ES

- i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ES.1 OVER VIEW OF PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES

................................ ... ES

- 1
ES.2 KEY RESULTS OF THE A NALYSIS

................................ ................................ ........ ES

- 3
ES.2.1 Determination of Scope

................................ ................................ .............. ES

- 3
ES.2.2 Market and Technology Assessment

................................ .......................... ES

- 4
ES.2.3 Screening Analysis

................................ ................................ ...................... ES

- 5
ES.2.4 Engineering Analysis

................................ ................................ .................. ES

- 5
ES.2.5 Product Price Determination

................................ ................................ ....... ES

- 6
ES.2.6 Energy Use Analysis

................................ ................................ ................... ES

- 7
ES.2.7 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

................................ .......... ES

- 9
ES.2.8 Shipments Analysis

................................ ................................ ................... ES

- 11
ES.2.9 National Impact Analysis

................................ ................................ .......... ES

- 17
ES.2.9.1 National Energy Savings

................................ ......................... ES

- 17
ES.2 .9.2 Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits

............................... ES

- 18
ES.2.9.3 Summary of Alternative Analyses

................................ .......... ES

- 18
ES.2.10 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

................................ .............. ES

- 22
ES.2.11 Other Analyses

................................ ................................ .......................... ES

- 22
ES.3 ISSUES ON WHICH DOE SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT

................................ ....... ES

- 22
ES.3.1 GSFL Scope

................................ ................................ .............................. ES

- 22
ES.3.2 GSFL Definitions

................................ ................................ ...................... ES

- 23
ES.3.3 Market Trends

................................ ................................ ........................... ES

- 23
ES.3.4 Technology Options

................................ ................................ .................. ES

- 23
ES.3.5 Product Classes

................................ ................................ ......................... ES

- 23
ES.3.6 Market and Technology Assessment

................................ ........................ ES

- 23
ES.3.7 Screening Analysis

................................ ................................ .................... ES

- 23
ES.3.8 Representative Product Cl asses

................................ ................................ ES

- 24
ES.3.9 Baseline Lamps

................................ ................................ ......................... ES

- 24
ES.3.10 More Efficacious Substitutes

................................ ................................ .... ES

- 24
ES.3.11 Lamp

- and

- Ballast Systems

................................ ................................ ....... ES

- 24
ES.3.12 Four

- Foot T5 MiniBP HO Model Lamp

................................ ................... ES

- 25
ES.3.13 Candidate Standard Levels

................................ ................................ ....... ES

- 25
ES.3.14 Compliance Requirements

................................ ................................ ........ ES

- 25
ES.3.15 Scaling between Product Classes

................................ .............................. ES

- 25
ES.3.16 Engineering Analysis

................................ ................................ ................ ES

- 25
ES.3.17 Product Price Determination

................................ ................................ ..... ES

- 26
ES.3.18 GSFL Ballast Prices

................................ ................................ .................. ES

- 26
ES.3.19 Rare Earth Phosphor Availability

................................ ............................. ES

- 26
ES.3.20 Dimmed GSFL Systems

................................ ................................ ........... ES

- 26
ES.3.21 Lighting Controls Market Penetration

................................ ...................... ES

- 26
ES.3.22 Lighting Controls Performance Characteristics

................................ ........ ES

- 26
ES.3.23 Operating Profiles for Energy Use Characterization

................................ ES

- 27
ES.3.24 Residential GSFL LCC Analysis

................................ .............................. ES

- 27
ES.3.25 Sales Tax in the LCC Analysis

................................ ................................ . ES

- 27ES

- ii

ES.3.26 Spacing Adjustments in the LCC Analysis

................................ ............... ES

- 27
ES.3.27 LCC Analysis

................................ ................................ ............................ ES

- 27
ES.3.28 T5s in the Residential Market

................................ ................................ ... ES

- 28
ES.3.29 Shipments and NIA

................................ ................................ ................... ES

- 28
ES.3.30 LCC Subgroups

................................ ................................ ......................... ES

- 28
ES.3.31 Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis

................................ ......................... ES

- 28
ES.3.32 Manufacturer Subgroup Analysis

................................ ............................. ES

- 28
ES.3.33 Manufacturer Impact Analysis

................................ ................................ .. ES

- 28
ES.3.34 Valuing Airborne Emission Reductions

................................ ................... ES

- 28
ES.3.35 Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)

................................ ........................... ES

- 29
ES.3.36 Trial Standard Levels

................................ ................................ ................ ES

- 29

LIST OF TABLES

Table ES.2.1 GSFLs Included in the Scope of Coverage

................................ .......................... ES

- 3 Table ES.2.2 IRLs Included in the Scope of Coverage

................................ ............................. ES

- 4
Table ES.2.3 Product Classes for GSFLs

................................ ................................ .................. ES

- 5
Table ES.2.4 Product Classes for IRLs

................................ ................................ ...................... ES

- 5 Table ES.2.5 Candidate Standard Levels for GSFL Representative Product Classes

............... ES

- 6

T able ES.2.6 Candidate Standard Levels for the IRL Representative Product Classes

............ ES

- 6 Table ES.2.7 Average Annual GSFL Operating Hours by Sector

................................ ............. ES

- 7 Table ES.2.8 Average Annual IRL Operating Hours by Sector

................................ ................ ES

- 7 Table ES.2.9 Annual Energy Use by GSFL Product Class (Lamp

- and

- Ballast

Replacement Scenario)

................................ ................................ ...................... ES

- 8 Table ES.2.10 Annual Energy Use by IRL Product Class

................................ ......................... ES

- 9
Table ES.2.11 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results for GSFLs (Lamp

- and

Ballast Replacement)

................................ ................................ ....................... ES

- 10
Table ES.2.12 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results for IRLs

................................ .... ES

- 11
Table ES.2.13 Summary of Variable Assumptions for Shipments Scenarios

......................... ES

- 14 Table ES.2.14 Effects of Candidate Standard Cases on Cumulative Shipments Compared

to Base Case for GSFLs and IRLs, Best Estimate

................................ ........... ES

- 16
Table ES.2.1 5 Summary of Variable Assumptions for NIA Scenarios

................................ ... ES

- 17 Table ES.2.16 Best Estimates of Cumulative National Energy Savings (quads) for GSFLs

and IRLs

................................ ................................ ................................ ........... ES

- 18 Table ES.2.17 Net Present Value for GSFLs and IRLs, Reference Scenario (billion

2011$)

................................ ................................ ................................ .............. ES

- 18
Table ES.2.18 Alternative Scenario Variables

................................ ................................ ........ ES

- 19 Table ES.2.19 The Impact of LED and Lighting Controls Penetration into the GSFL and

IRL Markets on Cumulative Shipment s for Two Candidate Standards
Cases

................................ ................................ ................................ ................ ES

- 20 Table ES.2.20 Cumulative National Energy Savings (quads) for Alternative Analyses

......... ES

- 20 Table ES.2.21 Cumulative Net Present Value for Alternative Analyses, 3% Discount Rate

(2011$B)

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... ES

- 21
Table ES.2.22 Cumulative Net Present Value for Alternative Analyses, 7% Discount Rate

(2011$B)

................................ ................................ ................................ .......... ES

- 21ES

- iii LIST OF FIGURES

Figure ES.1.1 Flow Diagram of Analyses for the GSFL and IRL Rulemaking Process

........... ES

- 2 Figure ES.2.1 LED Incursion Curves for GSFLs and IRLs, Best Estimate

............................ ES

- 12 Figure ES.2.2 Inflation

- Adjusted Rare Earth Oxide Price Index for Triband Phosphors

used in Linear Fluorescent Lamps

................................ ................................ .. ES

- 13 Figure ES.2.3 Historical and Projected Shipments for GSFLs, Best Estimate

........................ ES

- 15 Figure ES.2.4 Historical and Projected Shipments for IRLs, Best Estimate

.......................... ES

- 16ES

- 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1 OVERVIEW OF P RELIMINARY ANALYSIS ACTIVITIES

Section 6295(o)(3)(B) of 42 U.S.C. requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to establish energy conservation standards that achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically justified. This executive summary highlights the activities associated with this preliminary analysis that DOE conducted when considering amended energy conservation standards for general service fluorescent lamps (GSFLs) and incandescent reflector lamps (IRLs). The executive summ ary also describes key results from DOE’s preliminary analysis and delineates issues on which DOE seeks comment.

Figure ES.1

. 1 presents a summary of the analytical components of the standards

- setting process and illustrates how key results are generated. The focal point of the figure is the center column, labeled “An alyses.” The columns labeled “Key Inputs” and “Key Outputs” show how the analyses fit into the process and how they relate to each other. Key inputs are the types of data and other information that the analyses require. Some key information is obtained fro m public databases; DOE collects other inputs from interested parties or persons having special knowledge and expertise. Key outputs are analytical results that feed directly into the standards

setting process. The issues on which DOE seeks comment from in terested parties derive from the key results that are generated by the preliminary analys i s. Arrows connecting analyses show the types of information that feed from one analysis to another.ES

- 2

Figure ES.1.1 Flow Diagram of Analyses for the GSFL and IRL Rulemaking Process Approaches

, Key Inputs

, Analyses

, Key Outputs

'

, a m..-, "' O'Ocu m ,,'"

· _",y f m;asro::;uo;; , .a...

