown on the plot are at the same

wa ttage as the baseline, but have a higher efficacy; others have a combination of lower wattage

a nd higher efficacy.

Figure 5.3. 3 Candidate Standard Level for 8-foot SP Slimline GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K

Ta ble 5.3

. 19 provides detailed information on the 8-foot SP slimline representative lamps used in the engineering analysis and subsequent analyses. CSL1

Existing Standard

90.0 92.0 94.0 96.0 98.0 100.0 102.0 104.0 106.0 108.0 110.0

45 50 55 60 65Catalog Rated Efficacy (lm/W)

ANSI Rated Wattage (W)5- 24



### Table 5.3. 19 8 -foot SP Slimline Representative Lamps

CSL Lamp

Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy Initial

Lamp Light Output Mean

Lamp Light Output Rated Life CRI

W W lm/W lm lm hr

Baseline T8 59 60.1 98.2 5

, 900 5

, 430 24

, 000 82

1 T8 59 60.1 99.0 5

, 950 5

, 650 24

, 000 85

1 T8 54 54 105.6 5

, 700 5

, 360 24

, 000 85

1 T8 50 50 108.0 5

, 400 5

, 075 24

, 000 85



### As discussed above, DOE used commercially available lamps when possible and their

a ssociated rated efficacies (catalog initial lumen output divided by the ANSI rated wattage) to determine each initial CSL. However, to establish the minimum efficacy requirements for each CSL, DOE also considered data submitted to DOE by manufacturers to demonstrate compliance

with ex isting energy conservation standards. DOE determined if any adjustments were necessary to the initial CSL to account for compliance efficacies of representative units and/or equivalent lamps. DOE considered equivalent lamps to be manufacturer-identified cross references of the representative units or lamps deemed to have equivalent characteristics.

By examining publicly available compliance reports, DOE found that approximately 24

pe rcent of available 8-foot SP slimline lamps had compliance information. Using this

infor mation, DOE determined that the 54 W representative unit and/or equivalent lamps complied with CSL 1. Thus, based on publicly available compliance information, DOE concluded that no adjustment was necessary to the initial CSL being considered for this product

class. Figure 5.3. 4 summarizes all available compliance information by lamp design ( i. e. , 800 series, reduced wattage, and other m 

### ) and the resulting CSL.

m Lamps labeled as “other” designate lamp designs that are not representative of the most common characteristics

identified.5- 25



### Figure 5.3. 4 Al l Compliance Report Data for 8-foot SP Slimline GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500

K

Table 5.3

. 20 summarizes the final efficacy requirement at CSL 1.

T able 5.3. 20 CSL 1 for 8-foot SP Slimline GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K

Candidate Standard Level Efficacy Requirement

lm/W

CSL 1 99.0 90.0 92.0 94.0 96.0 98.0 100.0 102.0 104.0 106.0 108.0 110.0

47 49 51 53 55 57 59 61Compliance Efficacy (lm/W)

ANSI Rated Wattage Other

800 Series

Reduced Wattage

CSL15- 26



### Engineering Summary

The first set of results present the lamp replacement scenarios for the 8-foot SP slimline representative product class. In this scenario, energy savings are achieved through the use of higher efficacy, reduced wattage lamps. As stated in section 5.3.4

, replacement lamp options were selected so that the system mean lumen output was within 10 percent of the baseline, when possible.

Table 5.3. 21 presents the engineering analysis results for two-lamp 8-foot SP slimline IS systems operating in the commercial and

indus trial sectors.

T able 5.3. 21 Lamp Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Two-Lamp Instant Start 59 W T8, 4,100 K System in the

Commercial and Industrial Sectors

Efficacy

Level Lamp

Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy Initial

Lamp Light Output Mean

Lamp Light Output Rated

Life Number

of Lamps Starting

Method Ballast

Factor System

Input

Power BLE System

Initial Light Output System

Mean Light Output

W W lm/W lm lm hr W lm lm

Baseline T8 59 60.1 98.2 5,900 5,430 24,000 2 IS 0.87 106.8 92.9 10,266 9,448

CSL 1 T8 54 54 105.6 5,700 5,360 24,000 2 IS 0.87 101.3 92.7 9,918 9,326

CSL 1 T8 50 50 108.0 5,400 5,075 24,000 2 IS 0.87 94.0 92.6 9,396 8,831



### The next set of engineering results present the lamp-and-ballast replacement scenario for the 8-foot SP slimline representative

pr oduct class. For this scenario, as stated in section 5.3.5 , the ballast with the lowest possible BF was selected that still maintained system mean lumen output within 10 percent of the baseline system. Table 5.3.22 presents the engineering analysis results for the replacement lamp-and-ballast combinations for two-lamp 8 -foot SP slimline IS systems in the commercial and industrial sectors.5- 27



### Table 5.3. 22 Lamp-and-Ballast Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Two-Lamp Instant Start 59 W T8, 4,100 K System in

the C ommercial and Industrial Sectors

Efficacy

Level Lamp

Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy Initial

Lamp Light Output Mean

Lamp Light Output Rated

Life Number

of Lamps Starting

Method Ballast

Factor System

Input

Power BLE System

Initial Light Output System

Mean Light Output

W W lm/W lm lm hr W lm lm

Baseline T8 59 60.1 98.2 5,900 5,430 24,000 2 IS 0.87 106.8 92.9 10,266 9,448

CSL 1 T8 59 60.1 99.0 5,950 5,650 24,000 2 IS 0.85 104.0 93.2 10,115 9,605

CSL 1 T8 54 54 105.6 5,700 5,360 24,000 2 IS 0.85 98.7 93.0 9,690 9,112

CSL 1 T8 50 50 108.0 5,400 5,075 24,000 2 IS 0.85 91.5 92.9 9,180 8,6285- 28



### 5.3.6.3 Eight-Foot RDC HO GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K

B aseline Lamps

DOE selected baseline lamps as reference points from which to measure changes resulting from potential energy conservation standards. As discussed in section 5.2 , a baseline lamp is typically the most common, least efficacious lamp sold in a given product class. To

de termine energy savings and changes in price, DOE compared representative lamps at each hig her efficacy level with the baseline unit.

DOE considered a number of criteria when selecting which commercially available lamp would serve as a baseline. The 8-foot RDC HO lamps have traditionally been manufactured in

both T8 a nd T12 diameters. DOE selected a T8 8-foot RDC HO lamp as a baseline (see section

5.3.2 for a discussion of why DOE did not analyze a T12 baseline).

The most popular wattage associated with the 8-foot T8 RDC HO lamp type is 86 W. For

the 86 W T8 lamp, DOE identified typical performance characteristics. The most common lamp uses a 700 series rare earth phosphor. DOE selected a CCT of 4,100 K because it is the most

c ommon CCT for this lamp type. The rated lifetime for these lamps is 18,000 hours when paired

with an IS ballast.

Typically, a baseline product is a unit that just meets the existing energy conservation standard for the product (92 lm/W for this product class). DOE identified a lamp with an efficacy of 95.2 lm/W to be the most common, least efficacious 86 W 8-foot T8 RDC HO lamp available that just meets existing standards. This lamp also represented the lowest efficacy of standardscompliant lamps in this product class. Table 5.3

. 23 lists the characteristics of the 86 W T8 8 -foot RDC HO baseline lamp.