__ "" · 1Iio

__ , • f'roduo< a..

...



### . 

# ......,-

, M a "'e tand Technoio!ly • T octv>oIogy (Iotiofto

, Assessm e nt ·......"...o,......,om



# . _""""



# .... ,

,

,

,**-~-** T_(Iotiofto 

# .-

o' E _tom 

# .-

, • Dooion (Iotiofto , Scr ee n i ng Analysis

,

· E ".,..".....""""""'""" ,

, Dooion (Iotiofto

• Dooion Ootion """"'""" ·

...... ,_Co.t ,
·E ".,.."."...,.,....,. , ·Co.t -" "-,,_

, Eng i n ee rmg Analysis

,"""""'o,E.--n"" ,

,**o~** En e rgy Use , c 

## ' 0

. E......,..., ,,",-**·Do''''Oio_~** , •

........ E.--n "

.. (lJ E C) 

## ",.

· E

_ C

...... om , 

# - M a "m ps f or , 

## I**~-** • RotoII'noo CoIoction "'" Prod u ct Poc e
,



# - Det e rmilla boo , lif e -Cyc le Cost and ·<;ro-CycIoCo.ts

,

. E.--n_

, ; 

# r**Paybac~** PeOOd .p.,.,..,.-

·

... _CO.ts ' Analysis

· "-tononoo**~** _ Co.ts :

· c 

## " 

## ",.

, 

# , - ., 

# ... 

# -

, ·!l Ee 

# ,- .E.--n_ "0

, 

## ",. ·W_Co.ts**.~-** Shil>m e nts , • ' .-Co.ts

,

• """,,,-t"'" ' ....,..t Analysis , •

......... E.--n so

..... , Nabooal Impact 

### ·

__ v_



### . ......,sm.

..... , Analysis
• E.--nl'noo ' ....,..ts ,**.~ ..,...**  ,

,

, Pr e liminal"j ·Con

........ c

__



# ....... 

# ,--**·DHct~_** , M a n uf acltl r e r Impact ·A

.. , _Co.ts ,

, Analysis

,

P,eMni""y Analysis



### · s_ Commoots 

## J Revise Pr e liminal"j 

## I

: • T rioI """"",,, lo

.... (TSU ) Analyses

,

'Domoo<_ lif e -Cyc le Cost : ·<;ro-CycIoCo.ts

, .p

- StIb.Groop Analysis ' • _"" C ub """



# ....... 

# ,--

: • s....Grooo CuM

... ·A

.. , ,"0**.DHct~_** 

# ....... 

# ,-_.-

M a n uf acltl r e r Impact**.~** 

# . . 

# -

, '

· C

......... 

# -

· GR' "

·

...... '_ F _om ' Analysis

,

• IMty lood

, ..,...**~~t**

• N""""T ·

......... E.--n so

..... Utilil"j Impact 

# r 

# -

·

......... E.--n so

..... Analysis 

# : :;;;.,,-

·

......... f'roduo<Co.ts ,

, 

# ._,

. ......... 000<_ Co.ts Employm e nt Impact 

# - , Analysis : 

# ..........**~-**



# . ------ :

. ___ Eo_

·

.........**~so** .....

• N""""T 

### · """"""'v

.... 0'--.- Emissions ' • """"",,,8000'",,0' 

# , _.-

, Analy sisl1dOll e b ",boo

,


# . -

, ,

, : •

......... E.--n so

..... 

### _'K

, Reg u latol"j Impact 

### , ·

__ v_

, Analysis

, ,**~obce** of P""",_ R u )emolOng (NOPIII

,**.~o'''''_Ro.''' :**  ,

, ,

, Revise Analyses ' ·Ro

..... _

, • , _ Commoots ,

, ,

, , ,



# , 

# ..........ES

- 3

ES.2 KEY RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS

ES.2.1 Determination of Scope

T he Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA) established energy
conservation standards for certain classes of GSFL s and IRL s , and r equir ed DOE to conduct two rulemaking cycles to determine whether these standards should be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6291(1), 6295(i)(1) and (3)

- (4)) EPCA also authorized DOE to adopt standards for additional GSFL s if such standards were warranted. (42 U.S.C. 6 295(i)(5))

In this second rulemaking cycle, DOE identif ied additional fluorescent lamps for
consideration and then assessed whether each lamp type (including those for which DOE has already established standards) met the criteria for prescribing new or amended

standards

 specifically , potential for significant energy savings, technological feasibility, and economic justification. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A) , (o)(3) ) The following table summarizes all fluorescent lamps for which standards or amended standards are being considered in this rulemaking.

Table ES.2

. 1 GSFLs Included in the Scope of Coverage

Lamp Type Wattage (W)

4

- foot medium bipin (MBP) linear (4

- foot MBP) ≥ 25 W

2

- foot MBP U

- shaped (2

- foot U

- shaped) ≥ 25 W

8

- foot single pin (SP) slimline ≥ 49 W

8

- foot recessed double contact (RDC) high
output (HO) All

4

- foot T5, miniature bipin (MiniBP) standard
output (SO) ≥ 25 W

4

- foot T5, MiniBP HO ≥ 44 W

E PCA e xclude s from coverage fluorescent lamps that fall into any of the following categories:

 f luorescent lamps designed to promote plant growth;

 f luorescent lamps specifically designed for cold temperature applications;

 c olored fluorescent lamps;

 i mpact

- resistant fluorescent lamps;

 r eflectorized or aperture lamps;

 f luorescent lamps designed for use in reprographic equipment;

 l amps primarily designed to produce radiation in the ultra

- violet region of the spectrum;
and

 l amps with a c olor r ende ring i ndex of 87 or greater.ES

- 4

(42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(B)) Therefore, DOE does not consider standards for these types of GSFL s in this rulemaking.

Table ES.2

. 2 outlines the IRLs included in the scope of coverage of this rulemaking.

Table ES.2

. 2 IRLs Included in the Scope of Coverage

Base Type Voltage Diameter Rated Wattage

E26 medium
screw base Between 115

and 130 volts Greater than

2.25 inches Greater than or

equal to 40 W and less than or equal to

205 W

E PCA e xclude s from coverage IRLs that are colored or designed for rough or vibration

se rvice applications

. (42 U.S.C. 6291(30)(C)(ii)) Further

, the following lamps are not being considered in this rulemaking :

 lamps rated 50 W or less that are elliptical reflector (ER) 30, bulged reflector ( BR ) 30, BR40, or ER40;

 lamps rated 65 W that are BR3 0, BR40 , or ER40 lamps; and

 lamps rated 45 W or less that are reflector ( R ) 20.

ES.2.2 Market and Technology Assessment

A market and technology assessment characterizes the relevant markets and technology options. DOE addresses (1) manufacturer market share and characte ristics, (2) existing regulatory and non

- regulatory initiatives for improving product efficacy , and (3) trends in product characteristics and retail markets. This informatio n provides data and resource material throughout the analysis.

DOE review ed literature and interview ed manufacturers to develop an overall understanding of the GSFL and IRL industr ies . Industry publications

— including trade journals, literature from manufacturers, government agencies, and trade organizations

— provide d the bulk
of t he information, which includes: (1) manufacturers and their market share

, (2) shipments by lamp t ype , (3) lamp information

, and (4) industry trends.

DOE use d information about existing and past technology options and working
prototype s to determine which technologies and combinations of technologies manufacturers use to attain higher performance levels. In consultation with interested parties, DOE develop ed a list of technologies to be considered. The technologies identified include all those DOE believes may improve effic a cy

. For GSFLs, DOE is considering the same technology options as those presented in the final rule published in July 2009 ( hereafter the “ 2009 Lamps Rule ”). 74 FR 34080 ( July 14, 2009). For IRLs, in addition to technology options presented in the 2009 Lamps
Rule

, DOE is considering ultraviolet ( UV ) phosphor glass coatings, electron stimulated luminescence, high reflectance filament supports, and permanent infrared reflector coating

s hroud as technology options

. Additionally, for IR Ls

, DOE is considering removing luminescent gas as a technology option. See chapter 3 of th is technical support document ( TSD ) for details.ES

- 5

DOE generally divides covered products into product classes by the type of energy used

, capacity

, or other perform ance

- related features that affect efficacy . Different energy conservation standards may apply to different product classes. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) DOE is considering maintaining the same product class divisions as those established in the 2009 Lamps Rule. Table
ES.2

. 3 and Table ES.2

. 4 describe , respectively, the GSFL and IRL product classes DOE is considering in this rulemaking.

Table ES.2

. 3 Product Classes for GSFLs

Lamp Type Correlated Color Temperature ( CCT )

4

- foot MBP ≤ 4

, 500 K

> 4

, 500 K

2

- foot U

- shaped ≤ 4

, 500 K

> 4

, 500 K

8

- foot SP slimline ≤ 4

, 500 K

> 4

, 500 K

8

- foot RDC HO ≤ 4

, 500 K

> 4

, 500 K

4

- foot T5, MiniBP SO ≤ 4

, 500 K

> 4

, 500 K

4

- foot T5, MiniBP HO ≤ 4

, 500 K

> 4

, 500 K

Table ES.2

. 4 Product Classes for IRLs

Lamp Type Diameter

i n Voltage

Standard Spectrum > 2.5 ≥ 125 V

< 125 V

≤ 2.5 ≥ 125 V

< 125 V

Modified Spectrum > 2.5 ≥ 125 V

< 125 V

≤ 2.5 ≥ 125 V

< 125 V

ES.2.3 Screening Analysis

DOE develop ed technology options for enhancing efficacy of GSFL s and IRL s in the technology assessment. In consultation with interested parties, DOE review ed the GSFL and IRL options to assess whether the technologies are technologically feasible ; practicable to manufacture, install, and service; would adversely impac t product utility or availability; or would have adverse impacts on health and safety. See chapter 4 of th is TSD for details.

ES.2.4 Engineering Analysis

In the engineering analysis, DOE chose certain product classes as representative and
concentrated its analyt ical effort on th o se classes. Generally, DOE selected representativeES

- 6

product classes based on the highest shipment volumes, although it also considered unique performance characteristics as appropriate. DOE then chose appropriate baseline models and identified more efficacious replacements. A baseline model is typically the most common, least efficacious product sold in a given product class. In cases where there was more than one

common, low effic a cy product, DOE analyzed multiple baseline models. Se e chapter 5 of this
TSD for details. Candidate s tandard l evels ( CSLs ) were developed using catalog data and then adjusted based on efficacy data submitted to DOE for compliance purposes. a

Table ES.2

. 5 and Table ES.2

. 6 present the CSL s identified in the GSFL and IRL engineering analys e s.

Table ES.2

. 5 Candidate Standard Levels for G SFL Representative Product Classes

Representative Product Class C SL
lm/W

1 2

4

- foot MBP ≤ 4,500 K 90.0 93.0

8

- foot SP slimline ≤ 4,500 K 9 9

. 0 N/A

8

- foot RDC HO ≤ 4,500 K 97.0 N/A

4

- foot T5

, MiniBP SO ≤ 4,500 K 98.2 N/A

4

- foot T5

, MiniBP HO ≤ 4,500 K 8 6

. 2 N/A

Table ES.2

. 6 Candidate Standard Level s for the IRL Representative Product Class es

Lamp Type Diameter Voltage CSL 1
lm/W

Standard Spectrum > 2.5 inches < 125 6.2P 0.27

P = rated wattage of the lamp

ES.2.5 Product Price Determination

For this rulemaking, DOE estimated the end

- user price of GSFLs and IRL s directly, rather than develop manufacturer selling prices (MSPs) from a bill of materials and manufacturer markup analysis. DOE selected this methodology because it is difficult to reverse

- engineer
GSFLs and IRL s , which are not easily disassembled

.

In it s review of publicly available prices, DOE observed a range of end

- user prices paid for a lamp, depending on the distribution channel through which it is purchased. In line with its observation of public pricing, DOE developed three sets of GSFL discounts and three sets of IRL
discounts from the blue book prices, representing low (State procurement), medium ( large

a Compliance data is publicly available on DOE’s Compliance Certification Database available here: www.regulations.doe.gov/certification

- data/

.ES

- 7

distributors, including do

- it

- yourself stores ), and high (Internet retailers) lamp prices. See chapter

7 of th is TSD for details.

ES.2.6 Energy Use Anal ysis

The energy use analysis provides the basis for developing the energy savings used in the
life

- cycle cost ( LCC ) analysis and subsequent analyses. For both GSFLs and IRLs, DOE developed average annual operating hours for each representative lamp type based on their application in different market sectors. Ballasts designed to operate GSFL s are not subject to the energy efficiency standards being developed in this rulemaking

, but are considered in the energy use analysis for GSFLs because t he input power of the complete lamp

- and

- ballast system is required to accurately characterize the energy use of the system . DOE determined the annual

energy usage of the lamp

- and

- ballast sys tems by multiplying input power to the ballast ( i.e.

, the rate of energy use ) by the operating hours per year ( i.e.

, the way customers use the lamp

- and

ballast systems ).

Table ES.2

. 7 and Table ES. 2

. 8 summarize , respectively, the GSFL and the IRL average annual operating hours used in developing the energy use characterization.

Table ES.2

. 7 Average Annual GSFL Operating Hours by Sector

Sector Average Annual Operating Hours hr/yr

Commercial 4,058

Industrial 4,585

Residential 648

Table ES. 2

. 8 Average Annual IRL Operating Hours by Sector

Sector Average Annual Operating Hours hr/yr

Commercial 4,496

Residential 761

Table ES.2

. 9 and Table ES.2

. 10 show the average annual electricity use in kilowatt

- hours ( kWh) for each baseline and m ore effic acious lamp or lamp

- and

- ballast system that DOE
consider s in this rulemaking. Table ES.2

. 9 displays the average annual energy consumption per
system analyzed in the lamp

- and

- ballast replacement scenario using the U.S. average of annual operating hours for the most common sector for each GSFL product class

. For more details on the energy use characterization, see chapter 6 of this TSD.ES

- 8

Table ES.2

. 9 Annual Energy Use by GSFL Product Class (Lamp

- and

- Ballast Replacement Scenario)

Representative
Product Class Representative Lamp

and

- Ballast System Ballast Factor (BF) and
Nominal Lamp Wattage Market

Sector CSL Annual Ene rgy Use
kWh

4

- foot MBP ≤ 4,500 K 2

- l amp Instant Start 4

-

foot MBP 0.88 BF 32 W

Commercial Baseline 224.2

0.78 BF 32 W 1 200.5

0.88 BF 25 W 2 187.8

0.77 BF 32 W 2 196.2

0.87 BF 28 W 2 198.0

2

- l amp Programmed

Start 4

- foot MBP 0.88 BF 32 W

Commercial Baseline 227.1

0.88 BF 32 W 1 227.1

0.88 BF 25 W 2 190.8

0.88 BF 32 W 2 227.1

0.88 BF 28 W 2 204.5

4

- l amp Instant Start 4

- foot MBP 0.87 BF 32 W

Commercial Baseline 434.7

0.78 BF 32 W 1 393.0

0.87 BF 25 W 2 363.8

0.77 BF 32 W 2 389.7

0.87 BF 28 W 2 390.5

4

- l amp Programmed

Start 4

- foot MBP 0.89 BF 32 W

Commercial Baseline 450.6

0.88 BF 32 W 1 449.0

0.89 BF 25 W 2 378.1

0.88 BF 32 W 2 449.0

0.88 BF 28 W 2 399.7

2

- l amp Instant Start 4

- foot MBP (Residential Ballasts) 0.87 BF 32 W

Residential Baseline 36.6

0.83 BF 32 W 1 34.8

0.87 BF 25 W 2 30.7

0.83 BF 32 W 2 34.8

0.87 BF 28 W 2 33.0

8

- f oot SP slimline ≤ 4,500 K 2

- l amp Instant Start 8

-

f oot SP slimline 0.87 BF 59 W

Commercial Baseline 433.2

0.85 BF 59 W 1 422.1

0.85 BF 54 W 1 400.6

0.85 BF 50 W 1 371.5

8

- f oot RDC HO ≤ 4,500 K 2

- l amp Instant Start 8

-

f oot RDC HO 0.81 BF 86 W Industrial Baseline 680.6

0.81 BF 86 W 1 680.6

4

- foot T5 MiniBP

SO ≤ 4,500 K 2

- l amp Programmed

Start 4

- foot T5 MiniBP

SO 1.00 BF 28 W

Commercial Baseline 245.1

0.95 BF 28 W 1 235.0

0.95 BF 26 W 1 220.3

0.95 BF 25 W 1 212.1

4

- foot T5 MiniBP

HO ≤ 4,500 K 2

- l amp Programmed

Start 4

- foot T5 MiniBP
HO 1.00 BF 54 W

Industrial Baseline 534.1

1.00 BF 54 W 1 534.1

1.00 BF 50 W 1 497.4

1.00 BF 47 W 1 468.4ES

- 9

Table ES.2

. 10 Annual Energy Use by IRL Product Class

Representative Product Class Representative Lamp CSL Commercial Annual Energy Use

kWh Residential

Annual Energy Use

kWh

Standard Spectrum;

> 2.5 inch diameter; < 125 V 1,500 hr, 60 W Baseline 269.7 45.7 3,000 hr, 60 W Baseline 269.7 45.7 4,400 hr, 55 W 1 247.3 41.9

ES.2.7 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

The impacts of energy conservation standards on consu mers often include a change in operating expense (usually decreased electricity expenses) and a change in purchase price (usually increased). The LCC of a product is the cost it incurs over its lifetime, taking into account both purchase price and operating expenses. The payback period ( PBP ) represents the
time it takes to recover the additional installed cost of the more efficacious products through annual operating cost savings. DOE analyzes the net effect on consumers by calculating the LCC and PBP using the engineering performance data, the product price determination, and the energy use analysis.