Table 5.3. 23 Baseline Lamp for the 8 -foot RDC HO Re presentative Product Class

Lamp

Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy Initial

Lamp Light Output Mean

Lamp Light Output Rated

Life CRI CCT

W W lm/W lm lm hr K

T8 86 84.0 95.2 8,000 7,600 18,000 78 4,100



### Candidate Standard Levels and More Efficacious Substitutes

In general terms, DOE based CSL 1 on the design options described below. Because

uti lizing higher efficiency phosphors is the most common method to achieve higher efficacies, DOE describes the phosphor technology associated with the CSL:

CSL 1 : This level requires the use of an 800 series rare earth phosphor and represents

max tech, the most efficacious products available today.5- 29



### Figure 5.3

. 5 illustrates the initial CSL on a plot with the representative lamps. A line at

92 lm /W denotes the existing energy conservation standard (the July 2012 standards). The square box identifies the baseline lamp. The plot also shows more efficacious substitutes DOE

c onsidered as replacement lamps. In this product class, all of the representative units shown on the plot are at the same wattage, but have a higher efficacy.

Figure 5.3. 5 Candidate Standard Level for 8-foot RDC HO GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K

Ta ble 5.3

. 24 provides detailed information on the 8-foot RDC HO representative lamps used in the engineering analysis and subsequent analyses.

Table 5.3. 24 8 -foot RDC HO Representative Lamps

CSL Lamp

Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy Initial

Lamp Light Output Mean

Lamp Light Output Rated Life CRI

W W lm/W lm lm hr

Baseline T8 86 84.0 95.2 8

, 000 7

, 600 18,000 78

1 T8 86 84.0 97.6 8

, 200 7

, 800 18,000 86



### As discussed above, DOE used commercially available lamps when possible and their

a ssociated rated efficacies (catalog initial lumen output divided by the ANSI rated wattage) to determine each initial CSL. However, to establish the minimum efficacy requirements for each CSL, DOE also considered data submitted to DOE by manufacturers to demonstrate compliance

with ex isting energy conservation standards. DOE determined if any adjustments were necessary CSL1

Existing Standard

90.0 91.0 92.0 93.0 94.0 95.0 96.0 97.0 98.0 99.0 100.0

80 82 84 86 88 90Catalog Rated Efficacy (lm/W)

ANSI Rated Wattage (W)5- 30



### to the initial CSL to account for compliance efficacies of representative units and/or equivalent lamps. DOE considered equivalent lamps to be manufacturer-identified cross references of the representative units or lamps deemed to have equivalent characteristics.

By examining publicly available compliance reports, DOE found that approximately 38

pe rcent of available 8-foot RDC HO lamps analyzed had compliance information. Based on this

infor mation, DOE found that an adjustment to CSL 1 was necessary. DOE adjusted CSL 1 to the lowest reported compliance efficacy of 97.0 lm/W for 800 series full wattage T8 lamps. Figure

5.3

. 6 summarizes all available compliance information by lamp design ( i.e.

, 700 series and 800 series) and resulting CSL.

F igure 5.3. 6 Al l Compliance Report Data for 8-foot RDC HO GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K

Ta ble 5.3

. 25 summarizes the final efficacy requirement at CSL 1.

T able 5.3. 25 CSL 1 for 8-foot RDC HO GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K

Candidate Standard Level Efficacy Requirement

lm/W

CSL 1 97.0 90.0 91.0 92.0 93.0 94.0 95.0 96.0 97.0 98.0 99.0 100.0

80 82 84 86 88 90Compliance Efficacy (lm/W)

ANSI Rated Wattage (W) 700 Series

800 Series

CSL1

Adjusted CSL15- 31



### Engineering Summary

The first set of results present the lamp replacement scenario for the 8-foot RDC HO representative product class. In this scenario, energy savings are achieved through the use of higher efficacy, reduced wattage lamps. However, for this product class, DOE identified no commercially available reduced wattage 8-foot RDC HO lamps. Therefore, the lamp replacement scenario analyzes

a more efficient full wattage 8-foot RDC HO lamp as a replacement. Table 5.3.26 presents the engineering analysis results for twolamp 8-foot RDC HO systems operating in the commercial and industrial sectors.

Table 5.3. 26 Lamp Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Two-Lamp Instant Start 86 W T8, 4,100 K System in the

Commercial and Industrial Sectors

Efficacy

Level Lamp

Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy Initial

Lamp Light Output Mean

Lamp Light Output Rated

Life Number of Lamps Starting

Method Ballast

Factor System

Input

Power BLE System

Initial Light Output System

Mean Light Output

W W lm/W lm lm hr W lm lm

Baseline T8 86 84 95.2 8,000 7,600 18,000 2 IS 0.81 148.4 91.7 12,960 12,312

CSL 1 T8 86 84 97.6 8,200 7,800 18,000 2 IS 0.81 148.4 91.7 13,284 12,636



### The next set of engineering results present the lamp-and-ballast replacement scenario for the 8-foot RDC HO representative

pr oduct class. For this scenario, as stated in section 5.3.5 , the ballast with the lowest possible BF was selected that still maintained system mean lumen output within 10 percent of the baseline system. For this product class, no low BF ballast was identified, thus the same ballast was utilized at the higher efficacy level. Ta ble 5.3

. 27 presents the engineering analysis results for the replacement lampand-ballast combination for two-lamp 8-foot RDC HO IS systems in the commercial and industrial sectors.5- 32



### Table 5.3. 27 Lamp-and-Ballast Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Two-Lamp Instant Start 86 W T8, 4,100 K System in

the C ommercial and Industrial Sectors

Efficacy

Level Lamp

Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy Initial

Lamp Light Output Mean

Lamp Light Output Rated

Life Number of Lamps Starting

Method Ballast

Factor System

Input

Power BLE System

Initial Light Output System

Mean Light Output

W W lm/W lm lm hr W lm lm

Baseline T8 86 84 95.2 8,000 7,600 18,000 2 IS 0.81 148.4 91.7 12,960 12,312

CSL 1 T8 86 84 97.6 8,200 7,800 18,000 2 IS 0.81 148.4 91.7 13,284 12,6365- 33



### 5.3.6.4 Four-Foot T5 MiniBP SO GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K

Baseline Lamps

DOE selected baseline lamps as reference points from which to measure changes resulting from potential energy conservation standards. As discussed in section 5.2

, a baseline lamp is typically the most common, least efficacious lamp sold in a given product class. To

de termine energy savings and changes in price, DOE compared representative lamps at each hig her efficacy level with the baseline unit.

DOE considered a number of criteria when selecting which commercially available lamp would serve as a baseline. The most popular wattage associated with the 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO product class is 28 W. Therefore, DOE selected a 28 W 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO lamp as a

ba seline. For the 28 W 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO baseline lamp, DOE identified typical performance

c haracteristics. The lamps that fall within this product class exclusively utilize 800 series rare earth phosphors. As with the baseline fluorescent lamps in other covered product classes, DOE selected a CCT of 4,100 K because it is the most common CCT for this lamp type. The typical

ope rating lifetime for these lamps is 30,000 hours when paired with a PS ballast.