Inputs to the LCC calculation include the installed cost to the consumer , operat ing expenses, lifetime of the product , and discount rate s

. C hapter 8 of this TSD provides a detailed description of the LCC and PBP analysis and the results. Table ES.2

. 11 and Table ES.2

. 12
present , respectively

, the key findings for GSFLs and for IRLs

.ES

- 10

Table ES.2

. 11 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results for GSFLs ( Lamp

- and

- Ballast Replacement )

Representative
Product Class Representative

Lamp

- and

- Ballast System Ballast

Factor and
Nominal Lamp Wattage Market

Sector CSL LCC $ LCC Savings $ PBP*

y r

4

- foot MBP

≤ 4,500 K 2

- l amp Instant Start

4

- foot MBP 0.88 BF 32 W

Commercial Baseline 152.51 N/A N/A

0.78 BF 32 W 1 144.48 8.03 0.3

0.88 BF 25 W 2 143.16 9.35 2.3

0.77 BF 32 W 2 144.68 7.83 2.1

0.87 BF 28 W 2 143.65 8.86 1.5

2

- l amp Programmed Start

4

- foot MBP 0.88 BF 32 W

Commercial Baseline 226.11 N/A N/A

0.88 BF 32 W 1 232.11

- 6.00 NER

0.88 BF 25 W 2 207.12 19.00 2.3

0.88 BF 32 W 2 232.15

- 6.04 NER

0.88 BF 28 W 2 213.00 13.11 1.7

4

- l amp Instant Start

4

- foot MBP 0.87 BF 32 W

Commercial Baseline 275.92 N/A N/A

0.78 BF 32 W 1 261.48 14.44 0.3

0.87 BF 25 W 2 258.14 17.78 2.3

0.77 BF 32 W 2 265.69 10.22 2.6

0.87 BF 28 W 2 262.21 13.71 1.8

4

- l amp Programmed Start

4

- foot MBP 0.89 BF 32 W

Commercial Baseline 419.85 N/A N/A

0.88 BF 32 W 1 428.63

- 8.78 8.8

0.89 BF 25 W 2 381.91 37.94 2.3

0.88 BF 32 W 2 430.72

- 10.87 72.7

0.88 BF 28 W 2 389.23 30.62 1.5

2

- l amp Instant Start

4

- foot MBP (Residential Ballasts) 0.87 BF 32 W

Residential Baseline 98.57 N/A N/A

0.83 BF 32 W 1 96.88 1.69 3.1

0.87 BF 25 W 2 99.56

- 0.99 11.7

0.83 BF 32 W 2 102.19

- 3.62 25.9

0.87 BF 28 W 2 97.89 0.68 8.9

8

- f oot SP slimline ≤ 4,500 K 2

- l amp Instant Start

8

- f oot SP slimline 0.87 BF 59 W

Commercial Baseline 281.59 N/A N/A

0.85 BF 59 W 1 280.23 1.36 3.4

0.85 BF 54 W 1 272.75 8.84 2.0

0.85 BF 50 W 1 266.07 15.51 2.2

8

- f oot RDC HO ≤ 4,500 K 2

- l amp Instant Start

8

- f oot RDC HO 0.81 BF 86 W Industrial Baseline 244.57 N/A N/A

0.81 BF 86 W 1 249.58

- 5.01 NER

4

- foot T5 MiniBP
SO ≤ 4,500 K 2

- l amp

Programmed Start

4

- foot T5 MiniBP

SO 1.00 BF 28 W

Commercial Baseline 202.20 N/A N/A

0.95 BF 28 W 1 198.11 4.08 1.8

0.95 BF 26 W 1 194.59 7.60 1.1

0.95 BF 25 W 1 184.37 17.82 1.2

4

- foot T5 MiniBP
HO ≤ 4,500 K 2

- l amp

Programmed Start

4

- foot T5 MiniBP

HO 1.00 BF 54 W

Industrial Baseline 237.29 N/A N/A

1.00 BF 54 W 1 236.31 0.98 NER

1.00 BF 50 W 1 228.03 9.26 2.6

1.00 BF 47 W 1 221.03 16.25 2.1

* Entries of “NER” (no energy

- saving replacement) indicate products that do not reduce operating costs.ES

- 11

Table ES.2

. 12 Life

- Cycle Cost and Payback Period Results for IRLs

Representative

Product Class Representative Lamp Market

Sector CSL LCC $ LCC Savings

$ PBP

y r

Standard Spectrum; > 2.5 inch diameter; <

125V 1,500 hr, 60 W

Commercial Baseline 20.28 N/A N/A

4,400 hr, 55 W 1 14.55 5.73 9.1 3,000 hr, 60 W Baseline 29.16 N/A N/A 4,400 hr, 55 W 1 29.37

- 0.22 4.6 1,500 hr, 60 W

Residential Baseline 20.61 N/A N/A 4,400 hr, 55 W 1 16.58 4.03 15.1 3,000 hr, 60 W Baseline 29.87 N/A N/A 4,400 hr, 55 W 1 31.00

- 1.13 15.3

ES.2.8 Shipments Analysis

Shipment s projections are needed to calcu l ate the national impacts of standards on energy

use, net present v alue ( NPV ) , and future manufacturer cash flows. The details of the modeling DOE used to estimate shipments in this rulemaking are described in chapter 9 of this TSD

. The shipments model has four main interacting elements: (1) a lamp demand module, which estimates the demand for GSFL and IRL lighting for each year of the analysis period; (2) a price learning module, which projects future lamp and ballast prices based on historic price trends; (3) substitution matrixes, which specify the product choices available to consumers (lamps as well as lamp

- and

- ballast combinations for fluorescent lamps) depending on whether they are renovating lighting systems, installing lighting systems in new constr uction, or are simply replacing lamps; and (4) a module that assigns shipments to product classes and efficacy levels based on consumer sensitivities to first costs and operation and maintenance costs.

T he shipments model assumes that lighting capacity d emand per square foot o f floor space remains constant. However, DOE expects lighting capacity demand for GSFLs and IRLs to be eroded by light

- emitting diode (LED) lamp incursion. At the same time, increasing penetration of lighting system controls will red uce the lighting energy use per square foot in the reference case, by turning lights off or down when full light output is not desired. Therefore, DOE developed shipments scenarios that reflect its best estimates of LED incursion and lighting controls pene tration in the GSFL and IRL markets. In addition, it determined the impact of these effects on the rulemaking by running scenarios that assumed no growth of LEDs and controls.

DOE also developed shipments scenarios to reflect uncertainties in the prices of rare earth oxides, which rose significantly in 2010 and 2011 and have since fallen . Rare earth oxides
are used in triband fluorescent lamp phosphors , which are used at higher concentrations in more efficient lamp models. As a result of manufacturer conc erns over the increase in rare earth oxide prices, manufacturers sought an exception from GSFL standards scheduled to go into force on July 14, 2012, for lamps with relatively low triband phosphor concentration s (700 series T8) lamps . The new standard woul d have eliminated those products from the market. That exception was granted, extending the compliance date to July 14, 2014. b

b United States Department of Energy, Office of Hearings and Appeals. Case Nos: EXC

- 12

- 0001, EXC

- 12

- 0002,

EXC

- 12

- 0003, April 16, 2012.ES

- 12

The reference assumption for each variable reflects DOE’s best estimate. Alternative scenarios were run for uncertainty analyses and to determine the impact of certain key variables on the rulemaking. The shipments model generates shipments projections for the base case and each candidate standards case. In the best estimate scenario, all scenario variables are set to their reference (best estimate) values.

The reference assumption for LED market penetration is based on projections developed
for DOE’s So lid

- State Lighting ( SSL ) Progra m. c DOE expects significant incursions into GSFL and IRL lighting capacity demand by LED lighting over the analysis period. Figure ES.3.1 shows the reference case assumption for LED market penetration forecasts into the GSFL and
IRL markets. DOE is considering adding scenarios for high and low LED market penetration in
the notice of proposed rulemaking ( NOPR ) phase. In this preliminary analysis, DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis to determine the total impact that LED market penetration is expected to have on energy savings estimated for this rulemaking by comparing the reference scenario to a “No LED” case in which LED remained constant at today’s level

.