Typically, a baseline product is a unit that just meets the existing energy conservation standard for the product (86 lm/W for this product class). DOE identified a lamp with an efficacy

of 104.3 lm/W at 35 °C (93.5 lm/W at 25 °C, the temperature at which lamps are tested for

c ompliance ) as the most common, least efficacious 28 W 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO lamp. Table

5.3

. 28 lists the characteristics of the 28 W 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO baseline lamp.

T able 5.3. 28 Baseline Lamp for the 4 -foot T5 MiniBP Standard Output Representative

P roduct Class

Lamp

Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy Initial

Lamp Light Output (at

35 °C) Mean

Lamp Light Output (at

35 °C) Rated Life CRI CCT

W W lm/W lm lm hr K

T5 28 27.8 104.3 2,900 2,697 30,000 85 4,100



### Candidate Standard Levels and More Efficacious Substitutes

The following discussion identifies the steps and technologies associated with the CSL DOE considered for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO representative product class. DOE is aware that

man y T5 SO lamps are operated at 35 °C and all manufacturers report performance at 35 °C in their catalogs. Therefore, DOE selected more efficacious replacements and developed initial CSLs for T5 SO lamps based on 35 °C catalog data. However, the DOE test procedure for T5 lamps re quires the lamps to be tested at 25 °C. Because the test procedure is used to determine compliance with DOE energy conservation standards, DOE adjusted the CSLs to account for the efficacy at 25 °C. Specifically, when operated at 25 °C, the lumen output of T5 lamps is approximately 10 percent lower than the lumen output of such lamps when operated at 35 °C.5- 34



### DOE also utilized certain manufacturers’ catalog information if performance characteristics were provided for lamp operation at 25 °C.

In general terms, DOE based CSL 1 on the design options described below. Because utilizing higher efficiency phosphors is the most common method to achieve higher efficacies, DOE describes the phosphor technology associated with the CSL:

CSL 1 : This level represents higher efficacy improved 800 series phosphor 4- fo ot T5

Mi niBP SO lamps in which the phosphor mix and/or coating is enhanced. Full wattage 28 W

la mps (with a r ated efficacy of 109.7 lm/W at 35 °C operation) meet this level. For reduced wattage lamps, a reduced wattage 26 W 4 -foot T5 MiniBP SO la mp (w ith a rated efficacy of

111.5 lm/W at 35 °C operation) and a reduced wattage 25 W la mp (w ith a rated efficacy of 116.0 lm/W at 35 °C operation ) a lso meet this level. This level represents max tech, the most

e fficacious products available today.

DO E developed an initial CSL based on catalog values of more efficacious lamps that

DO E selected to analyze as representative units. The existing energy conservation standard (the July 2012 standards) is 86 lm/W (at 25 °C). Figure 5.3.7 illustrates the initial CSL for this rulemaking on a plot of the efficacies of the representative lamps at 35 °C. The square box

identifie s the baseline lamp. The plot also shows the more efficacious substitutes DOE

c onsidered as replacement lamps. Some of the representative units shown on the plot are at the same wattage as the baseline, but have a higher efficacy; others have a combination of lower wattage and higher efficacy.5- 35



### Figure 5.3. 7 Candidate Standard Level for 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500

K

, at 35 °C

Ta ble 5.3

. 29 provides detailed information on the 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO representative lamps used in the engineering analysis and subsequent analyses.

Table 5.3. 29 4 -foot T5 MiniBP SO Representative Lamps

CSL Lamp

Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy Initial

Lamp Light Output (at

35 °C) Mean

Lamp Light Output (at

35 °C) Rated Life

CRI

W W lm/W lm lm hr

Baseline T5 28 27.8 104.3 2,900 2,697 30,000 85

1 T5 28 27.8 109.7 3,050 2,898 30,000 85

1 T5 2 6 2 6 111.5 2,900 2,660 25,000 85

1 T5 2 5 2 5 116.0 2,900 2,750 35,000 85



### As discussed above, DOE used commercially available lamps when possible and their

a ssociated rated efficacies (catalog initial lumen output divided by the ANSI rated wattage) at 35 °C to determine the initial CSL. DOE then adjusted the CSL to take into account the efficacy at

25 °C . To establish the minimum efficacy requirements for each CSL, DOE also considered data

subm itted to DOE by manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with existing energy conservation standards. DOE determined if any adjustments were necessary to the initial CSL to CSL1

102.0 104.0 106.0 108.0 110.0 112.0 114.0 116.0 118.0

20 22 24 26 28 30Catalog Rated Efficacy (lm/W)

ANSI Rated Wattage (W)5- 36



### account for compliance efficacies of representative units and/or equivalent lamps. DOE considered equivalent lamps to be manufacturer-identified cross references of the representative units or lamps deemed to have equivalent characteristics.

By examining publicly available compliance reports, DOE found that approximately 33 percent of available 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO lamps had compliance information. Using this

infor mation, DOE was able to confirm that all representative units and/or equivalent lamps complied. Thus, based on compliance information, DOE determined that no adjustment to CSL 1

was necessary. Figure 5.3.8 summarizes all available compliance information by lamp design ( i.e.

, 800 series, reduced wattage, and improved 800 series) and the resulting CSL.

Figure 5.3. 8 All Compliance Report Data for 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K, at 25 °C

Table 5.3

. 30 summarizes the final efficacy requirement at CSL 1.

Table 5.3. 30 CSL 1 for 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K

Candidate Standard Level Efficacy Requirement

lm/W

CSL 1 98.2 92.0 94.0 96.0 98.0 100.0 102.0 104.0 106.0

20 22 24 26 28 30Compliance Efficacy (lm/W)

ANSI Rated Wattage (W) 800 Series

Reduced Wattage

Improved 800 Series

CSL15- 37



### Engineering Summary

The first set of results present the lamp replacement scenario for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO representative product class. In this scenario, energy savings are achieved through the use of higher efficacy, reduced wattage lamps. As stated in section 5.3.4

, replacement lamp options were selected so that the system mean lumen output was within 10 percent of the baseline. Ta ble 5.3. 31 presents the engineering analysis results for two-lamp 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO PS systems operating in the commercial and industrial

sectors.