Figure ES.2

. 1 LED In cursion Curves for GSFL s and IRL s , Best Estimate

The reference assumption for lighting system controls for the commercial sector is that State building code requirements for lighting controls remain constant, increasing the penetration of lighting controls as buildings are renovated, new buildings are constructed, and old buildings are retired. With all the highly populous states having ado pted recent versions of the Federal model energy code (ASHRAE 90.1) or its equivalent, d DOE estimates that lighting controls will be implemented in almost 80 percent of commercial floor area by the end of the analysis period, assuming a 75 percent building code compliance rate (see appendix 9A of this TSD). Such a high penetration implies that almost all commercial floor area amenable to controls is expected to have them by 2046. The largest uncertainty is in the compliance rate. DOE is considering adding

h igh (100 percent) and low (50 percent) compliance rate scenarios to its analysis in the NOPR phase. In this preliminary analysis, DOE conducted a sensitivity analysis to determine the impact

c Navigan t Consulting, Energy Savings Potential of Solid

- State Lighting in General Illumination Applications, U.S. DOE, Solid State Lighting Program, January 2012.

d U.S. Department of Energy, Status of State Energy Code Adoption: www.energycodes.gov/status

- state

- e nergy

code

- adoption

.ES

- 13

that increasing penetration of lighting controls has on the energ y savings estimated for this rulemaking by including a scenario in which commercial lighting controls are held constant at the current level. Residential lighting controls, which have less stringent building code requirements, are assumed to remain constan t at today’s level.

The reference assumption for rare earth oxide prices is that they remain constant at the
October 2012 level. As shown in Figure ES.2

. 2 , rare ear th oxide prices rose rapidly in 2010 to a peak in 2011

, and have dropped almost monotonically to less than half their peak since then. Prior to 2010, prices were relatively stable from at least 2001. The future trajectory of rare earth oxide prices is high ly uncertain. Therefore, DOE developed alternative scenarios for high and low prices reflecting the 2011 peak price and the 2006

– 2009 baseline average price. These were based on the price index shown in Figure ES.2

. 2 , the development of which is described in

c hapter 9 of this TSD.

Figure ES.2

. 2 Inflation

- Adjusted Rare Earth Oxide Price Index for Tri b and Phosphors used in Linear Fluorescent Lamps e f

The reference and alternative variable assumptions are summarized in Table ES.2

. 13

.

e Metal Pages. Metal Prices. (Last accessed October 9, 2012.) <www.metal

- pages.com>

f U.S. Department of Energy . Critical Materials Strategy

. December 2011. <http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/DOE_CMS2011_FINAL_Full.pdf>ES

- 14

Table ES.2

. 13 Summary of Variable Assumptions for Shipments Scenarios

Shipments S cenarios

V ariables Best Estimate Alternative 1 Alternative 2

LED market
incursion Ref: Increasing according to Figure ES.2

. 1 No LED: No additional
LED incursion

Lighting controls penetration Ref: Commercial in

- growth determined by today’s building

codes (see appendix 9A of this TSD) . Residential constant at today’s level. Fixed: Constant controls penetration at today’s level

Rare earth oxide (REO) prices Ref: Prices in October 2012 High: 2011 peak price Low: 2006

– 2009 average price

Figure ES.2

. 3 and Figure ES.2

. 4 show the historic and projected shipments of GSFL s and
IRLs for the reference scena rio for the base case and two candidate standards cases. The All CSL

1 case assumes that the standard for all products is set at CSL 1 . The Max CSL case, set the standard for all products at their maximum CSL, as described in the engineering analysis. For

IRLs

, only the first option applies since all product classes include only one CSL

. The reference scenario assumes the reference assumptions for all scenario variables. As shown in Figure
ES.2

. 3

, for the Max CSL standard case, when the standard is set to CSL 2 for 4

- foot MBP lamps, their higher price shifts consumers away from that product class, reducing shipments of those lamps

. Instead, consumers shift toward T5 MiniBP lamps, the standard for which is still at CSL 1 (their maximum), increasing the shipments of T5 MiniBP lamps over the base case and the All
CSL 1 case.ES

- 15

Figure ES.2

. 3 Historical and Proje cted Shipments for GSFL s , Best Estimate g

g In some case s , the change in shipments between the candidate standards case and base case is so small that it is indistinguishable on the figure. In that case

, the higher standard level overwrites the lower.ES

- 16

Figure ES.2

. 4 Historical and Projected Shipments for IRLs, Best Estimate

Table ES.2

. 14 shows the cumulative shipments for the reference scenario for each of the modeled product class groupings for the two standards cases considered.

Table ES.2

. 14 Effects of Candidate Standard Cases on Cumulative Shipments Compared
to Base Case for GSFL s and IRL s , Best Estimate

Product Class Groupings Base Case All CSL 1 Max CSL*

Cumulative Shipments
millions Cumulative

Shipments
millions Change in

Shipments
Relative to
Base Case Cumulative

Shipments
millions Change in

Shipments
Relative to
Base Case

4

- foot MBP 5 ,082 4 ,989

- 2 % 4 ,814

- 6 %

8

- foot SP slimline 46 46 1 % 46 1 %

8

- foot RDC HO 20 22 12 % 22 12 %

4

- foot T5, MiniBP SO 82 6 925 12 % 1,097 33 %

4

- foot T5 , MiniBP HO 867 861

- 1 % 863 0 %

2

- foot U

- shaped 20 8 204

- 2 % 197

- 5 %

Total GSFL ** 7 ,049 7,048 0 % 7,040 0 %

IRL Residential 498 329

- 34% 329

- 34%

IRL Commercial 66 60

- 10% 60

- 10%

Total IRL ** 564 388

- 3 1 % 388

- 3 1 %

* The maximum CSL is CSL 2 for 4

- f oo t MBP GSFLs and CSL 1 for all other GSFLs.
The maximum CSL for all IRLs is CSL 1

. ** May not add due to rounding.ES

- 17

ES.2.9 National Impact Analysis

The national impact analysis ( NIA ) estimates the following national impacts for a r ange of candidate standards cases for the two categories of lamps : (1) national energy savings; (2) monetary value of the energy savings due to standards; (3) increased total installed costs of the considered products due to standards; and (4) the NPV of t he difference between the value of energy savings and increased total installed costs. DOE prepared a spreadsheet model to estimate energy savings and national consumer economic costs and savings resulting from new standards.
The NIA considers alternative options for future electricity prices, taken from DOE’s Annual Energy Outlook 2012 (

AEO 2012 ) and lighting rebound rates (discussed in a ppendix 10C of this
TSD ). In addition, for reference and alternative scenarios the model computes the NPV assuming
two d iscount rates, 3 percent and 7 percent . The reference and alternative assumptions are
summarized in Table ES.2

. 15 . The details of the NIA modeling are presented in chapter 10 of
this TSD.

Table ES.2

. 15 Summary of Variable Assumptions for NIA Scenarios

NIA Scenario
Variables Best Estimate Alternative 1 Alternative 2

Electricity Prices AEO 2012 reference

forecast AEO High: AEO 2012 high economic growth
forecast AEO Low: AEO 2012 low economic growth
forecast

Rebound R ates 0% residential,

0 % commercial 8.5% residential,
1% commercial (Framework Proposal) 15% residential,

1 5 % commercial (NEMS assumption)

ES.2.9.1 National Energy Savings

The inputs for determining the national energy savings for each product class are: (1) lamps shipments; (2) annual energy consumption per unit; (3) the stocks of lamps in each year; (4) national energy consumption; and (5) site

- to

- primary energy and full fuel cycle (FFC)
conversion factors. The lamp stocks were calculated by the sh ipments model for each year of the analysis period from the prior year’s stock, minus retirements, plus shipments, accounting f or lamp and ballast lifetimes. DOE calculated the national electricity consumption in each year by multiplying the number of unit s of each product class and efficacy level in the stock by its power consumption and operating hours. The electricity savings is estimated from the difference in
national electricity consumption between the base case (without amended effic acy standards) an d
the standards cases for lamps shipped during the 2017

- 2046 period. Electricity savings are then converted to primary energy savings at the power plant using conversion factors derived from the
most recent version of the NEMS . DOE also estimated the total national energy savings using a FFC analysis, as described in c hapter 10 of this preliminary TSD.

Table ES.2

. 16 shows the cumulative site electricity savings in terawatt

- hours and the FFC national energy savings in quads for the reference scenario for both categories of lamps. As shown, the estimated national energy savings is more than four times higher for the Max CSL
case in which th e standard for 4

- foot MBP lamps is set at CSL 2. The estimated cumulative national energy savings for IRLs is small.ES

- 18

Table ES.2

. 16 Best Estimates of Cumulative National Energy Savings (quads) for GSFL s and IR L s

Product Class Groupings All CSL 1 CSL Max *

Primary** Full Fuel Cycle † Primary** Full Fuel Cycle †

GSFL 0.90 0.9 4 4 .3 4.5

IRL 0.13 0.14 0.13 0.14

* The maximum CSL is CSL 2 for 4

- ft MBP GSFLs and CSL 1 for all other GSFLs.
The maximum CSL for all IRLs is CSL 1.