Table 5.3. 31 Lamp Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Two-Lamp Programmed Start 28 W T5, 4,100 K System in the

Co mmercial and Industrial Sectors

Efficacy

Level Lamp

Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy Initial

Lamp Light Output Mean

Lamp Light Output Rated

Life Number

of Lamps Starting

Method Ballast

Factor System

Input

Power BLE System

Initial Light Output System

Mean Light Output

W W lm/W lm lm hr W lm lm

Baseline T5 28 27.8 104.3 2,900 2,697 30,000 2 PS 1.00 60.4 92.1 5,800 5,394

CSL 1 T5 26 26 111.5 2,900 2,660 25,000 2 PS 1.00 56.6 91.9 5,800 5,320

CSL 1 T5 25 25 116.0 2,900 2,750 35,000 2 PS 1.00 54.5 91.8 5,800 5,500



### The next set of engineering results present the lamp-and-ballast replacement scenario for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO

re presentative product class. For this scenario, as stated in section 5.3.5 , the ballast with the lowest possible BF was selected that still maintained system mean lumen output within 10 percent of the baseline system. Table 5.3

. 32 presents the engineering analysis results for the replacement lamp-and-ballast combinations for two-lamp 4-foot T5 MiniBP SO PS systems in the commercial and industrial

se ctors.5- 38



### Table 5.3. 32 Lamp-and-Ballast Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Two-Lamp Programmed Start 28 W T5, 4,100 K

S ystem in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors

Efficacy

Level Lamp

Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy Initial

Lamp Light Output Mean

Lamp Light Output Rated

Life Number

of Lamps Starting

Method Ballast

Factor System

Input

Power BLE System

Initial Light Output System

Mean Light Output

W W lm/W lm lm hr W lm lm

Baseline T5 28 27.8 104.3 2,900 2,697 30,000 2 PS 1.00 60.4 92.1 5,800 5,394

CSL 1 T5 28 27.8 109.7 3,050 2,898 30,000 2 PS 0.95 57.9 91.2 5,795 5,506

CSL 1 T5 26 26 111.5 2,900 2,660 25,000 2 PS 0.95 54.3 91.0 5,510 5,054

CSL 1 T5 25 25 116.0 2,900 2,750 35,000 2 PS 0.95 52.3 90.9 5,510 5,2255- 39



### 5.3.6.5 Four-Foot T5 MiniBP HO GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K

B aseline Lamps

DOE selected baseline lamps as reference points from which to measure changes resulting from potential energy conservation standards. As discussed in section 5.2 , a baseline lamp is typically the most common, least efficacious lamp sold in a given product class. To

de termine energy savings and changes in price, DOE compared representative lamps at each hig her efficacy level with the baseline unit.

DOE considered a number of criteria when selecting which commercially available lamp would serve as a baseline. The most popular wattage associated with the 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO product class is 54 W. Therefore, DOE selected a 54 W 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO lamp as a

ba seline. For the 54 W 4- fo ot T5 MiniBP HO baseline lamp, DOE identified typical performance

c haracteristics. The T5 MiniBP HO lamps that are in this product class exclusively utilize 800

se ries rare earth phosphors. DOE selected a CCT of 4,100 K because it is the most common CCT

fo r this l amp type. The rated lifetime for these lamps is 24,000 hours when paired with a PS

ballast.

Typically, a baseline product is a unit that just meets the existing energy conservation standard for the product (76 lm/W for this product class). DOE identified a lamp with an efficacy of 92.9 lm/W at 35 °C (83.6 lm/W at 25 °C, the temperature at which lamps are tested for

c ompliance) because it is the most common, least efficacious 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO lamp. Table

5.3

. 33 lists the characteristics of the 54 W 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO baseline lamp.

T able 5.3. 33 Baseline Lamp for the 4 -foot T5 MiniBP High Output Representative Product

Class

Lamp

Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy Initial

Lamp Light Output (at

35 °C) Mean

Lamp Light Output (at

35 °C) Rated Life CRI CCT

W W lm/W lm lm hr K

T5 54 53.8 92.9 5,000 4,850 24,000 82 4,100



### Candidate Standard Levels and More Efficacious Substitutes

The following discussion identifies the steps and technologies associated with the CSL DOE considered for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO representative product class. DOE is aware that

man y T5 MiniBP HO lamps are operated at 35 °C and all manufacturers report performance at

35 °C in their catalogs. Therefore, DOE selected more efficacious replacements and developed

ini tial CSLs for T5 MiniBP HO lamps based on 35 °C catalog data. However, The DOE test procedure for T5 lamps requires the lamps to be tested at 25 °C. Because the test procedure is used to determine compliance with DOE energy conservation standards, DOE adjusted the CSLs to account for the efficacy at 25 °C. Specifically, when operated at 25 °C, the lumen output of T5 lamps is approximately 10 percent lower than the lumen output of such lamps when operated at5- 40



### 35 °C. DOE also utilized certain manufacturers’ catalog information if performance characteristics were provided for lamp operation at 25 °C.

For this produ ct class, DOE found that only one level of efficiency for full wattage (54 W) lamps exists on the market today. However, DOE identified several more efficacious,

re duced wattage lamps at higher efficacy levels. As mentioned previously, because full and

re duced wattage lamps are not interchangeable in all applications, DOE has decided to ensure that full wattage lamps can meet each CSL considered. Because there are no commercially

a vailable full wattage higher efficacy replacements for the 4-foo t T5 Mini BP HO baseline lamps, DOE modeled a more efficacious full wattage lamp. DOE created a higher efficacy model lamp

b y using a commercially available reduced wattage T5 MiniBP HO lamp more efficacious than

the ba seline lamp to scale to a full wattage T5 MiniBP HO lamp of comparable efficacy. The

de sign options utilized in the model lamp, such as higher efficiency phosphors, are the same design options utilized in commercially available reduced wattage T5 MiniBP HO lamps that are more efficient than the baseline lamp. For further information on the development of the improved 54 W T5 MiniBP HO lamp, see appendix 5A of this TSD.

I n general terms, DOE based CSL 1 on the design options described below. Because

uti lizing higher efficiency phosphors is the most common method to achieve higher efficacies, DOE describes the phosphor technology associated with the CSL:

CSL 1 : This level is represented by a modeled higher efficacy 4 -foot T5 MiniBP HO lamp that uses improved 800 series phosphors. Several reduced wattage lamps also meet this

leve l. Specifically, a reduced wattage 50 W lamp (with a rated efficacy of 100.0 lm/W at 35 °C operation) and a reduced wattage 47 W lamp (with a rated efficacy of 102.1 lm/W at 35 °C) meet

thi s level. This level represents max tech, the most efficacious products available today.

DO E developed an initial CSL based on the efficacy of the modeled 54 W T5 HO

, as well as catalog values of more efficacious lamps identified as representative units. The existing energy conservation standard (the July 2012 standards) is 76 lm/W (at 25 °C). Figure 5.3

. 9 illustrates the initial CSL for this rulemaking on a plot of the efficacies of the representative lamps at 35 °C. The square box identifies the baseline lamp. The plot also shows the more efficacious substitutes DOE considered as replacement lamps, including the improved full

wa ttage model lamp denoted by a circle. Some of the representative units shown on the plot are

a t the same wattage as the baseline, but have a higher efficacy; others have a combination of

lowe r wattage and higher efficacy.5- 41



### Figure 5.3. 9 Candidate Standard Level for 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO GSFLs with CCTs ≤
4,500 K , at 35 °C

Table 5.3

. 34 provides detailed information on the 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO representative lamps used in the engineering analysis and subsequent analyses.

Table 5.3. 34 4 -foot T5 MiniBP HO Representative Lamps

CSL Lamp

Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy Initial

Lamp Light Output (at

35 °C) Mean

Lamp Light Output (at

35 °C) Rated Life CRI

W W lm/W lm lm hr

Baseline T5 54 53.8 92.9 5

, 000 4

, 850 24

, 000 86

1 T5 54 53.8 97.3 5

, 237 4

, 871 30

, 000 82

1 T5 50 50.0 100.0 5

, 000 4

, 650 30

, 000 85

1 T5 47 47.0 102.1 4

, 800 4

, 410 30

, 000 84



### As discussed above, DOE used commercially available lamps, when possible, and their associated rated efficacies (catalog initial lumen output divided by the ANSI rated wattage) at 35 °C to determine the initial CSL. DOE then adjusted the CSL to take into account the efficacy at

25 °C . To establish the minimum efficacy requirements for each CSL, DOE also considered data

subm itted to DOE by manufacturers to demonstrate compliance with existing energy

c onservation standards. DOE determined if any adjustments were necessary to the initial CSL to CSL1

92.0 94.0 96.0 98.0 100.0 102.0 104.0

40 45 50 55 60Catalog Rated Efficacy (lm/W)

ANSI Rated Wattage (W)5- 42



### account for compliance efficacies of representative units and/or equivalent lamps. DOE considered equivalent lamps to be manufacturer-identified cross references of the representative units or lamps deemed to have equivalent characteristics.

By examining publicly available compliance reports, DOE found that approximately 37 percent of available 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO lamps had compliance information. Using this

infor mation, DOE was able to confirm that the reduced wattage representative units and/or equivalent lamps complied with CSL 1. Thus, based on compliance information, DOE determined that no adjustment to CSL 1 was necessary. Figure 5.3

. 10 summarizes all available compliance information by lamp design ( i.e.

, 800 series and reduced wattage) and the resulting

CSL.

Figure 5.3. 10 All Compliance Report Data for 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K, at 25 °C

Table 5. 3

. 35 summarizes the final efficacy requirement at CSL 1.

T able 5.3

. 35 CSL 1 for 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K

Candidate Standard Level Efficacy Requirement

lm/W

CSL 1 8 6.2 lm/W 80 82 84 86 88 90 92 94 96 98

40 45 50 55 60Compliance Efficacy (lm/W)

ANSI Rated Wattage (W) 800 Series

Reduced Wattage

Model Lamp

CSL15- 43



### Engineering Summary

The first set of results present the lamp replacement scenario for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO representative product class. In this scenario, energy savings are achieved through the use of higher efficacy, reduced wattage lamps. As stated in section 5.3.4

, replacement lamp options were selected so that the system mean lumen output was within 10 percent of the baseline. Ta ble 5.3. 36 presents the engineering analysis results for two-lamp 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO PS systems operating in the commercial and industrial

sectors.

Table 5.3. 36 Lamp Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Two-Lamp Programmed Start 54 W T5, 4,100 K System in the

Commercial and Industrial Sectors

Efficacy

Level Lamp

Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy Initial

Lamp Light Output Mean

Lamp Light Output Rated

Life Number

of Lamps Starting

Method Ballast

Factor System

Input

Power BLE System

Initial Light Output System

Mean Light Output

W W lm/W lm lm hr W lm lm

Baseline T5 54 53.8 92.9 5,000 4,850 24,000 2 PS 1.00 116.5 92.4 10,000 9,700

CSL 1 T5 50 50 100.0 5,000 4,650 30,000 2 PS 1.00 108.5 92.2 10,000 9,300

CSL 1 T5 47 47 102.1 4,800 4,410 30,000 2 PS 1.00 102.2 92.0 9,600 8,820



### The next set of engineering results present the lamp-and-ballast replacement scenario for the 4-foot T5 MiniBP HO

re presentative product class. For this scenario, as stated in section 5.3.5 , the ballast with the lowest possible BF was selected that still maintained system mean lumen output within 10 percent of the baseline system. For this product class, DOE could not consider

i nstalling a lamp on a lower BF ballast to save energy, as ballasts with a BF lower than 1.0 are not commercially available. Table

5.3 .37 presents the engineering analysis results for the replacement lamp-and-ballast combinations for two-lamp 4 -foot T5 MiniBP HO PS systems in the commercial and industrial sectors.5- 44



### Table 5.3. 37 Lamp-and-Ballast Replacement Engineering Analysis for a Two-Lamp Programmed Start 54 W T5, 4,100 K

S ystem in the Commercial and Industrial Sectors

Efficacy

Level Lamp

Diameter Nominal

Wattage Rated

Wattage Rated

Efficacy Initial

Lamp Light Output Mean

Lamp Light Output Rated

Life Number

of Lamps Starting

Method Ballast

Factor System

Input

Power BLE System

Initial Light Output System

Mean Light Output

W W lm/W lm lm hr W lm lm

Baseline T5 54 53.8 92.9 5,000 4,850 24,000 2 PS 1.00 116.5 92.4 10,000 9,700

CSL 1 T5 54 53.8 97.3 5,237 4,871 30,000 2 PS 1.00 116.5 92.4 10,474 9,741

CSL 1 T5 50 50 100.0 5,000 4,650 30,000 2 PS 1.00 108.5 92.2 10,000 9,300

CSL 1 T5 47 47 102.1 4,800 4,410 30,000 2 PS 1.00 102.2 92.0 9,600 8,8205- 45



### 5.3.7 Scaling to Product Classes Not Analyzed

DO E identified and selected certain product classes as representative product classes on

whic h to concentrate its analytical effort. DOE chose these representative product classes

pr imarily due to their high market volumes. The following sections discuss how DOE scaled CSLs from the analyzed product classes to those product classes not directly analyzed.

5.3.7.1 2 -foot U-Shaped GSFLs with CCTs ≤ 4,500 K

DO E utilized the 4-foot MBP linear fluorescent products to scale to the 2-foot U-shaped products, as both products use the same fluorescent technology, span the same range of wattages, and, without its bent curve, the 2-foot U-shaped would be approximately the same length as the

4 -foot MBP linear lamp

. DOE reviewed manufacturer catalogs containing commercially available 2-foot U-shaped lamps with CCTs less than or equal to 4,500 K and determined the equivalent 4-foot MBP version ( i.e. , the only difference between the two lamp types is shape).

B y comparing catalog ratings for 2-foot U-shaped lamps with equivalent 4-foot MBP lamps, DOE determined an average efficacy reduction for the 2-foot U-shaped lamps from the 4-foot

MB P lamps was appropriate. Therefore, DOE reduced CSL 1 and CSL 2 by 2 percent to 88.2

lm /W and 91.1 lm/W, respectively. DOE confirmed that the scaled standard levels resulted in a similar technology impact at each CSL (see 5.3.6.1 for these technology impacts). DOE also confirmed that the scaling factor did not result in backsliding from the current standards. Table

5.3

. 38 shows the efficacy levels for these lamps.

T able 5.3. 38 Efficacy Requirements for 2-foot U-Shaped Lamps with CCTs Less Than or Equal To 4,500 K

CSL Efficacy Requirement (lm/W) Reduction 4

- foot MBP 2

- foot U

- Shaped

1 90.0 88.2 2%

2 93.0 91.1 2%



### 5.3.7.2 Lamps with CCTs Above 4,500 K

As discussed in 5.3.1 , DOE is not analyzing GSFLs with CCTs above 4,500 K. As stated

in t he market and technology assessment (see chapter 3 of this TSD), the efficacy of higher CCT lamps i s lower due to the quality of the blue light emitted. Based on manufacturer feedback that

the e ffect of CCT on efficacy is independent of product type, DOE chose to develop one scaling factor to apply across all product classes to account for the difference in efficacy between lamps with a CCT less than or equal to 4,500 K and greater than 4,500 K.