** Primary energy savings at the power plant. † See a ppendix 10B

ES.2.9.2 Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits

DOE calculated net monetary savings in each year as the difference between total savings

in energy costs and increases in total product costs in the base case and standards cases. DOE calculated savings over the life of the products purchased from 2017 through 2046

. The NPV i s the difference between the present value of operating cost savings and the present value of
increased tota l installed costs. I n accordance with guidance provided by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to Federal agencies on regulatory analysis, DOE used discount rates of 7 percent and 3 percent to discount future costs and savings to the present. The NPV
results for GSFL s and IRL s in the reference scenario are shown in Table ES.2

. 17

. A negative NPV indicates that the costs of a standard at a given effic acy level exceed the savings. For GSFLs, both candidate standards cases show a positive NPV at both the 3 percent and 7 percent discount rate and the NPV is hig her for the Max CSL case. For IRLs, only the All CSL 1 case applies, and this shows a positive NPV only for the 3 percent discount rate assumption.

Table ES.2

. 17 Net Present Value for GSFL s and IRL s , Referenc e Scenario (billion 2011$)

Product Class Groupings All CSL 1 CSL Max *

3% Discount

Rate 7% Discount

Rate 3% Discount

Rate 7% Discount

Rate

GSFL 2.0 0.83 23 13

IRL 0.040

- 0.17 0.040

- 0.17

* The maximum CSL is CSL 2 for 4

- ft MBP GSFLs and CSL 1 for all other GSFLs.
The maximum CSL for all IRLs is CSL 1.

ES.2.9.3 Summary of Alternative Analyses

This section summarizes the results of the alternative analyses. Table ES.2

. 18 summarizes the model inputs used (a) to characterize the uncertainties in the candidate standards case analyses, (b) to determine the impact of different rebound rate assumptions, ( c ) to dete rmine the impact of increasing LED incursion and controls penetration into the GSFL and IRL markets, and (d) to test the effect of manufacturers meeting an IRL CSL 1 standard using short

- livedES

- 19

lamps

, as described in c hapter 5 of this TSD . The scenario vari ables are as described in Table

ES.2

. 13 and Table ES.2

. 15

.

Table ES.2

. 18 Alternative Scenario Variables

Scenario Variables

Analysis Type Scenario AEO 2012 Economic Growth Rebound Rate Rare Earth Pri ce LED Controls Adoption Short IRL Life

(a) Uncertainty Analyses REO High Ref Ref * High Ref Ref No

REO Low Ref Ref * Low Ref Ref No
High Economic
Growth High Ref * Ref Ref Ref No

Low Economic Growth Low Ref * Ref Ref Ref No
(b)
Rebound Scenarios Framework Rebound Ref Framework** Ref Ref Ref No

NEMS Rebound Ref NEMS † Ref Ref Ref No

(c) Impact Determination Controls Ref Ref * Ref Ref Fixed No

LED Ref Ref * Ref Fixed Ref No (d)
Alternative Technology
Scenario IRL Short Life Ref Ref * Ref Ref Ref Yes

*Reference rebound rates are as follows: Commercial 0% and Residential 0%.
**Framework rebound rates are as follows: Commercial 1% and Residential 8.5% † NEMS rebound rates are as follows: Commercial 15%, Residential 15%.

Table ES.2

. 19 documents the estimated impact of the penetration LEDs and lighting controls on the cumulative shipments of the two categories of lamps f or the two candidate
standards cases: ALL CSL 1 , in which the standard for all product classes are assumed to be set at CSL 1; and CSL Max , in which the standard for all product classes are assumed to be set at the highest CSL, which is CSL 2 for 4

- ft MBP GSF L s and CSL 1 for all other lamps. As indicated, LEDs are expected to have a large impact on these lamp markets, greatly reducing the projected lamp shipments in the base case and the standards case.ES

- 20

Table ES.2

. 19 The Impact of LED and Lighting Controls Penetration into the GSFL and IRL Markets on Cumulative Shipments for T wo Candidate Standards Cases

GSFLs IRLs millions of lamps shipped Impact millions of lamps shipped Impact

Best Estimate No LED

Growth Percent

C hange Best Estimate No LED
Growth Percent

C hange

Base Case 7

, 049 12

, 549 78% 564 3229 472%

All CSL 1 7

, 048 12

, 546 78% 388 2375 512%

Max CSL 7

, 040 12

, 531 78% 388 2375 512%

Best Estimate Fixed

Controls Percent

Change Best Estimate Fixed
Controls Percent

Change

Base Case 7049 7201 2% 564 564 ND*

All CSL 1 7048 7195 2% 388 388 ND*

Max CSL 7040 7179 2% 388 388 ND*

*Not detectable

Table ES.2

. 20 documents the FFC national energy savings estimated for all of the alternative analyses that affect the NES . In each case

, the scenario result for the alternative analysis should be compared to the standard best estimate to determine the impact. As evident from the table, LED incursion has a large estimated impact on the rulemaking. Lighting controls also have a significant estimated impact on GSF L s , but not on IRLs, which are used mostly in

t he residential sector where controls penetration is assumed to remain fixed over the analysis period. Also, if manufacturers respond to a candidate standard for IRLs by using short

- lived lamps that meet the standard, net energy savings is estimated to be l ess than half of what it would be in the absence of such a response.

Table ES.2

. 20 Cumulative National Energy Savings (quads) for Alternative Analyses

Analysis Type Scenario All CSL 1 Max CSL

IRL GSFL Total Rulemaking IRL

GSFL

Total Rulemaking

Standard Best Estimate 0.138 0.938 1.0 8 0.138 4.5 2 4.65 Uncertainty Analyses REO High 0.138 0.92 5 1.06 0.138 4.30 4.4 4

REO Low 0.138 0.94 1 1.08 0.138 4.59 4.7 3

Rebound
Scenarios Framework

Rebound Rate 0.127 0.928 1.06 0.127 4.47 4.59

NEMS Rebound 0.118 0.797 0.915 0.118 3.8 3 3.96 Impact
Determination Controls 0.138 1. 09 1.2 3 0.138 5.28 5.4 2

LED 0.689 1.79 2.48 0.689 7.78 8.47

Alternative Technology
Scenario IRL Short Life 0.054 3 0.938 0.99 2 0.054 3 4.5 2 4.57

Table ES.2

. 21 and Table ES.2

. 22 document the estimated NPV of two candidate standards cases for the alternative analyses assuming a 3 percent and 7 percent discount rate, respectively. As is evident from the tables, uncertainties in electricity prices resulting from
differences in AEO 2012 economic growth rate sc enarios introduce larger uncertainty into theES

- 21

rulemaking than do uncertainties in rare earth oxide prices, the estimated impact of which is small. DOE does not include rebound effects in its NIA calculation (see appendix 10C of this
TSD ), therefore that al ternative scenario is omitted from Table ES.2

. 21 and the following table.

Table ES.2

. 21 Cumulative Net Present Value for Alternative Analyses
, 3% Discount Rate (2011$B)

Analysis Type Scenario All CSL 1 Max CSL

IRL GSFL Total Rulemaking IRL

GSFL

Total Rulemaking

Standard Best Estimate 0.0403 1.95 1.99 0.0403 22.9 22.9

Uncertainty Analyses REO High 0.0403 1.97 2.01 0.0403 22.5 22.6

REO Low 0.0403 1.94 1.98 0.0403 23.0 23.0 High Economic
Growth 0.0449 2.12 2.16 0.0449 23.7 23.7

Low Economic
Growth 0.0408 1.80 1.84 0.0408 22.2 22.3

Impact
Determination Controls 0.0409 2.66 2.70 0.0409 26.8 26.8

LED

- 0.00398 3.80 3.79

- 0.00398 35.5 35.5

Alternative Technology
Scenario IRL Short Life

- 0.352 1.95 1.59

- 0.352 22.9 22.5

Table ES.2

. 22 Cumulative Net Present Value for Alternative Analyses, 7% Discount Rate (2011$B)

Analysis Type Scenario All CSL 1 Max CSL

IRL GSFL Total Rulemaking IRL

GSFL

Total Rulemaking

Standard Best Estimate

- 0.094 0.84 0.75

- 0.094 12.7 12.6

Uncertainty Analyses REO High

- 0.094 0.85 0.76

- 0.094 12.7 12.6

REO Low

- 0.094 0.84 0.74

- 0.094 12.7 12.6 High Economic
Growth - 0.093 0.91 0.82

- 0.093 13.1 13.0

Low Economic
Growth - 0.093 0.78 0.69

- 0.093 12.4 12.3

Impact
Determination Controls

- 0.093 1.1 1.1

- 0.093 14.6 14.5

LED

- 0.365 1.4 1.1

- 0.365 17.5 17.1

Alternative Technology
Scenario IRL Short Life

- 0.169 0.84 0.67

- 0.169 12.7 12.5ES

- 22

ES.2.10 Preliminary Manufacturer Impact Analysis

The manufacturer impact analysis ( MIA ) assesses the potential impacts of energy
conservation standards on manufacturers, including effects on expenditures for capital conversion, marketing costs, shipments, and research and development costs. Potential impacts might lead to changes in manufacturing practices for GSFLs and IRL s . DOE identified potential impacts through interviews with manufacturers and other interested parties.