DO E identified pairs of lamps in which the only difference between the lamps was the

CCT . DO E compared commercially available lamps at 4,100 K and 5

, 000 K, and 4,100 K and

6

, 500 K to determine differences in efficacy. DOE then calculated the average difference in efficacy of all lamp pairs and determined a 2 percent reduction of the CSLs established for the less than or equal to 4,500 K representative product classes was appropriate. Two percent is also

the la rgest scaling factor that can be applied across all product classes without backsliding.5- 46



### For the 2-ft U-shaped product class with CCT greater than 4,500 K, DOE applied the 2 percent reduction to the scaled CSLs for the 2-ft U-shaped product class. DOE confirmed that the scaled standard levels resulted in similar technology impacts at each CSL. Table 5.3. 39 shows the efficacy levels for these lamps.

Table 5.3. 39 Efficacy Requirements for Product Classes with CCTs Greater Than 4,500 K

Product Class CSL Efficacy Requirement

lm/W Reduction

≤ 4,500 K > 4,500 K

4

- foot MBP 1 90.0 88.2 2%

2 93.0 91.1 2%

8

- foot SP slimline 1 99.0 97.0 2%

8

- foot RDC HO 1 97.0 95.1 2%

4

- foot T5 MiniBP SO 1 98.2 96.2 2%

4

- foot T5 MiniBP HO 1 8 6.2 8 4

. 5 2%

2

- ft U

- shaped 1 88.2 86.4 2%

2 91.1 89.3 2%



### 5.3.8 Summary of All Candidate Standard Levels for Covered GSFLs

Table 5.3

. 40 shows a summary of CSLs for all GSFL s covered by this rulemaking. “N/A” is shown where no CSLs exist. Representative product classes are indicated by gr a y shading.

Table 5.3. 40 Summary of All Candidate Standard Levels for Covered GSFLs

CCT Lamp Type Candidate Standard Level

1 2

≤ 4,500 K 4

- foot medium bipin 90.0 93.0

2

- foot U

- shaped 88.2 91.1

8

- foot single pin slimline 9 9

. 0 N/A

8

- foot recessed double contact HO 97.0 N/A

4

- foot T5 miniature bipin SO 98.2 N/A

4

- foot T5 miniature bipin HO 8 6.2 N/A

> 4,500 K 4

- foot medium bipin 88.2 91.1

2

- foot U

- shaped 86.4 89.3

8

- foot single pin slimline 97.0 N/A

8

- foot recessed double contact HO 95.1 N/A

4

- foot T5 miniature bipin SO 96.2 N/A

4

- foot T5 miniature bipin HO 8 4

. 5 N/A5- 47



### 5.4 INCANDESCENT REFLECTOR LAMPS

5.4.1 Representative Product Classes

As discussed in the market and technology assessment (chapter 3 of this TSD), DOE is

c onsidering eight separate IRL product classes based on three class-setting factors : spec trum, diameter, and input voltage. Of these product classes, DOE chose the standard spectrum, voltage

less than 125 V, diameter greater than 2.5 inches product class as representative due to the

pr evalence of these lamps in the market. Information from manufacturer interviews and a review of product catalogs revealed that standard spectrum lamps represent the vast majority of IRLs.

DO E research and manufacturer feedback also indicated that IRLs with diameters greater than

2.5 inche s are mo re common that those with smaller diameters; specifically, the majority of

c onsumers purchase parabolic aluminized reflector (PAR)30 or PAR38 IRLs. Additionally, DOE

found that most consumers purchase IRLs rated at 120 V.

Ta ble 5.4

. 1 lists the eight product classes and identifies the representative product class

that DOE is considering in this preliminary analysis.

T able 5.4. 1 Product Classes for Incandescent Reflector Lamps

Lamp Type Diameter Voltage

Standard s pectrum > 2.5 inches ≥ 125

< 125 (representative)

≤ 2.5 inches ≥ 125

< 125

Modified s pectrum > 2.5 inches ≥ 125

< 125

≤ 2.5 inches ≥ 125

< 125



### 5.4.2 Baseline Lamps

For each representative product class, DOE selects baseline lamps that are typically the most common, least efficacious lamps that meet standards. When necessary, DOE selects multiple baseline lamps to ensure consideration of different high volume lamps and their

a ssociated consumer economics. To identify baseline lamps, DOE reviews product offerings in

c atalogs, shipment information, and manufacturer feedback obtained during interviews.

DOE selected baseline lamps as reference points from which DOE measured changes resulting from potential energy conservation standards. To determine energy savings and changes in price, DOE compared representative lamps at each higher efficacy level with the

ba seline units. DOE considered a number of criteria when selecting which commercially available lamp would serve as a baseline. First, DOE selected a PAR38 lamp as the baseline based on the diameter’s high shipment volume. Then, DOE identified typical characteristics for5- 48



### these types of lamps ( i.e.

, wattage, lifetime, lumen package, and rated efficacy n 

### ). Among all PAR38 lamps with the most common characteristics, DOE selected two lamps that just met

e xisting standards as baselines. One is a halogen lamp with a lifetime of 1,500 hours that utilizes a higher efficiency inert fill gas and a higher efficiency reflector coating. The other is an HIR

lam p with a lifetime of 3,000 hours that utilizes IR glass coatings. Because these lamps comprise two distinct technologies and therefore have different LCCs, DOE analyzed both lamps as

baselines.

A summary of the IRL baseline lamps selected for the representative product class is

shown in Ta

ble 5.4

. 2

.

Table 5.4. 2 IRL Baseline Lamps

Representative Product

Class Baseline Lamps

Lamp Type Descriptor Wattage Efficacy Initial Light Output Lifetime

W lm/W lm hr

Standard Spectrum, Voltage < 125 V,
Diameter > 2.5 Inches PAR38 Improved Halogen 60 17.8 1,070 1,500

PAR38 HIR 60 18.3 1,100 3,000



### 5.4.3 More Efficacious Substitutes

After choosing a baseline lamp for each representative product class, DOE identifies commercially available IR Ls that can serve as more efficacious substitutes. When identifying substitutes, DOE used catalog efficacy values to identify higher efficacy replacement lamps.

DO E selected more efficacious replacement lamps that both save energy and maintain comparable light output when possible. Similar to GSFLs, consumers take lumen package into consideration when purchasing IRLs. Therefore, DOE analyz ed commercially available, reduced wattage lamps that maintain light output within 10 percent of the baseline.

In reviewing published catalog data, DOE observed that a higher efficacy, reduced wattage lamp

, referred to in this preliminary analysis as an improved HIR lamp, can serve as a

subst itute for both baseline lamps. The reduced wattage design utilizes HIR technology, which

re fers to glass coatings that reflect infrared light, as well as a higher efficiency reflector coating, which are discussed in chapter 3 of this TSD

.

5.4.4 Candidate Standard Levels

DOE adopted an equation-based approach to establish CSLs for IRLs, reflecting the

re lationship between efficacy and wattage. DOE developed a continuous equation that specifies a minimum efficacy requirement across wattages and represents the potential efficacy a lamp

a chieves using a particular design option. The technology contour line represents the same IRL

de sign option across the wattage range of the entire product class. For example, the CSL based

n For IRLs, the rated efficacy is the catalog initial lumen output divided by catalog wattage.5- 49



### on an improved HIR lamp is a curve rather than a step function, and denotes an improved HIR

standa rd at all wattages.