During interviews for this prelim inary MIA

, manufacturers identified six major areas of

concern: (1) rare earth materials , (2) unknown impacts of the most recent GSFL and IRL standards adopted in the 2009 Lamps Rule , (3) testing burden

, (4) technology shift, (5) product innovation, and ( 6 ) impact on the residential sector

. See chapter 1 2 of th is TSD for details.

ES.2.11 Other Analyses

The remaining chapters of th is preliminary TSD address the following analyses, w hich will be performed for any NOPR issued for GSFL s and IRL s :

 The LCC analysis for subgroups evaluates the effects of energy conservation standards on various national customer subgroups (chapter 1 1 ) ;

 The utility impact analysis examines impacts of energy conservation standards on the generation capacity of electric utilities (chapter 14 ) ;

 The employment impact analysis examines the indirect effects of energy conservation standards on national employmen t (chapter 1 3 ) ;

 The emissions analysis examines the effects of energy conservation standards on various airborne emissions (chapter 1 5 ) ;

 The monetization of emissions analysis quantifies the impacts of reduced emissions as a result of energy conservation s tandards (chapter 1 6 ) ; and

 The regulatory impact analysis examines the national impacts of non

- regulatory alternatives to mandatory energy conservation standards (chapter 1 7 ).

ES.3 ISSUES ON WHICH DOE SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT

DOE is interested in receiving comment on all aspects of this preliminary analysis. DOE especially invites comment or data to improve DOE’s analyses , including information that will respond to the following questions and concerns raised in the development of this preliminary
TSD.

ES.3.1 GSFL Scope

DO E is considering the following modifications to the minimum covered wattages of certain lamp types under the fluorescent lamp definition: changing the 8

- foot SP slimline minimum wattage from 52 W to 49 W; changing the 4

- foot MiniBP SO minimum wattage fromES

- 23

26 W to 25 W; and changing the 4

- foot MiniBP HO minimum wattage from 49 W to 44 W. DOE seeks comment on the modifications to GSFL wattage limits under consideration.

ES.3.2 GSFL Definitions

Based on several queries received from the general public on the application of the exemptions listed in the definition of “ general service fluorescent lamp, ” DOE has decided to clarify certain terms. DOE is considering defining the following terms related to the definition of
GSFLs : “ impact

- resistant fluorescent lamp, “ reflectorized or aperture lamp, ” “ fluorescent lamp designed for use in reprographic equipment, ” and “ l amps primarily designed to produce radiation
in the ultra

- violet region of the spectrum

. ” DOE is also considering clarifying the terms

“ designed and marketed. ” DOE requests comment on the definitions of terms related to GSFLs
under consideration.

ES.3.3 Market Trends

DOE believes that the overall fluorescent lamp market will increasingly shift away from T12 products due to the July 2012 lamp standards and the November 2014 ballast standards. DOE requests comment on the future availability of standards compliant T12 lamps. For IRLs, DOE noticed limited product offerings for modified spectrum lamps, la mps with diameter s less than or equal to 2.5 inches, and lamps with voltage s ≥ 12 5 V. DOE requests comment on the future availability of these products, or any combination thereof

.

ES.3.4 Technology Options

DOE requests comment on the technology options being co nsidered for both GSFLs and IRLs and any additional options that should be included. In particular, for GSFLs DOE acknowledges that the market may be shifting away from less efficient diameters and requests comment on whether the high er efficiency diameter technology option should be retained.

ES.3.5 Product Classes

For GSFLs, DOE defined product classes based on physical constraints of lamps ( i.e.

, lamp shape and lamp length), lumen package ( i.e. , SO versus HO), and CCT. The 12 product
classes are summarized in Table ES.2

. 3 . For IRLs, DOE defined product classes based on lamp diameter, voltage, and spectrum. T he eight product classes are summarized in Table ES.2

. 4

. DOE seeks comments on the product classes under consideration for GSFLs and IRLs.

ES.3.6 Market and Technology Assess ment

DOE requests comments on the overall methodology and results of the market and technology assessment for GSFLs and IRLs.

ES.3.7 Screening Analysis

DOE invites comment on the technology options eliminated during the screening analysis.ES

- 24

ES.3.8 Representative Product Classes

DOE identified the following product classes as representative for GSFLs:

 4

- foot MBP ≤ 4

, 500 K

 8

- foot SP slimline ≤ 4

, 500 K

 8

- foot RDC HO ≤ 4

, 500 K

 4

- foot T5

, MiniBP SO ≤ 4

, 500 K

 4

- foot T5

, MiniBP HO ≤ 4

, 500 K

DOE identified the following product class as representative for IRLs:

 Standard Spectrum, Voltage < 125 V, Diameter > 2.5 Inches

DOE requests comment on the representative product classes for GSFLs and IRLs.

ES.3.9 Baseline Lamps

DOE selected the most common and least efficacious lamps as baseline s within each representative product class. DOE requests comment on the baseline units selected for both GSFLs and IRLs. In particular, for IRLs, DOE requests comment on its selection of two baseline lamps with similar efficacies, but distinct technologies and lifetimes.

ES.3.10 More Efficacious Substitutes

After choosing baseline lamps, DOE identified more efficacious substitutes. DOE chose more efficacious substitutes that were within 10 percent of the light output of the baseline lamp, when possible. DOE request s comment on the criteria used in selecting more efficacious substitute lamps, as well as the characteristics of the lamps selected.

In particular

, for GSFLs, DOE requests comments on whether replacements of lamps and/or lamp

- and

- ballast systems that mai ntain less than 10 percent of the mean lumen output of the replaced system (such as 25 W 4

- foot MBP lamps replacing 32 W 4

- foot MBP lamps) occur in practice.

ES.3.11 Lamp

- and

- Ballast Systems

DOE paired each representative GSFL with a ballast to develop representative lamp

- and

ballast systems. DOE used information from the fluorescent lamp ballasts final rule published in 2011 (hereafter the “ 2011 Ballast Rule ”; 76 FR 70548 [Nov. 14, 2011]) , pr oduct catalogs, and manufacturer input to identify the ballast type that is used most commonly with each representative lamp type. DOE then calculated ballast efficiencies for each ballast type and wattage combination, based on catalog data and test data f rom the 2011 Ballast Rule. DOE requests comment on its methodology to identify representative lamp

- and

- ballast systems for
GSFLs

. DOE also requests comment on the characteristics of the replacement lamp

- and

- ballast systems analyzed, particularly the ballas t luminous efficiency of each system and the BFs of the reduced wattage systems.ES

- 25

ES.3.12 Four

- Foot T5 MiniBP HO Model Lamp

For the 4

- foot T5 MiniBP HO product class, DOE was unable to identify commercially available full wattage

, higher efficacy replacements for the 4

- foot T5 MiniBP HO baseline lamp.
Therefore , DOE modeled a more efficacious full wattage lamp . DOE requests comment on the methodology and performance characteristics developed for this model lamp. In particular, DOE
seeks information on the manufactu rability and functionality of this lamp, as well as its effic acy , measured according to the DOE test procedure, when manufactured on a commercial scale.

ES.3.13 Candidate Standard Levels

After identif

ying more efficacious substitutes for each of the baseline lamps , DOE develop s CSL s based on the consideration of several factors

, including: (1) the design options associated with the specific lamps being studied ( e.g. , grades of phosphor for GSFL s, the use of infrared coatings for IRL s ); (2) the ability of lamps acro ss wattages to comply with the standard level of a given product class; and (3) the max tech level. DOE requests comment on the CSLs
under consideration for GSFLs and IRLs. In particular, DOE seeks comment on the appropriateness of developing a CSL 1 for t he 4

- foot T5 MiniBP HO product class.

ES.3.14 Compliance Requirements

DOE based its engineering analysis on performance data presented in manufacturer catalogs. To establish the final minimum efficacy requirements for each CSL, DOE analyzed the publicly available compliance data and evaluated whether any adjustments were necessary to account for the compliance efficacies of representative units and/or equivalent lamps. DOE invites comment on whether additional adjustments to the CSLs are needed to account for

comp liance requirements.

ES.3.15 Scaling between Product Classes

DOE extrapolated its analysis from representative product classes to those not directly analyzed by calculating appropriate scaling factors. DOE requests comment on the methodology
and results of its sca ling analysis. Specifically, with regards to IRL scaling, DOE requests
comment on the use of double

- ended versus singled

- ended burners in large and small diameter lamps. Furthermore, DOE was unable to identify the specific Underwriters Laboratories (UL)

sa fety standard mentioned by the National Electrical Manufacturers Association ( NEMA ) that requires a minimum distance between the halogen capsule and the glass envelope. DOE requests additional information on this UL safety standard including the standard number and minimum required distance.

ES.3.16 Engineering Analysis

DOE requests comments on the overall methodology and results of the GSFL and IRL engineering analyses.ES

- 26

ES.3.17 Product Price Determination

In its review of publicly available prices, DOE observed a range of end

- user prices paid for a lamp, depending on the distribution channel through which it was purchased. In line with its observation of public pricing, DOE developed three sets of GSFL discounts and three sets of IRL discounts from the blue book prices, representing low (State procurement), medium (large distributors, including do

- it

- yourself stores), and high (Internet retailers) lamp prices. DOE invites comment on its methodology and results for estimating end

- user prices for GSFLs and

IRLs.

ES.3.18 GSFL Ballas t Prices

DOE utilized the end

- user prices from the 2011 Ballast Rule to determine pricing for the fixed light output ballast replacements. DOE requests comment on the ballast prices developed, specifically the adjusted prices for dimming ballasts and the assumption that ballast pricing does not change between low and normal BF ballasts.

ES.3.19 Rare Earth Phosphor Availability

DOE requests comment s on the specific impacts of an increase in rare earth phosphor prices due to decreased supply on the cost of lamps co vered under this rulemaking as well the extent of the limited worldwide resources of rare earth phosphors and the impact of this shortage on the feasibility of meeting higher standards.

ES.3.20 Dimmed GSFL Systems

DOE requests comments on the dimmed fluorescent s ystems analyzed, in particular the lamp types included in the dimming scenarios and the assumption that light output and input power scale linearly for dimming systems.

ES.3.21 Lighting Controls Market Penetration

The energy savings projected in this rulemaking d epends on the market penetration of lighting system controls. In the NIA analysis, DOE has assumed 75 percent compliance with State building code requirements for lighting controls in commercial buildings. DOE is considering adding high (100 percent) and l ow (50 percent) compliance rate scenarios to its analysis in the NOPR phase. DOE seeks relevant data on compliance rates with current State building code requirements. In this analysis, DOE has assumed that the use of lighting system
controls in the reside ntial sector remains fixed at its current level. DOE requests comment on the validity and appropriateness of this assumption.

ES.3.22 Lighting Controls Performance Characteristics

DOE requests any comments pertaining to the methodology used to account for lightin g controls. Specifically, DOE requests comment on the assumption that the average reduction in system lumen output for GSFLs is 33 percent and the average reduction of lumen output for IRLs is 25 percent. DOE also invites comment on the assumption that 29 percent of halogenES

- 27

IRLs operate on dimmers in the residential sector and 5 .0 percent of halogen IRLs operate on
dimmers in the commercial sector.

ES.3.23 Operating Profiles for Energy Use Characterization

To characterize the nation ’s average use of GSFLs and IRLs for a typical year, DOE developed annual operating hours by sector using data published in the 2010 U.S. Lighting
Market Characterization. DOE applied average annual operating hours based on each sector ( Table ES.2

. 7 and Table ES. 2

. 8 ) to calculate energy use . DOE welcomes comment on the end

use operating profiles for the lamp types covered under this rulemaking.

ES.3.24 Residential GSFL LCC Analysis

For the residential GSFL analysis, DOE assumes in the lamp failure event that GSFL consumers preserve their lamps when replacing a ballast and utilize the same lamps on the new
ballast. T his allows the lamps to live for their entire rated lifetime and obtains an upper bound for LCC savings in the residential sector. DOE requests comment on how likely consumers are to exhibit lamp preserving behavior.

ES.3.25 Sales Tax in the LCC Analysis

In the L CC analysis, DOE uses an average sales tax for all three sectors based on sales tax values for the 13 divisions and large states weighted by the percent of the total population in each division or large state. DOE is considering weighting the sales tax for the residential and
commercial sector s based on the prevalence of residential or commercial buildings in each
census division using Residential Energy Consumption Survey ( RECS ) and Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey ( CBECS ) data, respectively

. This may create a specific sales tax for each market sector due to the likelihood of different types of buildings to appear in certain areas of the country. DOE requests comment on this potential change for the NOPR.

ES.3.26 Spacing Adjustments in the LCC Analysi s

During new construction and renovation, the spatial layout of fixtures in a building space is not constrained to any previous configuration. However, because DOE’s higher efficacy replacements generally maintain lumen output within 10 percent of the bas eline system, DOE does not assume that spacing is changed in the primary LCC results for the new construction and renovation replacement event. DOE requests comment on the likelihood that fixture spacing is adjusted during new construction and renovation i f systems considered for installation all have similar lumen outputs.

ES.3.27 LCC Analysis

DOE requests comments on the methodology and results of the LCC analysis for GSFLs
and IRLs.ES

- 28

ES.3.28 T5s in the Residential Market

In this analysis, DOE has modeled T5 SO lamps in the commercial sector only, because they appear to be a negligible fraction of the current residential market. In the absence of data to the contrary, DOE has assumed that T5 lamps will remain an unimportant fraction of the residential market throughout th e analysis period. DOE seeks comment on the validity and appropriateness of this assumption, especially in the context of a standard level that could significantly increase the price of T8 lamps relative to T5 lamps.

ES.3.29 Shipments and NIA

DOE requests comment s on the overall methodology used to develop shipment forecasts and estimate national energy savings and the NPV of those savings. In addition, DOE requests comment on current incentive programs that could affect future sales of GSFLs and IRLs.

ES.3.30 LCC Subgrou ps

Some subgroups might be adversely affected by potential energy conservation standards
for GSFLs and IRLs. DOE is considering the following subgroups for analysis: low

- income consumers, institutions of religious worship, and institutions serving low

- inc ome consumers. DOE is considering defining low

- income consumers as residential consumers with incomes at or below the poverty line as defined by the U.S. Census Bureau. DOE welcomes additional suggestions for its LCC subgroup analysis.

ES.3.31 Regulatory Flexibili ty Act Analysis

DOE conducts a regulatory flexibility analysis that examines the impact on small entities and considers alternative ways of reducing negative impacts in the NOPR stage. DOE invites interested parties to provide information for any small bu sinesses that manufacture GSFLs and IRLs and should be consulted before DOE publishes a NOPR.

ES.3.32 Manufacturer Subgroup Analysis

DOE considers the impacts on certain manufacturer subgroups that have different cost structures or operate within different regula tory frameworks in the NOPR stage. DOE requests feedback on subgroups to analyze and/or characteristics appropriate for subgroup analysis.

ES.3.33 Manufacturer Impact Analysis

DOE requests comment on its identification of key issues and requests data and
informat ion from interested parties that can assist in evaluating the potential impact on
manufacturers.

ES.3.34 Valuing Airborne Emission Reductions

DOE will conduct an emissions analysis as part of the NOPR stage of this rulemaking. The primary environmental effect of energy conservation standards for GSFLs and IRLs is to reduce power plant emissions resulting from reduced consumption of electricity. DOE willES

- 29

assess the impact on emissions of carbon dioxide (CO 2 ), sulfur dioxide (SO 2 ), nitrogen oxides (NO X ), and mercury (Hg). DOE also plans on monetizing the emission reductions due to
standards consistent with methods used in recent DOE standards rulem akings for other consumer products and commercial equipment. For example, the most recent interagency estimates of the potential global benefits resulting from reduced CO 2 emissions in 2015, expressed in 2011$, were $6.1, $25.4, $41.0, and $77.7 per metric ton avoided. DOE invites comment on the approaches described in c hapter 15 for monetizing the emission savings due to energy
conservation standards.

ES.3.35 Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA)

In the NOPR stage of this rulemaking, DOE will prepare a regul atory impact analysis to address the potential for non

- regulatory approaches to supplant or augment energy conservation standards to improve the efficiency of GSFLs and IRLs on the market. DOE will attempt to base
its assessment of non

- regulatory initiativ es on the actual impacts of any such initiatives to date on these or other products, and will also consider other available information. DOE requests any available data or reports on the existing or past non

- regulatory programs and their effectiveness,

par ticularly as they relate to the product classes covered under this rulemaking.

ES.3.36 Trial Standard Levels

For the NOPR, DOE will develop trial standard levels (TSLs) based on the CSLs for GSFLs and IRLs. DOE is considering several criteria in developing the TS Ls, including, but not limited to, minimum LCC, maximum NPV, and maximum technologically feasible efficiency. These TSLs may include combinations of CSLs and will consider the interaction between product classes. From the list of TSLs developed, DOE will s elect one as its proposed standard
for the NOPR. DOE invites comment on the criteria it should use as the basis for selection of
TSLs.