For IRLs in the representative product class, DOE observed a natural efficacy division in the marketplace corresponding to the design option utilized to increase lamp efficacy. DOE considered this efficacy division in selecting a CSL by using the efficacies of commercially available lamps as a guide. DOE selected representative units for each CSL.

DOE also observed lifetime changes for different technologies. For example, a halogen lamp typically has a lifetime of around 1,500 hours, while an HIR lamp typically has a lifetime

of 3,000 hours. DOE considered the possibility that manufacturers would produce lamps with a shorter lifetime than the baseline lamps in order to increase efficacy. To account for this scenario, DOE determined performance characteristics and prices for model lamps that meet

C SL 1 by shortening lifetime rather than using more efficient design options. To calculate the

pe rformance characteristics of these model lamps, DOE calculated the minimum lumens necessary to meet CSL 1 for a lamp with the same wattage as the baseline lamps. DOE then

c alculated the shortened lifetime necessary for each baseline lamp to achieve the minimum

lum en output by using equations from the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America ( IESNA) Lighting Handbook 1 

### that relate lifetime, lumens, and wattage. DOE assumed that the cost of each lamp with a shortened lifetime at CSL 1 was equivalent to the cost of the baseline lamp because the lamps would utilize the same technology. These modeled lamps were

incor porated in shortened lifetime scenarios analyzed in the shipment analysis (see chapter 9 of

thi s TSD) and as a sensitivity in the LCC analysis (see appendix 8B of this TSD).

In general terms, DOE based CSL 1 on the following design options:

CS L 1 : This candidate standard level can be achieved by improved HIR lamps that may utilize improvements in reflector coatings. This level is based on an HIR lamp with a lifetime of 4,400 hours.

DOE developed an initial CSL based on catalog values of the more efficacious lamp that DOE selected to analyze as a representative unit. Figure 5.4. 1 plots the results of the engineering analysis for the baseline lamps along with the initial CSL based on catalog efficacies. Square boxes represent the two baseline lamps in the plot; the triangle represents the higher efficacy lamp de sign. As indicated in Figure 5.4

. 1 , the lamp design for the more efficacious substitute is

h igher in efficacy and lower in wattage than the baseline lamp, but maintains the light output of

the ba seline lamp.5- 50



### Figure 5.4. 1 Initial Candidate Standard Level for Standard Spectrum, Large Diameter,

L ow Voltage IRLs

Table 5.4

. 3 provides detailed information on the IRL representative lamps used in the engineering analysis and subsequent analyses.

Table 5.4. 3 IRL Representative Lamps

Efficacy

Level Lamp Type Descriptor Wattage Efficacy Initial Light Output Lifetime

W lm/W l m hr

Baseline 1 PAR38 Improved Halogen 60 17.8 1

, 070 1

, 500

Baseline 2 PAR38 HIR 60 18.3 1

, 100 3

, 000

CSL 1 PAR38 Improved HIR 55 20.0 1

, 100 4

, 400



### DOE also reviewed publicly available lamp efficacy data submitted to DOE by manufacturers to show compliance with existing energy conservation standards. o 

### By analyzing

o The publicly available compliance information for IRLs can be found in DOE’s Compliance Certification Database

available here: www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/

.5- 51



### manufacturer compliance reports, DOE found that efficacies of lamps when reported for the

purpo se of compliance often vary from catalog values.

Because the compliance requirements for IR L s require the reported efficacy to be the

lowe r of the average efficacy or the lower confidence limit divided by 0.97 and also impose specific sampling requirements, the efficacy reported for compliance may be different from the

ra ted efficacy reported in catalogs. Therefore, DOE adjusted the initial CSL for IRLs such that commercially available IRLs using design options represented by the CSL would comply with the CSL. Specifically, DOE adjusted CSL 1 based on the reported efficacy of a PAR38 improved HIR lamp. Figure 5.4

. 2 presents the compliance report data used to develop the IRL CSL. The triangle indicates the representative unit. DOE notes that there is a limited amount of publicly available compliance information for lamps covered under this rulemaking. DOE found there to

be compliance data for only 36 percent of covered IRL products compliant with the July 2012 standards. In addition, manufacturers indicated during interviews that new products are being introduced into the market that have not yet been tested for compliance.

F igure 5.4. 2 Compliance Report Data for Standard Spectrum, Large Diameter, Low Voltage IRLs

Table 5.4

. 4 summarizes the resulting efficacy requirements at CSL 1 after accounting for compliance report data.5- 52



### Table 5.4. 4 CSL 1 for Standard Spectrum, Large Diameter, Low Voltage IRLs

Candidate Standard Level Efficacy Requirement

lm/W

CSL 1 6.2P 0.27
P = rated wattage



### 5.4.5 Scaling to Product Classes Not Analyzed

DOE identified and select ed a representative product class on which to concentrate its analytical effort. DOE considered this product class as representative primarily due to its high market volume. The following sections discuss how DOE scaled CSLs from the analyzed product class to those product classes not directly analyzed.

5.4.5.1 Modified Spectrum

DOE did not directly analyze modified spectrum IRLs, but established CSLs for this product class by scaling from the CSLs developed for the standard spectrum product class. DOE

de veloped a relationship between the performance of standa rd spectrum and modified spectrum

I RLs. As with higher CCT GSFLs, modified spectrum IRLs achieve their modified spectra throug h selective filtering, thereby inherently lowering their efficacies. Manufacturers achieve

thi s specific spectrum in modified spectrum IRLs by applying a coating, or introducing

ne odymium or other additives into the cover glass of the IRL. Manufacturers may change the thickness of the coating or the content of neodymium to modify the spectrum to different

d egrees, and this modification changes the lumen output of the IRL. In the 2009 Lamps Rule, DOE assessed the efficacy differences between standard and modified spectrum IRLs by

mea suring the efficacies of commercially available standard and modified spectrum lamps. 74 FR 34080 (July 14, 2009) p 

### DOE correlated the measured color point data of the lamps with lamp light output reduction and lamp spectral power distribution. By analyzing the data, DOE established that a reduction of 15 percent from the standard spectrum CSLs would be appropriate for modified spectrum IRLs.

DOE found a limited number of modified spectrum products on the market, but these lamps ha d an efficacy reduction of 15 percent from standard spectrum products. Thus, DOE is

c onsidering maintaining the reduction percentage for this rulemaking. See appendix 5B of this

TSD for further details on DOE’s modified spectrum IRL analysis. Ta ble 5.4. 5 shows a summary of the CSL for modified spectrum IRLs with diameters greater than 2.5 inches and operating voltages less than 125 V.

Table 5.4. 5 CSL 1 for Modified Spectrum, Large Diameter, Low Voltage IRLs

CSL Efficacy Requirement

lm/W Reduction Standard Spectrum Modified Spectrum

1 6.2P 0.27 5.3P 0.27 15.0%

P = rated wattage

p Information regarding the 2009 Lamps Rule can be found on regulations.gov, docket number EERE- 2006 -STD0131 at www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE- 2006 -STD- 0131

.5- 53



### 5.4.5.2 Diameters Less Than or Equal To 2.5 Inches

DO E did not directly analyze IRLs with diameters less than or equal to 2.5 inches but established CSLs for this product class by scaling from the CSLs developed for the IRL product

c lass with diameters greater than 2.5 inches. DOE developed a relationship between the

pe rformance of small-diameter and large-diameter IRLs. A smaller-diameter IRL has an inherently lower optical efficacy than a larger-diameter lamp given a similar filament size. To determine an appropriate scaling factor for IRLs with diameters less than or equal to 2.5 inches, DOE examined the inherent efficacy differences between the PAR20 lamp (the most common IRL with a diameter less than or equal to 2.5 inches) and its PAR30 or PAR38 counterpart by comparing catalog efficacy data of each lamp type from several lamp manufacturers (all other

fe atures remaining approximately the same). DOE found that the reduction in efficacy caused by

the smaller lamp diameter was approximately 12 percent for IRLs.

DOE acknowledges that diameter may impact the type of capsule that is used within a lamp. Single-ended capsules feature a lead wire inside of the capsule that carries current between the filament and the electrical connection in the IRL’s base. The presence of this wire inside of the capsule prevents a certain amount of energy from reaching the capsule wall and being reflected (recycled) back to the capsule filament. Large-diameter IRLs with HIR technology may feature a double-ended HIR capsule. A double- en ded burner features a lead wire outside of the capsule, where it does not interfere with the reflectance of energy from the capsule wall back to the capsule filament. However, the double-ended HIR capsule configuration does not generally fit into a PAR20 lamp due to its reduced size. Thus, DOE developed the efficacy requirements for small-diameter IRLs by assuming that the double-ended burner technology could not be used. In order to determine the efficacy reduction that would result from using a single-ended burner

inst ead of a double-ended burner in a lamp, in the 2009 Lamps Rule DOE obtained a

c ommercially available single-ended HIR capsule and measured the location of the lead wire inside of the capsule. DOE then developed a model that computed how much energy is prevented from being reflected against the capsule wall and recycled due to the “shadowing effect” of the lead wire inside of the capsule. DOE was also able to determine the slight change in IRL power consumption due to the reduction in energy recycling. Finally, DOE simulated manufacturing variability by modeling the effects of changing the capsule dimensions and lead wire positioning by small amounts. Using the modeled data, DOE computed that an efficacy reduction of approximately 3.5 percent would result from the usage of a single-ended burner instead of a double-ended burner in a lamp.

Because DOE did not find small-diameter IRLs covered under this rulemaking that

incor porate double-ended burners, DOE decided to continue to incorporate the scaling factor for sing le-ended burners in its analysis. This 3.5-percent reduction is in addition to the 12-percentlowe r optical efficacy for small-diameter IRLs compared to large-diameter IRLs. Therefore,

DO E is considering a scaling factor of 15.5 percent with 12 percent based on the impact of the diameter and an additional 3.5 percent based on the use of less efficient single-ended burners in small-diameter lamps. Table 5.4. 6 shows a summary of the CSL for standard spectrum IRLs with

diame ters less than or equal to 2.5 inches and operating voltages less than 125 V.5- 54



### Table 5.4. 6 CSL 1 for Standard Spectrum, Small Diameter, Low Voltage IRLs

CSL Efficacy Requirement

lm/W Reduction
≥ 2.5 Inches < 2.5 Inches

1 6.2P 0.27 5.2P 0.27 15.5%

P = rated wattage



### 5.4.5.3 Operating Voltages Greater Than or Equal to 125 Volts

As discussed in chapter 3 of this TSD, DOE is considering separate product classes for lamps rated at 120 V and those rated at 130 V. DOE notes that most consumers operate 130 V lamps at 120 V, which slightly decreases their efficacy but increases their lifetime. In the 2009 Lamps Rule, DOE developed a scaling factor for the 130 V product class that would require 130 V lamps to use the same technology and possess the same general performance characteristics as 120 V lamps operated at 120 V. DOE found that while there may be a slight decrease in efficacy, the lifetime of a 130 V lamp is doubled when it is operated at 120 V, giving it an advantage over 120 V rated lamps. Therefore, using the IESNA Lighting Handbook 2 

### equations that relate lifetime, lumens, and wattage to voltage of incandescent lamps, DOE determined the increase in efficacy of 130 V rated lamps operated at 120 V if their additional lifetime over that of 120 V lamps were instead used to increase their efficacy. The equations DOE used from the IESNA Lighting Handbook are as follows:

Eq. 5

. 1

Eq. 5

. 2

Eq. 5

. 3

Capital letters represent normal rated values while lower-case letters represent changed values. By using published manufacturer literature on lumen, wattage, and voltage ratings, DOE found in the 2009 Lamps Rule that the most typical values for d, k, and n in the above equations for the IRLs analyzed are as follows: d=8.7, k=3.4, n=1.6. From this information and confidential information on incandescent lamp design, DOE determined that a 15 percent scaling factor was necessary. Therefore, DOE implemented a 15 pe rcent increase to scale from the < 125 V pr oduct class to the >125 V product class in the 2009 Lamps Rule.

DOE believes that the analysis from the 2009 Lamps Rule is still applicable. Thus, DOE

is consider ing maintaining the 15 percent increase in this rulemaking. Table 5.4.7 shows a summary of the CSL for standard spectrum IRLs with diameters greater than 2.5 inches and operating voltages greater than or equal to 125 V.5- 55



### Table 5.4. 7 CSL 1 for Standard Spectrum, Large Diameter, High Voltage IRLs

CSL Efficacy Requirement

lm/W Increase

< 125 Volts ≥ 125 Volts

1 6.2P 0.27 7.1P 0.27 15.0%

P = rated wattage



### 5.4.6 Summary of All Candidate Standard Levels for Covered IRLs

In analyzing commercially available IRLs, DOE found each scaling factor (spectrum, diameter, and voltage) to be independent. To scale from the representative product class to a

sc aled product class, DOE applied each scaling factor that corresponded to the differences between the two classes by multiplying the representative product class coefficient by all applicable scaling factors and rounding the result. Table 5.4. 8 shows a summary of the CSLs for

all IRL s covered by this rulemaking. The representative IRL product class is indicated by gray shading.

Table 5.4. 8 Summary of Candidate Standard Levels for Covered IRLs

Lamp Type Diameter Voltage CSL 1

Standard
spectrum > 2.5 inches ≥ 125 V 7.1 P 0.27

< 125 V 6.2 P 0.27

≤ 2.5 inches ≥ 125 V 6.0 P 0.27

< 125 V 5.2 P 0.27

Modified
spectrum > 2.5 inches ≥ 125 V 6.1 P 0.27

< 125 V 5.3 P 0.27

≤ 2.5 inches ≥ 125 V 5.1 P 0.27

< 125 V 4.5 P 0.27

P = rated wattage5- 56 

### REFERENCES

1 

### Rea, M. S., ed., The IESNA Lighting Handbook: Reference and Application, 9th Edition . New York: Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. IESNA (2000).

2 

### Ibid.